<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_21_2042245</id>
	<title>Does the Linux Desktop Innovate Too Much?</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1245580440000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/" rel="nofollow">jammag</a> writes <i>"The Linux desktop has seen major innovation of late, with KDE 4 launching new features, GNOME announcing a new desktop, and Ubuntu embarking on a redesign campaign. But Linux pundit Bruce Byfield asks, <a href="http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3826171/Does-Anyone-Want-a-New-Linux-Desktop.htm">do average users really want any of these things</a>? He points to instances of user backlash, and concludes 'Free software is still driven by developers working on what interests or concerns them. The problem is, the days when users of free software were also its developers are long gone, but the habits of those days remain. The result is that developers function far too much in isolation from their user base.' Byfield suggests that the answer could be more user testing."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>jammag writes " The Linux desktop has seen major innovation of late , with KDE 4 launching new features , GNOME announcing a new desktop , and Ubuntu embarking on a redesign campaign .
But Linux pundit Bruce Byfield asks , do average users really want any of these things ?
He points to instances of user backlash , and concludes 'Free software is still driven by developers working on what interests or concerns them .
The problem is , the days when users of free software were also its developers are long gone , but the habits of those days remain .
The result is that developers function far too much in isolation from their user base .
' Byfield suggests that the answer could be more user testing .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>jammag writes "The Linux desktop has seen major innovation of late, with KDE 4 launching new features, GNOME announcing a new desktop, and Ubuntu embarking on a redesign campaign.
But Linux pundit Bruce Byfield asks, do average users really want any of these things?
He points to instances of user backlash, and concludes 'Free software is still driven by developers working on what interests or concerns them.
The problem is, the days when users of free software were also its developers are long gone, but the habits of those days remain.
The result is that developers function far too much in isolation from their user base.
' Byfield suggests that the answer could be more user testing.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414889</id>
	<title>Re:Innovate is the wrong word</title>
	<author>woot account</author>
	<datestamp>1245590100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you don't understand what <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowboy\_coding" title="wikipedia.org">cowboy coding</a> [wikipedia.org] means.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you do n't understand what cowboy coding [ wikipedia.org ] means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you don't understand what cowboy coding [wikipedia.org] means.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414741</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415031</id>
	<title>Re:Innovate is the wrong word</title>
	<author>swb</author>
	<datestamp>1245591480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While we're bitching, how about a network "profiles" place where we can switch our network settings between several different variations without having to just edit the live settings?  Even if its just TCP/IP addressing info.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While we 're bitching , how about a network " profiles " place where we can switch our network settings between several different variations without having to just edit the live settings ?
Even if its just TCP/IP addressing info .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While we're bitching, how about a network "profiles" place where we can switch our network settings between several different variations without having to just edit the live settings?
Even if its just TCP/IP addressing info.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416943</id>
	<title>Re:Tough Love</title>
	<author>Bill, Shooter of Bul</author>
	<datestamp>1245607020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd rather people *not* focus on games on linux. How many average computer users play complex non casual games on windows? I'm guessing the percentage is pretty small. You'd be focusing a large amount of resources to capture a small ( and some would say dwindling ) audience.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd rather people * not * focus on games on linux .
How many average computer users play complex non casual games on windows ?
I 'm guessing the percentage is pretty small .
You 'd be focusing a large amount of resources to capture a small ( and some would say dwindling ) audience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd rather people *not* focus on games on linux.
How many average computer users play complex non casual games on windows?
I'm guessing the percentage is pretty small.
You'd be focusing a large amount of resources to capture a small ( and some would say dwindling ) audience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414277</id>
	<title>not really</title>
	<author>Bizzeh</author>
	<datestamp>1245584700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>all the average user wants is to chat via live messenger, check their hotmail account, look at facebook, and check how badly their ebay listings are doing... they generally couldnt give any less of a toss about everything else that is going on</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>all the average user wants is to chat via live messenger , check their hotmail account , look at facebook , and check how badly their ebay listings are doing... they generally couldnt give any less of a toss about everything else that is going on</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all the average user wants is to chat via live messenger, check their hotmail account, look at facebook, and check how badly their ebay listings are doing... they generally couldnt give any less of a toss about everything else that is going on</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416195</id>
	<title>No innovation needed, just fix what we've got</title>
	<author>m4cph1sto</author>
	<datestamp>1245601920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll tell you what I'd like.  Linux Desktop, just as it is, except suspend/resume actually work, and my laptop battery lasts as long as it does with Windows.  Developers should focus on making Linux function properly on the diverse hardware of its users.  Trust me on this one: way more people would prefer that to some cool new interface, file system, or eye-candy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll tell you what I 'd like .
Linux Desktop , just as it is , except suspend/resume actually work , and my laptop battery lasts as long as it does with Windows .
Developers should focus on making Linux function properly on the diverse hardware of its users .
Trust me on this one : way more people would prefer that to some cool new interface , file system , or eye-candy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll tell you what I'd like.
Linux Desktop, just as it is, except suspend/resume actually work, and my laptop battery lasts as long as it does with Windows.
Developers should focus on making Linux function properly on the diverse hardware of its users.
Trust me on this one: way more people would prefer that to some cool new interface, file system, or eye-candy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28422231</id>
	<title>Do some research</title>
	<author>foniksonik</author>
	<datestamp>1245685860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ask your users what they want to be able to do. Make all of those things incredibly easy and confirm that your idea of easy is the same as their idea of easy via user testing. When you've got that down and all your users love you, apply the same amount of effort to everything else.</p><p>The second round will actually go much more smoothly because your users won't get hung up on the basics when they are trying to test out your more advanced features (since you already made the basics easy).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ask your users what they want to be able to do .
Make all of those things incredibly easy and confirm that your idea of easy is the same as their idea of easy via user testing .
When you 've got that down and all your users love you , apply the same amount of effort to everything else.The second round will actually go much more smoothly because your users wo n't get hung up on the basics when they are trying to test out your more advanced features ( since you already made the basics easy ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ask your users what they want to be able to do.
Make all of those things incredibly easy and confirm that your idea of easy is the same as their idea of easy via user testing.
When you've got that down and all your users love you, apply the same amount of effort to everything else.The second round will actually go much more smoothly because your users won't get hung up on the basics when they are trying to test out your more advanced features (since you already made the basics easy).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415201</id>
	<title>That word, you keep using that word...</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1245593340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Linux desktop does change too much, yes. Whether that change is spelled "innovation" or not, however, is a matter of debate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Linux desktop does change too much , yes .
Whether that change is spelled " innovation " or not , however , is a matter of debate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Linux desktop does change too much, yes.
Whether that change is spelled "innovation" or not, however, is a matter of debate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416111</id>
	<title>The Answer?</title>
	<author>Gooba42</author>
	<datestamp>1245601500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The answer is this: People who care about a given project, feature, etc. either work on it or pay someone to work on it.</p><p>Developers with no incentive but their own interests, satisfy their own interests. Developers given incentive to do otherwise would likely do otherwise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer is this : People who care about a given project , feature , etc .
either work on it or pay someone to work on it.Developers with no incentive but their own interests , satisfy their own interests .
Developers given incentive to do otherwise would likely do otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer is this: People who care about a given project, feature, etc.
either work on it or pay someone to work on it.Developers with no incentive but their own interests, satisfy their own interests.
Developers given incentive to do otherwise would likely do otherwise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28419853</id>
	<title>Re:Seigo has gotten it all wrong</title>
	<author>QCompson</author>
	<datestamp>1245675600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Widgets are bad? Are you suggesting that the goal of making it easier to add features to a desktop is not worth pursuing?</p></div><p>Yes.  In my opinion, widgets are bad.  Kickass (ah-hem) taskbars are good.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe they don't have widgets you like, but I'm not sure where you get off dumping on a project that cost you nothing. You know, there's a bug list among other ways to communicate with the developers.</p></div><p>Why is it wrong for me to criticize a software project and one of its developers in a discussion of an article which frequently mentions that software project and that developer frequently?  It's quite on topic.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Get back to me after coding something as big and complicated as a desktop that \_actually\_ works and attracts users/contributors. I'll be sure to criticize your efforts.</p></div><p>I see.  So absolutely no criticism until I write my own software project.  Or maybe I'll submit a bug report that I don't like widgets.  Please.  You're on a discussion site.  People will express their opinions and offer criticisms about vista, corn flakes and KDE4.  Get over it.  Since when are opensource projects such wimps about criticism?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Widgets are bad ?
Are you suggesting that the goal of making it easier to add features to a desktop is not worth pursuing ? Yes .
In my opinion , widgets are bad .
Kickass ( ah-hem ) taskbars are good.Maybe they do n't have widgets you like , but I 'm not sure where you get off dumping on a project that cost you nothing .
You know , there 's a bug list among other ways to communicate with the developers.Why is it wrong for me to criticize a software project and one of its developers in a discussion of an article which frequently mentions that software project and that developer frequently ?
It 's quite on topic.Get back to me after coding something as big and complicated as a desktop that \ _actually \ _ works and attracts users/contributors .
I 'll be sure to criticize your efforts.I see .
So absolutely no criticism until I write my own software project .
Or maybe I 'll submit a bug report that I do n't like widgets .
Please. You 're on a discussion site .
People will express their opinions and offer criticisms about vista , corn flakes and KDE4 .
Get over it .
Since when are opensource projects such wimps about criticism ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Widgets are bad?
Are you suggesting that the goal of making it easier to add features to a desktop is not worth pursuing?Yes.
In my opinion, widgets are bad.
Kickass (ah-hem) taskbars are good.Maybe they don't have widgets you like, but I'm not sure where you get off dumping on a project that cost you nothing.
You know, there's a bug list among other ways to communicate with the developers.Why is it wrong for me to criticize a software project and one of its developers in a discussion of an article which frequently mentions that software project and that developer frequently?
It's quite on topic.Get back to me after coding something as big and complicated as a desktop that \_actually\_ works and attracts users/contributors.
I'll be sure to criticize your efforts.I see.
So absolutely no criticism until I write my own software project.
Or maybe I'll submit a bug report that I don't like widgets.
Please.  You're on a discussion site.
People will express their opinions and offer criticisms about vista, corn flakes and KDE4.
Get over it.
Since when are opensource projects such wimps about criticism?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414605</id>
	<title>Re:Continuity is the winning strategy.</title>
	<author>julian67</author>
	<datestamp>1245587580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Continuity is there in free desktops in the same way it exists in OS X and Windows....in parts. Gnome and KDE and MS and Apple have all at some point had to accept that backwards compatibility has too high a price, then swallow hard and offer something which upsets a lot of people (even more than usual ha ha). Anyway there's plenty more to the free desktop than Gnome and KDE so it's not even a notable issue for many.</p><p>Mostly the article is filler. Precis: is KDE lead developer pissing in the wind? Maybe. Should I mention Ubuntu in every article just for the fanboi hits? Definitely. Are end users uncomfortable with unfamiliar concepts and interfaces? Yes...until they become familiar with them. Is the cheque in the post and will I churn out more turgid hackery next week?  Yes and inevitably.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Continuity is there in free desktops in the same way it exists in OS X and Windows....in parts .
Gnome and KDE and MS and Apple have all at some point had to accept that backwards compatibility has too high a price , then swallow hard and offer something which upsets a lot of people ( even more than usual ha ha ) .
Anyway there 's plenty more to the free desktop than Gnome and KDE so it 's not even a notable issue for many.Mostly the article is filler .
Precis : is KDE lead developer pissing in the wind ?
Maybe. Should I mention Ubuntu in every article just for the fanboi hits ?
Definitely. Are end users uncomfortable with unfamiliar concepts and interfaces ?
Yes...until they become familiar with them .
Is the cheque in the post and will I churn out more turgid hackery next week ?
Yes and inevitably .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Continuity is there in free desktops in the same way it exists in OS X and Windows....in parts.
Gnome and KDE and MS and Apple have all at some point had to accept that backwards compatibility has too high a price, then swallow hard and offer something which upsets a lot of people (even more than usual ha ha).
Anyway there's plenty more to the free desktop than Gnome and KDE so it's not even a notable issue for many.Mostly the article is filler.
Precis: is KDE lead developer pissing in the wind?
Maybe. Should I mention Ubuntu in every article just for the fanboi hits?
Definitely. Are end users uncomfortable with unfamiliar concepts and interfaces?
Yes...until they become familiar with them.
Is the cheque in the post and will I churn out more turgid hackery next week?
Yes and inevitably.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414585</id>
	<title>Re:Continuity is the winning strategy.</title>
	<author>GF678</author>
	<datestamp>1245587400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Funny - I've usually seen it's the geeks who take the trouble to turn on the 'classic' look and feel in Windows and get rid of all the cloying eye-candy. Meanwhile non-technical users just stick with the default.</p></div></blockquote><p>I consider myself a geek but I like Compiz and Aero because not only are they more modern looking than the boring old grey themes of past desktop GUIs, but they also have the benefit of offloading the rendering of the GUI from the CPU and onto the GPU, which in most cases improves responsiveness.</p><p>I still like the bling though, but I'm most certainly not a non-technical user. I just don't believe a geek has to insist on a bland desktop. So where can I be pigeon-holed?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny - I 've usually seen it 's the geeks who take the trouble to turn on the 'classic ' look and feel in Windows and get rid of all the cloying eye-candy .
Meanwhile non-technical users just stick with the default.I consider myself a geek but I like Compiz and Aero because not only are they more modern looking than the boring old grey themes of past desktop GUIs , but they also have the benefit of offloading the rendering of the GUI from the CPU and onto the GPU , which in most cases improves responsiveness.I still like the bling though , but I 'm most certainly not a non-technical user .
I just do n't believe a geek has to insist on a bland desktop .
So where can I be pigeon-holed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny - I've usually seen it's the geeks who take the trouble to turn on the 'classic' look and feel in Windows and get rid of all the cloying eye-candy.
Meanwhile non-technical users just stick with the default.I consider myself a geek but I like Compiz and Aero because not only are they more modern looking than the boring old grey themes of past desktop GUIs, but they also have the benefit of offloading the rendering of the GUI from the CPU and onto the GPU, which in most cases improves responsiveness.I still like the bling though, but I'm most certainly not a non-technical user.
I just don't believe a geek has to insist on a bland desktop.
So where can I be pigeon-holed?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417365</id>
	<title>Re:Seigo has gotten it all wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245610800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think some of your points are a bit off.  KDE 4.2+ are much better than the first releases.</p><p>-Widgets may not be innovative anymore, but KDE3's implementation was much older than Apple's and Microsoft's.  KDE4 integrates them better than KDE3, and provides more useful widgets out of the box than the commercial ones imho.  I'm not sure I'd like them as much if I hadn't had a spare monitor I could fill with them.  I never understood the point of autohiding widgets, and it's kinda nice to have a clock you can see across the room (wall clocks don't have NTP<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-).</p><p>-HOWEVER, even KDE 4.2 still likes to forget their locations, which is ridiculous, so I can understand other users not liking them.</p><p>-Animations being done already?  So what.  KWin integrates better with KDE than Compiz does, and is much more usable to me.</p><p>-Folder containments are awesome.  That same widget-monitor I mentioned has a folder containment for a network share so we can just drag stuff directly to each others' desktops.  Again, I would not find this very useful if the same monitor had applications on it.  A Konqueror-bookmark would do almost the same thing.</p><p>-HOWEVER, even KDE 4.2 still likes to forget the path.  Groan.</p><p>Seriously, I hated KDE4 until I tried 4.2.  They still have a lot of work to do, and it really needs better keyboard support like you said, but the basic ideas are really starting to make sense to me now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think some of your points are a bit off .
KDE 4.2 + are much better than the first releases.-Widgets may not be innovative anymore , but KDE3 's implementation was much older than Apple 's and Microsoft 's .
KDE4 integrates them better than KDE3 , and provides more useful widgets out of the box than the commercial ones imho .
I 'm not sure I 'd like them as much if I had n't had a spare monitor I could fill with them .
I never understood the point of autohiding widgets , and it 's kinda nice to have a clock you can see across the room ( wall clocks do n't have NTP ; - ) .-HOWEVER , even KDE 4.2 still likes to forget their locations , which is ridiculous , so I can understand other users not liking them.-Animations being done already ?
So what .
KWin integrates better with KDE than Compiz does , and is much more usable to me.-Folder containments are awesome .
That same widget-monitor I mentioned has a folder containment for a network share so we can just drag stuff directly to each others ' desktops .
Again , I would not find this very useful if the same monitor had applications on it .
A Konqueror-bookmark would do almost the same thing.-HOWEVER , even KDE 4.2 still likes to forget the path .
Groan.Seriously , I hated KDE4 until I tried 4.2 .
They still have a lot of work to do , and it really needs better keyboard support like you said , but the basic ideas are really starting to make sense to me now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think some of your points are a bit off.
KDE 4.2+ are much better than the first releases.-Widgets may not be innovative anymore, but KDE3's implementation was much older than Apple's and Microsoft's.
KDE4 integrates them better than KDE3, and provides more useful widgets out of the box than the commercial ones imho.
I'm not sure I'd like them as much if I hadn't had a spare monitor I could fill with them.
I never understood the point of autohiding widgets, and it's kinda nice to have a clock you can see across the room (wall clocks don't have NTP ;-).-HOWEVER, even KDE 4.2 still likes to forget their locations, which is ridiculous, so I can understand other users not liking them.-Animations being done already?
So what.
KWin integrates better with KDE than Compiz does, and is much more usable to me.-Folder containments are awesome.
That same widget-monitor I mentioned has a folder containment for a network share so we can just drag stuff directly to each others' desktops.
Again, I would not find this very useful if the same monitor had applications on it.
A Konqueror-bookmark would do almost the same thing.-HOWEVER, even KDE 4.2 still likes to forget the path.
Groan.Seriously, I hated KDE4 until I tried 4.2.
They still have a lot of work to do, and it really needs better keyboard support like you said, but the basic ideas are really starting to make sense to me now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414737</id>
	<title>Re:"Free Software" vs "Open Source" vs... whatever</title>
	<author>infinitelink</author>
	<datestamp>1245588900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is a problem when the developers are trying to make a consumer desktop, however; last I checked, many big Linux-related projects (including both Gnome and KDE) are gunning just for that; so no, your statements are not valid here.</p><p>There are, of course, exceptions: but none of those are what this is talking about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a problem when the developers are trying to make a consumer desktop , however ; last I checked , many big Linux-related projects ( including both Gnome and KDE ) are gunning just for that ; so no , your statements are not valid here.There are , of course , exceptions : but none of those are what this is talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a problem when the developers are trying to make a consumer desktop, however; last I checked, many big Linux-related projects (including both Gnome and KDE) are gunning just for that; so no, your statements are not valid here.There are, of course, exceptions: but none of those are what this is talking about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417077</id>
	<title>Stop with Joe Sixpack</title>
	<author>Graymalkin</author>
	<datestamp>1245608160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In many FOSS forums especially on Slashdot you see the Joe Sixpack strawman trotted out to either attack or defend. There's far more classes of users than just witless Joe Sixpack and savvy Tom Developer. There's plenty of people that are highly adept at using a computer but can't and will never program. There's also a lot of users that are adept at what they do often but have little computer knowledge outside of that particular domain. Looking at these users as Joe Sixpack who's never touched a computer before is shortsighted and counterproductive. The article bitching about social media widgets and whether or not people asked for them is inane. If some kid spends all their time on Facebook and Twitter and buys a netbook with Linux pre-installed they'll be far less likely to go back to Windows if their new computer works out of the box with the services they already use. A Facebook widget isn't likely to sell a computer as a part of the feature checklist on the box but it's something that will help endear the OS (as they experience it) to the user.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In many FOSS forums especially on Slashdot you see the Joe Sixpack strawman trotted out to either attack or defend .
There 's far more classes of users than just witless Joe Sixpack and savvy Tom Developer .
There 's plenty of people that are highly adept at using a computer but ca n't and will never program .
There 's also a lot of users that are adept at what they do often but have little computer knowledge outside of that particular domain .
Looking at these users as Joe Sixpack who 's never touched a computer before is shortsighted and counterproductive .
The article bitching about social media widgets and whether or not people asked for them is inane .
If some kid spends all their time on Facebook and Twitter and buys a netbook with Linux pre-installed they 'll be far less likely to go back to Windows if their new computer works out of the box with the services they already use .
A Facebook widget is n't likely to sell a computer as a part of the feature checklist on the box but it 's something that will help endear the OS ( as they experience it ) to the user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In many FOSS forums especially on Slashdot you see the Joe Sixpack strawman trotted out to either attack or defend.
There's far more classes of users than just witless Joe Sixpack and savvy Tom Developer.
There's plenty of people that are highly adept at using a computer but can't and will never program.
There's also a lot of users that are adept at what they do often but have little computer knowledge outside of that particular domain.
Looking at these users as Joe Sixpack who's never touched a computer before is shortsighted and counterproductive.
The article bitching about social media widgets and whether or not people asked for them is inane.
If some kid spends all their time on Facebook and Twitter and buys a netbook with Linux pre-installed they'll be far less likely to go back to Windows if their new computer works out of the box with the services they already use.
A Facebook widget isn't likely to sell a computer as a part of the feature checklist on the box but it's something that will help endear the OS (as they experience it) to the user.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415665</id>
	<title>Or...</title>
	<author>pestilence669</author>
	<datestamp>1245597780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or... users speak, some developers fork, and either the main developers listen or the fork succeeds. Open source often offers its complete revision history.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or... users speak , some developers fork , and either the main developers listen or the fork succeeds .
Open source often offers its complete revision history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or... users speak, some developers fork, and either the main developers listen or the fork succeeds.
Open source often offers its complete revision history.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28419955</id>
	<title>that assumes...</title>
	<author>Uzik2</author>
	<datestamp>1245676440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the authors care about the results of user testing and will spend time to change it. They have zero incentive to do so.</p><p>If it's to be popular Linux needs direction and someone who will incent people to do the scut work of testing it and making the 'boring stuff' work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the authors care about the results of user testing and will spend time to change it .
They have zero incentive to do so.If it 's to be popular Linux needs direction and someone who will incent people to do the scut work of testing it and making the 'boring stuff ' work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the authors care about the results of user testing and will spend time to change it.
They have zero incentive to do so.If it's to be popular Linux needs direction and someone who will incent people to do the scut work of testing it and making the 'boring stuff' work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414961</id>
	<title>Re:A Benevolent Cat-Herder-for-Life is good for Li</title>
	<author>grcumb</author>
	<datestamp>1245590760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I, for one, am glad Mark Shuttleworth is attempting to put some top-down focus on a user-oriented set of goals into the Ubuntu desktop. Linux has not lacked for technical innovations, it has lacked for a unified vision that elevates the end-user and a chief to get developers to sign on to that vision. Go Mark, go!</p></div></blockquote><p>BINGO!</p><p>You just nailed the flaw in the original article. The author seems to think that FOSS developers somehow need to remain responsive to anything beyond the particular itch they want to scratch. FOSS doesn't work that way. Developers do what they do. If their output is sufficiently interesting, <em>distro-makers</em> package, polish and bundle their work.</p><p>See what I did there? I allowed for diversity and division of labour in the FOSS ecosystem. Imagine that! Developers doing what they do best and distro-makers preparing that work for public consumption.</p><p>Do poorly-socialised package maintainers sometimes drive their users away? Damn straight. Are there flaws in Linux distros? You bet your boots. But if we're going to criticise them, couldn't we at least point our critiques in the right direction? </p><p>FOSS development, packaging and polishing is a decidedly human process, with all the inefficiencies, redundancies and illogical acts that all human processes entail. One can argue (though I never would) that commercial software designed and developed by customer-focused companies is inherently better. In my opinion it just trades one set of problems for another. (If I had to generalise, I'd say it's the difference between often useful but unpolished software and often useless but highly polished software. There are notable exceptions to each case, of course, but statistically, they <em>are</em> exceptions.)</p><p>At the end of the day, the FOSS ecosystem has differentiated roles and responsibilities, and the least we could do - if we really want things to improve - is to direct our criticisms to the right people. The folks at Ubuntu are devoted to the goal of making their distro 'Linux for human beings'. I know that when I bitched to them about certain shortcomings, I got a reasoned response from none other than the CTO himself. And given the improvements since that time, it's clear to me that they've taken such critiques to heart.</p><p>Linux distros are all decidedly imperfect. But they're a damn sight <em>less</em> imperfect than the alternatives.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , am glad Mark Shuttleworth is attempting to put some top-down focus on a user-oriented set of goals into the Ubuntu desktop .
Linux has not lacked for technical innovations , it has lacked for a unified vision that elevates the end-user and a chief to get developers to sign on to that vision .
Go Mark , go ! BINGO ! You just nailed the flaw in the original article .
The author seems to think that FOSS developers somehow need to remain responsive to anything beyond the particular itch they want to scratch .
FOSS does n't work that way .
Developers do what they do .
If their output is sufficiently interesting , distro-makers package , polish and bundle their work.See what I did there ?
I allowed for diversity and division of labour in the FOSS ecosystem .
Imagine that !
Developers doing what they do best and distro-makers preparing that work for public consumption.Do poorly-socialised package maintainers sometimes drive their users away ?
Damn straight .
Are there flaws in Linux distros ?
You bet your boots .
But if we 're going to criticise them , could n't we at least point our critiques in the right direction ?
FOSS development , packaging and polishing is a decidedly human process , with all the inefficiencies , redundancies and illogical acts that all human processes entail .
One can argue ( though I never would ) that commercial software designed and developed by customer-focused companies is inherently better .
In my opinion it just trades one set of problems for another .
( If I had to generalise , I 'd say it 's the difference between often useful but unpolished software and often useless but highly polished software .
There are notable exceptions to each case , of course , but statistically , they are exceptions .
) At the end of the day , the FOSS ecosystem has differentiated roles and responsibilities , and the least we could do - if we really want things to improve - is to direct our criticisms to the right people .
The folks at Ubuntu are devoted to the goal of making their distro 'Linux for human beings' .
I know that when I bitched to them about certain shortcomings , I got a reasoned response from none other than the CTO himself .
And given the improvements since that time , it 's clear to me that they 've taken such critiques to heart.Linux distros are all decidedly imperfect .
But they 're a damn sight less imperfect than the alternatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, am glad Mark Shuttleworth is attempting to put some top-down focus on a user-oriented set of goals into the Ubuntu desktop.
Linux has not lacked for technical innovations, it has lacked for a unified vision that elevates the end-user and a chief to get developers to sign on to that vision.
Go Mark, go!BINGO!You just nailed the flaw in the original article.
The author seems to think that FOSS developers somehow need to remain responsive to anything beyond the particular itch they want to scratch.
FOSS doesn't work that way.
Developers do what they do.
If their output is sufficiently interesting, distro-makers package, polish and bundle their work.See what I did there?
I allowed for diversity and division of labour in the FOSS ecosystem.
Imagine that!
Developers doing what they do best and distro-makers preparing that work for public consumption.Do poorly-socialised package maintainers sometimes drive their users away?
Damn straight.
Are there flaws in Linux distros?
You bet your boots.
But if we're going to criticise them, couldn't we at least point our critiques in the right direction?
FOSS development, packaging and polishing is a decidedly human process, with all the inefficiencies, redundancies and illogical acts that all human processes entail.
One can argue (though I never would) that commercial software designed and developed by customer-focused companies is inherently better.
In my opinion it just trades one set of problems for another.
(If I had to generalise, I'd say it's the difference between often useful but unpolished software and often useless but highly polished software.
There are notable exceptions to each case, of course, but statistically, they are exceptions.
)At the end of the day, the FOSS ecosystem has differentiated roles and responsibilities, and the least we could do - if we really want things to improve - is to direct our criticisms to the right people.
The folks at Ubuntu are devoted to the goal of making their distro 'Linux for human beings'.
I know that when I bitched to them about certain shortcomings, I got a reasoned response from none other than the CTO himself.
And given the improvements since that time, it's clear to me that they've taken such critiques to heart.Linux distros are all decidedly imperfect.
But they're a damn sight less imperfect than the alternatives.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28424397</id>
	<title>Re:Too Much?</title>
	<author>ukyoCE</author>
	<datestamp>1245693120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>^<br>|<br>|<br>This</p><p>It would be nice to have a unifying GUI theme on linux, but it would also kill off a lot of innovation.</p><p>Lack of users will already kill off any app that significantly diverges from standard desktop GUI mechanisms without enough redeeming factors to make it worth learning.</p><p>Copy-pasting on the other hand....some things that are cross-application need to be locked down to be useful =\</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>^ | | ThisIt would be nice to have a unifying GUI theme on linux , but it would also kill off a lot of innovation.Lack of users will already kill off any app that significantly diverges from standard desktop GUI mechanisms without enough redeeming factors to make it worth learning.Copy-pasting on the other hand....some things that are cross-application need to be locked down to be useful = \</tokentext>
<sentencetext>^||ThisIt would be nice to have a unifying GUI theme on linux, but it would also kill off a lot of innovation.Lack of users will already kill off any app that significantly diverges from standard desktop GUI mechanisms without enough redeeming factors to make it worth learning.Copy-pasting on the other hand....some things that are cross-application need to be locked down to be useful =\</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28419387</id>
	<title>What if he was a Mac Pundit asking about OS X?</title>
	<author>cthulhuology</author>
	<datestamp>1245671880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if he was a Mac OS X pundit, and asked this question of Mac OS X?  "Does Apple innovate too much to be competitive in the desktop market?"  What people really want is System 7, all this innovation and UNIX underpinning are just developers writing for developers.  Why do we need an object oriented runtime library, and a constantly changing AP that supports concurrent processingI?  Most Mac users were happy with one mouse button, why do they need their track pads to sense multiple points?  Changes like this just confuse the user and make them learn new ways to do old tasks. <br> <br>
Clearly he has a point.   It just isn't a very good one. The real problem with the linux desktop has been INSUFFICIENT innovation.  And I don't mean replacing X.  I mean designing software that makes computing ubiquitous, transparent, and accessible.  Why I as a user should ever be concerned about files, drives, network connections, applications, processes, etc.  you know all those metaphors programmers have invented for themselves, is beyond me. <br> <br>
What the linux desktop sucks at (and this is true for all WIMPy interfaces) is cross-task operations.   When I'm working on a project that involves, text, drawings, tables, and some computations, using a system like Linux, Windows, or Mac OS X is an exercise in frustration.  Each "task" as defined by the system's designers requires a different set of tools.  By generating a report is only one task from my point of view as a user.  As a result, I will end up using 4 or more tools, because no one tool has my work flow in mind.
<br> <br>
There are interfaces that solve this problem, however, and they've been around since the late 1970s and early 1980s.  Some of us still use them today.  Now there is an experimental implementation of one for linux here <a href="http://etoileos.com/" title="etoileos.com"> you can run them in your web browser </a> [etoileos.com]<a href="http://research.sun.com/projects/lively/" title="sun.com">here</a> [sun.com] and you can package up you can roll your own tools with this <a href="http://www.squeak.org/" title="squeak.org">here</a> [squeak.org].  But all of these are still from the user's point of view in their infancy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if he was a Mac OS X pundit , and asked this question of Mac OS X ?
" Does Apple innovate too much to be competitive in the desktop market ?
" What people really want is System 7 , all this innovation and UNIX underpinning are just developers writing for developers .
Why do we need an object oriented runtime library , and a constantly changing AP that supports concurrent processingI ?
Most Mac users were happy with one mouse button , why do they need their track pads to sense multiple points ?
Changes like this just confuse the user and make them learn new ways to do old tasks .
Clearly he has a point .
It just is n't a very good one .
The real problem with the linux desktop has been INSUFFICIENT innovation .
And I do n't mean replacing X. I mean designing software that makes computing ubiquitous , transparent , and accessible .
Why I as a user should ever be concerned about files , drives , network connections , applications , processes , etc .
you know all those metaphors programmers have invented for themselves , is beyond me .
What the linux desktop sucks at ( and this is true for all WIMPy interfaces ) is cross-task operations .
When I 'm working on a project that involves , text , drawings , tables , and some computations , using a system like Linux , Windows , or Mac OS X is an exercise in frustration .
Each " task " as defined by the system 's designers requires a different set of tools .
By generating a report is only one task from my point of view as a user .
As a result , I will end up using 4 or more tools , because no one tool has my work flow in mind .
There are interfaces that solve this problem , however , and they 've been around since the late 1970s and early 1980s .
Some of us still use them today .
Now there is an experimental implementation of one for linux here you can run them in your web browser [ etoileos.com ] here [ sun.com ] and you can package up you can roll your own tools with this here [ squeak.org ] .
But all of these are still from the user 's point of view in their infancy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if he was a Mac OS X pundit, and asked this question of Mac OS X?
"Does Apple innovate too much to be competitive in the desktop market?
"  What people really want is System 7, all this innovation and UNIX underpinning are just developers writing for developers.
Why do we need an object oriented runtime library, and a constantly changing AP that supports concurrent processingI?
Most Mac users were happy with one mouse button, why do they need their track pads to sense multiple points?
Changes like this just confuse the user and make them learn new ways to do old tasks.
Clearly he has a point.
It just isn't a very good one.
The real problem with the linux desktop has been INSUFFICIENT innovation.
And I don't mean replacing X.  I mean designing software that makes computing ubiquitous, transparent, and accessible.
Why I as a user should ever be concerned about files, drives, network connections, applications, processes, etc.
you know all those metaphors programmers have invented for themselves, is beyond me.
What the linux desktop sucks at (and this is true for all WIMPy interfaces) is cross-task operations.
When I'm working on a project that involves, text, drawings, tables, and some computations, using a system like Linux, Windows, or Mac OS X is an exercise in frustration.
Each "task" as defined by the system's designers requires a different set of tools.
By generating a report is only one task from my point of view as a user.
As a result, I will end up using 4 or more tools, because no one tool has my work flow in mind.
There are interfaces that solve this problem, however, and they've been around since the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Some of us still use them today.
Now there is an experimental implementation of one for linux here  you can run them in your web browser  [etoileos.com]here [sun.com] and you can package up you can roll your own tools with this here [squeak.org].
But all of these are still from the user's point of view in their infancy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28418247</id>
	<title>Re:A Benevolent Cat-Herder-for-Life is good for Li</title>
	<author>deBalta</author>
	<datestamp>1245661740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are open source people that demand respect. For example Guido is called "benevolent dictator fro life". Other less liked examples from OpenBSD (Theo de Raadt), and glibc (Ulrich Drepper)

Whether you like those people or not, you cannot deny the projects are not successful. At least you heard of them</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are open source people that demand respect .
For example Guido is called " benevolent dictator fro life " .
Other less liked examples from OpenBSD ( Theo de Raadt ) , and glibc ( Ulrich Drepper ) Whether you like those people or not , you can not deny the projects are not successful .
At least you heard of them</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are open source people that demand respect.
For example Guido is called "benevolent dictator fro life".
Other less liked examples from OpenBSD (Theo de Raadt), and glibc (Ulrich Drepper)

Whether you like those people or not, you cannot deny the projects are not successful.
At least you heard of them</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417969</id>
	<title>Short Answer: "No."</title>
	<author>Duggeek</author>
	<datestamp>1245702480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Long answer follows:</p><p>It's not that the Linux Desktop ('LDT') is &ldquo;too innovative&rdquo;. Frankly, it seems quite the opposite.</p><p>That's not to say that the LDT hasn't innovated at all. Quite the contrary; in 10 years, it caught-up with the industry and in some ways surpassed it in terms of usability and performance. Today, an LDT on the same equipment will out-perform its Vista or Win7-RC equivalent on many tasks.</p><p>Has LDT over-shot the landing? Again, my answer is 'no', and because there's more to innovation than user-adoption rates.
</p><p>TFP is close to the problem; that developers for LDT have a disconnect with their user-base. The greatest motivator of the LDT was this co-op of developers; inventing, innovating and improving. What it seems they did was innovate, invent and improve each other's work and little else. A fair analogy might be that LDT development has an &ldquo;in-breeding&rdquo; problem.</p><p>Here's my <b>Top 5 Things LDT Needs to Improve</b> list:</p><ol> <li> <b>Solid, Reliable Documentation/Help System</b> <br>Sadly, even the most innovative and useful-looking packages only provide helpful information about half of the time; and that's only when the doc-base isn't already broken.</li><li> <b>Excessive Pre-Installed Features</b> <br>You'd think that LDT would learn vicarious lessons from Win32 in this regard, yet it seems to have fallen right in line with the bloat.</li><li> <b>Dependence on Installation Media</b> <br>This is the Age of Broadband, why are we still downloading complete DVD images and not simply installing just what we need during installation?</li><li> <b>The (Open Source = No Profit) Illusion</b> <br>This is aimed at the bigwigs of OSS; there's just as much money going around in partnerships as software, and finding retail partners is as easy as saying, 'No Windows Tax!' (getting major retailers to say "no" to big-windoz is another thing entirely)</li><li> <b>Grassroots</b> <br>After seeing a small display for OSS titles on CD-ROM dirt-cheap at Micro Center, I thought, "What's stopping LDT branding from doing the same thing?" If only these displays would step-up their game, make it more eye-catching to tell the world, "Hey! I can do just as much as that $150 title, and I'm supported by a user-base!"</li></ol><p>Something else that occurs to me--but falls outside the scope of the list--is the handling of user-base support. Why is it always just a forum with a "search" feature? Aren't we talking about the <i>semantic</i> web here? Whether the ODS packages or independent plug-ins, I think that parsing the huge info-base of online discussions is bound to be the breakthrough of 2010. </p><p>Discuss...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Long answer follows : It 's not that the Linux Desktop ( 'LDT ' ) is    too innovative    .
Frankly , it seems quite the opposite.That 's not to say that the LDT has n't innovated at all .
Quite the contrary ; in 10 years , it caught-up with the industry and in some ways surpassed it in terms of usability and performance .
Today , an LDT on the same equipment will out-perform its Vista or Win7-RC equivalent on many tasks.Has LDT over-shot the landing ?
Again , my answer is 'no ' , and because there 's more to innovation than user-adoption rates .
TFP is close to the problem ; that developers for LDT have a disconnect with their user-base .
The greatest motivator of the LDT was this co-op of developers ; inventing , innovating and improving .
What it seems they did was innovate , invent and improve each other 's work and little else .
A fair analogy might be that LDT development has an    in-breeding    problem.Here 's my Top 5 Things LDT Needs to Improve list : Solid , Reliable Documentation/Help System Sadly , even the most innovative and useful-looking packages only provide helpful information about half of the time ; and that 's only when the doc-base is n't already broken .
Excessive Pre-Installed Features You 'd think that LDT would learn vicarious lessons from Win32 in this regard , yet it seems to have fallen right in line with the bloat .
Dependence on Installation Media This is the Age of Broadband , why are we still downloading complete DVD images and not simply installing just what we need during installation ?
The ( Open Source = No Profit ) Illusion This is aimed at the bigwigs of OSS ; there 's just as much money going around in partnerships as software , and finding retail partners is as easy as saying , 'No Windows Tax !
' ( getting major retailers to say " no " to big-windoz is another thing entirely ) Grassroots After seeing a small display for OSS titles on CD-ROM dirt-cheap at Micro Center , I thought , " What 's stopping LDT branding from doing the same thing ?
" If only these displays would step-up their game , make it more eye-catching to tell the world , " Hey !
I can do just as much as that $ 150 title , and I 'm supported by a user-base !
" Something else that occurs to me--but falls outside the scope of the list--is the handling of user-base support .
Why is it always just a forum with a " search " feature ?
Are n't we talking about the semantic web here ?
Whether the ODS packages or independent plug-ins , I think that parsing the huge info-base of online discussions is bound to be the breakthrough of 2010 .
Discuss.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Long answer follows:It's not that the Linux Desktop ('LDT') is “too innovative”.
Frankly, it seems quite the opposite.That's not to say that the LDT hasn't innovated at all.
Quite the contrary; in 10 years, it caught-up with the industry and in some ways surpassed it in terms of usability and performance.
Today, an LDT on the same equipment will out-perform its Vista or Win7-RC equivalent on many tasks.Has LDT over-shot the landing?
Again, my answer is 'no', and because there's more to innovation than user-adoption rates.
TFP is close to the problem; that developers for LDT have a disconnect with their user-base.
The greatest motivator of the LDT was this co-op of developers; inventing, innovating and improving.
What it seems they did was innovate, invent and improve each other's work and little else.
A fair analogy might be that LDT development has an “in-breeding” problem.Here's my Top 5 Things LDT Needs to Improve list:  Solid, Reliable Documentation/Help System Sadly, even the most innovative and useful-looking packages only provide helpful information about half of the time; and that's only when the doc-base isn't already broken.
Excessive Pre-Installed Features You'd think that LDT would learn vicarious lessons from Win32 in this regard, yet it seems to have fallen right in line with the bloat.
Dependence on Installation Media This is the Age of Broadband, why are we still downloading complete DVD images and not simply installing just what we need during installation?
The (Open Source = No Profit) Illusion This is aimed at the bigwigs of OSS; there's just as much money going around in partnerships as software, and finding retail partners is as easy as saying, 'No Windows Tax!
' (getting major retailers to say "no" to big-windoz is another thing entirely) Grassroots After seeing a small display for OSS titles on CD-ROM dirt-cheap at Micro Center, I thought, "What's stopping LDT branding from doing the same thing?
" If only these displays would step-up their game, make it more eye-catching to tell the world, "Hey!
I can do just as much as that $150 title, and I'm supported by a user-base!
"Something else that occurs to me--but falls outside the scope of the list--is the handling of user-base support.
Why is it always just a forum with a "search" feature?
Aren't we talking about the semantic web here?
Whether the ODS packages or independent plug-ins, I think that parsing the huge info-base of online discussions is bound to be the breakthrough of 2010.
Discuss...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414365</id>
	<title>yet another implicit "oh noes, not windowz" rant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245585420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh yes, another self-righteous rant attacking the directions of free software projects just because they have the audacity to venture far beyond where windows stagnated a decade ago. The article's author doesn't say much besides criticizing projects such as KDE, GNOME  and even Ubuntu for their ideas regarding the desktop. And he does a bad job at it, to boot.

For example, the author criticizes KDE for the audacity of thinking about implementing social networking features into the desktop. Is that supposed to be a bad thing? I mean, what's the difference of having an application such as windows live messenger constantly running and implementing some sort of widget that performs the exact same task? At least with KDE their implementation follows standards which are open and it doesn't force plenty of ads down our throats. What's wrong with that sort of innovation? Absolutely nothing.

And his criticism of GNOME is pathetic. I mean, he criticizes GNOME not for innovating but for rewriting it. He hasn't absolutely any detail to grasp on and in fact the only thing he can muster about GNOME is "its final form at this stage is anybody's guess". Is that what the author perceives as innovation?

And more to the point, who exactly is the author to make authoritative judgments about what the users want or don't want? His he a psychic? In fact, where was the author on these past dozen years of the desktop windows? I mean, after all these years windows is incapable of offering extremely basic stuff such as the ability to set any window the user wishes for to be always on top. And what about the ability to scroll a window without changing the focus to it? And what about getting rid of that really annoying bug that, when a user launches an application, keeps the focus on the former application while the newly launched app is placed on top of every window on the desktop? Fixing those bugs would also count as too much innovation?

The article isn't worth the read. Nothing to see here, move along.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yes , another self-righteous rant attacking the directions of free software projects just because they have the audacity to venture far beyond where windows stagnated a decade ago .
The article 's author does n't say much besides criticizing projects such as KDE , GNOME and even Ubuntu for their ideas regarding the desktop .
And he does a bad job at it , to boot .
For example , the author criticizes KDE for the audacity of thinking about implementing social networking features into the desktop .
Is that supposed to be a bad thing ?
I mean , what 's the difference of having an application such as windows live messenger constantly running and implementing some sort of widget that performs the exact same task ?
At least with KDE their implementation follows standards which are open and it does n't force plenty of ads down our throats .
What 's wrong with that sort of innovation ?
Absolutely nothing .
And his criticism of GNOME is pathetic .
I mean , he criticizes GNOME not for innovating but for rewriting it .
He has n't absolutely any detail to grasp on and in fact the only thing he can muster about GNOME is " its final form at this stage is anybody 's guess " .
Is that what the author perceives as innovation ?
And more to the point , who exactly is the author to make authoritative judgments about what the users want or do n't want ?
His he a psychic ?
In fact , where was the author on these past dozen years of the desktop windows ?
I mean , after all these years windows is incapable of offering extremely basic stuff such as the ability to set any window the user wishes for to be always on top .
And what about the ability to scroll a window without changing the focus to it ?
And what about getting rid of that really annoying bug that , when a user launches an application , keeps the focus on the former application while the newly launched app is placed on top of every window on the desktop ?
Fixing those bugs would also count as too much innovation ?
The article is n't worth the read .
Nothing to see here , move along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yes, another self-righteous rant attacking the directions of free software projects just because they have the audacity to venture far beyond where windows stagnated a decade ago.
The article's author doesn't say much besides criticizing projects such as KDE, GNOME  and even Ubuntu for their ideas regarding the desktop.
And he does a bad job at it, to boot.
For example, the author criticizes KDE for the audacity of thinking about implementing social networking features into the desktop.
Is that supposed to be a bad thing?
I mean, what's the difference of having an application such as windows live messenger constantly running and implementing some sort of widget that performs the exact same task?
At least with KDE their implementation follows standards which are open and it doesn't force plenty of ads down our throats.
What's wrong with that sort of innovation?
Absolutely nothing.
And his criticism of GNOME is pathetic.
I mean, he criticizes GNOME not for innovating but for rewriting it.
He hasn't absolutely any detail to grasp on and in fact the only thing he can muster about GNOME is "its final form at this stage is anybody's guess".
Is that what the author perceives as innovation?
And more to the point, who exactly is the author to make authoritative judgments about what the users want or don't want?
His he a psychic?
In fact, where was the author on these past dozen years of the desktop windows?
I mean, after all these years windows is incapable of offering extremely basic stuff such as the ability to set any window the user wishes for to be always on top.
And what about the ability to scroll a window without changing the focus to it?
And what about getting rid of that really annoying bug that, when a user launches an application, keeps the focus on the former application while the newly launched app is placed on top of every window on the desktop?
Fixing those bugs would also count as too much innovation?
The article isn't worth the read.
Nothing to see here, move along.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414695</id>
	<title>Re:A Benevolent Cat-Herder-for-Life is good for Li</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1245588480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are looking for a Steve Jobs equivalent in the Free Software or Open Source worlds, I think that is more Theo de Raadt than Mark Shuttleworth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are looking for a Steve Jobs equivalent in the Free Software or Open Source worlds , I think that is more Theo de Raadt than Mark Shuttleworth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are looking for a Steve Jobs equivalent in the Free Software or Open Source worlds, I think that is more Theo de Raadt than Mark Shuttleworth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28420739</id>
	<title>Re:"Free Software" vs "Open Source" vs... whatever</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245680700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Who gives a shit if Linux has 1-2\% market share? Does Ubuntu get worse on my laptop if it's not out there conquering the world?</i></p><p>Stating the bleedin' obvious but yes, it does get worse if its market share is lower and vice-versa. The probability that the new Wi-Max card (or whatever) you want for your laptop will work, work well, and work quickly after it's released is much higher if the card vendor provides specs or a decent Linux driver. And the probability they will do this increases with market share. Yes, someone may write an independent driver (and their efforts are much appreciated and very important), but the reverse engineering will take time and may be deficient due to lack of info. And by the time this driver has been written, in today's fast-moving hardware market the card may have been re-engineered twice with totally different chipsets and both the new versions now need drivers...</p><p>Virtually no hardware suppliers will take any notice of an OS which takes (say) less than 0.1\% of the market. Virtually all of them will take notice of an OS with (say) greater than 10\% of the market.<br>Linux currently lies in the critical middle ground, where for many common device types and larger manufacturers it 'just works' but for others (paticularly less common device types, brand new device models and smaller suppliers) support is patchy or even non-existent.</p><p>If Linux could just get into the 5-10\% market share range, its hardware support problems would be virtually solved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who gives a shit if Linux has 1-2 \ % market share ?
Does Ubuntu get worse on my laptop if it 's not out there conquering the world ? Stating the bleedin ' obvious but yes , it does get worse if its market share is lower and vice-versa .
The probability that the new Wi-Max card ( or whatever ) you want for your laptop will work , work well , and work quickly after it 's released is much higher if the card vendor provides specs or a decent Linux driver .
And the probability they will do this increases with market share .
Yes , someone may write an independent driver ( and their efforts are much appreciated and very important ) , but the reverse engineering will take time and may be deficient due to lack of info .
And by the time this driver has been written , in today 's fast-moving hardware market the card may have been re-engineered twice with totally different chipsets and both the new versions now need drivers...Virtually no hardware suppliers will take any notice of an OS which takes ( say ) less than 0.1 \ % of the market .
Virtually all of them will take notice of an OS with ( say ) greater than 10 \ % of the market.Linux currently lies in the critical middle ground , where for many common device types and larger manufacturers it 'just works ' but for others ( paticularly less common device types , brand new device models and smaller suppliers ) support is patchy or even non-existent.If Linux could just get into the 5-10 \ % market share range , its hardware support problems would be virtually solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who gives a shit if Linux has 1-2\% market share?
Does Ubuntu get worse on my laptop if it's not out there conquering the world?Stating the bleedin' obvious but yes, it does get worse if its market share is lower and vice-versa.
The probability that the new Wi-Max card (or whatever) you want for your laptop will work, work well, and work quickly after it's released is much higher if the card vendor provides specs or a decent Linux driver.
And the probability they will do this increases with market share.
Yes, someone may write an independent driver (and their efforts are much appreciated and very important), but the reverse engineering will take time and may be deficient due to lack of info.
And by the time this driver has been written, in today's fast-moving hardware market the card may have been re-engineered twice with totally different chipsets and both the new versions now need drivers...Virtually no hardware suppliers will take any notice of an OS which takes (say) less than 0.1\% of the market.
Virtually all of them will take notice of an OS with (say) greater than 10\% of the market.Linux currently lies in the critical middle ground, where for many common device types and larger manufacturers it 'just works' but for others (paticularly less common device types, brand new device models and smaller suppliers) support is patchy or even non-existent.If Linux could just get into the 5-10\% market share range, its hardware support problems would be virtually solved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415633</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414379</id>
	<title>A Benevolent Cat-Herder-for-Life is good for Linux</title>
	<author>schwaang</author>
	<datestamp>1245585600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The best of the Apple experience is polished, user-oriented, and "insanely great" because it takes a Steve Jobs to set the vision and make every component answer to that design.  That's hard to do in the FOSS world.</p><p>So I, for one, am glad Mark Shuttleworth is attempting to put some top-down focus on a user-oriented set of goals into the Ubuntu desktop.  Linux has not lacked for technical innovations, it has lacked for a unified vision that elevates the end-user and a chief to get developers to sign on to that vision.  Go Mark, go!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The best of the Apple experience is polished , user-oriented , and " insanely great " because it takes a Steve Jobs to set the vision and make every component answer to that design .
That 's hard to do in the FOSS world.So I , for one , am glad Mark Shuttleworth is attempting to put some top-down focus on a user-oriented set of goals into the Ubuntu desktop .
Linux has not lacked for technical innovations , it has lacked for a unified vision that elevates the end-user and a chief to get developers to sign on to that vision .
Go Mark , go !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best of the Apple experience is polished, user-oriented, and "insanely great" because it takes a Steve Jobs to set the vision and make every component answer to that design.
That's hard to do in the FOSS world.So I, for one, am glad Mark Shuttleworth is attempting to put some top-down focus on a user-oriented set of goals into the Ubuntu desktop.
Linux has not lacked for technical innovations, it has lacked for a unified vision that elevates the end-user and a chief to get developers to sign on to that vision.
Go Mark, go!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28434877</id>
	<title>Re:Innovate is the wrong word</title>
	<author>Risen888</author>
	<datestamp>1245693360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That the OP couldn't find the setting is, I guess, a problem, although it's not obvious to me where would be a better location than the "Network Connections" item on the "System" menu.</i></p><p>I think it's not so much that Network Connections is a bad place for it, as it is that the Gnome System and Preferences menus are completely unnavigable and counter-intuitive trash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That the OP could n't find the setting is , I guess , a problem , although it 's not obvious to me where would be a better location than the " Network Connections " item on the " System " menu.I think it 's not so much that Network Connections is a bad place for it , as it is that the Gnome System and Preferences menus are completely unnavigable and counter-intuitive trash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That the OP couldn't find the setting is, I guess, a problem, although it's not obvious to me where would be a better location than the "Network Connections" item on the "System" menu.I think it's not so much that Network Connections is a bad place for it, as it is that the Gnome System and Preferences menus are completely unnavigable and counter-intuitive trash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28422057</id>
	<title>Re:I didn't RTFA (or 99\% of the replies), but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245685200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I am now at the point when I do not believe anyone that says they only use {(Linux distro)|(one of the BSDs)} as their desktop.</i></p><p>No, you got me there, it's true, I boot into Vista once a month to run windows update, update the antivirus/antispyware/firefox/flash/adobe reader. And sometimes while the updates are running I actually use firefox in windows.</p><p>Oh, and there was one time when I thought part of a particular website (friends reunited) was broken in Firefox/Linux, so I booted Vista to check and found it was broken in Windows/IE8 as well.</p><p>Don't know what I'd do without Windows...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am now at the point when I do not believe anyone that says they only use { ( Linux distro ) | ( one of the BSDs ) } as their desktop.No , you got me there , it 's true , I boot into Vista once a month to run windows update , update the antivirus/antispyware/firefox/flash/adobe reader .
And sometimes while the updates are running I actually use firefox in windows.Oh , and there was one time when I thought part of a particular website ( friends reunited ) was broken in Firefox/Linux , so I booted Vista to check and found it was broken in Windows/IE8 as well.Do n't know what I 'd do without Windows.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am now at the point when I do not believe anyone that says they only use {(Linux distro)|(one of the BSDs)} as their desktop.No, you got me there, it's true, I boot into Vista once a month to run windows update, update the antivirus/antispyware/firefox/flash/adobe reader.
And sometimes while the updates are running I actually use firefox in windows.Oh, and there was one time when I thought part of a particular website (friends reunited) was broken in Firefox/Linux, so I booted Vista to check and found it was broken in Windows/IE8 as well.Don't know what I'd do without Windows...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28423661</id>
	<title>Re:yet another implicit "oh noes, not windowz" ran</title>
	<author>Qzukk</author>
	<datestamp>1245690540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And what about getting rid of that really annoying bug that, when a user launches an application, keeps the focus on the former application while the newly launched app is placed on top of every window on the desktop?</i></p><p>Actually, as a user of a dual-head setup, having the focus stolen from where I'm working by a program launching is annoying as hell.  In my experience in the Windows environment, Outlook 2002 is one of the worst culprits.  When receiving a lot of headers over IMAP (eg turning the computer on after a 3 day weekend with 500 or so new spam messages) it takes a couple of minutes to start up, and grabs the focus from whatever I'm trying to do every 30 seconds or so.  Web browsers have a real problem with this too.  I've set the homepage to about:blank because when I open a browser, the first thing I usually do is type a URL, not search google.  But with google as a home page, I manage to type four or five letters into the URL input before google steals the focus.  Google isn't alone on this, I can type my username and half my password before the last little gif loads on my bank's site, causing the last half of my password to overwrite the username.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And what about getting rid of that really annoying bug that , when a user launches an application , keeps the focus on the former application while the newly launched app is placed on top of every window on the desktop ? Actually , as a user of a dual-head setup , having the focus stolen from where I 'm working by a program launching is annoying as hell .
In my experience in the Windows environment , Outlook 2002 is one of the worst culprits .
When receiving a lot of headers over IMAP ( eg turning the computer on after a 3 day weekend with 500 or so new spam messages ) it takes a couple of minutes to start up , and grabs the focus from whatever I 'm trying to do every 30 seconds or so .
Web browsers have a real problem with this too .
I 've set the homepage to about : blank because when I open a browser , the first thing I usually do is type a URL , not search google .
But with google as a home page , I manage to type four or five letters into the URL input before google steals the focus .
Google is n't alone on this , I can type my username and half my password before the last little gif loads on my bank 's site , causing the last half of my password to overwrite the username .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what about getting rid of that really annoying bug that, when a user launches an application, keeps the focus on the former application while the newly launched app is placed on top of every window on the desktop?Actually, as a user of a dual-head setup, having the focus stolen from where I'm working by a program launching is annoying as hell.
In my experience in the Windows environment, Outlook 2002 is one of the worst culprits.
When receiving a lot of headers over IMAP (eg turning the computer on after a 3 day weekend with 500 or so new spam messages) it takes a couple of minutes to start up, and grabs the focus from whatever I'm trying to do every 30 seconds or so.
Web browsers have a real problem with this too.
I've set the homepage to about:blank because when I open a browser, the first thing I usually do is type a URL, not search google.
But with google as a home page, I manage to type four or five letters into the URL input before google steals the focus.
Google isn't alone on this, I can type my username and half my password before the last little gif loads on my bank's site, causing the last half of my password to overwrite the username.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416291</id>
	<title>Re:Most users don't</title>
	<author>Will.Woodhull</author>
	<datestamp>1245602520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. That is, I think parent post is wrong, to the extent that it is addressing the wrong issues.

</p><p>Basically we cannot know what the typical user wants in an interface until we put it in his hands, he has a chance to play with it, and he begins to make choices about how he's going to use it. Those choices often involve things the designers and coders could never have anticipated: it is in user interaction that "unintended consequences" and the like begin to emerge.

</p><p>Try looking at interface improvements as one of those optimizations that should not be attempted too early in the process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
That is , I think parent post is wrong , to the extent that it is addressing the wrong issues .
Basically we can not know what the typical user wants in an interface until we put it in his hands , he has a chance to play with it , and he begins to make choices about how he 's going to use it .
Those choices often involve things the designers and coders could never have anticipated : it is in user interaction that " unintended consequences " and the like begin to emerge .
Try looking at interface improvements as one of those optimizations that should not be attempted too early in the process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
That is, I think parent post is wrong, to the extent that it is addressing the wrong issues.
Basically we cannot know what the typical user wants in an interface until we put it in his hands, he has a chance to play with it, and he begins to make choices about how he's going to use it.
Those choices often involve things the designers and coders could never have anticipated: it is in user interaction that "unintended consequences" and the like begin to emerge.
Try looking at interface improvements as one of those optimizations that should not be attempted too early in the process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415161</id>
	<title>Huh?</title>
	<author>Pinchiukas</author>
	<datestamp>1245593040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is trying to imitate something else as much as you can - innovating?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is trying to imitate something else as much as you can - innovating ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is trying to imitate something else as much as you can - innovating?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414633</id>
	<title>Linux's ability to fail</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1245587760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are critics and pundits on any side (Mac OS X, Linux and Windows) but of all of them, Linux has the lowest position and therefore has the shortest distance to fall.  This gives Linux a unique "coming from behind" perspective and gives it a unique ability to fail without serious consequence.  We all see what happens when Windows fails (Vista?) but what happens when Linux fails?  Little to nothing really.</p><p>The reasons for this fact are various but it is rather undeniable.  So is all the innovation bad for Linux?  Nope.  If there is failure, then the portion of the failure is discarded and hopefully a lesson was learned.  And the value of failure is also tremendous when it comes to Linux.  Linux gets the value of all failures in all three OSes if the developers involved are observant.  And recovery time from failure?  Almost zero in the case of Linux.  People just keep on keepin' on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are critics and pundits on any side ( Mac OS X , Linux and Windows ) but of all of them , Linux has the lowest position and therefore has the shortest distance to fall .
This gives Linux a unique " coming from behind " perspective and gives it a unique ability to fail without serious consequence .
We all see what happens when Windows fails ( Vista ?
) but what happens when Linux fails ?
Little to nothing really.The reasons for this fact are various but it is rather undeniable .
So is all the innovation bad for Linux ?
Nope. If there is failure , then the portion of the failure is discarded and hopefully a lesson was learned .
And the value of failure is also tremendous when it comes to Linux .
Linux gets the value of all failures in all three OSes if the developers involved are observant .
And recovery time from failure ?
Almost zero in the case of Linux .
People just keep on keepin ' on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are critics and pundits on any side (Mac OS X, Linux and Windows) but of all of them, Linux has the lowest position and therefore has the shortest distance to fall.
This gives Linux a unique "coming from behind" perspective and gives it a unique ability to fail without serious consequence.
We all see what happens when Windows fails (Vista?
) but what happens when Linux fails?
Little to nothing really.The reasons for this fact are various but it is rather undeniable.
So is all the innovation bad for Linux?
Nope.  If there is failure, then the portion of the failure is discarded and hopefully a lesson was learned.
And the value of failure is also tremendous when it comes to Linux.
Linux gets the value of all failures in all three OSes if the developers involved are observant.
And recovery time from failure?
Almost zero in the case of Linux.
People just keep on keepin' on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414741</id>
	<title>Re:Innovate is the wrong word</title>
	<author>Bralkein</author>
	<datestamp>1245588900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>UI and workflow design and project management aren't glamorous or interesting so they don't get done.</p></div><p>I don't really think it works like that. It's 2009 and by now I'm sure everyone understands the value of good UI and workflow design, but it's quite difficult to do well and I'd be surprised if either GNOME or KDE don't often find themselves without the time or expertise needed to get usability up to the desired standard. Of course I would argue that there are several apps on the Linux desktop with great usability - I personally like Firefox, Dolphin and Okular, just to give a few examples. But I would agree that usability isn't as consistent across the platform as it were when compared to say Windows.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Cowboy coding only gets you so far.</p></div><p>Oh, okay, so the basic gist of your comment is just that the free desktop coders are a gang of useless cowboys hacking together a bunch of buggy, improperly documented crap for the riches and renown which will obviously be forthcoming from such an endeavour. How about you go and read e.g. some blog posts by KDE or GNOME developers, because you will discover that a lot of the people working on such software are passionate and proud about what they do and put an awful lot of thought and effort into trying to do quality work. Granted there are some bad apples in the bunch as usual, but I think that the majority of problems these projects face are down to lack of resources, above anything else. But hey, why not throw around inflammatory, pejorative terms like that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>UI and workflow design and project management are n't glamorous or interesting so they do n't get done.I do n't really think it works like that .
It 's 2009 and by now I 'm sure everyone understands the value of good UI and workflow design , but it 's quite difficult to do well and I 'd be surprised if either GNOME or KDE do n't often find themselves without the time or expertise needed to get usability up to the desired standard .
Of course I would argue that there are several apps on the Linux desktop with great usability - I personally like Firefox , Dolphin and Okular , just to give a few examples .
But I would agree that usability is n't as consistent across the platform as it were when compared to say Windows.Cowboy coding only gets you so far.Oh , okay , so the basic gist of your comment is just that the free desktop coders are a gang of useless cowboys hacking together a bunch of buggy , improperly documented crap for the riches and renown which will obviously be forthcoming from such an endeavour .
How about you go and read e.g .
some blog posts by KDE or GNOME developers , because you will discover that a lot of the people working on such software are passionate and proud about what they do and put an awful lot of thought and effort into trying to do quality work .
Granted there are some bad apples in the bunch as usual , but I think that the majority of problems these projects face are down to lack of resources , above anything else .
But hey , why not throw around inflammatory , pejorative terms like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>UI and workflow design and project management aren't glamorous or interesting so they don't get done.I don't really think it works like that.
It's 2009 and by now I'm sure everyone understands the value of good UI and workflow design, but it's quite difficult to do well and I'd be surprised if either GNOME or KDE don't often find themselves without the time or expertise needed to get usability up to the desired standard.
Of course I would argue that there are several apps on the Linux desktop with great usability - I personally like Firefox, Dolphin and Okular, just to give a few examples.
But I would agree that usability isn't as consistent across the platform as it were when compared to say Windows.Cowboy coding only gets you so far.Oh, okay, so the basic gist of your comment is just that the free desktop coders are a gang of useless cowboys hacking together a bunch of buggy, improperly documented crap for the riches and renown which will obviously be forthcoming from such an endeavour.
How about you go and read e.g.
some blog posts by KDE or GNOME developers, because you will discover that a lot of the people working on such software are passionate and proud about what they do and put an awful lot of thought and effort into trying to do quality work.
Granted there are some bad apples in the bunch as usual, but I think that the majority of problems these projects face are down to lack of resources, above anything else.
But hey, why not throw around inflammatory, pejorative terms like that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416107</id>
	<title>Re:Innovate is the wrong word</title>
	<author>Zancarius</author>
	<datestamp>1245601440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NetworkManager has been around for quite some time (at least a year and a half--probably more). It's also the biggest piece of junk I have <i>ever</i> had the misfortune of contending with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NetworkManager has been around for quite some time ( at least a year and a half--probably more ) .
It 's also the biggest piece of junk I have ever had the misfortune of contending with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NetworkManager has been around for quite some time (at least a year and a half--probably more).
It's also the biggest piece of junk I have ever had the misfortune of contending with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28421469</id>
	<title>Re:Linux's ability to fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245683340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you can't see the massive strides Linux has made in just the last 6 years, you must be blinded by your own prejudices.<br>Six years ago I installed Red Hat 9 alongside Windows 98 for my first Linux experience. It booted OK, but many of the things a home desktop user would want did not work out of the box and in some cases could not be made to work at all - it was basically a curiousity.</p><p>Fast forward to 2009 and I'm happily running full-featured multi-media Ubuntu 9.04 systems on a desktop and a netbook, networked together. Everything** works fine out of the box, video, music, all devices, plus it supports my ancient scanner and printer (the scanner not being supported by Windows Vista). It's quite clear from the Ubuntu forums that large numbers of non-geeks are running it happily and sucessfully.</p><p>** Yes, except DVD playback for the usual legal reasons, easily fixed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ca n't see the massive strides Linux has made in just the last 6 years , you must be blinded by your own prejudices.Six years ago I installed Red Hat 9 alongside Windows 98 for my first Linux experience .
It booted OK , but many of the things a home desktop user would want did not work out of the box and in some cases could not be made to work at all - it was basically a curiousity.Fast forward to 2009 and I 'm happily running full-featured multi-media Ubuntu 9.04 systems on a desktop and a netbook , networked together .
Everything * * works fine out of the box , video , music , all devices , plus it supports my ancient scanner and printer ( the scanner not being supported by Windows Vista ) .
It 's quite clear from the Ubuntu forums that large numbers of non-geeks are running it happily and sucessfully .
* * Yes , except DVD playback for the usual legal reasons , easily fixed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can't see the massive strides Linux has made in just the last 6 years, you must be blinded by your own prejudices.Six years ago I installed Red Hat 9 alongside Windows 98 for my first Linux experience.
It booted OK, but many of the things a home desktop user would want did not work out of the box and in some cases could not be made to work at all - it was basically a curiousity.Fast forward to 2009 and I'm happily running full-featured multi-media Ubuntu 9.04 systems on a desktop and a netbook, networked together.
Everything** works fine out of the box, video, music, all devices, plus it supports my ancient scanner and printer (the scanner not being supported by Windows Vista).
It's quite clear from the Ubuntu forums that large numbers of non-geeks are running it happily and sucessfully.
** Yes, except DVD playback for the usual legal reasons, easily fixed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28431451</id>
	<title>Re:"Free Software" vs "Open Source" vs... whatever</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245674160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somehow, perplexingly it does. Going from 8.04-&gt;8.10-&gt;9.04-&gt;9.10 has regressively gotten worse in Ubuntu Netbook remix.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somehow , perplexingly it does .
Going from 8.04- &gt; 8.10- &gt; 9.04- &gt; 9.10 has regressively gotten worse in Ubuntu Netbook remix .
: /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somehow, perplexingly it does.
Going from 8.04-&gt;8.10-&gt;9.04-&gt;9.10 has regressively gotten worse in Ubuntu Netbook remix.
:/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415633</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414765</id>
	<title>Probably not</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1245589080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having more features than the average user cares about hasn't hurt Windows or OSX.</p><p>The answer is almost certainly "no".  When you're not in first place, it's almost impossible to "innovate too much", as long as you can keep things usable.  People will find out about the cool new features that they will absolutely love, and the ones they don't care about...they won't notice.</p><p>But they want to be able to get work done, and feel like they've made a good decision giving up their current OS in order to use Linux.  Microsoft trying to expand their user base to the entire known universe requires one approach.  Trying to convince Microsoft users that they can do it faster, cheaper, easier, better requires a different approach.</p><p>That means:  <i>make it work with the hardware or forget about ever being widely used on desktops</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having more features than the average user cares about has n't hurt Windows or OSX.The answer is almost certainly " no " .
When you 're not in first place , it 's almost impossible to " innovate too much " , as long as you can keep things usable .
People will find out about the cool new features that they will absolutely love , and the ones they do n't care about...they wo n't notice.But they want to be able to get work done , and feel like they 've made a good decision giving up their current OS in order to use Linux .
Microsoft trying to expand their user base to the entire known universe requires one approach .
Trying to convince Microsoft users that they can do it faster , cheaper , easier , better requires a different approach.That means : make it work with the hardware or forget about ever being widely used on desktops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having more features than the average user cares about hasn't hurt Windows or OSX.The answer is almost certainly "no".
When you're not in first place, it's almost impossible to "innovate too much", as long as you can keep things usable.
People will find out about the cool new features that they will absolutely love, and the ones they don't care about...they won't notice.But they want to be able to get work done, and feel like they've made a good decision giving up their current OS in order to use Linux.
Microsoft trying to expand their user base to the entire known universe requires one approach.
Trying to convince Microsoft users that they can do it faster, cheaper, easier, better requires a different approach.That means:  make it work with the hardware or forget about ever being widely used on desktops.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28419391</id>
	<title>Re:Continuity is the winning strategy.</title>
	<author>Sam Douglas</author>
	<datestamp>1245672000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One thing that Microsoft has done well is to maintain continuity with the past. The desktop of Windows 95 is still available on all consumer versions of Windows up to Windows 7. In Windows 7, you can select the "classic" appearance for the desktop to get the Windows-95 look and feel.</p></div><p>Not quite right. In Windows 7 'classic' mode is a joke. It doesn't change the taskbar back to behaving like Windows 2000, and as far as I can tell there is no way to go back to a pre-Vista style start menu (if there is a way, it isn't apparent to me). All it does is give semi-Windows 2000 looking window decoration and colouring, makes the panel look fucking chunky and actually -reduces- the usability of the system (in contrast to previous versions, in my opinion).</p><p>On the topic of Windows 7's taskbar, I am not sure if it represents an actual improvement in usability (I've been a full time Gnome user for a long time, but needed to use Windows and decided to try Windows 7 RC) over earlier versions of Windows. The way it combines windows from a single application into one button is better than the taskbar grouping in Windows XP (ugh), but is still a little slow to use, especially for power users. It also causes problems for programs that have a permanent icon on your taskbar (such as a web browser): normally the purpose of these buttons is to give you a quick way to launch commonly used applications; but if there is already an instance running then you just end up focussing it instead; you have to use the context menu to start a new copy. This is particularly annoying with Firefox if you only have the downloads window open and you want to do some web browsing, clicking on it just brings up this useless little window. This is something that Firefox could work around, but it also represents a flaw in the taskbar design, I feel.</p><p>There is no classic mode per se, you can set the icons to be smaller and turn off grouping (which shows text like normal taskbar buttons), but this still has the annoying, new behaviour of grouping windows from the same application together (i.e. all the firefox buttons are adjacent). New windows will appear and pop up in the middle of the task bar, rather than at the end and while you can move entire groups around, you cannot move individual window buttons. Almost everyone I have discussed this with hates it. I prefer the flawed stacked buttons to that behaviour.</p><p>Is it really just free software that has a problem with trying to innovate too much? Windows 7 seems to have similar problems. On one hand it's like a much better Windows Vista, but at the same time has a lot of 'new features' that strike me as having little actual benefit; change for change sake. Like the taskbar (which will actually piss off a lot of people... hopefully it sees a bit more love before the final release), like the new window management features: drag a window to the top edge of the screen to maximise it, or to the sides to make it take up half the screen, or shake the window to cause all the other windows to minimise. None of the window management features strike me as being useful at all. Perhaps the Windows developers should have looked to the Unix desktops for actually useful features to implement: edge snapping, hotkeys to move and resize (hold alt and left-drag a window (anywhere on it) to move it -- it's a godsend), virtual workspaces (even MacOS has those...), visually highlighting which window is selected -immediately- when alt-tabbing between windows (Metacity does this by drawing a black border around the shape of the window). All these things are minor, but fucking wonderful to have and it is sad that with all the developer time that has gone into changing Windows 7, things like this haven't been addressed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing that Microsoft has done well is to maintain continuity with the past .
The desktop of Windows 95 is still available on all consumer versions of Windows up to Windows 7 .
In Windows 7 , you can select the " classic " appearance for the desktop to get the Windows-95 look and feel.Not quite right .
In Windows 7 'classic ' mode is a joke .
It does n't change the taskbar back to behaving like Windows 2000 , and as far as I can tell there is no way to go back to a pre-Vista style start menu ( if there is a way , it is n't apparent to me ) .
All it does is give semi-Windows 2000 looking window decoration and colouring , makes the panel look fucking chunky and actually -reduces- the usability of the system ( in contrast to previous versions , in my opinion ) .On the topic of Windows 7 's taskbar , I am not sure if it represents an actual improvement in usability ( I 've been a full time Gnome user for a long time , but needed to use Windows and decided to try Windows 7 RC ) over earlier versions of Windows .
The way it combines windows from a single application into one button is better than the taskbar grouping in Windows XP ( ugh ) , but is still a little slow to use , especially for power users .
It also causes problems for programs that have a permanent icon on your taskbar ( such as a web browser ) : normally the purpose of these buttons is to give you a quick way to launch commonly used applications ; but if there is already an instance running then you just end up focussing it instead ; you have to use the context menu to start a new copy .
This is particularly annoying with Firefox if you only have the downloads window open and you want to do some web browsing , clicking on it just brings up this useless little window .
This is something that Firefox could work around , but it also represents a flaw in the taskbar design , I feel.There is no classic mode per se , you can set the icons to be smaller and turn off grouping ( which shows text like normal taskbar buttons ) , but this still has the annoying , new behaviour of grouping windows from the same application together ( i.e .
all the firefox buttons are adjacent ) .
New windows will appear and pop up in the middle of the task bar , rather than at the end and while you can move entire groups around , you can not move individual window buttons .
Almost everyone I have discussed this with hates it .
I prefer the flawed stacked buttons to that behaviour.Is it really just free software that has a problem with trying to innovate too much ?
Windows 7 seems to have similar problems .
On one hand it 's like a much better Windows Vista , but at the same time has a lot of 'new features ' that strike me as having little actual benefit ; change for change sake .
Like the taskbar ( which will actually piss off a lot of people... hopefully it sees a bit more love before the final release ) , like the new window management features : drag a window to the top edge of the screen to maximise it , or to the sides to make it take up half the screen , or shake the window to cause all the other windows to minimise .
None of the window management features strike me as being useful at all .
Perhaps the Windows developers should have looked to the Unix desktops for actually useful features to implement : edge snapping , hotkeys to move and resize ( hold alt and left-drag a window ( anywhere on it ) to move it -- it 's a godsend ) , virtual workspaces ( even MacOS has those... ) , visually highlighting which window is selected -immediately- when alt-tabbing between windows ( Metacity does this by drawing a black border around the shape of the window ) .
All these things are minor , but fucking wonderful to have and it is sad that with all the developer time that has gone into changing Windows 7 , things like this have n't been addressed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing that Microsoft has done well is to maintain continuity with the past.
The desktop of Windows 95 is still available on all consumer versions of Windows up to Windows 7.
In Windows 7, you can select the "classic" appearance for the desktop to get the Windows-95 look and feel.Not quite right.
In Windows 7 'classic' mode is a joke.
It doesn't change the taskbar back to behaving like Windows 2000, and as far as I can tell there is no way to go back to a pre-Vista style start menu (if there is a way, it isn't apparent to me).
All it does is give semi-Windows 2000 looking window decoration and colouring, makes the panel look fucking chunky and actually -reduces- the usability of the system (in contrast to previous versions, in my opinion).On the topic of Windows 7's taskbar, I am not sure if it represents an actual improvement in usability (I've been a full time Gnome user for a long time, but needed to use Windows and decided to try Windows 7 RC) over earlier versions of Windows.
The way it combines windows from a single application into one button is better than the taskbar grouping in Windows XP (ugh), but is still a little slow to use, especially for power users.
It also causes problems for programs that have a permanent icon on your taskbar (such as a web browser): normally the purpose of these buttons is to give you a quick way to launch commonly used applications; but if there is already an instance running then you just end up focussing it instead; you have to use the context menu to start a new copy.
This is particularly annoying with Firefox if you only have the downloads window open and you want to do some web browsing, clicking on it just brings up this useless little window.
This is something that Firefox could work around, but it also represents a flaw in the taskbar design, I feel.There is no classic mode per se, you can set the icons to be smaller and turn off grouping (which shows text like normal taskbar buttons), but this still has the annoying, new behaviour of grouping windows from the same application together (i.e.
all the firefox buttons are adjacent).
New windows will appear and pop up in the middle of the task bar, rather than at the end and while you can move entire groups around, you cannot move individual window buttons.
Almost everyone I have discussed this with hates it.
I prefer the flawed stacked buttons to that behaviour.Is it really just free software that has a problem with trying to innovate too much?
Windows 7 seems to have similar problems.
On one hand it's like a much better Windows Vista, but at the same time has a lot of 'new features' that strike me as having little actual benefit; change for change sake.
Like the taskbar (which will actually piss off a lot of people... hopefully it sees a bit more love before the final release), like the new window management features: drag a window to the top edge of the screen to maximise it, or to the sides to make it take up half the screen, or shake the window to cause all the other windows to minimise.
None of the window management features strike me as being useful at all.
Perhaps the Windows developers should have looked to the Unix desktops for actually useful features to implement: edge snapping, hotkeys to move and resize (hold alt and left-drag a window (anywhere on it) to move it -- it's a godsend), virtual workspaces (even MacOS has those...), visually highlighting which window is selected -immediately- when alt-tabbing between windows (Metacity does this by drawing a black border around the shape of the window).
All these things are minor, but fucking wonderful to have and it is sad that with all the developer time that has gone into changing Windows 7, things like this haven't been addressed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414653</id>
	<title>Re:Innovate is the wrong word</title>
	<author>Targen</author>
	<datestamp>1245587940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I absolutely agree with the general idea you're referring to, NetworkManager does have a cute GUI that can very easily change, among other things, the configuration of a network interface from DHCP to static, much as one is accustomed to do with other OSes.  Granted, I believe this dialog is quite a recent addition to the project; I'm quite sure it wasn't there a couple of months ago.<br> <br>

On a related note, this particular problem is an excellent example of over-innovation on the part of Vista; am I the only one who despises Vista's new network connections configuration GUI?  It was perfectly unbroken in XP, IMHO, and they went and "fixed" it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I absolutely agree with the general idea you 're referring to , NetworkManager does have a cute GUI that can very easily change , among other things , the configuration of a network interface from DHCP to static , much as one is accustomed to do with other OSes .
Granted , I believe this dialog is quite a recent addition to the project ; I 'm quite sure it was n't there a couple of months ago .
On a related note , this particular problem is an excellent example of over-innovation on the part of Vista ; am I the only one who despises Vista 's new network connections configuration GUI ?
It was perfectly unbroken in XP , IMHO , and they went and " fixed " it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I absolutely agree with the general idea you're referring to, NetworkManager does have a cute GUI that can very easily change, among other things, the configuration of a network interface from DHCP to static, much as one is accustomed to do with other OSes.
Granted, I believe this dialog is quite a recent addition to the project; I'm quite sure it wasn't there a couple of months ago.
On a related note, this particular problem is an excellent example of over-innovation on the part of Vista; am I the only one who despises Vista's new network connections configuration GUI?
It was perfectly unbroken in XP, IMHO, and they went and "fixed" it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28436155</id>
	<title>I refuse to use KDE4</title>
	<author>cabalamat3</author>
	<datestamp>1245749880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I refuse to use KDE4, and still use KDE3 on my main Ubuntu box.<br><br>KDE4 is a bloated silly bunch of nonsense. If the KDE4 developers designed cars, they'd flip the positions of the accelerator and brake pedals on each model to be "innovative".</htmltext>
<tokenext>I refuse to use KDE4 , and still use KDE3 on my main Ubuntu box.KDE4 is a bloated silly bunch of nonsense .
If the KDE4 developers designed cars , they 'd flip the positions of the accelerator and brake pedals on each model to be " innovative " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I refuse to use KDE4, and still use KDE3 on my main Ubuntu box.KDE4 is a bloated silly bunch of nonsense.
If the KDE4 developers designed cars, they'd flip the positions of the accelerator and brake pedals on each model to be "innovative".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414505</id>
	<title>Re:Too Much?</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1245586620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>User centric design is the issue.  When MS puts clippy in, I don't know how much of that was some developer of pinhead thinking it would be really cook, and how much of it was actually user centric design.  Same thing for putting the command to change the desktop on the context menu.  Sure, it was something easy to do, and certainly showed those people who made fun of MS for being the only modern OS where one had to reboot to change resolution, but does it serve a rational purpose.  One rational purpose it might serve are for those that occasionally need a lower resolution, but that problem has been better addressed through other means.
<p>
In the end one has to have a system where best practices win over bloat.  Where things that aren't that useful are removed so they do not involve recurring resources at every release.  For instance, i know that egos are tied up in the multiple *nix desktops, and all desktops have a right to exist, but significant progress could be made if the community could select on desktop to develop towards, even if means that the solution is imperfect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>User centric design is the issue .
When MS puts clippy in , I do n't know how much of that was some developer of pinhead thinking it would be really cook , and how much of it was actually user centric design .
Same thing for putting the command to change the desktop on the context menu .
Sure , it was something easy to do , and certainly showed those people who made fun of MS for being the only modern OS where one had to reboot to change resolution , but does it serve a rational purpose .
One rational purpose it might serve are for those that occasionally need a lower resolution , but that problem has been better addressed through other means .
In the end one has to have a system where best practices win over bloat .
Where things that are n't that useful are removed so they do not involve recurring resources at every release .
For instance , i know that egos are tied up in the multiple * nix desktops , and all desktops have a right to exist , but significant progress could be made if the community could select on desktop to develop towards , even if means that the solution is imperfect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>User centric design is the issue.
When MS puts clippy in, I don't know how much of that was some developer of pinhead thinking it would be really cook, and how much of it was actually user centric design.
Same thing for putting the command to change the desktop on the context menu.
Sure, it was something easy to do, and certainly showed those people who made fun of MS for being the only modern OS where one had to reboot to change resolution, but does it serve a rational purpose.
One rational purpose it might serve are for those that occasionally need a lower resolution, but that problem has been better addressed through other means.
In the end one has to have a system where best practices win over bloat.
Where things that aren't that useful are removed so they do not involve recurring resources at every release.
For instance, i know that egos are tied up in the multiple *nix desktops, and all desktops have a right to exist, but significant progress could be made if the community could select on desktop to develop towards, even if means that the solution is imperfect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414953</id>
	<title>Confused</title>
	<author>Demonantis</author>
	<datestamp>1245590700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't the point of open source that you are willing to share the tools that you develop for yourself. Its more cooperativeness then selflessness. If you wanted something to do something specific maybe you should make it yourself or buy it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't the point of open source that you are willing to share the tools that you develop for yourself .
Its more cooperativeness then selflessness .
If you wanted something to do something specific maybe you should make it yourself or buy it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't the point of open source that you are willing to share the tools that you develop for yourself.
Its more cooperativeness then selflessness.
If you wanted something to do something specific maybe you should make it yourself or buy it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417457</id>
	<title>Re:Seigo has gotten it all wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245611700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The KDE team needs to gain control of the project back from Seigo.  It takes some work, but 4.2.4 can be configured close to 3.5.10 (typical menu structure, desktop icons, etc), but it takes ~300mB vs. ~65mB!!  How can this be progress? How does it help users get work done??  Answer:  it isn't progress and it doesn't get work done.  But it does stroke developer egos.  --AA</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The KDE team needs to gain control of the project back from Seigo .
It takes some work , but 4.2.4 can be configured close to 3.5.10 ( typical menu structure , desktop icons , etc ) , but it takes ~ 300mB vs .
~ 65mB ! ! How can this be progress ?
How does it help users get work done ? ?
Answer : it is n't progress and it does n't get work done .
But it does stroke developer egos .
--AA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The KDE team needs to gain control of the project back from Seigo.
It takes some work, but 4.2.4 can be configured close to 3.5.10 (typical menu structure, desktop icons, etc), but it takes ~300mB vs.
~65mB!!  How can this be progress?
How does it help users get work done??
Answer:  it isn't progress and it doesn't get work done.
But it does stroke developer egos.
--AA</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414323</id>
	<title>What do I owe the user again?</title>
	<author>Gopal.V</author>
	<datestamp>1245585120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The essential problem with free software is that most of it is written to scratch someone's itch. Usually, the ones who start off coding to fix their problems are the developers. Over the last decade that I've used linux (and other f/oss) on my desktop, I've seen a radical shift in how the developers are influenced to do what a user wants. More so, I've seen the system favour the ones who have user focus rather than dictate from their ivory towers and yell back <i>"sure, send me a patch &amp; we'll talk about it"</i>. You did your bit and the others stepped on those to get where they want<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and with GPL in place they didn't really step on your toes.
</p><p>
Essentially, you didn't owe the user anything for real. The user paid in attention &amp; respect. The developer did what the user wanted as long as he (or she) wanted the respect. Over that, it was just about fun when it was Y2K days.
</p><p>
It'd be vastly different if someone paid me for it. Well, yes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... someone does pay me to churn out F/OSS code, I deal with vastly differently from my other projects.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The essential problem with free software is that most of it is written to scratch someone 's itch .
Usually , the ones who start off coding to fix their problems are the developers .
Over the last decade that I 've used linux ( and other f/oss ) on my desktop , I 've seen a radical shift in how the developers are influenced to do what a user wants .
More so , I 've seen the system favour the ones who have user focus rather than dictate from their ivory towers and yell back " sure , send me a patch &amp; we 'll talk about it " .
You did your bit and the others stepped on those to get where they want ... and with GPL in place they did n't really step on your toes .
Essentially , you did n't owe the user anything for real .
The user paid in attention &amp; respect .
The developer did what the user wanted as long as he ( or she ) wanted the respect .
Over that , it was just about fun when it was Y2K days .
It 'd be vastly different if someone paid me for it .
Well , yes ... someone does pay me to churn out F/OSS code , I deal with vastly differently from my other projects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The essential problem with free software is that most of it is written to scratch someone's itch.
Usually, the ones who start off coding to fix their problems are the developers.
Over the last decade that I've used linux (and other f/oss) on my desktop, I've seen a radical shift in how the developers are influenced to do what a user wants.
More so, I've seen the system favour the ones who have user focus rather than dictate from their ivory towers and yell back "sure, send me a patch &amp; we'll talk about it".
You did your bit and the others stepped on those to get where they want ... and with GPL in place they didn't really step on your toes.
Essentially, you didn't owe the user anything for real.
The user paid in attention &amp; respect.
The developer did what the user wanted as long as he (or she) wanted the respect.
Over that, it was just about fun when it was Y2K days.
It'd be vastly different if someone paid me for it.
Well, yes ... someone does pay me to churn out F/OSS code, I deal with vastly differently from my other projects.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414663</id>
	<title>I didn't RTFA (or 99\% of the replies), but...</title>
	<author>tmp31416</author>
	<datestamp>1245588060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...but from what the summary tells me, TFA seems to cover something I've been complaining about for some time.</p><p>Free DE developers seem to concentrate on new whiz-bang features and seem to forget the basics.</p><p>Things like integrated font+layout+printing management/support.</p><p>Too often, WYSINWYG from screen to paper.  And too often, in Free DEs, I'll get microscopic fonts on the screen from pages that display just fine with Windows or OS-X based programmes.  And don't get me going on simple font management</p><p>These are just two and a half of the "basics" that the Free DEs should concentrate on before getting new obscure "plasmoids" (or whatever).  It's as if FLOSS developers don't use KDE/GNOME/XFCE/etc. for their daily, huh, chores and only use GNOME/XFCE/KDE/etc. as some sort of "grown-up playground" and nothing more.</p><p>I am now at the point when I do not believe anyone that says they only use {(Linux distro)|(one of the BSDs)} as their desktop.  I know I could not, and it's not just because of web content.  Guys, I beg of you: please make sure all the basics necessities are covered, THEN go for the bells and whistles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...but from what the summary tells me , TFA seems to cover something I 've been complaining about for some time.Free DE developers seem to concentrate on new whiz-bang features and seem to forget the basics.Things like integrated font + layout + printing management/support.Too often , WYSINWYG from screen to paper .
And too often , in Free DEs , I 'll get microscopic fonts on the screen from pages that display just fine with Windows or OS-X based programmes .
And do n't get me going on simple font managementThese are just two and a half of the " basics " that the Free DEs should concentrate on before getting new obscure " plasmoids " ( or whatever ) .
It 's as if FLOSS developers do n't use KDE/GNOME/XFCE/etc .
for their daily , huh , chores and only use GNOME/XFCE/KDE/etc .
as some sort of " grown-up playground " and nothing more.I am now at the point when I do not believe anyone that says they only use { ( Linux distro ) | ( one of the BSDs ) } as their desktop .
I know I could not , and it 's not just because of web content .
Guys , I beg of you : please make sure all the basics necessities are covered , THEN go for the bells and whistles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but from what the summary tells me, TFA seems to cover something I've been complaining about for some time.Free DE developers seem to concentrate on new whiz-bang features and seem to forget the basics.Things like integrated font+layout+printing management/support.Too often, WYSINWYG from screen to paper.
And too often, in Free DEs, I'll get microscopic fonts on the screen from pages that display just fine with Windows or OS-X based programmes.
And don't get me going on simple font managementThese are just two and a half of the "basics" that the Free DEs should concentrate on before getting new obscure "plasmoids" (or whatever).
It's as if FLOSS developers don't use KDE/GNOME/XFCE/etc.
for their daily, huh, chores and only use GNOME/XFCE/KDE/etc.
as some sort of "grown-up playground" and nothing more.I am now at the point when I do not believe anyone that says they only use {(Linux distro)|(one of the BSDs)} as their desktop.
I know I could not, and it's not just because of web content.
Guys, I beg of you: please make sure all the basics necessities are covered, THEN go for the bells and whistles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414899</id>
	<title>This seems a bit backwards</title>
	<author>malevolentjelly</author>
	<datestamp>1245590220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last I checked, Linux desktops were loaded with exciting new innovative features but failing on extremely basic tasks.</p><p>Perhaps the community should be asking whether it's more important that we add a fun new Swirl effect to switch to another desktop or if people would rather have a sane and complete GL API. Do we need the entire desktop to be rethought or should we simply settle for having a sane and unified sound solution?</p><p>I would have to agree in saying that the desktop linux community is getting way too ahead of itself if they think they're innovating themselves away from the mainstream. Read the NYTimes article on Ubuntu Linux and tell me whether or not they even mention innovation- They viewed it as a free but lower quality alternative to commercial systems that was very attractive but failed during basic maintenance tasks.</p><p>Why create an Earth-shattering new desktop-web interaction paradigm when users would probably rather have sane and cohesive documentation?</p><p>Here are some no-brainers, if you want to see linux improve:</p><p>* Now that OSS 4.1 is open source, drop ALSA. It is a proven failure. PulseAudio obfuscated the problem to the point of ruining audio in linux, specifically when low latency is required.</p><p>* Support forward-thinking projects like Wayland instead of putting another car on the fail-train that is X. X is architecturally inferior to WindowServer and Windows' display layer for desktop-oriented tasks. A simplified windowing system that puts graphics first and drops the cruft would go a long way in making linux seem modern and easy to maintain.</p><p>* Write documentation sometimes. Format it well an ship it with your projects!</p><p>Or, if you're really clever:</p><p>* Realize that open source != linux. Look at desktop-oriented free software sytstems like Haiku and imagine a world where Linux can be built into an excellent server (or mediocre workstation) and desktop users can have a system purpose built for their priorites! There is no rule that says that linux needs to be the only free system. With the magic of things like POSIX, we can write software that runs on either!</p><p>The strength of open source should be versatility, not futility.</p><p>Dream big.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last I checked , Linux desktops were loaded with exciting new innovative features but failing on extremely basic tasks.Perhaps the community should be asking whether it 's more important that we add a fun new Swirl effect to switch to another desktop or if people would rather have a sane and complete GL API .
Do we need the entire desktop to be rethought or should we simply settle for having a sane and unified sound solution ? I would have to agree in saying that the desktop linux community is getting way too ahead of itself if they think they 're innovating themselves away from the mainstream .
Read the NYTimes article on Ubuntu Linux and tell me whether or not they even mention innovation- They viewed it as a free but lower quality alternative to commercial systems that was very attractive but failed during basic maintenance tasks.Why create an Earth-shattering new desktop-web interaction paradigm when users would probably rather have sane and cohesive documentation ? Here are some no-brainers , if you want to see linux improve : * Now that OSS 4.1 is open source , drop ALSA .
It is a proven failure .
PulseAudio obfuscated the problem to the point of ruining audio in linux , specifically when low latency is required .
* Support forward-thinking projects like Wayland instead of putting another car on the fail-train that is X. X is architecturally inferior to WindowServer and Windows ' display layer for desktop-oriented tasks .
A simplified windowing system that puts graphics first and drops the cruft would go a long way in making linux seem modern and easy to maintain .
* Write documentation sometimes .
Format it well an ship it with your projects ! Or , if you 're really clever : * Realize that open source ! = linux .
Look at desktop-oriented free software sytstems like Haiku and imagine a world where Linux can be built into an excellent server ( or mediocre workstation ) and desktop users can have a system purpose built for their priorites !
There is no rule that says that linux needs to be the only free system .
With the magic of things like POSIX , we can write software that runs on either ! The strength of open source should be versatility , not futility.Dream big .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last I checked, Linux desktops were loaded with exciting new innovative features but failing on extremely basic tasks.Perhaps the community should be asking whether it's more important that we add a fun new Swirl effect to switch to another desktop or if people would rather have a sane and complete GL API.
Do we need the entire desktop to be rethought or should we simply settle for having a sane and unified sound solution?I would have to agree in saying that the desktop linux community is getting way too ahead of itself if they think they're innovating themselves away from the mainstream.
Read the NYTimes article on Ubuntu Linux and tell me whether or not they even mention innovation- They viewed it as a free but lower quality alternative to commercial systems that was very attractive but failed during basic maintenance tasks.Why create an Earth-shattering new desktop-web interaction paradigm when users would probably rather have sane and cohesive documentation?Here are some no-brainers, if you want to see linux improve:* Now that OSS 4.1 is open source, drop ALSA.
It is a proven failure.
PulseAudio obfuscated the problem to the point of ruining audio in linux, specifically when low latency is required.
* Support forward-thinking projects like Wayland instead of putting another car on the fail-train that is X. X is architecturally inferior to WindowServer and Windows' display layer for desktop-oriented tasks.
A simplified windowing system that puts graphics first and drops the cruft would go a long way in making linux seem modern and easy to maintain.
* Write documentation sometimes.
Format it well an ship it with your projects!Or, if you're really clever:* Realize that open source != linux.
Look at desktop-oriented free software sytstems like Haiku and imagine a world where Linux can be built into an excellent server (or mediocre workstation) and desktop users can have a system purpose built for their priorites!
There is no rule that says that linux needs to be the only free system.
With the magic of things like POSIX, we can write software that runs on either!The strength of open source should be versatility, not futility.Dream big.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416149</id>
	<title>Re:Too Much?</title>
	<author>Chuck Chunder</author>
	<datestamp>1245601680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>When MS puts clippy in, I don't know how much of that was some developer of pinhead thinking it would be really cook, and how much of it was actually user centric design.</p></div></blockquote><p>

When I was at university I'm sure I remember a "toolbar" in Excel or Word that displayed useful information, it watched what you did (such as highlight something and click bold) and displayed the keyboard shortcut for doing the same or offered some other form of advice for things you did frequently. I found it very useful and the things it taught me made me much more efficient over time.

At the same time it wasn't intrusive, it didn't interject and most of the time I'd ignore it until the end of the session when I'd review if there was anything useful there (you could scroll back through the hints it offered). It seems like a precursor to Clippy and a good idea that seems to have been badly implemented in the "Clippy".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When MS puts clippy in , I do n't know how much of that was some developer of pinhead thinking it would be really cook , and how much of it was actually user centric design .
When I was at university I 'm sure I remember a " toolbar " in Excel or Word that displayed useful information , it watched what you did ( such as highlight something and click bold ) and displayed the keyboard shortcut for doing the same or offered some other form of advice for things you did frequently .
I found it very useful and the things it taught me made me much more efficient over time .
At the same time it was n't intrusive , it did n't interject and most of the time I 'd ignore it until the end of the session when I 'd review if there was anything useful there ( you could scroll back through the hints it offered ) .
It seems like a precursor to Clippy and a good idea that seems to have been badly implemented in the " Clippy " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When MS puts clippy in, I don't know how much of that was some developer of pinhead thinking it would be really cook, and how much of it was actually user centric design.
When I was at university I'm sure I remember a "toolbar" in Excel or Word that displayed useful information, it watched what you did (such as highlight something and click bold) and displayed the keyboard shortcut for doing the same or offered some other form of advice for things you did frequently.
I found it very useful and the things it taught me made me much more efficient over time.
At the same time it wasn't intrusive, it didn't interject and most of the time I'd ignore it until the end of the session when I'd review if there was anything useful there (you could scroll back through the hints it offered).
It seems like a precursor to Clippy and a good idea that seems to have been badly implemented in the "Clippy".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416043</id>
	<title>Re:Seigo has gotten it all wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245601200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Retweet @QCompson The only thing that KDE4 has accomplished to date is to offer less features than 3.5, and make everything slower and a little more mouse dependent.</p><p>*ducks*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Retweet @ QCompson The only thing that KDE4 has accomplished to date is to offer less features than 3.5 , and make everything slower and a little more mouse dependent .
* ducks *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Retweet @QCompson The only thing that KDE4 has accomplished to date is to offer less features than 3.5, and make everything slower and a little more mouse dependent.
*ducks*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414687</id>
	<title>Re:A Benevolent Cat-Herder-for-Life is good for Li</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245588420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is just sad that Mark Shuttleworth has not done anything speacial for desktops environments. He use Gnome. Almost all what he does, is to rule the default configuration for Gnome settings. Default set of applications to be placed on menus and installed on system. Default Ubuntu theme and so on. But hey, Canonical did try to innovate new notification system. Too bad that it was shutdown by every usability expert. You could not include any actions on them, like when you got new IM or Email message. You could not just click it's "Read" action. You needed first open the application. When you got notification of new media device plugged, you could not just press it "Open it". You needed launch filemanager and then click device to be mounted and opened. And when you moved mouse over balloon, it was transparent. And you could have only one by time shown.  Idea is that the notification does not drawn users attention from more important things what he is doing!</p><p>It is nice how notification system is not even for notification, it is just pushing you "Hah, you got new message, but I will not show it for you". KDE4's own notification system (knotify) is much better and even has actions. When user gets new email, he can just click the notification because it has already drawn the users attention for itself, so why not allow user to execute the notifications reason right away? At least knotify even allows different levels of notifications, like should user be notified of thing X or Y.</p><p>Seems that only Ubuntu fans are promoting Mark Shuttleworth as he would be invented whole good "Desktop Linux". It is just too sad that even on 1990's there was Corel and other distributions what made exactly the same thing as Ubuntu. The reason why they failed, was that Gnome and other open source software were not ready for normal users. MS and Apple was fighting and MS and Netscape was fighting and MS and IBM was fighting and no one didn't even hear about Linux desktops until 2002- it turned that great applications started to be used on Windows world as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is just sad that Mark Shuttleworth has not done anything speacial for desktops environments .
He use Gnome .
Almost all what he does , is to rule the default configuration for Gnome settings .
Default set of applications to be placed on menus and installed on system .
Default Ubuntu theme and so on .
But hey , Canonical did try to innovate new notification system .
Too bad that it was shutdown by every usability expert .
You could not include any actions on them , like when you got new IM or Email message .
You could not just click it 's " Read " action .
You needed first open the application .
When you got notification of new media device plugged , you could not just press it " Open it " .
You needed launch filemanager and then click device to be mounted and opened .
And when you moved mouse over balloon , it was transparent .
And you could have only one by time shown .
Idea is that the notification does not drawn users attention from more important things what he is doing ! It is nice how notification system is not even for notification , it is just pushing you " Hah , you got new message , but I will not show it for you " .
KDE4 's own notification system ( knotify ) is much better and even has actions .
When user gets new email , he can just click the notification because it has already drawn the users attention for itself , so why not allow user to execute the notifications reason right away ?
At least knotify even allows different levels of notifications , like should user be notified of thing X or Y.Seems that only Ubuntu fans are promoting Mark Shuttleworth as he would be invented whole good " Desktop Linux " .
It is just too sad that even on 1990 's there was Corel and other distributions what made exactly the same thing as Ubuntu .
The reason why they failed , was that Gnome and other open source software were not ready for normal users .
MS and Apple was fighting and MS and Netscape was fighting and MS and IBM was fighting and no one did n't even hear about Linux desktops until 2002- it turned that great applications started to be used on Windows world as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is just sad that Mark Shuttleworth has not done anything speacial for desktops environments.
He use Gnome.
Almost all what he does, is to rule the default configuration for Gnome settings.
Default set of applications to be placed on menus and installed on system.
Default Ubuntu theme and so on.
But hey, Canonical did try to innovate new notification system.
Too bad that it was shutdown by every usability expert.
You could not include any actions on them, like when you got new IM or Email message.
You could not just click it's "Read" action.
You needed first open the application.
When you got notification of new media device plugged, you could not just press it "Open it".
You needed launch filemanager and then click device to be mounted and opened.
And when you moved mouse over balloon, it was transparent.
And you could have only one by time shown.
Idea is that the notification does not drawn users attention from more important things what he is doing!It is nice how notification system is not even for notification, it is just pushing you "Hah, you got new message, but I will not show it for you".
KDE4's own notification system (knotify) is much better and even has actions.
When user gets new email, he can just click the notification because it has already drawn the users attention for itself, so why not allow user to execute the notifications reason right away?
At least knotify even allows different levels of notifications, like should user be notified of thing X or Y.Seems that only Ubuntu fans are promoting Mark Shuttleworth as he would be invented whole good "Desktop Linux".
It is just too sad that even on 1990's there was Corel and other distributions what made exactly the same thing as Ubuntu.
The reason why they failed, was that Gnome and other open source software were not ready for normal users.
MS and Apple was fighting and MS and Netscape was fighting and MS and IBM was fighting and no one didn't even hear about Linux desktops until 2002- it turned that great applications started to be used on Windows world as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414723</id>
	<title>Linux doesn't target the average</title>
	<author>hessian</author>
	<datestamp>1245588720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The average user wants their computer to "just work" and be what their friends use.</p><p>This person would be happy with Windows 95 or probably even Mac OS 9 (if they remember not to hold down the mouse button, which freezes the system).</p><p>The average person uses Microsoft Word, IE or Firefox, Microsoft Outlook or Thunderbird, a chat client, maybe Photoshop, and plays video games.</p><p>If something goes really wrong, they want Microsoft or the Geek squad to fix it, and don't seem to mind being sheared of a few hundred bucks a year.</p><p>They don't care about much else.</p><p>Linux desktops are doing the right thing in targeting the power users: these are the people who want cutting edge features. They are also willing to spend more time configuring their systems.</p><p>If you target the power users, the others will imitate them, but it will take some time.</p><p>In my experience, the best Linux promotion you can do is what HAL-PC used to do here in Houston, which is to invite people to bring in their computers and have an expert help install the Linux operating system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The average user wants their computer to " just work " and be what their friends use.This person would be happy with Windows 95 or probably even Mac OS 9 ( if they remember not to hold down the mouse button , which freezes the system ) .The average person uses Microsoft Word , IE or Firefox , Microsoft Outlook or Thunderbird , a chat client , maybe Photoshop , and plays video games.If something goes really wrong , they want Microsoft or the Geek squad to fix it , and do n't seem to mind being sheared of a few hundred bucks a year.They do n't care about much else.Linux desktops are doing the right thing in targeting the power users : these are the people who want cutting edge features .
They are also willing to spend more time configuring their systems.If you target the power users , the others will imitate them , but it will take some time.In my experience , the best Linux promotion you can do is what HAL-PC used to do here in Houston , which is to invite people to bring in their computers and have an expert help install the Linux operating system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The average user wants their computer to "just work" and be what their friends use.This person would be happy with Windows 95 or probably even Mac OS 9 (if they remember not to hold down the mouse button, which freezes the system).The average person uses Microsoft Word, IE or Firefox, Microsoft Outlook or Thunderbird, a chat client, maybe Photoshop, and plays video games.If something goes really wrong, they want Microsoft or the Geek squad to fix it, and don't seem to mind being sheared of a few hundred bucks a year.They don't care about much else.Linux desktops are doing the right thing in targeting the power users: these are the people who want cutting edge features.
They are also willing to spend more time configuring their systems.If you target the power users, the others will imitate them, but it will take some time.In my experience, the best Linux promotion you can do is what HAL-PC used to do here in Houston, which is to invite people to bring in their computers and have an expert help install the Linux operating system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416801</id>
	<title>Re:This seems a bit backwards</title>
	<author>kklein</author>
	<datestamp>1245605880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Write documentation sometimes. Format it well and ship it with your projects!</p></div><p>And while you're at it, learn to spell and how to express yourself with correct, clear, and concise language. Learning how to explain things clearly isn't the dreaded "marketing;" it's essential to getting people to use and like whatever it is that you've spent all your time and effort on.

</p><p>It seems that every time I have a problem in Linux, I pull up a manpage and cannot figure out what the writer was trying to say. Grammar and spelling errors are abundant. Vagaries abound. They are not updated to reflect the current version of the software. They are sometimes useless, and sometimes worse!

</p><p>So off I go to the forums.

</p><p>A day later, my virtual ears ringing from a chorus of technical assholes who don't want me in their club, I just quit trying and go back to Windows or the Mac to get whatever it is I need to do, done.

</p><p>It is a major problem, because I know I'm not the only one who gets completely turned off to Linux because I can't find something that simply tells me how to make things work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Write documentation sometimes .
Format it well and ship it with your projects ! And while you 're at it , learn to spell and how to express yourself with correct , clear , and concise language .
Learning how to explain things clearly is n't the dreaded " marketing ; " it 's essential to getting people to use and like whatever it is that you 've spent all your time and effort on .
It seems that every time I have a problem in Linux , I pull up a manpage and can not figure out what the writer was trying to say .
Grammar and spelling errors are abundant .
Vagaries abound .
They are not updated to reflect the current version of the software .
They are sometimes useless , and sometimes worse !
So off I go to the forums .
A day later , my virtual ears ringing from a chorus of technical assholes who do n't want me in their club , I just quit trying and go back to Windows or the Mac to get whatever it is I need to do , done .
It is a major problem , because I know I 'm not the only one who gets completely turned off to Linux because I ca n't find something that simply tells me how to make things work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Write documentation sometimes.
Format it well and ship it with your projects!And while you're at it, learn to spell and how to express yourself with correct, clear, and concise language.
Learning how to explain things clearly isn't the dreaded "marketing;" it's essential to getting people to use and like whatever it is that you've spent all your time and effort on.
It seems that every time I have a problem in Linux, I pull up a manpage and cannot figure out what the writer was trying to say.
Grammar and spelling errors are abundant.
Vagaries abound.
They are not updated to reflect the current version of the software.
They are sometimes useless, and sometimes worse!
So off I go to the forums.
A day later, my virtual ears ringing from a chorus of technical assholes who don't want me in their club, I just quit trying and go back to Windows or the Mac to get whatever it is I need to do, done.
It is a major problem, because I know I'm not the only one who gets completely turned off to Linux because I can't find something that simply tells me how to make things work.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415413</id>
	<title>Re:I didn't RTFA (or 99\% of the replies), but...</title>
	<author>gujo-odori</author>
	<datestamp>1245595440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been using Linux as my exclusive desktop for 10 years, at work and at home, with only two exceptions:</p><p>1) After Microsoft bought my previous employer, I was required to use Windows as my desktop whether I liked it or not; fair enough, Windows is their product, after all.</p><p>2) In my current job, I use a MacBook Pro for email (Entourage is a far better solution in an Exchange environment than is Evolution) and sometimes for remote work because I don't want to have any company IP on a personally-owned machine.</p><p>The way that boils down is that Linux has been my exclusive personal desktop OS for all of the least 10 years, my exclusive work desktop OS for most of the last 10 years, is currently my primary work desktop OS, and the only time it wasn't my primary/exclusive work desktop OS was the time I spent as a Microsoft employee.</p><p>Moreover, I know *lots* of people who do this. If you don't believe anyone who says so, it's because of your ignorance and bias, not the veracity of your interlocutors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using Linux as my exclusive desktop for 10 years , at work and at home , with only two exceptions : 1 ) After Microsoft bought my previous employer , I was required to use Windows as my desktop whether I liked it or not ; fair enough , Windows is their product , after all.2 ) In my current job , I use a MacBook Pro for email ( Entourage is a far better solution in an Exchange environment than is Evolution ) and sometimes for remote work because I do n't want to have any company IP on a personally-owned machine.The way that boils down is that Linux has been my exclusive personal desktop OS for all of the least 10 years , my exclusive work desktop OS for most of the last 10 years , is currently my primary work desktop OS , and the only time it was n't my primary/exclusive work desktop OS was the time I spent as a Microsoft employee.Moreover , I know * lots * of people who do this .
If you do n't believe anyone who says so , it 's because of your ignorance and bias , not the veracity of your interlocutors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been using Linux as my exclusive desktop for 10 years, at work and at home, with only two exceptions:1) After Microsoft bought my previous employer, I was required to use Windows as my desktop whether I liked it or not; fair enough, Windows is their product, after all.2) In my current job, I use a MacBook Pro for email (Entourage is a far better solution in an Exchange environment than is Evolution) and sometimes for remote work because I don't want to have any company IP on a personally-owned machine.The way that boils down is that Linux has been my exclusive personal desktop OS for all of the least 10 years, my exclusive work desktop OS for most of the last 10 years, is currently my primary work desktop OS, and the only time it wasn't my primary/exclusive work desktop OS was the time I spent as a Microsoft employee.Moreover, I know *lots* of people who do this.
If you don't believe anyone who says so, it's because of your ignorance and bias, not the veracity of your interlocutors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28424917</id>
	<title>Re:Tough Love</title>
	<author>Jim Hall</author>
	<datestamp>1245694860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How does Free go about breaking this lock-in? I know for me if it wasn't for entertainment software I would be all over GNU. Wine steps in and fills that void somewhat but currently does not have enough compatibility to bring me over to the good side. I like Linux, I want to use it, but my games don't play in it and thats the only thing that keeps a closed OS on my desktop.</p></div><p>You do it by <em>buying a Playstation or Xbox360 or Wii, and play
your games there - and watch your movies there.</em> Use your PC for
<em> <b>p</b>ersonal <b>c</b>omputing</em> and skip the "entertainment"
stuff.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm prefacing this with the fact that I ran Linux as my only OS for a year (SuSE 9) then I switched back to Microsoft. Linux and GNU are a superior development process - inclusive and plural - but Microsoft right now has the superior ecosystem.</p></div><p>And as far as Windows having the "superior ecosystem"? I don't think so. There's lots of stuff broken in Windows and other Microsoft products. <a href="http://www.oooninja.com/" title="oooninja.com">OpenOffice.org Ninja</a> [oooninja.com] often runs benchmarks against Microsoft and Free. <a href="http://badvista.fsf.org/" title="fsf.org">Bad Vista</a> [fsf.org] has a list of lots of things that are wrong, but as this is from the FSF, the angle is mostly about freedoms. Or check out Linuxinexile for things that just don't work "right" under Windows, compared to Linux:</p><ul>
<li> <a href="http://linuxinexile.blogspot.com/2009/06/still-minute-faster.html" title="blogspot.com">Windows
boots slower than Linux</a> [blogspot.com] (although it's better <a href="http://linuxinexile.blogspot.com/2009/03/minute-faster.html" title="blogspot.com">since
XP</a> [blogspot.com])</li><li> <a href="http://linuxinexile.blogspot.com/2009/06/its-called-multitasking-people.html" title="blogspot.com">Windows
printing stops if you switch to another app</a> [blogspot.com] </li><li> <a href="http://linuxinexile.blogspot.com/2009/06/bookmarks-and-favorites.html" title="blogspot.com">Windows
"favorite links" makes login slow</a> [blogspot.com] </li><li> <a href="http://linuxinexile.blogspot.com/2009/05/open-files.html" title="blogspot.com">Windows
can't open multiple files at once</a> [blogspot.com] (specifically, different
extensions)</li><li>(the list goes on)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... </li></ul><p>Doesn't sound like a "superior ecosystem" to me. But hey, to each his own, I guess.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How does Free go about breaking this lock-in ?
I know for me if it was n't for entertainment software I would be all over GNU .
Wine steps in and fills that void somewhat but currently does not have enough compatibility to bring me over to the good side .
I like Linux , I want to use it , but my games do n't play in it and thats the only thing that keeps a closed OS on my desktop.You do it by buying a Playstation or Xbox360 or Wii , and play your games there - and watch your movies there .
Use your PC for personal computing and skip the " entertainment " stuff.I 'm prefacing this with the fact that I ran Linux as my only OS for a year ( SuSE 9 ) then I switched back to Microsoft .
Linux and GNU are a superior development process - inclusive and plural - but Microsoft right now has the superior ecosystem.And as far as Windows having the " superior ecosystem " ?
I do n't think so .
There 's lots of stuff broken in Windows and other Microsoft products .
OpenOffice.org Ninja [ oooninja.com ] often runs benchmarks against Microsoft and Free .
Bad Vista [ fsf.org ] has a list of lots of things that are wrong , but as this is from the FSF , the angle is mostly about freedoms .
Or check out Linuxinexile for things that just do n't work " right " under Windows , compared to Linux : Windows boots slower than Linux [ blogspot.com ] ( although it 's better since XP [ blogspot.com ] ) Windows printing stops if you switch to another app [ blogspot.com ] Windows " favorite links " makes login slow [ blogspot.com ] Windows ca n't open multiple files at once [ blogspot.com ] ( specifically , different extensions ) ( the list goes on ) ... Does n't sound like a " superior ecosystem " to me .
But hey , to each his own , I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does Free go about breaking this lock-in?
I know for me if it wasn't for entertainment software I would be all over GNU.
Wine steps in and fills that void somewhat but currently does not have enough compatibility to bring me over to the good side.
I like Linux, I want to use it, but my games don't play in it and thats the only thing that keeps a closed OS on my desktop.You do it by buying a Playstation or Xbox360 or Wii, and play
your games there - and watch your movies there.
Use your PC for
 personal computing and skip the "entertainment"
stuff.I'm prefacing this with the fact that I ran Linux as my only OS for a year (SuSE 9) then I switched back to Microsoft.
Linux and GNU are a superior development process - inclusive and plural - but Microsoft right now has the superior ecosystem.And as far as Windows having the "superior ecosystem"?
I don't think so.
There's lots of stuff broken in Windows and other Microsoft products.
OpenOffice.org Ninja [oooninja.com] often runs benchmarks against Microsoft and Free.
Bad Vista [fsf.org] has a list of lots of things that are wrong, but as this is from the FSF, the angle is mostly about freedoms.
Or check out Linuxinexile for things that just don't work "right" under Windows, compared to Linux:
 Windows
boots slower than Linux [blogspot.com] (although it's better since
XP [blogspot.com]) Windows
printing stops if you switch to another app [blogspot.com]  Windows
"favorite links" makes login slow [blogspot.com]  Windows
can't open multiple files at once [blogspot.com] (specifically, different
extensions)(the list goes on) ... Doesn't sound like a "superior ecosystem" to me.
But hey, to each his own, I guess.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417155</id>
	<title>Re:What do I owe the user again?</title>
	<author>visible.frylock</author>
	<datestamp>1245608820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, but what do hardware manufacturers owe to people who don't use MS or Apple? What do web devs owe to people who don't use IE?</p><p>Having users buys you drivers and standards. Not that it means you're wrong, just a difference of opinion. Every developer will fall somewhere along the spectrum of "I wish I could use this video card" vs "No, you can not have that icon in cornflower blue."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but what do hardware manufacturers owe to people who do n't use MS or Apple ?
What do web devs owe to people who do n't use IE ? Having users buys you drivers and standards .
Not that it means you 're wrong , just a difference of opinion .
Every developer will fall somewhere along the spectrum of " I wish I could use this video card " vs " No , you can not have that icon in cornflower blue .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but what do hardware manufacturers owe to people who don't use MS or Apple?
What do web devs owe to people who don't use IE?Having users buys you drivers and standards.
Not that it means you're wrong, just a difference of opinion.
Every developer will fall somewhere along the spectrum of "I wish I could use this video card" vs "No, you can not have that icon in cornflower blue.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28418169</id>
	<title>Average user?</title>
	<author>Cyphax</author>
	<datestamp>1245704220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the average user is, say, one of my parents, the answer is probably "no, they are not waiting for innovation". They'll likely appreciate it, but if they are left with a working desktop that doesn't limit them in doing what they want to do, they are happy. Windows XP still suffices for most people, that pretty much sums that up I'd say. The bigger problem is, I think, that those innovations distract from improving existing features to stability, and oftentimes new features are shipped before being mature. Ubuntu, for example, has been pretty bad at this, shipping PulseAudio before it was complete enough to be included in an operating system. The result is that my sound didn't work well at all in the first release PA was included in so I'm left with a desktop that has advanced features and nice innovations... on paper. In reality I have to fiddle around with it to make it work - if I can get it to work at all. Hooking up a monitor to my laptop also doesn't work quite as smoothly as it should (although with Ubuntu 9.04 it does actually work for the first time).</p><p>It takes time to get your software stable, mature. Innovating is nice but if you focus on one, you're probably going to spend no time on the other. Besides, the target audience for innovations isn't quite as large as the target audience that want a stable, working desktop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the average user is , say , one of my parents , the answer is probably " no , they are not waiting for innovation " .
They 'll likely appreciate it , but if they are left with a working desktop that does n't limit them in doing what they want to do , they are happy .
Windows XP still suffices for most people , that pretty much sums that up I 'd say .
The bigger problem is , I think , that those innovations distract from improving existing features to stability , and oftentimes new features are shipped before being mature .
Ubuntu , for example , has been pretty bad at this , shipping PulseAudio before it was complete enough to be included in an operating system .
The result is that my sound did n't work well at all in the first release PA was included in so I 'm left with a desktop that has advanced features and nice innovations... on paper .
In reality I have to fiddle around with it to make it work - if I can get it to work at all .
Hooking up a monitor to my laptop also does n't work quite as smoothly as it should ( although with Ubuntu 9.04 it does actually work for the first time ) .It takes time to get your software stable , mature .
Innovating is nice but if you focus on one , you 're probably going to spend no time on the other .
Besides , the target audience for innovations is n't quite as large as the target audience that want a stable , working desktop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the average user is, say, one of my parents, the answer is probably "no, they are not waiting for innovation".
They'll likely appreciate it, but if they are left with a working desktop that doesn't limit them in doing what they want to do, they are happy.
Windows XP still suffices for most people, that pretty much sums that up I'd say.
The bigger problem is, I think, that those innovations distract from improving existing features to stability, and oftentimes new features are shipped before being mature.
Ubuntu, for example, has been pretty bad at this, shipping PulseAudio before it was complete enough to be included in an operating system.
The result is that my sound didn't work well at all in the first release PA was included in so I'm left with a desktop that has advanced features and nice innovations... on paper.
In reality I have to fiddle around with it to make it work - if I can get it to work at all.
Hooking up a monitor to my laptop also doesn't work quite as smoothly as it should (although with Ubuntu 9.04 it does actually work for the first time).It takes time to get your software stable, mature.
Innovating is nice but if you focus on one, you're probably going to spend no time on the other.
Besides, the target audience for innovations isn't quite as large as the target audience that want a stable, working desktop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414525</id>
	<title>Re:A Benevolent Cat-Herder-for-Life is good for Li</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245586860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately for Linux (which I'd love to see kick ass and take names), Shuttleworth is interested in consensus over quality too often. To do what you're saying, you need a hard-nosed, damn-near-messianic figure who is willing to fight tooth and nail to realize <i>exactly what he wants</i>. This is not really very compatible with open source to begin with, and Shuttleworth is not that guy anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately for Linux ( which I 'd love to see kick ass and take names ) , Shuttleworth is interested in consensus over quality too often .
To do what you 're saying , you need a hard-nosed , damn-near-messianic figure who is willing to fight tooth and nail to realize exactly what he wants .
This is not really very compatible with open source to begin with , and Shuttleworth is not that guy anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately for Linux (which I'd love to see kick ass and take names), Shuttleworth is interested in consensus over quality too often.
To do what you're saying, you need a hard-nosed, damn-near-messianic figure who is willing to fight tooth and nail to realize exactly what he wants.
This is not really very compatible with open source to begin with, and Shuttleworth is not that guy anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28419887</id>
	<title>Voice out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245675840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just tell us what you want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just tell us what you want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just tell us what you want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28425637</id>
	<title>Re:Tough Love</title>
	<author>GMFTatsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1245697260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There were a few games that required C128 mode -- A Mind Forever Voyaging comes to mind -- and as a C64 owner, I greatly envied the C128 crowd when those came out.  But aside from that and CNET-128, which was a BBS that capitalized on the greater memory, there just wasn't *enough* difference between the C64 and C128 for developers to really latch onto.</p><p>The Amiga was a massive new beast, and it captured a lot of Commodore-lovers hearts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There were a few games that required C128 mode -- A Mind Forever Voyaging comes to mind -- and as a C64 owner , I greatly envied the C128 crowd when those came out .
But aside from that and CNET-128 , which was a BBS that capitalized on the greater memory , there just was n't * enough * difference between the C64 and C128 for developers to really latch onto.The Amiga was a massive new beast , and it captured a lot of Commodore-lovers hearts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There were a few games that required C128 mode -- A Mind Forever Voyaging comes to mind -- and as a C64 owner, I greatly envied the C128 crowd when those came out.
But aside from that and CNET-128, which was a BBS that capitalized on the greater memory, there just wasn't *enough* difference between the C64 and C128 for developers to really latch onto.The Amiga was a massive new beast, and it captured a lot of Commodore-lovers hearts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28418179</id>
	<title>Re:This seems a bit backwards</title>
	<author>speedtux</author>
	<datestamp>1245704340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Support forward-thinking projects like Wayland</i></p><p>I don't see anything forward looking about creating a stripped down X server that is incompatible with tens of thousands of applications.  You may not use X11's old 2D graphics functions, but a lot of people still are.  And a lot of people still will be using them for decades to come.   Supporting them isn't hard and doesn't need to take a lot of code.  If you want to do some good, help clean up the X11 codebase, don't start from scratch with something that, when all is said and done, will do less than the current X11 server.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Support forward-thinking projects like WaylandI do n't see anything forward looking about creating a stripped down X server that is incompatible with tens of thousands of applications .
You may not use X11 's old 2D graphics functions , but a lot of people still are .
And a lot of people still will be using them for decades to come .
Supporting them is n't hard and does n't need to take a lot of code .
If you want to do some good , help clean up the X11 codebase , do n't start from scratch with something that , when all is said and done , will do less than the current X11 server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Support forward-thinking projects like WaylandI don't see anything forward looking about creating a stripped down X server that is incompatible with tens of thousands of applications.
You may not use X11's old 2D graphics functions, but a lot of people still are.
And a lot of people still will be using them for decades to come.
Supporting them isn't hard and doesn't need to take a lot of code.
If you want to do some good, help clean up the X11 codebase, don't start from scratch with something that, when all is said and done, will do less than the current X11 server.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415581</id>
	<title>Re:Too Much?</title>
	<author>The\_church\_of\_funzie</author>
	<datestamp>1245597180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"User centric design is the issue. When MS puts clippy in, I don't know how much of that was some developer of pinhead thinking it would be really cook, and how much of it was actually user centric design"<br> <br>
The point I was trying to make is this, if MS spend money on developing code and it's a epic fail, they dump it into another product to prevent calling it a failure, in order to protect themselves from lawsuit from corporate raiders, then they call it "innovation".
Adding many small features, then removing or altering them, or even being able to turn them off, is much more preferable. That's also my beef with Gnome, (there I don't just pick on MS). Not having a ablity to turn off a new feature, or turn on an old feature, is very annoying <br> <br>
"In the end one has to have a system where best practices win over bloat."<br> <br>
True that, luckily Linux still has smaller footprint then Windows, even with all those innovations.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) <br> <br>
"For instance, i know that egos are tied up in the multiple *nix desktops, and all desktops have a right to exist, but significant progress could be made if the community could select on desktop to develop towards, even if means that the solution is imperfect." <br> <br>
Good ideas will be copied from KDE to Gnome and back again, and will include other desktop evironments. Progress is not something you can always predict, natural selection by users of usefull ideas will do that better then most attempts to guess what people will need.
Witness the old Soviet Unions attempts to guess the needs to it's citizens, vs capitalist society being wastefull with multiple manufactures makeing same product with different features. 8)</htmltext>
<tokenext>" User centric design is the issue .
When MS puts clippy in , I do n't know how much of that was some developer of pinhead thinking it would be really cook , and how much of it was actually user centric design " The point I was trying to make is this , if MS spend money on developing code and it 's a epic fail , they dump it into another product to prevent calling it a failure , in order to protect themselves from lawsuit from corporate raiders , then they call it " innovation " .
Adding many small features , then removing or altering them , or even being able to turn them off , is much more preferable .
That 's also my beef with Gnome , ( there I do n't just pick on MS ) .
Not having a ablity to turn off a new feature , or turn on an old feature , is very annoying " In the end one has to have a system where best practices win over bloat .
" True that , luckily Linux still has smaller footprint then Windows , even with all those innovations .
: ) " For instance , i know that egos are tied up in the multiple * nix desktops , and all desktops have a right to exist , but significant progress could be made if the community could select on desktop to develop towards , even if means that the solution is imperfect .
" Good ideas will be copied from KDE to Gnome and back again , and will include other desktop evironments .
Progress is not something you can always predict , natural selection by users of usefull ideas will do that better then most attempts to guess what people will need .
Witness the old Soviet Unions attempts to guess the needs to it 's citizens , vs capitalist society being wastefull with multiple manufactures makeing same product with different features .
8 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"User centric design is the issue.
When MS puts clippy in, I don't know how much of that was some developer of pinhead thinking it would be really cook, and how much of it was actually user centric design" 
The point I was trying to make is this, if MS spend money on developing code and it's a epic fail, they dump it into another product to prevent calling it a failure, in order to protect themselves from lawsuit from corporate raiders, then they call it "innovation".
Adding many small features, then removing or altering them, or even being able to turn them off, is much more preferable.
That's also my beef with Gnome, (there I don't just pick on MS).
Not having a ablity to turn off a new feature, or turn on an old feature, is very annoying  
"In the end one has to have a system where best practices win over bloat.
" 
True that, luckily Linux still has smaller footprint then Windows, even with all those innovations.
:)  
"For instance, i know that egos are tied up in the multiple *nix desktops, and all desktops have a right to exist, but significant progress could be made if the community could select on desktop to develop towards, even if means that the solution is imperfect.
"  
Good ideas will be copied from KDE to Gnome and back again, and will include other desktop evironments.
Progress is not something you can always predict, natural selection by users of usefull ideas will do that better then most attempts to guess what people will need.
Witness the old Soviet Unions attempts to guess the needs to it's citizens, vs capitalist society being wastefull with multiple manufactures makeing same product with different features.
8)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28419989</id>
	<title>Re:That's fine</title>
	<author>Late Adopter</author>
	<datestamp>1245676680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you're close to the actual problem.  It's not that there's a large number of people that want it both ways; it's that there's one group of people that code for themselves, and a separate group of people that want Linux on the Desktop (tm) to succeed.
<br> <br>
A vocal population of enthusiasts and minority of coders is not going to have a visibly large effect on the developers who are happy just to scratch an itch and not worry about market-share.  The answer, it seems, is for that population to get more of their own type coding, which is sort of exactly what the distros do (Red Hat developing NetworkManager, etc).
<br> <br>
It takes time, and you have to accept the fact that you can't force the core devs of any particular project to give a damn about you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're close to the actual problem .
It 's not that there 's a large number of people that want it both ways ; it 's that there 's one group of people that code for themselves , and a separate group of people that want Linux on the Desktop ( tm ) to succeed .
A vocal population of enthusiasts and minority of coders is not going to have a visibly large effect on the developers who are happy just to scratch an itch and not worry about market-share .
The answer , it seems , is for that population to get more of their own type coding , which is sort of exactly what the distros do ( Red Hat developing NetworkManager , etc ) .
It takes time , and you have to accept the fact that you ca n't force the core devs of any particular project to give a damn about you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're close to the actual problem.
It's not that there's a large number of people that want it both ways; it's that there's one group of people that code for themselves, and a separate group of people that want Linux on the Desktop (tm) to succeed.
A vocal population of enthusiasts and minority of coders is not going to have a visibly large effect on the developers who are happy just to scratch an itch and not worry about market-share.
The answer, it seems, is for that population to get more of their own type coding, which is sort of exactly what the distros do (Red Hat developing NetworkManager, etc).
It takes time, and you have to accept the fact that you can't force the core devs of any particular project to give a damn about you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417315</id>
	<title>Bingo - still failing on basic tasks</title>
	<author>bradley13</author>
	<datestamp>1245610260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>"Last I checked, Linux desktops were loaded with exciting new innovative features but failing on extremely basic tasks."</i>

</p><p>That's exactly right. I have yet to administer a linux system where I did not have to hand-edit some file in the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc hierarchy. Changing the boot order, so that the system had found the domain server before accepting logins (which otherwise failed - permanently - you had to reboot the system). Incorrectly configured CD/DVD drives. Write-protected files in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/tmp that stop the boot process. USB-sticks recognized just fine - unless they were plugged in when the system is booted. The list of annoyances goes on and on. As a techie, I can solve them - but I shouldn't have to. For non-technies, they are show-stoppers.

</p><p>On the optimistic side: since Ubuntu came out, things are improving - they are driving Linux in the right direction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Last I checked , Linux desktops were loaded with exciting new innovative features but failing on extremely basic tasks .
" That 's exactly right .
I have yet to administer a linux system where I did not have to hand-edit some file in the /etc hierarchy .
Changing the boot order , so that the system had found the domain server before accepting logins ( which otherwise failed - permanently - you had to reboot the system ) .
Incorrectly configured CD/DVD drives .
Write-protected files in /tmp that stop the boot process .
USB-sticks recognized just fine - unless they were plugged in when the system is booted .
The list of annoyances goes on and on .
As a techie , I can solve them - but I should n't have to .
For non-technies , they are show-stoppers .
On the optimistic side : since Ubuntu came out , things are improving - they are driving Linux in the right direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "Last I checked, Linux desktops were loaded with exciting new innovative features but failing on extremely basic tasks.
"

That's exactly right.
I have yet to administer a linux system where I did not have to hand-edit some file in the /etc hierarchy.
Changing the boot order, so that the system had found the domain server before accepting logins (which otherwise failed - permanently - you had to reboot the system).
Incorrectly configured CD/DVD drives.
Write-protected files in /tmp that stop the boot process.
USB-sticks recognized just fine - unless they were plugged in when the system is booted.
The list of annoyances goes on and on.
As a techie, I can solve them - but I shouldn't have to.
For non-technies, they are show-stoppers.
On the optimistic side: since Ubuntu came out, things are improving - they are driving Linux in the right direction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28419313</id>
	<title>Gnome Shell</title>
	<author>js\_sebastian</author>
	<datestamp>1245671160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was trying to figure out what he is talking about. Specifically, which major desktop redisigns Gnome, KDE, and Ubuntu are planning.
<br> <br>
For kde, the "social desktop" thing, is just a bunch of desktop tools for helping users enter the kde user/developer community. May be cool or not, I don't know, but it's not a redisign of the desktop.
<br> <br>
For gnome, the new thing is the "gnome shell". The screencasts here: <a href="http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Screencasts" title="gnome.org">http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Screencasts</a> [gnome.org] show that it looks pretty cool. I think it may even be useful. But again, from the user's perspective, it's not a radical redisign of the desktop. There are huge changes under the hood, and 3d-desktop effects are leveraged hopefully for something that is not just pretty but also useful.
<br> <br>
About Ubuntu... I don't know what the guy is specifically talking about. The one thing I have seen so far is the new way that Ubuntu does notification icons. And I like it, I think it is much less intrusive than previous ways, and I just wish Thunderbird and Skype and other programs that do things "their own way" would also start using it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was trying to figure out what he is talking about .
Specifically , which major desktop redisigns Gnome , KDE , and Ubuntu are planning .
For kde , the " social desktop " thing , is just a bunch of desktop tools for helping users enter the kde user/developer community .
May be cool or not , I do n't know , but it 's not a redisign of the desktop .
For gnome , the new thing is the " gnome shell " .
The screencasts here : http : //live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Screencasts [ gnome.org ] show that it looks pretty cool .
I think it may even be useful .
But again , from the user 's perspective , it 's not a radical redisign of the desktop .
There are huge changes under the hood , and 3d-desktop effects are leveraged hopefully for something that is not just pretty but also useful .
About Ubuntu... I do n't know what the guy is specifically talking about .
The one thing I have seen so far is the new way that Ubuntu does notification icons .
And I like it , I think it is much less intrusive than previous ways , and I just wish Thunderbird and Skype and other programs that do things " their own way " would also start using it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was trying to figure out what he is talking about.
Specifically, which major desktop redisigns Gnome, KDE, and Ubuntu are planning.
For kde, the "social desktop" thing, is just a bunch of desktop tools for helping users enter the kde user/developer community.
May be cool or not, I don't know, but it's not a redisign of the desktop.
For gnome, the new thing is the "gnome shell".
The screencasts here: http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Screencasts [gnome.org] show that it looks pretty cool.
I think it may even be useful.
But again, from the user's perspective, it's not a radical redisign of the desktop.
There are huge changes under the hood, and 3d-desktop effects are leveraged hopefully for something that is not just pretty but also useful.
About Ubuntu... I don't know what the guy is specifically talking about.
The one thing I have seen so far is the new way that Ubuntu does notification icons.
And I like it, I think it is much less intrusive than previous ways, and I just wish Thunderbird and Skype and other programs that do things "their own way" would also start using it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414295</id>
	<title>Too Much?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245584880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bad features die, good ones remain. The alternative is to shove crap into end users throats. <br>
And when they don't like it continue shoving the way Microsoft did with MS Bob aka Clippy <br>
from MS Office. The big difference here is innovation does not occur without failiure. Open <br>
source can afford to make mistakes. Closed source companies have to add useless and failed <br>
features to their products, otherwise the time spend has been wasted and investors may sue the company.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bad features die , good ones remain .
The alternative is to shove crap into end users throats .
And when they do n't like it continue shoving the way Microsoft did with MS Bob aka Clippy from MS Office .
The big difference here is innovation does not occur without failiure .
Open source can afford to make mistakes .
Closed source companies have to add useless and failed features to their products , otherwise the time spend has been wasted and investors may sue the company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bad features die, good ones remain.
The alternative is to shove crap into end users throats.
And when they don't like it continue shoving the way Microsoft did with MS Bob aka Clippy 
from MS Office.
The big difference here is innovation does not occur without failiure.
Open 
source can afford to make mistakes.
Closed source companies have to add useless and failed 
features to their products, otherwise the time spend has been wasted and investors may sue the company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28418943</id>
	<title>I just switched after 15 years of Windows</title>
	<author>nsebban</author>
	<datestamp>1245668340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just switched to Ubuntu for my home computer last saturday, after 15 years of using pretty much every version of Windows. I'm not new to linux on the server-side, but very new on the desktop side.<br>
<br>
After playing with it for a couple days, I don't see a single piece of innovation. The effects when moving the windows are neat. The package-management GUIs are useful. But that's it. There's nothing in there that isn't on other OSs. So I don't see where the innovation is.<br>
<br>
On the other side, there are many little glitches, many little weird things that make Ubuntu (which IS the "linux Desktop" right now) not as good as Windows. Nothing important, nothing blocking, but annoyances that no other OS wouldn't fix.<br>
<br>
For instance the fact you have to hit the "number lock" key every time you're on the "input your password" screen...there's most likely a fix for that, but then why (and how) would a basic user have to fix that ? There's more, like when you try to find out what's wrong with your sound card, or when your keyboard switches from your setting to another when you start some applications. And there's the copy-paste thing, where the copy part works great but the paste part needs you to figure out if the current app needs you to press the right or the middle button, or in a few cases ctrl-v.<br>
<br>
The Linux Desktop is probably the greatest chance the world has to get away from MS and Apple one day, but right now, as a user, I have to say it's not ready. <b>As 10+ years linux supporter I would love to say it is (even slightly) innovative</b>, but it would be a lie. Right now, it can't really compete with other OSs, seeing how every app beahave in their own way. And you can't call that innovation. MS and Apple got this straight for a while now, probably because it's what matters to the user, even more than the fancy effects.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just switched to Ubuntu for my home computer last saturday , after 15 years of using pretty much every version of Windows .
I 'm not new to linux on the server-side , but very new on the desktop side .
After playing with it for a couple days , I do n't see a single piece of innovation .
The effects when moving the windows are neat .
The package-management GUIs are useful .
But that 's it .
There 's nothing in there that is n't on other OSs .
So I do n't see where the innovation is .
On the other side , there are many little glitches , many little weird things that make Ubuntu ( which IS the " linux Desktop " right now ) not as good as Windows .
Nothing important , nothing blocking , but annoyances that no other OS would n't fix .
For instance the fact you have to hit the " number lock " key every time you 're on the " input your password " screen...there 's most likely a fix for that , but then why ( and how ) would a basic user have to fix that ?
There 's more , like when you try to find out what 's wrong with your sound card , or when your keyboard switches from your setting to another when you start some applications .
And there 's the copy-paste thing , where the copy part works great but the paste part needs you to figure out if the current app needs you to press the right or the middle button , or in a few cases ctrl-v . The Linux Desktop is probably the greatest chance the world has to get away from MS and Apple one day , but right now , as a user , I have to say it 's not ready .
As 10 + years linux supporter I would love to say it is ( even slightly ) innovative , but it would be a lie .
Right now , it ca n't really compete with other OSs , seeing how every app beahave in their own way .
And you ca n't call that innovation .
MS and Apple got this straight for a while now , probably because it 's what matters to the user , even more than the fancy effects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just switched to Ubuntu for my home computer last saturday, after 15 years of using pretty much every version of Windows.
I'm not new to linux on the server-side, but very new on the desktop side.
After playing with it for a couple days, I don't see a single piece of innovation.
The effects when moving the windows are neat.
The package-management GUIs are useful.
But that's it.
There's nothing in there that isn't on other OSs.
So I don't see where the innovation is.
On the other side, there are many little glitches, many little weird things that make Ubuntu (which IS the "linux Desktop" right now) not as good as Windows.
Nothing important, nothing blocking, but annoyances that no other OS wouldn't fix.
For instance the fact you have to hit the "number lock" key every time you're on the "input your password" screen...there's most likely a fix for that, but then why (and how) would a basic user have to fix that ?
There's more, like when you try to find out what's wrong with your sound card, or when your keyboard switches from your setting to another when you start some applications.
And there's the copy-paste thing, where the copy part works great but the paste part needs you to figure out if the current app needs you to press the right or the middle button, or in a few cases ctrl-v.

The Linux Desktop is probably the greatest chance the world has to get away from MS and Apple one day, but right now, as a user, I have to say it's not ready.
As 10+ years linux supporter I would love to say it is (even slightly) innovative, but it would be a lie.
Right now, it can't really compete with other OSs, seeing how every app beahave in their own way.
And you can't call that innovation.
MS and Apple got this straight for a while now, probably because it's what matters to the user, even more than the fancy effects.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414211</id>
	<title>Very Misleading Title for the Topic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245584160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does the Linux Desktop Innovate Too Much?</p></div><p>I think your title is a bit misleading.  When you say "Linux" I think Linux kernel.  Like the Linux operating system itself.  What the blogger goes on to talk about are just GPL software projects that are intimately tied to Linux.  That said, I could install slackware, damn small linux or any number of flavors of Linux that have none of the projects being discussed.  <br> <br>

You can chat all you want about Gnome vs KDE and which one is bloating--trust me, that is not something I'm ever going to take a position on.  I value my life too much.  <br> <br>

I might have missed it but I didn't see anything about people wanting their changes to be <i>seen</i>.  That's probably a big problem and you could spend days optimizing the kernel for a better experience but the average user doesn't see anything.  Or you could add this awesome UI functionality to some windowing framework (compiz fusion?) and suddenly everyone's seeing it.  Pretty obvious what some people might aim for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... <br> <br>

Lastly, I've noticed that some of the more mature products like to move in a even/odd fashion where one release is to stabilize things the next is to add new features the next to stabilize then new features<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ad infinitum.  Even kernel development is done this way I believe.  So you know people like Shuttleworth are trying hard to make this work.  I think the last bit of criticism that's going to help them move forward is "You're innovating <i>too</i> much."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the Linux Desktop Innovate Too Much ? I think your title is a bit misleading .
When you say " Linux " I think Linux kernel .
Like the Linux operating system itself .
What the blogger goes on to talk about are just GPL software projects that are intimately tied to Linux .
That said , I could install slackware , damn small linux or any number of flavors of Linux that have none of the projects being discussed .
You can chat all you want about Gnome vs KDE and which one is bloating--trust me , that is not something I 'm ever going to take a position on .
I value my life too much .
I might have missed it but I did n't see anything about people wanting their changes to be seen .
That 's probably a big problem and you could spend days optimizing the kernel for a better experience but the average user does n't see anything .
Or you could add this awesome UI functionality to some windowing framework ( compiz fusion ?
) and suddenly everyone 's seeing it .
Pretty obvious what some people might aim for .. . Lastly , I 've noticed that some of the more mature products like to move in a even/odd fashion where one release is to stabilize things the next is to add new features the next to stabilize then new features ... ad infinitum .
Even kernel development is done this way I believe .
So you know people like Shuttleworth are trying hard to make this work .
I think the last bit of criticism that 's going to help them move forward is " You 're innovating too much .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the Linux Desktop Innovate Too Much?I think your title is a bit misleading.
When you say "Linux" I think Linux kernel.
Like the Linux operating system itself.
What the blogger goes on to talk about are just GPL software projects that are intimately tied to Linux.
That said, I could install slackware, damn small linux or any number of flavors of Linux that have none of the projects being discussed.
You can chat all you want about Gnome vs KDE and which one is bloating--trust me, that is not something I'm ever going to take a position on.
I value my life too much.
I might have missed it but I didn't see anything about people wanting their changes to be seen.
That's probably a big problem and you could spend days optimizing the kernel for a better experience but the average user doesn't see anything.
Or you could add this awesome UI functionality to some windowing framework (compiz fusion?
) and suddenly everyone's seeing it.
Pretty obvious what some people might aim for ...  

Lastly, I've noticed that some of the more mature products like to move in a even/odd fashion where one release is to stabilize things the next is to add new features the next to stabilize then new features ... ad infinitum.
Even kernel development is done this way I believe.
So you know people like Shuttleworth are trying hard to make this work.
I think the last bit of criticism that's going to help them move forward is "You're innovating too much.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414361</id>
	<title>I remember....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245585420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being terribly annoyed with one of the Linux distro's GUI's because I just couldn't tell when I had something selected, and when not.  Oh, I could tell the difference between the modes when changing them, but I was honestly unsure when I had it enabled and when not.</p><p>Anyway, what's needed is not so much user testing as developer listening.  All the testing in the world won't get you anywhere if nobody is looking through it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being terribly annoyed with one of the Linux distro 's GUI 's because I just could n't tell when I had something selected , and when not .
Oh , I could tell the difference between the modes when changing them , but I was honestly unsure when I had it enabled and when not.Anyway , what 's needed is not so much user testing as developer listening .
All the testing in the world wo n't get you anywhere if nobody is looking through it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being terribly annoyed with one of the Linux distro's GUI's because I just couldn't tell when I had something selected, and when not.
Oh, I could tell the difference between the modes when changing them, but I was honestly unsure when I had it enabled and when not.Anyway, what's needed is not so much user testing as developer listening.
All the testing in the world won't get you anywhere if nobody is looking through it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417401</id>
	<title>Re:This seems a bit backwards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245611280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>X11 is not the problem, Xorg is (or was).  KMS and better autodetection are almost 100\% ready now.  Dropping the X11 protocol at this point would be retarded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>X11 is not the problem , Xorg is ( or was ) .
KMS and better autodetection are almost 100 \ % ready now .
Dropping the X11 protocol at this point would be retarded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>X11 is not the problem, Xorg is (or was).
KMS and better autodetection are almost 100\% ready now.
Dropping the X11 protocol at this point would be retarded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415765</id>
	<title>Sounds Good to Me, Bruce</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1245598860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Free software is still driven by developers working on what interests or concerns them.</i></p><p>That's because the man hours put into building free software are still dominated by software engineers.</p><p><i>Byfield suggests that the answer could be more user testing.</i></p><p>Sounds good to me, Bruce. Please do whatever testing you feel is necessary, document your results clearly, and submit them to the appropriate projects. Most open source projects would be very grateful for your efforts.</p><p>Note: I'm assuming that you are offering to help, Bruce, not just bitching about the outstanding work that others have freely given. I'm sure you would never look this incomprehensibly valuable gift-horse in the mouth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Free software is still driven by developers working on what interests or concerns them.That 's because the man hours put into building free software are still dominated by software engineers.Byfield suggests that the answer could be more user testing.Sounds good to me , Bruce .
Please do whatever testing you feel is necessary , document your results clearly , and submit them to the appropriate projects .
Most open source projects would be very grateful for your efforts.Note : I 'm assuming that you are offering to help , Bruce , not just bitching about the outstanding work that others have freely given .
I 'm sure you would never look this incomprehensibly valuable gift-horse in the mouth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free software is still driven by developers working on what interests or concerns them.That's because the man hours put into building free software are still dominated by software engineers.Byfield suggests that the answer could be more user testing.Sounds good to me, Bruce.
Please do whatever testing you feel is necessary, document your results clearly, and submit them to the appropriate projects.
Most open source projects would be very grateful for your efforts.Note: I'm assuming that you are offering to help, Bruce, not just bitching about the outstanding work that others have freely given.
I'm sure you would never look this incomprehensibly valuable gift-horse in the mouth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415625</id>
	<title>Re:Innovate is the wrong word</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245597540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>     Must have an out-of-date Ubuntu... even with 8.04, you right click on the network thingy (that shows wired &amp; wireless status), choose properties and the goods are all in there.  For server purposes I specify manually though, I do not want to wait until the desktop's logged into for ssh etc. to work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Must have an out-of-date Ubuntu... even with 8.04 , you right click on the network thingy ( that shows wired &amp; wireless status ) , choose properties and the goods are all in there .
For server purposes I specify manually though , I do not want to wait until the desktop 's logged into for ssh etc .
to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>     Must have an out-of-date Ubuntu... even with 8.04, you right click on the network thingy (that shows wired &amp; wireless status), choose properties and the goods are all in there.
For server purposes I specify manually though, I do not want to wait until the desktop's logged into for ssh etc.
to work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416001</id>
	<title>I Prefer the Boredom -- Linux Style</title>
	<author>Captain Climate</author>
	<datestamp>1245600840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Eye Candy is a waste of time to me.  I have grown accustomed to Ubuntu 9.04 boredom.  Other than occasional reboots after an update my laptop simply wakes up whenever I need it, accomplishes whatever I want to do while logged in, and goes back to sleep.  No tinkering required...

That being said...  There is a unique level of choice available to Linux desktop users not available in competitors.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Eye Candy is a waste of time to me .
I have grown accustomed to Ubuntu 9.04 boredom .
Other than occasional reboots after an update my laptop simply wakes up whenever I need it , accomplishes whatever I want to do while logged in , and goes back to sleep .
No tinkering required.. . That being said... There is a unique level of choice available to Linux desktop users not available in competitors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eye Candy is a waste of time to me.
I have grown accustomed to Ubuntu 9.04 boredom.
Other than occasional reboots after an update my laptop simply wakes up whenever I need it, accomplishes whatever I want to do while logged in, and goes back to sleep.
No tinkering required...

That being said...  There is a unique level of choice available to Linux desktop users not available in competitors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28422053</id>
	<title>Re:not really</title>
	<author>ChienAndalu</author>
	<datestamp>1245685200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And listen to music. It amazes me that I, a linux user with 6 years of experience, cannot find a decent music player for linux that is as simple and straightforward as <a href="http://www.foobar2000.org/" title="foobar2000.org">foobar2000</a> [foobar2000.org] for windows. There are dozens of MPD frontends, iTunes clones and too many winamp clones, but they are all either complicated or crashy or bloated</p><p>Yeah I know I should write one myself...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And listen to music .
It amazes me that I , a linux user with 6 years of experience , can not find a decent music player for linux that is as simple and straightforward as foobar2000 [ foobar2000.org ] for windows .
There are dozens of MPD frontends , iTunes clones and too many winamp clones , but they are all either complicated or crashy or bloatedYeah I know I should write one myself.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And listen to music.
It amazes me that I, a linux user with 6 years of experience, cannot find a decent music player for linux that is as simple and straightforward as foobar2000 [foobar2000.org] for windows.
There are dozens of MPD frontends, iTunes clones and too many winamp clones, but they are all either complicated or crashy or bloatedYeah I know I should write one myself...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416039</id>
	<title>Re:Innovate is the wrong word</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245601140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's called nm-applet<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called nm-applet ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called nm-applet ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414259</id>
	<title>Most users don't</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1245584520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All they want is something that will be stable and get the job done, in a consistent manner. Often times the bells and whistles for the sake of having htem just get in the way, and damages consistency making things confusing when they don't need to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All they want is something that will be stable and get the job done , in a consistent manner .
Often times the bells and whistles for the sake of having htem just get in the way , and damages consistency making things confusing when they do n't need to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All they want is something that will be stable and get the job done, in a consistent manner.
Often times the bells and whistles for the sake of having htem just get in the way, and damages consistency making things confusing when they don't need to be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417449</id>
	<title>Yes and No</title>
	<author>twoHats</author>
	<datestamp>1245611640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally, I am both drawn to all of the new and cool things, and repelled by all of the new things to learn and new bugs to deal with.  I am currently running Kubuntu 8.04.2 on both of my laptops, after having tried 8.10 and 9.04.  It seems like the release cycles and the ambition of the design teams are out of whack. <br> <br>

I am always psyked to see a new release, and i can always find a partition to try it out on.  Problem is that my enthusiasm is rarely matched by the offering.  Maybe once every 4 releases or so these days.<br> <br>

I am a huge fan of the 3D (compize) interfaces etc, but it seems that they are not ready for prime time, by which i mean i spend more time fiddling with configuration than using it.<br> <br>

So - Please keep the effort up, I am not complaining.  I am more than happy to get an occasional truly stable release, even if it costs me a few futile stabs in the dark along the way.<br> <br>

Thanks to all involved!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I am both drawn to all of the new and cool things , and repelled by all of the new things to learn and new bugs to deal with .
I am currently running Kubuntu 8.04.2 on both of my laptops , after having tried 8.10 and 9.04 .
It seems like the release cycles and the ambition of the design teams are out of whack .
I am always psyked to see a new release , and i can always find a partition to try it out on .
Problem is that my enthusiasm is rarely matched by the offering .
Maybe once every 4 releases or so these days .
I am a huge fan of the 3D ( compize ) interfaces etc , but it seems that they are not ready for prime time , by which i mean i spend more time fiddling with configuration than using it .
So - Please keep the effort up , I am not complaining .
I am more than happy to get an occasional truly stable release , even if it costs me a few futile stabs in the dark along the way .
Thanks to all involved !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I am both drawn to all of the new and cool things, and repelled by all of the new things to learn and new bugs to deal with.
I am currently running Kubuntu 8.04.2 on both of my laptops, after having tried 8.10 and 9.04.
It seems like the release cycles and the ambition of the design teams are out of whack.
I am always psyked to see a new release, and i can always find a partition to try it out on.
Problem is that my enthusiasm is rarely matched by the offering.
Maybe once every 4 releases or so these days.
I am a huge fan of the 3D (compize) interfaces etc, but it seems that they are not ready for prime time, by which i mean i spend more time fiddling with configuration than using it.
So - Please keep the effort up, I am not complaining.
I am more than happy to get an occasional truly stable release, even if it costs me a few futile stabs in the dark along the way.
Thanks to all involved!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414415</id>
	<title>Re:Continuity is the winning strategy.</title>
	<author>Ed Avis</author>
	<datestamp>1245585960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny - I've usually seen it's the geeks who take the trouble to turn on the 'classic' look and feel in Windows and get rid of all the cloying eye-candy.  Meanwhile non-technical users just stick with the default.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny - I 've usually seen it 's the geeks who take the trouble to turn on the 'classic ' look and feel in Windows and get rid of all the cloying eye-candy .
Meanwhile non-technical users just stick with the default .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny - I've usually seen it's the geeks who take the trouble to turn on the 'classic' look and feel in Windows and get rid of all the cloying eye-candy.
Meanwhile non-technical users just stick with the default.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414761</id>
	<title>But what's missing from tfa?</title>
	<author>julian67</author>
	<datestamp>1245589080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It occurs to me that the author failed to acknowledge the single most interesting recent development in the free desktop which also happened to be completely commercially driven and successful; the interfaces designed for the Acer Aspire and Asus EEE PC netbooks.  They are totally unlike anything produced by Gnome, KDE or shipped by any of the well known distributors.  They are certainly not what most people would want on a home desktop or a big laptop but when you use them as intended, on a device with a small screen and relatively limited expandability, they are very impressive.  They do what a good GUI should do, that is they let the user enjoy the device's capabilities while letting them ignore/forget/not care about what lies underneath. I was quite impressed playing with these things in the local store and I downloaded Linpus Lite to try for real on a regular laptop and I could see that it is extremely well thought out and coherent and nice to use. The people with a strong need and desire to have OEMs ship their product in huge numbers produced something utterly different in concept and execution to KDE and Gnome and it worked well enough for them to ship millions.  It's not just the different desktop concept that is interesting to me, more interesting is seeing how raw commercial incentive takes the same set of tools and drives in a completely different, almost opposite, direction and produces a very well defined and valid solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It occurs to me that the author failed to acknowledge the single most interesting recent development in the free desktop which also happened to be completely commercially driven and successful ; the interfaces designed for the Acer Aspire and Asus EEE PC netbooks .
They are totally unlike anything produced by Gnome , KDE or shipped by any of the well known distributors .
They are certainly not what most people would want on a home desktop or a big laptop but when you use them as intended , on a device with a small screen and relatively limited expandability , they are very impressive .
They do what a good GUI should do , that is they let the user enjoy the device 's capabilities while letting them ignore/forget/not care about what lies underneath .
I was quite impressed playing with these things in the local store and I downloaded Linpus Lite to try for real on a regular laptop and I could see that it is extremely well thought out and coherent and nice to use .
The people with a strong need and desire to have OEMs ship their product in huge numbers produced something utterly different in concept and execution to KDE and Gnome and it worked well enough for them to ship millions .
It 's not just the different desktop concept that is interesting to me , more interesting is seeing how raw commercial incentive takes the same set of tools and drives in a completely different , almost opposite , direction and produces a very well defined and valid solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It occurs to me that the author failed to acknowledge the single most interesting recent development in the free desktop which also happened to be completely commercially driven and successful; the interfaces designed for the Acer Aspire and Asus EEE PC netbooks.
They are totally unlike anything produced by Gnome, KDE or shipped by any of the well known distributors.
They are certainly not what most people would want on a home desktop or a big laptop but when you use them as intended, on a device with a small screen and relatively limited expandability, they are very impressive.
They do what a good GUI should do, that is they let the user enjoy the device's capabilities while letting them ignore/forget/not care about what lies underneath.
I was quite impressed playing with these things in the local store and I downloaded Linpus Lite to try for real on a regular laptop and I could see that it is extremely well thought out and coherent and nice to use.
The people with a strong need and desire to have OEMs ship their product in huge numbers produced something utterly different in concept and execution to KDE and Gnome and it worked well enough for them to ship millions.
It's not just the different desktop concept that is interesting to me, more interesting is seeing how raw commercial incentive takes the same set of tools and drives in a completely different, almost opposite, direction and produces a very well defined and valid solution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414401</id>
	<title>Re:"Free Software" vs "Open Source" vs... whatever</title>
	<author>Elektroschock</author>
	<datestamp>1245585900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your forget the open source development ecosystem which is so much more efficient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your forget the open source development ecosystem which is so much more efficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your forget the open source development ecosystem which is so much more efficient.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417357</id>
	<title>Re:Tough Love</title>
	<author>mqduck</author>
	<datestamp>1245610680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm prefacing this with the fact that I ran Linux as my only OS for a year (SuSE 9) then I switched back to Microsoft. Linux and GNU are a superior development process - inclusive and plural - but Microsoft right now has the superior ecosystem. When everyone uses it everything gets written for it especially entertainment wise.</p></div><p>I just made the switch from Windows to GNU/Linux (Gentoo, to be specific). It was exactly what you imply - lack of game support - that kept be back for years. But the switch is working great for me, because 1) I play the newest games less and less, whereas older games are usually better supported by Wine, and 2) when I *do* want to play a game unsupported by Wine, I have Windows installed on another disk for just such an occasion. If I still spent half my time playing games, maybe I'd feel differently about having to reboot, but I'm extremely happy with my new setup.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The issue was that most 128 owners ran their machine in 64 mode therefore the 128 never caught on as no one would make software for it. I see Wine as having a flavor of that situation</p></div><p>When gaming on Linux finally takes off (maybe I should say "if"), I think it'll start with game developers purposely ensuring Wine compatibility for their games. That might hold back games from being made POSIX-native, but if they run on Wine, who cares?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm prefacing this with the fact that I ran Linux as my only OS for a year ( SuSE 9 ) then I switched back to Microsoft .
Linux and GNU are a superior development process - inclusive and plural - but Microsoft right now has the superior ecosystem .
When everyone uses it everything gets written for it especially entertainment wise.I just made the switch from Windows to GNU/Linux ( Gentoo , to be specific ) .
It was exactly what you imply - lack of game support - that kept be back for years .
But the switch is working great for me , because 1 ) I play the newest games less and less , whereas older games are usually better supported by Wine , and 2 ) when I * do * want to play a game unsupported by Wine , I have Windows installed on another disk for just such an occasion .
If I still spent half my time playing games , maybe I 'd feel differently about having to reboot , but I 'm extremely happy with my new setup.The issue was that most 128 owners ran their machine in 64 mode therefore the 128 never caught on as no one would make software for it .
I see Wine as having a flavor of that situationWhen gaming on Linux finally takes off ( maybe I should say " if " ) , I think it 'll start with game developers purposely ensuring Wine compatibility for their games .
That might hold back games from being made POSIX-native , but if they run on Wine , who cares ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm prefacing this with the fact that I ran Linux as my only OS for a year (SuSE 9) then I switched back to Microsoft.
Linux and GNU are a superior development process - inclusive and plural - but Microsoft right now has the superior ecosystem.
When everyone uses it everything gets written for it especially entertainment wise.I just made the switch from Windows to GNU/Linux (Gentoo, to be specific).
It was exactly what you imply - lack of game support - that kept be back for years.
But the switch is working great for me, because 1) I play the newest games less and less, whereas older games are usually better supported by Wine, and 2) when I *do* want to play a game unsupported by Wine, I have Windows installed on another disk for just such an occasion.
If I still spent half my time playing games, maybe I'd feel differently about having to reboot, but I'm extremely happy with my new setup.The issue was that most 128 owners ran their machine in 64 mode therefore the 128 never caught on as no one would make software for it.
I see Wine as having a flavor of that situationWhen gaming on Linux finally takes off (maybe I should say "if"), I think it'll start with game developers purposely ensuring Wine compatibility for their games.
That might hold back games from being made POSIX-native, but if they run on Wine, who cares?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28418769</id>
	<title>Re:Tough Love</title>
	<author>bmatt17</author>
	<datestamp>1245666660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"How does Free go about breaking this lock-in?" <br> <br>

This is my only problem with Linux right now and I'm currently using Ubuntu as my main desktop with Win 7 as backup. I would absolutely love to abandon Windows completely but there just always seems to be something that I need/want that won't work, but I don't see how it's a fault of the OS, therefore don't see a way to make it better.<br> <br>

Currently my issue is with Netflix, and the watch instantly that requires Silverlight. I've tried moonlight, installing Firefox under Wine but nothing seems to work. Now I know this is a fault of Netflix or DRM and not Linux, but it doesn't change the fact that something I want and pay for I can't use w/out Windows.<br> <br>

So "How does Free go about breaking this lock-in?" as to me this seems like the #1 issue that will keep Linux from acquiring more users. The developers could clone the look and feel of Windows 7, release it for free and it won't take off, if people can't use it for what they want.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" How does Free go about breaking this lock-in ?
" This is my only problem with Linux right now and I 'm currently using Ubuntu as my main desktop with Win 7 as backup .
I would absolutely love to abandon Windows completely but there just always seems to be something that I need/want that wo n't work , but I do n't see how it 's a fault of the OS , therefore do n't see a way to make it better .
Currently my issue is with Netflix , and the watch instantly that requires Silverlight .
I 've tried moonlight , installing Firefox under Wine but nothing seems to work .
Now I know this is a fault of Netflix or DRM and not Linux , but it does n't change the fact that something I want and pay for I ca n't use w/out Windows .
So " How does Free go about breaking this lock-in ?
" as to me this seems like the # 1 issue that will keep Linux from acquiring more users .
The developers could clone the look and feel of Windows 7 , release it for free and it wo n't take off , if people ca n't use it for what they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"How does Free go about breaking this lock-in?
"  

This is my only problem with Linux right now and I'm currently using Ubuntu as my main desktop with Win 7 as backup.
I would absolutely love to abandon Windows completely but there just always seems to be something that I need/want that won't work, but I don't see how it's a fault of the OS, therefore don't see a way to make it better.
Currently my issue is with Netflix, and the watch instantly that requires Silverlight.
I've tried moonlight, installing Firefox under Wine but nothing seems to work.
Now I know this is a fault of Netflix or DRM and not Linux, but it doesn't change the fact that something I want and pay for I can't use w/out Windows.
So "How does Free go about breaking this lock-in?
" as to me this seems like the #1 issue that will keep Linux from acquiring more users.
The developers could clone the look and feel of Windows 7, release it for free and it won't take off, if people can't use it for what they want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417937</id>
	<title>Re:This seems a bit backwards</title>
	<author>dkf</author>
	<datestamp>1245702060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>* Support forward-thinking projects like Wayland instead of putting another car on the fail-train that is X. X is architecturally inferior to WindowServer and Windows' display layer for desktop-oriented tasks. A simplified windowing system that puts graphics first and drops the cruft would go a long way in making linux seem modern and easy to maintain.</p></div><p>X is superior in one critical way. It has a butt-load more apps (especially commercial apps) than Wayland does. You might not care about this, but a heck of a lot of users and businesses do.</p><p>(Which isn't to say that X isn't bloaty. It just happens to win in the area where 99\% of everyone gives a shit.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>* Support forward-thinking projects like Wayland instead of putting another car on the fail-train that is X. X is architecturally inferior to WindowServer and Windows ' display layer for desktop-oriented tasks .
A simplified windowing system that puts graphics first and drops the cruft would go a long way in making linux seem modern and easy to maintain.X is superior in one critical way .
It has a butt-load more apps ( especially commercial apps ) than Wayland does .
You might not care about this , but a heck of a lot of users and businesses do .
( Which is n't to say that X is n't bloaty .
It just happens to win in the area where 99 \ % of everyone gives a shit .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* Support forward-thinking projects like Wayland instead of putting another car on the fail-train that is X. X is architecturally inferior to WindowServer and Windows' display layer for desktop-oriented tasks.
A simplified windowing system that puts graphics first and drops the cruft would go a long way in making linux seem modern and easy to maintain.X is superior in one critical way.
It has a butt-load more apps (especially commercial apps) than Wayland does.
You might not care about this, but a heck of a lot of users and businesses do.
(Which isn't to say that X isn't bloaty.
It just happens to win in the area where 99\% of everyone gives a shit.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415563</id>
	<title>Too much?</title>
	<author>Nekomusume</author>
	<datestamp>1245597000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, I don't think there's too much innovation... but it is in the wrong places.</p><p>Why no innovate solutions to the long-running problems that have been there for years?</p><p>For example, the the demented belief that everything should be configured by editing poorly- or un-commented text files. Or the related godawful mess that linux pretends is "documentation".</p><p>Various people in this thread have brought up a wide variety of basic functions that linux has had deep issues with for years, but that work well enough tat the dedicated few can get around.</p><p>Any linux distrobution that is being aimed at the average user, as opposed to the existing linux crowd NEEDS to focus more on the basics. Especially the under-the-hood stuff that nobody really sees when it's working right, but is a catastrophic mess for a normal user when it goes wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , I do n't think there 's too much innovation... but it is in the wrong places.Why no innovate solutions to the long-running problems that have been there for years ? For example , the the demented belief that everything should be configured by editing poorly- or un-commented text files .
Or the related godawful mess that linux pretends is " documentation " .Various people in this thread have brought up a wide variety of basic functions that linux has had deep issues with for years , but that work well enough tat the dedicated few can get around.Any linux distrobution that is being aimed at the average user , as opposed to the existing linux crowd NEEDS to focus more on the basics .
Especially the under-the-hood stuff that nobody really sees when it 's working right , but is a catastrophic mess for a normal user when it goes wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, I don't think there's too much innovation... but it is in the wrong places.Why no innovate solutions to the long-running problems that have been there for years?For example, the the demented belief that everything should be configured by editing poorly- or un-commented text files.
Or the related godawful mess that linux pretends is "documentation".Various people in this thread have brought up a wide variety of basic functions that linux has had deep issues with for years, but that work well enough tat the dedicated few can get around.Any linux distrobution that is being aimed at the average user, as opposed to the existing linux crowd NEEDS to focus more on the basics.
Especially the under-the-hood stuff that nobody really sees when it's working right, but is a catastrophic mess for a normal user when it goes wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28421645</id>
	<title>The title is fine, the topic is awesome</title>
	<author>Murdoch5</author>
	<datestamp>1245683880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This article brings up a good point, Does the GNU/Linux desktop try to inovate to much, well I don't think so.   It's a simple break down when you compair Gnome and KDE at least for what they offer a normal user face value.  On the KDE side you have a very sleek indepth overall style.  On the Gnome side you have a very nice toned down working style.
<br>
<br>
On a personal note I don't like KDE, I' a Gnome fan and I've been for years.  I don't see the place of having extra graphical effects on the desktop, It's one of the sole reasons I hate Windows (Among there other long list of faliure).  If you take a look at what a normal user wants to see just ask your computer basic user sister or mom.  In my case my girl friend and sister and brother all want the same thing and thats to "look good".  Most users don't case what is under the hood running the show and hence why the Windows OS has been so sucessful.  The rest of us actually do care what runs the system and so we take little notice to what UI would work for us.  As far as I'm concerned I just need a functional desktop enviroment to get the job done and thats Gnome.
<br>
<br>
If you want to bring up the other long list of inovations you'd be wasting your time.  Sure Gnome and KDE were doing things far before Microsoft ever touched them but does that matter.  Inovation is a good thing and it can lead to great computer experiance but theres's no point agruing at lenght about it.  In the end it's what works for you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This article brings up a good point , Does the GNU/Linux desktop try to inovate to much , well I do n't think so .
It 's a simple break down when you compair Gnome and KDE at least for what they offer a normal user face value .
On the KDE side you have a very sleek indepth overall style .
On the Gnome side you have a very nice toned down working style .
On a personal note I do n't like KDE , I ' a Gnome fan and I 've been for years .
I do n't see the place of having extra graphical effects on the desktop , It 's one of the sole reasons I hate Windows ( Among there other long list of faliure ) .
If you take a look at what a normal user wants to see just ask your computer basic user sister or mom .
In my case my girl friend and sister and brother all want the same thing and thats to " look good " .
Most users do n't case what is under the hood running the show and hence why the Windows OS has been so sucessful .
The rest of us actually do care what runs the system and so we take little notice to what UI would work for us .
As far as I 'm concerned I just need a functional desktop enviroment to get the job done and thats Gnome .
If you want to bring up the other long list of inovations you 'd be wasting your time .
Sure Gnome and KDE were doing things far before Microsoft ever touched them but does that matter .
Inovation is a good thing and it can lead to great computer experiance but theres 's no point agruing at lenght about it .
In the end it 's what works for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article brings up a good point, Does the GNU/Linux desktop try to inovate to much, well I don't think so.
It's a simple break down when you compair Gnome and KDE at least for what they offer a normal user face value.
On the KDE side you have a very sleek indepth overall style.
On the Gnome side you have a very nice toned down working style.
On a personal note I don't like KDE, I' a Gnome fan and I've been for years.
I don't see the place of having extra graphical effects on the desktop, It's one of the sole reasons I hate Windows (Among there other long list of faliure).
If you take a look at what a normal user wants to see just ask your computer basic user sister or mom.
In my case my girl friend and sister and brother all want the same thing and thats to "look good".
Most users don't case what is under the hood running the show and hence why the Windows OS has been so sucessful.
The rest of us actually do care what runs the system and so we take little notice to what UI would work for us.
As far as I'm concerned I just need a functional desktop enviroment to get the job done and thats Gnome.
If you want to bring up the other long list of inovations you'd be wasting your time.
Sure Gnome and KDE were doing things far before Microsoft ever touched them but does that matter.
Inovation is a good thing and it can lead to great computer experiance but theres's no point agruing at lenght about it.
In the end it's what works for you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415507</id>
	<title>Old argument used time and time against developers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245596520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the argument: your users are stupid and they don't want what you want.</p><p>That's actually a false argument.  Yes, you can dumb a product down to be very basic (windows), but the majority of the users will eventually realize that (move to OS X) and it will hurt you.</p><p>Never underestimate the sophistication of your users.  Its not advanced features that turn them off, it is unfamiliarity.  You can't make something more desirable by making it too simple, and there isn't a whole lot you can do to counter unfamiliarity.... It takes time.  Meanwhile, people will claim that you are making too many innovations...ignore them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the argument : your users are stupid and they do n't want what you want.That 's actually a false argument .
Yes , you can dumb a product down to be very basic ( windows ) , but the majority of the users will eventually realize that ( move to OS X ) and it will hurt you.Never underestimate the sophistication of your users .
Its not advanced features that turn them off , it is unfamiliarity .
You ca n't make something more desirable by making it too simple , and there is n't a whole lot you can do to counter unfamiliarity.... It takes time .
Meanwhile , people will claim that you are making too many innovations...ignore them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the argument: your users are stupid and they don't want what you want.That's actually a false argument.
Yes, you can dumb a product down to be very basic (windows), but the majority of the users will eventually realize that (move to OS X) and it will hurt you.Never underestimate the sophistication of your users.
Its not advanced features that turn them off, it is unfamiliarity.
You can't make something more desirable by making it too simple, and there isn't a whole lot you can do to counter unfamiliarity.... It takes time.
Meanwhile, people will claim that you are making too many innovations...ignore them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417131</id>
	<title>Re:Queer eye for the linux desktop?</title>
	<author>comm2k</author>
	<datestamp>1245608700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Another one:<br>
<a href="http://projects.gnome.org/rhythmbox/screenshots/rb-auto-playlist.png" title="gnome.org">http://projects.gnome.org/rhythmbox/screenshots/rb-auto-playlist.png</a> [gnome.org]
<br>
Why do I have to click on the speaker icon to adjust the volume? This is GNOME with all their HIG and make everything simple arguments! I know if I had a wheel mouse I could hover over it and scroll BUT why should I have to? Perfectly fine example of not getting it - I mean this is a dedicated music player and one of the most important control elements is sort of hidden.<br> <br>
Definately innovating too much...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another one : http : //projects.gnome.org/rhythmbox/screenshots/rb-auto-playlist.png [ gnome.org ] Why do I have to click on the speaker icon to adjust the volume ?
This is GNOME with all their HIG and make everything simple arguments !
I know if I had a wheel mouse I could hover over it and scroll BUT why should I have to ?
Perfectly fine example of not getting it - I mean this is a dedicated music player and one of the most important control elements is sort of hidden .
Definately innovating too much.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another one:
http://projects.gnome.org/rhythmbox/screenshots/rb-auto-playlist.png [gnome.org]

Why do I have to click on the speaker icon to adjust the volume?
This is GNOME with all their HIG and make everything simple arguments!
I know if I had a wheel mouse I could hover over it and scroll BUT why should I have to?
Perfectly fine example of not getting it - I mean this is a dedicated music player and one of the most important control elements is sort of hidden.
Definately innovating too much...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414333</id>
	<title>"Free Software" vs "Open Source" vs... whatever</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245585240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I think of Free Software, I generally think of the community were the developers are the users are the developers.  "Open Source" still smacks of the buzzwordism of the late-90s, getting corps. to invest in opening code under the assumption that they'll be able to get free work out of some sort of "community" while lowering their development costs.<br><br>What's wrong with the developers working on what the developers are interested in?  If I (the royal 'I' here), am not being paid for my time or more code, then "users" should just be glad that 'I' have decided to make the fruits of my labor available to them, too.  Perhaps I just don't get this mentality that it's some sort of competition between 'Linux' and Microsoft and Apple, and that we have to compete for desktop marketshare for some stupid ass reason.  I just don't really see it as that big of a deal.  Maybe for a company like RedHat, it is, but that's not me.<br><br>The concept that the developers are 'innovating too much' and 'alienating the user base' just seems akin to someone crashing a frat party and then complaining that all they're allowed to drink is the Beast.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I think of Free Software , I generally think of the community were the developers are the users are the developers .
" Open Source " still smacks of the buzzwordism of the late-90s , getting corps .
to invest in opening code under the assumption that they 'll be able to get free work out of some sort of " community " while lowering their development costs.What 's wrong with the developers working on what the developers are interested in ?
If I ( the royal 'I ' here ) , am not being paid for my time or more code , then " users " should just be glad that 'I ' have decided to make the fruits of my labor available to them , too .
Perhaps I just do n't get this mentality that it 's some sort of competition between 'Linux ' and Microsoft and Apple , and that we have to compete for desktop marketshare for some stupid ass reason .
I just do n't really see it as that big of a deal .
Maybe for a company like RedHat , it is , but that 's not me.The concept that the developers are 'innovating too much ' and 'alienating the user base ' just seems akin to someone crashing a frat party and then complaining that all they 're allowed to drink is the Beast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I think of Free Software, I generally think of the community were the developers are the users are the developers.
"Open Source" still smacks of the buzzwordism of the late-90s, getting corps.
to invest in opening code under the assumption that they'll be able to get free work out of some sort of "community" while lowering their development costs.What's wrong with the developers working on what the developers are interested in?
If I (the royal 'I' here), am not being paid for my time or more code, then "users" should just be glad that 'I' have decided to make the fruits of my labor available to them, too.
Perhaps I just don't get this mentality that it's some sort of competition between 'Linux' and Microsoft and Apple, and that we have to compete for desktop marketshare for some stupid ass reason.
I just don't really see it as that big of a deal.
Maybe for a company like RedHat, it is, but that's not me.The concept that the developers are 'innovating too much' and 'alienating the user base' just seems akin to someone crashing a frat party and then complaining that all they're allowed to drink is the Beast.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414871</id>
	<title>Re:Continuity is the winning strategy.</title>
	<author>mauriatm</author>
	<datestamp>1245589980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Funny - I've usually seen it's the geeks who take the trouble to turn on the 'classic' look and feel in Windows and get rid of all the cloying eye-candy.  Meanwhile non-technical users just stick with the default.</p></div><p>That's the power of the <em>"default"</em> which is a big deal as well.  Most non-technical people don't even realize such options exist or that you do not have to use the default. To be fair though, to Microsoft's credit, often the default is <em>good enough</em> and many don't even care to change it because it will typically allow one to get the job done.  Some might say this is NOT the case with some recent changes in Linux desktop environments.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny - I 've usually seen it 's the geeks who take the trouble to turn on the 'classic ' look and feel in Windows and get rid of all the cloying eye-candy .
Meanwhile non-technical users just stick with the default.That 's the power of the " default " which is a big deal as well .
Most non-technical people do n't even realize such options exist or that you do not have to use the default .
To be fair though , to Microsoft 's credit , often the default is good enough and many do n't even care to change it because it will typically allow one to get the job done .
Some might say this is NOT the case with some recent changes in Linux desktop environments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny - I've usually seen it's the geeks who take the trouble to turn on the 'classic' look and feel in Windows and get rid of all the cloying eye-candy.
Meanwhile non-technical users just stick with the default.That's the power of the "default" which is a big deal as well.
Most non-technical people don't even realize such options exist or that you do not have to use the default.
To be fair though, to Microsoft's credit, often the default is good enough and many don't even care to change it because it will typically allow one to get the job done.
Some might say this is NOT the case with some recent changes in Linux desktop environments.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28427917</id>
	<title>Re:A Benevolent Cat-Herder-for-Life is good for Li</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245661800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(Having said that, I'm obliged to point out that Fedora devs have made huge pre-Ubuntu contributions to stuff that "just works" for users, like NetworkManager.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...)</p></div><p>Did you mean to say "just doesn't work"? Or have you not used NetworkManager with DHCP on Ubuntu lately?</p><p>User: WTF did my connection just die?<br>Buried in the logs: NetworkMangler says "Oh, I'm sorry I didn't realize you were using that TCP connection, but I gave you a shiny new IP address. I hope you like it, because I'm going to keep giving you a new one every 12 hours." NetworkManager can FOAD.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( Having said that , I 'm obliged to point out that Fedora devs have made huge pre-Ubuntu contributions to stuff that " just works " for users , like NetworkManager .
... ) Did you mean to say " just does n't work " ?
Or have you not used NetworkManager with DHCP on Ubuntu lately ? User : WTF did my connection just die ? Buried in the logs : NetworkMangler says " Oh , I 'm sorry I did n't realize you were using that TCP connection , but I gave you a shiny new IP address .
I hope you like it , because I 'm going to keep giving you a new one every 12 hours .
" NetworkManager can FOAD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Having said that, I'm obliged to point out that Fedora devs have made huge pre-Ubuntu contributions to stuff that "just works" for users, like NetworkManager.
...)Did you mean to say "just doesn't work"?
Or have you not used NetworkManager with DHCP on Ubuntu lately?User: WTF did my connection just die?Buried in the logs: NetworkMangler says "Oh, I'm sorry I didn't realize you were using that TCP connection, but I gave you a shiny new IP address.
I hope you like it, because I'm going to keep giving you a new one every 12 hours.
" NetworkManager can FOAD.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414629</id>
	<title>Users should expect to have a say if they pay</title>
	<author>ploppy</author>
	<datestamp>1245587760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Free software is still driven by developers working on what interests or concerns them.</i></p><p>If it is being developed in the developer's free time then this should be expected,  The software is effectively a hobby which the developer enjoys and users benefit from.  Innovation is enjoyable, maintenance isn't, and users if they aren't paying should expect this.  If they want reliable long term maintenance (or any other "boring" issues) they should consider playing for support, like in any normal business relationship,</p><p>If I (as a spare-time software developer) gets asked to do something I'm not interested in, I may not refuse, but it gets placed at the end of a priority sorted list, and it can stay there for a long time.  However, If I can see that it is of use to a large amount of users I will usually do it, but it is as a favour and it shouldn't be expected (I get annoyed when I feel this is the case).</p><p>Why should a developer be expected to do something users want, if the developer has no interest in it, and the users aren't willing to pay or at least make a donation?  It's not expected in other aspects of life, and so I don't understand why it is increasingly being expected in free software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Free software is still driven by developers working on what interests or concerns them.If it is being developed in the developer 's free time then this should be expected , The software is effectively a hobby which the developer enjoys and users benefit from .
Innovation is enjoyable , maintenance is n't , and users if they are n't paying should expect this .
If they want reliable long term maintenance ( or any other " boring " issues ) they should consider playing for support , like in any normal business relationship,If I ( as a spare-time software developer ) gets asked to do something I 'm not interested in , I may not refuse , but it gets placed at the end of a priority sorted list , and it can stay there for a long time .
However , If I can see that it is of use to a large amount of users I will usually do it , but it is as a favour and it should n't be expected ( I get annoyed when I feel this is the case ) .Why should a developer be expected to do something users want , if the developer has no interest in it , and the users are n't willing to pay or at least make a donation ?
It 's not expected in other aspects of life , and so I do n't understand why it is increasingly being expected in free software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free software is still driven by developers working on what interests or concerns them.If it is being developed in the developer's free time then this should be expected,  The software is effectively a hobby which the developer enjoys and users benefit from.
Innovation is enjoyable, maintenance isn't, and users if they aren't paying should expect this.
If they want reliable long term maintenance (or any other "boring" issues) they should consider playing for support, like in any normal business relationship,If I (as a spare-time software developer) gets asked to do something I'm not interested in, I may not refuse, but it gets placed at the end of a priority sorted list, and it can stay there for a long time.
However, If I can see that it is of use to a large amount of users I will usually do it, but it is as a favour and it shouldn't be expected (I get annoyed when I feel this is the case).Why should a developer be expected to do something users want, if the developer has no interest in it, and the users aren't willing to pay or at least make a donation?
It's not expected in other aspects of life, and so I don't understand why it is increasingly being expected in free software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415333</id>
	<title>Queer eye for the linux desktop?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245594540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slightly tangential, but having sent several bug reports regarding ugly interfaces, I ponder tying them together in something like a constructive criticism blog; some random recent examples being <a href="http://shishnet.org/ufufuf/kde\_pixels.jpg" title="shishnet.org">an official KDE4 screenshot showing how "good" it looks</a> [shishnet.org], <a href="http://shishnet.org/ufufuf/inconsistent.png" title="shishnet.org">the default mythbuntu theme (yes, all these styles are a single theme)</a> [shishnet.org], and <a href="http://shishnet.org/ufufuf/music.png" title="shishnet.org">some things which are just plain ugly</a> [shishnet.org].

</p><p>Good idea / bad idea? Would anybody benefit from a collection of "what not to do"'s? Anybody interested in writing up some criticisms of their own?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slightly tangential , but having sent several bug reports regarding ugly interfaces , I ponder tying them together in something like a constructive criticism blog ; some random recent examples being an official KDE4 screenshot showing how " good " it looks [ shishnet.org ] , the default mythbuntu theme ( yes , all these styles are a single theme ) [ shishnet.org ] , and some things which are just plain ugly [ shishnet.org ] .
Good idea / bad idea ?
Would anybody benefit from a collection of " what not to do " 's ?
Anybody interested in writing up some criticisms of their own ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slightly tangential, but having sent several bug reports regarding ugly interfaces, I ponder tying them together in something like a constructive criticism blog; some random recent examples being an official KDE4 screenshot showing how "good" it looks [shishnet.org], the default mythbuntu theme (yes, all these styles are a single theme) [shishnet.org], and some things which are just plain ugly [shishnet.org].
Good idea / bad idea?
Would anybody benefit from a collection of "what not to do"'s?
Anybody interested in writing up some criticisms of their own?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28421517</id>
	<title>Desktop wars - The users are the casualty</title>
	<author>Wubby</author>
	<datestamp>1245683460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have been a user of KDE since 2.0 running it on Solaris.  Every release got better, giving user more tools, better control and an easier experience.  When Gnome was dumbing down their interface, KDE stuck to the idea that users wanted control and I was one of those users.</p><p>Now we have 4.x.  Major features are gone/not implemented, control is lost/not implemented and the tools are so different to the point that they can hardly be called the same app. (Konsole for one).</p><p>Innovation is important and it's the one thing that Desktop OSS is known for, but the stigma of making software that isn't really usable or having a development cycle that isn't reliable is well deserved.  KDE is pulling a "Vista" with 4.X, but buggier and an even bigger difference between versions.  Hell, it an entire philosophical shift.</p><p>I guess I don't share it. It's too bad, because I don't honestly expect KDE to survive it either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been a user of KDE since 2.0 running it on Solaris .
Every release got better , giving user more tools , better control and an easier experience .
When Gnome was dumbing down their interface , KDE stuck to the idea that users wanted control and I was one of those users.Now we have 4.x .
Major features are gone/not implemented , control is lost/not implemented and the tools are so different to the point that they can hardly be called the same app .
( Konsole for one ) .Innovation is important and it 's the one thing that Desktop OSS is known for , but the stigma of making software that is n't really usable or having a development cycle that is n't reliable is well deserved .
KDE is pulling a " Vista " with 4.X , but buggier and an even bigger difference between versions .
Hell , it an entire philosophical shift.I guess I do n't share it .
It 's too bad , because I do n't honestly expect KDE to survive it either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been a user of KDE since 2.0 running it on Solaris.
Every release got better, giving user more tools, better control and an easier experience.
When Gnome was dumbing down their interface, KDE stuck to the idea that users wanted control and I was one of those users.Now we have 4.x.
Major features are gone/not implemented, control is lost/not implemented and the tools are so different to the point that they can hardly be called the same app.
(Konsole for one).Innovation is important and it's the one thing that Desktop OSS is known for, but the stigma of making software that isn't really usable or having a development cycle that isn't reliable is well deserved.
KDE is pulling a "Vista" with 4.X, but buggier and an even bigger difference between versions.
Hell, it an entire philosophical shift.I guess I don't share it.
It's too bad, because I don't honestly expect KDE to survive it either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28419329</id>
	<title>Re:"Free Software" vs "Open Source" vs... whatever</title>
	<author>backwardMechanic</author>
	<datestamp>1245671280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd like to agree with you, but there is strength in numbers.

Ubuntu may not get worse on your laptop for lack of market share, but it could get a whole lot better if the share increases. Drivers spring to mind first, but software is another problem. I am tied to Windows at work because certain software packages I use are not available under Linux. If Linux had 25\% market share (or whatever random point==significant), there would be a reasonable chance of getting those packages ported. Currently there isn't.

We could argue all day about what compete should mean, but a larger userbase is a good thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to agree with you , but there is strength in numbers .
Ubuntu may not get worse on your laptop for lack of market share , but it could get a whole lot better if the share increases .
Drivers spring to mind first , but software is another problem .
I am tied to Windows at work because certain software packages I use are not available under Linux .
If Linux had 25 \ % market share ( or whatever random point = = significant ) , there would be a reasonable chance of getting those packages ported .
Currently there is n't .
We could argue all day about what compete should mean , but a larger userbase is a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to agree with you, but there is strength in numbers.
Ubuntu may not get worse on your laptop for lack of market share, but it could get a whole lot better if the share increases.
Drivers spring to mind first, but software is another problem.
I am tied to Windows at work because certain software packages I use are not available under Linux.
If Linux had 25\% market share (or whatever random point==significant), there would be a reasonable chance of getting those packages ported.
Currently there isn't.
We could argue all day about what compete should mean, but a larger userbase is a good thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415633</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415369</id>
	<title>Let's see what too much innovation might look like</title>
	<author>Zigurd</author>
	<datestamp>1245595080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google adopted a unique graphics stack, unique IPC, a little-used libc, etc., installed a Java-based managed language system with unique UI classes, replaced the whole suite of UI applications, and sold a million Androids and will sell millions more on the 18 more handsets due this year. Contrast that with the incremental approach taken by Nokia in the 8XX devices with GTK-based Hildon. Or, contrast with Microsoft's approach of not getting rid of C++ as a language for the userland of Windows Mobile once they put C# and NETCF on it. Microsoft could have had an system very like Android 6 or 7 years ahead. They didn't innovate enough.</p><p>What that shows is that the desktop Linux userland is still in such an embryonic state that all prior approaches can, still, be replaced by something better. Android applications will likely be able to run on Linux desktops, soon, and some "smartbook" form-factor devices will run the Android UI as the sytem's principal UI framework.</p><p>Palm Pre innovates enough. Android innovates enough. There is a lot to be said for incrementally polishing and evolving the Linux desktop, but it hardly innovates too much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google adopted a unique graphics stack , unique IPC , a little-used libc , etc. , installed a Java-based managed language system with unique UI classes , replaced the whole suite of UI applications , and sold a million Androids and will sell millions more on the 18 more handsets due this year .
Contrast that with the incremental approach taken by Nokia in the 8XX devices with GTK-based Hildon .
Or , contrast with Microsoft 's approach of not getting rid of C + + as a language for the userland of Windows Mobile once they put C # and NETCF on it .
Microsoft could have had an system very like Android 6 or 7 years ahead .
They did n't innovate enough.What that shows is that the desktop Linux userland is still in such an embryonic state that all prior approaches can , still , be replaced by something better .
Android applications will likely be able to run on Linux desktops , soon , and some " smartbook " form-factor devices will run the Android UI as the sytem 's principal UI framework.Palm Pre innovates enough .
Android innovates enough .
There is a lot to be said for incrementally polishing and evolving the Linux desktop , but it hardly innovates too much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google adopted a unique graphics stack, unique IPC, a little-used libc, etc., installed a Java-based managed language system with unique UI classes, replaced the whole suite of UI applications, and sold a million Androids and will sell millions more on the 18 more handsets due this year.
Contrast that with the incremental approach taken by Nokia in the 8XX devices with GTK-based Hildon.
Or, contrast with Microsoft's approach of not getting rid of C++ as a language for the userland of Windows Mobile once they put C# and NETCF on it.
Microsoft could have had an system very like Android 6 or 7 years ahead.
They didn't innovate enough.What that shows is that the desktop Linux userland is still in such an embryonic state that all prior approaches can, still, be replaced by something better.
Android applications will likely be able to run on Linux desktops, soon, and some "smartbook" form-factor devices will run the Android UI as the sytem's principal UI framework.Palm Pre innovates enough.
Android innovates enough.
There is a lot to be said for incrementally polishing and evolving the Linux desktop, but it hardly innovates too much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417151</id>
	<title>Re:yet another implicit "oh noes, not windowz" ran</title>
	<author>demachina</author>
	<datestamp>1245608820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"For example, the author criticizes KDE for the audacity of thinking about implementing social networking features into the desktop."</p><p>Actually as far as I'm concerned the absolute last thing I want anyone to be implementing in my desktop is "social networking".  Social networking should be an application that people who want to use social networking should run from the desktop or in a browser but in no way, shape or form should it be "integrated" in to my desktop.  That would be a case of a developer making a choice for me he shouldn't be making.</p><p>I've used Linux as my primary desktop for more than ten years and KDE for many of those, I mostly loved KDE 3.x.  It appears there are probably myriad reason for what happened in KDE 4.x, I blame Trolltech and Qt 4.x for forcing a major rewrite in particular, but all I can say is whatever happened it turned my stomach and helped finish me with Linux on the desktop.  KDE 4.0 was to Linux what Vista was to Windows for me.</p><p>Certainly I made the foolish mistake of installing KDE while it was half assed and half baked, you know KDE 4.0, which wasn't supposed to be released to the public until it was ready.... which it wasn't, it wasn't even close. Maybe it sucks less now.  KDE 4.0 and years of disgust with audio on Linux were the two driving reasons for me switching to a Mac for my desktop, and I've been way happy ever since.  Its really nice to just have stuff that works and works consistently.  I'm willing to pay extra to have Apple develop and test apps that work, and follow consistent UI guidelines.  The OS X calendar kind of sucks, I don't exactly like the shell or cut and paste, and I could live without the Mac document model but damn its worth it to just have audio that always works, GUI conventions, and a really nice desktop standard and a really good set of apps.</p><p>After ten years of drinking the open source Kool-Aid I discovered its actually not so bad to pay people to develop software if they do a really good job of pandering to my needs and desires.  The open source model does an awesome job of developing a kernel, a server, a software development platform and some apps like Firefox.  Unfortunately when it comes to a modern, consistent, multimedia desktop I would have to say, so far, Linux is a fail. What's worse, just like with Linux audio, the Linux community seems to be completely lacking in the introspection or will to turn it around. Step 1 is to accept that there is a problem with the Linux desktop, and the crux of the problem is you have somewhere between two and a hundred different Linux desktops to choose from.  What are the odds Apple would ship OS X with ten, or even two completely different desktops and sets of desktop apps.  Zero, it would be a disaster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" For example , the author criticizes KDE for the audacity of thinking about implementing social networking features into the desktop .
" Actually as far as I 'm concerned the absolute last thing I want anyone to be implementing in my desktop is " social networking " .
Social networking should be an application that people who want to use social networking should run from the desktop or in a browser but in no way , shape or form should it be " integrated " in to my desktop .
That would be a case of a developer making a choice for me he should n't be making.I 've used Linux as my primary desktop for more than ten years and KDE for many of those , I mostly loved KDE 3.x .
It appears there are probably myriad reason for what happened in KDE 4.x , I blame Trolltech and Qt 4.x for forcing a major rewrite in particular , but all I can say is whatever happened it turned my stomach and helped finish me with Linux on the desktop .
KDE 4.0 was to Linux what Vista was to Windows for me.Certainly I made the foolish mistake of installing KDE while it was half assed and half baked , you know KDE 4.0 , which was n't supposed to be released to the public until it was ready.... which it was n't , it was n't even close .
Maybe it sucks less now .
KDE 4.0 and years of disgust with audio on Linux were the two driving reasons for me switching to a Mac for my desktop , and I 've been way happy ever since .
Its really nice to just have stuff that works and works consistently .
I 'm willing to pay extra to have Apple develop and test apps that work , and follow consistent UI guidelines .
The OS X calendar kind of sucks , I do n't exactly like the shell or cut and paste , and I could live without the Mac document model but damn its worth it to just have audio that always works , GUI conventions , and a really nice desktop standard and a really good set of apps.After ten years of drinking the open source Kool-Aid I discovered its actually not so bad to pay people to develop software if they do a really good job of pandering to my needs and desires .
The open source model does an awesome job of developing a kernel , a server , a software development platform and some apps like Firefox .
Unfortunately when it comes to a modern , consistent , multimedia desktop I would have to say , so far , Linux is a fail .
What 's worse , just like with Linux audio , the Linux community seems to be completely lacking in the introspection or will to turn it around .
Step 1 is to accept that there is a problem with the Linux desktop , and the crux of the problem is you have somewhere between two and a hundred different Linux desktops to choose from .
What are the odds Apple would ship OS X with ten , or even two completely different desktops and sets of desktop apps .
Zero , it would be a disaster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"For example, the author criticizes KDE for the audacity of thinking about implementing social networking features into the desktop.
"Actually as far as I'm concerned the absolute last thing I want anyone to be implementing in my desktop is "social networking".
Social networking should be an application that people who want to use social networking should run from the desktop or in a browser but in no way, shape or form should it be "integrated" in to my desktop.
That would be a case of a developer making a choice for me he shouldn't be making.I've used Linux as my primary desktop for more than ten years and KDE for many of those, I mostly loved KDE 3.x.
It appears there are probably myriad reason for what happened in KDE 4.x, I blame Trolltech and Qt 4.x for forcing a major rewrite in particular, but all I can say is whatever happened it turned my stomach and helped finish me with Linux on the desktop.
KDE 4.0 was to Linux what Vista was to Windows for me.Certainly I made the foolish mistake of installing KDE while it was half assed and half baked, you know KDE 4.0, which wasn't supposed to be released to the public until it was ready.... which it wasn't, it wasn't even close.
Maybe it sucks less now.
KDE 4.0 and years of disgust with audio on Linux were the two driving reasons for me switching to a Mac for my desktop, and I've been way happy ever since.
Its really nice to just have stuff that works and works consistently.
I'm willing to pay extra to have Apple develop and test apps that work, and follow consistent UI guidelines.
The OS X calendar kind of sucks, I don't exactly like the shell or cut and paste, and I could live without the Mac document model but damn its worth it to just have audio that always works, GUI conventions, and a really nice desktop standard and a really good set of apps.After ten years of drinking the open source Kool-Aid I discovered its actually not so bad to pay people to develop software if they do a really good job of pandering to my needs and desires.
The open source model does an awesome job of developing a kernel, a server, a software development platform and some apps like Firefox.
Unfortunately when it comes to a modern, consistent, multimedia desktop I would have to say, so far, Linux is a fail.
What's worse, just like with Linux audio, the Linux community seems to be completely lacking in the introspection or will to turn it around.
Step 1 is to accept that there is a problem with the Linux desktop, and the crux of the problem is you have somewhere between two and a hundred different Linux desktops to choose from.
What are the odds Apple would ship OS X with ten, or even two completely different desktops and sets of desktop apps.
Zero, it would be a disaster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28433795</id>
	<title>Grandma uses KDE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245685920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do tech support for the family and there are 5 grandmothers that I know that are using Linux and when I showed them my two laptops with Gnome and KDE, they all chose KDE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do tech support for the family and there are 5 grandmothers that I know that are using Linux and when I showed them my two laptops with Gnome and KDE , they all chose KDE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do tech support for the family and there are 5 grandmothers that I know that are using Linux and when I showed them my two laptops with Gnome and KDE, they all chose KDE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28462849</id>
	<title>Re:"Free Software" vs "Open Source" vs... whatever</title>
	<author>andruk</author>
	<datestamp>1245865080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The more people you have, the more hardware manufacturers and software companies take notice and actually care about Linux.  When hardware companies release open source drivers (and even proprietary drivers - look at nVidia) and when software companies release software for Linux (Wolfram's Mathematica, MathWorks' Matlab, National Instruments' LabVIEW), Linux users do benefit.  As more applications become more available on Linux, it becomes a more mainstream desktop OS and the interest in Linux grows and quality of software for Linux improves.  Once Linux is mainstream, more and more hardware will "just work" because the Linux kernel includes more drivers.  The more the hardware "just works", the easier it is to configure for everybody using clickable GUI tools instead of looking up commands and command options (the command line, while sometimes easier to use than GUIS, is not necessarily hard to use for everything, but it is hard to initially learn).  The easier it is to configure, the more "Regular Joe" users will be able to use Linux, not only making Linux a more visible solution to Windows, but making all of FOSS a more visible solution to proprietary software.  Finally, as the number of Linux users increases, presumably the number non-duplicate bugs are reported (as some users are technically inclined enough to submit a bug, but not enough to fix it - something even Linus, if I remember correctly, has noted as an advantage of FOSS), making architecture errors easier more visible, giving developers to improve the architecture, which hopefully leads to happier developers and users.  All of these changes, while insignificant when standing alone, lead towards a better world of software for everybody, including you.

So whether or not Linux developers are aiming for world domination or not, the "Regular Joe" users of the Linux desktop are as important as the developers themselves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The more people you have , the more hardware manufacturers and software companies take notice and actually care about Linux .
When hardware companies release open source drivers ( and even proprietary drivers - look at nVidia ) and when software companies release software for Linux ( Wolfram 's Mathematica , MathWorks ' Matlab , National Instruments ' LabVIEW ) , Linux users do benefit .
As more applications become more available on Linux , it becomes a more mainstream desktop OS and the interest in Linux grows and quality of software for Linux improves .
Once Linux is mainstream , more and more hardware will " just work " because the Linux kernel includes more drivers .
The more the hardware " just works " , the easier it is to configure for everybody using clickable GUI tools instead of looking up commands and command options ( the command line , while sometimes easier to use than GUIS , is not necessarily hard to use for everything , but it is hard to initially learn ) .
The easier it is to configure , the more " Regular Joe " users will be able to use Linux , not only making Linux a more visible solution to Windows , but making all of FOSS a more visible solution to proprietary software .
Finally , as the number of Linux users increases , presumably the number non-duplicate bugs are reported ( as some users are technically inclined enough to submit a bug , but not enough to fix it - something even Linus , if I remember correctly , has noted as an advantage of FOSS ) , making architecture errors easier more visible , giving developers to improve the architecture , which hopefully leads to happier developers and users .
All of these changes , while insignificant when standing alone , lead towards a better world of software for everybody , including you .
So whether or not Linux developers are aiming for world domination or not , the " Regular Joe " users of the Linux desktop are as important as the developers themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The more people you have, the more hardware manufacturers and software companies take notice and actually care about Linux.
When hardware companies release open source drivers (and even proprietary drivers - look at nVidia) and when software companies release software for Linux (Wolfram's Mathematica, MathWorks' Matlab, National Instruments' LabVIEW), Linux users do benefit.
As more applications become more available on Linux, it becomes a more mainstream desktop OS and the interest in Linux grows and quality of software for Linux improves.
Once Linux is mainstream, more and more hardware will "just work" because the Linux kernel includes more drivers.
The more the hardware "just works", the easier it is to configure for everybody using clickable GUI tools instead of looking up commands and command options (the command line, while sometimes easier to use than GUIS, is not necessarily hard to use for everything, but it is hard to initially learn).
The easier it is to configure, the more "Regular Joe" users will be able to use Linux, not only making Linux a more visible solution to Windows, but making all of FOSS a more visible solution to proprietary software.
Finally, as the number of Linux users increases, presumably the number non-duplicate bugs are reported (as some users are technically inclined enough to submit a bug, but not enough to fix it - something even Linus, if I remember correctly, has noted as an advantage of FOSS), making architecture errors easier more visible, giving developers to improve the architecture, which hopefully leads to happier developers and users.
All of these changes, while insignificant when standing alone, lead towards a better world of software for everybody, including you.
So whether or not Linux developers are aiming for world domination or not, the "Regular Joe" users of the Linux desktop are as important as the developers themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415633</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417013</id>
	<title>Had enough of these sorts of articles</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245607560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot editors, please stop allowing this kind of opinionated trollbait to reach the front page.</p><p>It isn't news.  It's nothing but navel gazing and whining from Windows refugees about how they don't want to feel forced to use their near non-existent intelligence.</p><p>If Windows refugees want a system that facilitates willful ignorance and stupidity, they need to simply go back to Windows, and the existing Linux community also needs to stop evangelising Linux to these sorts of dumb users.</p><p>Try and understand something, Linux community; Linux taking over the world, would mean Linux ultimately being used by a lot of the kind of people that you actually really don't want.  The vast majority of human beings are absolute morons, as rants like TFA clearly show.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot editors , please stop allowing this kind of opinionated trollbait to reach the front page.It is n't news .
It 's nothing but navel gazing and whining from Windows refugees about how they do n't want to feel forced to use their near non-existent intelligence.If Windows refugees want a system that facilitates willful ignorance and stupidity , they need to simply go back to Windows , and the existing Linux community also needs to stop evangelising Linux to these sorts of dumb users.Try and understand something , Linux community ; Linux taking over the world , would mean Linux ultimately being used by a lot of the kind of people that you actually really do n't want .
The vast majority of human beings are absolute morons , as rants like TFA clearly show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot editors, please stop allowing this kind of opinionated trollbait to reach the front page.It isn't news.
It's nothing but navel gazing and whining from Windows refugees about how they don't want to feel forced to use their near non-existent intelligence.If Windows refugees want a system that facilitates willful ignorance and stupidity, they need to simply go back to Windows, and the existing Linux community also needs to stop evangelising Linux to these sorts of dumb users.Try and understand something, Linux community; Linux taking over the world, would mean Linux ultimately being used by a lot of the kind of people that you actually really don't want.
The vast majority of human beings are absolute morons, as rants like TFA clearly show.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28423015</id>
	<title>Re:Most users don't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245688440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I really want on my desktop linux is that it does not crash or hang.</p><p>Then the next thing I really need is integration with proprietary hardware and software!<br>I know it sounds strange for free open source, but Look:</p><p>I have a canon 1000D DSLR and I'd like to be able to do tethered shoots (maybe gphoto2 of fedora 11 can do that)<br>I have an iphone and I'd like to be able to use linux to manage it and not itunes on a windows pc<br>I have skype because that's what my colleagues use for virtual meetings and when I watch a youtube Skype does not ring<br>exchange integration (my company uses a version of exchange that does not work with latest Evolution exchange), I want to synchronize calendar, notes, tasks, etc<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I really want on my desktop linux is that it does not crash or hang.Then the next thing I really need is integration with proprietary hardware and software ! I know it sounds strange for free open source , but Look : I have a canon 1000D DSLR and I 'd like to be able to do tethered shoots ( maybe gphoto2 of fedora 11 can do that ) I have an iphone and I 'd like to be able to use linux to manage it and not itunes on a windows pcI have skype because that 's what my colleagues use for virtual meetings and when I watch a youtube Skype does not ringexchange integration ( my company uses a version of exchange that does not work with latest Evolution exchange ) , I want to synchronize calendar , notes , tasks , etc .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I really want on my desktop linux is that it does not crash or hang.Then the next thing I really need is integration with proprietary hardware and software!I know it sounds strange for free open source, but Look:I have a canon 1000D DSLR and I'd like to be able to do tethered shoots (maybe gphoto2 of fedora 11 can do that)I have an iphone and I'd like to be able to use linux to manage it and not itunes on a windows pcI have skype because that's what my colleagues use for virtual meetings and when I watch a youtube Skype does not ringexchange integration (my company uses a version of exchange that does not work with latest Evolution exchange), I want to synchronize calendar, notes, tasks, etc ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28418097</id>
	<title>steady progess</title>
	<author>speedtux</author>
	<datestamp>1245703500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about KDE, but Ubuntu's version of Gnome has been making steady progress: no radical changes, but improvements over time.   My (non-technical) family has not complained (and often barely noticed) when I have upgraded their machines.</p><p>Compared to Ubuntu, Windows and Macintosh both have been making more radical changes in theming, and even more significant changes in the interface itself.  With Vista, for example, Microsoft changed networking dialog and the entire system preferences in confusing ways.</p><p>Ubuntu Gnome has been making steady progress: small, user-visible changes and significant improvements behind the scenes. That's the way desktops should evolve.  Microsoft and Apple: take notice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about KDE , but Ubuntu 's version of Gnome has been making steady progress : no radical changes , but improvements over time .
My ( non-technical ) family has not complained ( and often barely noticed ) when I have upgraded their machines.Compared to Ubuntu , Windows and Macintosh both have been making more radical changes in theming , and even more significant changes in the interface itself .
With Vista , for example , Microsoft changed networking dialog and the entire system preferences in confusing ways.Ubuntu Gnome has been making steady progress : small , user-visible changes and significant improvements behind the scenes .
That 's the way desktops should evolve .
Microsoft and Apple : take notice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about KDE, but Ubuntu's version of Gnome has been making steady progress: no radical changes, but improvements over time.
My (non-technical) family has not complained (and often barely noticed) when I have upgraded their machines.Compared to Ubuntu, Windows and Macintosh both have been making more radical changes in theming, and even more significant changes in the interface itself.
With Vista, for example, Microsoft changed networking dialog and the entire system preferences in confusing ways.Ubuntu Gnome has been making steady progress: small, user-visible changes and significant improvements behind the scenes.
That's the way desktops should evolve.
Microsoft and Apple: take notice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415039</id>
	<title>Re:A Benevolent Cat-Herder-for-Life is good for Li</title>
	<author>ploppy</author>
	<datestamp>1245591540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mark Shuttleworth is effectively the user every free software developer wants, because he puts his money where his mouth is.  Vision is one thing, being prepared to pay for it is better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mark Shuttleworth is effectively the user every free software developer wants , because he puts his money where his mouth is .
Vision is one thing , being prepared to pay for it is better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mark Shuttleworth is effectively the user every free software developer wants, because he puts his money where his mouth is.
Vision is one thing, being prepared to pay for it is better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415511</id>
	<title>Re:Seigo has gotten it all wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245596520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>KDE4 is designed under the assumption that all you want to do is look at the desktop. As soon as you open an application that obscures the desktop, the widgets and the desktop views and the folder containments are useless because they are no longer visible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>KDE4 is designed under the assumption that all you want to do is look at the desktop .
As soon as you open an application that obscures the desktop , the widgets and the desktop views and the folder containments are useless because they are no longer visible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>KDE4 is designed under the assumption that all you want to do is look at the desktop.
As soon as you open an application that obscures the desktop, the widgets and the desktop views and the folder containments are useless because they are no longer visible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28418199</id>
	<title>Re:Warning: Kubuntu rant imminent!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245661260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Yet I still can't figure out how to get the KDE 4 taskbar to form 2 rows of tasks instead of just growing enormous icons for no reason when I change the size."</p><p>Right-click on the task manager. Select Task Manager Settings from the context menu. Check "Force Row Settings".</p><p>Boudewijn Rempt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Yet I still ca n't figure out how to get the KDE 4 taskbar to form 2 rows of tasks instead of just growing enormous icons for no reason when I change the size .
" Right-click on the task manager .
Select Task Manager Settings from the context menu .
Check " Force Row Settings " .Boudewijn Rempt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Yet I still can't figure out how to get the KDE 4 taskbar to form 2 rows of tasks instead of just growing enormous icons for no reason when I change the size.
"Right-click on the task manager.
Select Task Manager Settings from the context menu.
Check "Force Row Settings".Boudewijn Rempt</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28432333</id>
	<title>but heres the thing...</title>
	<author>lenswipe</author>
	<datestamp>1245678120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you go and ask an end user (and by end user i mean your average joe in the street, ie NOT a geek) what they want and ask them to draw up the specifications for their idea of the perfect linux OS most likely about 90\% of them will go and design you windows (or mac) because that is all they hav ever seen. I for one dont see why after all these years of development the linux distro developers should suddenly start jumping to the tune of the end user. There is a degree of listening to what the end user would like to see and maybe implementing that, but frankly isnt it time that people started learning how to use a different operating system rather that expecting linux to change itself into a free version of windows so that they dont have to bother learning how to use it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you go and ask an end user ( and by end user i mean your average joe in the street , ie NOT a geek ) what they want and ask them to draw up the specifications for their idea of the perfect linux OS most likely about 90 \ % of them will go and design you windows ( or mac ) because that is all they hav ever seen .
I for one dont see why after all these years of development the linux distro developers should suddenly start jumping to the tune of the end user .
There is a degree of listening to what the end user would like to see and maybe implementing that , but frankly isnt it time that people started learning how to use a different operating system rather that expecting linux to change itself into a free version of windows so that they dont have to bother learning how to use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you go and ask an end user (and by end user i mean your average joe in the street, ie NOT a geek) what they want and ask them to draw up the specifications for their idea of the perfect linux OS most likely about 90\% of them will go and design you windows (or mac) because that is all they hav ever seen.
I for one dont see why after all these years of development the linux distro developers should suddenly start jumping to the tune of the end user.
There is a degree of listening to what the end user would like to see and maybe implementing that, but frankly isnt it time that people started learning how to use a different operating system rather that expecting linux to change itself into a free version of windows so that they dont have to bother learning how to use it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417349</id>
	<title>user testing...</title>
	<author>Katchu</author>
	<datestamp>1245610620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Byfield suggests that the answer could be more user testing."

That's crazy talk.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Byfield suggests that the answer could be more user testing .
" That 's crazy talk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Byfield suggests that the answer could be more user testing.
"

That's crazy talk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28418129</id>
	<title>give me sound and wireless and i'll be happy</title>
	<author>sandGorgons</author>
	<datestamp>1245703800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The mom and pops of this world only care about getting on the internet and emailing their kids or looking at a few photos and watching youtube. Give me sound and wireles out-of-the-box and i'll be happy.
And contrary to what you might believe, it is NOT there yet. Check out the number of sound issues that a Thinkpad R series has on Ubunty Jaunty and you would know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The mom and pops of this world only care about getting on the internet and emailing their kids or looking at a few photos and watching youtube .
Give me sound and wireles out-of-the-box and i 'll be happy .
And contrary to what you might believe , it is NOT there yet .
Check out the number of sound issues that a Thinkpad R series has on Ubunty Jaunty and you would know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The mom and pops of this world only care about getting on the internet and emailing their kids or looking at a few photos and watching youtube.
Give me sound and wireles out-of-the-box and i'll be happy.
And contrary to what you might believe, it is NOT there yet.
Check out the number of sound issues that a Thinkpad R series has on Ubunty Jaunty and you would know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28422417</id>
	<title>Re:Too Much?</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1245686340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up.</p><p>F/OSS works in a survival of the fittest fashion. In such a scenario, a diverse "gene pool" is more beneficial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up.F/OSS works in a survival of the fittest fashion .
In such a scenario , a diverse " gene pool " is more beneficial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up.F/OSS works in a survival of the fittest fashion.
In such a scenario, a diverse "gene pool" is more beneficial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28431053</id>
	<title>Re:A Benevolent Cat-Herder-for-Life is good for Li</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1245672960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Case in point: <a href="https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-notifier/+bug/332945" title="launchpad.net">Bug 332949</a> [launchpad.net], the update-notifier 'upgrade' in Jaunty which most users agree is functionality they want which was working, but Mark Shuttleworth thought he'd change because he could.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Case in point : Bug 332949 [ launchpad.net ] , the update-notifier 'upgrade ' in Jaunty which most users agree is functionality they want which was working , but Mark Shuttleworth thought he 'd change because he could .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Case in point: Bug 332949 [launchpad.net], the update-notifier 'upgrade' in Jaunty which most users agree is functionality they want which was working, but Mark Shuttleworth thought he'd change because he could.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28423303</id>
	<title>Re:Tough Love</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1245689400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm largely in the same boat.  I lack 3 primary applications that would prevent me from switching to Linux: WoW, Ventrillo, and iTunes. There are some other issues at hand (namely that in general there are some rendering quirks that make Linux GUI responsiveness feel slower than Windows or Mac - and no, it's not my machine, it feels the same on every Linux system I've tried, which is in the dozens now), but overall from a just task driven mindset that's what I'm missing.  Wine works ok-ish, but is just a bit too much of a hack for my tastes.  I DO keep a Linux desktop available to myself for tinkering, and I have my parents using an Ubuntu install for their needs (I had to clean the spyware off their XP system one too many times), but I don't use it as my primary OS.</p><p>Still, I think with the trend of both Apple and MS to lock things down more and more, it's only a matter of time until Linux because the lesser of 3 evils and I end up migrating over despite some flaws and missing apps.  Heck with virtually all itunes purchases being DRM free now anyways, I might just pay to retroactively unlock my library and migrate to a Linux media player anyways.  I LIKE the iTunes interface but realistically I could live without it (and players like Songbird honestly aren't that bad in comparison).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm largely in the same boat .
I lack 3 primary applications that would prevent me from switching to Linux : WoW , Ventrillo , and iTunes .
There are some other issues at hand ( namely that in general there are some rendering quirks that make Linux GUI responsiveness feel slower than Windows or Mac - and no , it 's not my machine , it feels the same on every Linux system I 've tried , which is in the dozens now ) , but overall from a just task driven mindset that 's what I 'm missing .
Wine works ok-ish , but is just a bit too much of a hack for my tastes .
I DO keep a Linux desktop available to myself for tinkering , and I have my parents using an Ubuntu install for their needs ( I had to clean the spyware off their XP system one too many times ) , but I do n't use it as my primary OS.Still , I think with the trend of both Apple and MS to lock things down more and more , it 's only a matter of time until Linux because the lesser of 3 evils and I end up migrating over despite some flaws and missing apps .
Heck with virtually all itunes purchases being DRM free now anyways , I might just pay to retroactively unlock my library and migrate to a Linux media player anyways .
I LIKE the iTunes interface but realistically I could live without it ( and players like Songbird honestly are n't that bad in comparison ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm largely in the same boat.
I lack 3 primary applications that would prevent me from switching to Linux: WoW, Ventrillo, and iTunes.
There are some other issues at hand (namely that in general there are some rendering quirks that make Linux GUI responsiveness feel slower than Windows or Mac - and no, it's not my machine, it feels the same on every Linux system I've tried, which is in the dozens now), but overall from a just task driven mindset that's what I'm missing.
Wine works ok-ish, but is just a bit too much of a hack for my tastes.
I DO keep a Linux desktop available to myself for tinkering, and I have my parents using an Ubuntu install for their needs (I had to clean the spyware off their XP system one too many times), but I don't use it as my primary OS.Still, I think with the trend of both Apple and MS to lock things down more and more, it's only a matter of time until Linux because the lesser of 3 evils and I end up migrating over despite some flaws and missing apps.
Heck with virtually all itunes purchases being DRM free now anyways, I might just pay to retroactively unlock my library and migrate to a Linux media player anyways.
I LIKE the iTunes interface but realistically I could live without it (and players like Songbird honestly aren't that bad in comparison).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417971</id>
	<title>Re:yet another implicit "oh noes, not windowz" ran</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245702540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And what about the ability to scroll a window without changing the focus to it?</p></div><p>Well...what about it?  The majority of computer users don't understand what you are talking about anyway.  Let's say you could explain to them what you meant.  They'd just wonder why a simple, 1 second transaction, operated solely by mouse -- click, scroll, click -- is so difficult.  You all sound positively <i>prissy</i> when you complain about it.  Change the effing code yourselves -- which is supposed to be the great Linux advantage -- and stop your goddamn whining.</p><p>
&nbsp; <br>Unka Anonymous Troll<br>
&nbsp; <br>P.S.  Captcha is Whiskey, which I admit, was an influence for this troll.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And what about the ability to scroll a window without changing the focus to it ? Well...what about it ?
The majority of computer users do n't understand what you are talking about anyway .
Let 's say you could explain to them what you meant .
They 'd just wonder why a simple , 1 second transaction , operated solely by mouse -- click , scroll , click -- is so difficult .
You all sound positively prissy when you complain about it .
Change the effing code yourselves -- which is supposed to be the great Linux advantage -- and stop your goddamn whining .
  Unka Anonymous Troll   P.S .
Captcha is Whiskey , which I admit , was an influence for this troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what about the ability to scroll a window without changing the focus to it?Well...what about it?
The majority of computer users don't understand what you are talking about anyway.
Let's say you could explain to them what you meant.
They'd just wonder why a simple, 1 second transaction, operated solely by mouse -- click, scroll, click -- is so difficult.
You all sound positively prissy when you complain about it.
Change the effing code yourselves -- which is supposed to be the great Linux advantage -- and stop your goddamn whining.
  Unka Anonymous Troll
  P.S.
Captcha is Whiskey, which I admit, was an influence for this troll.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414655</id>
	<title>The next killer feature...</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1245587940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When you realize that a feature is a killer one, one good enough that you can't figure how you lived without it before? Think in simple things, like browser tabs,  extensions or things like that. And maybe more important, what is a "killer feature" for you could not be for someone else (i.e. for me could be menussh and nagstamon under gnome, or firebug and some of other extensions that depend on them for firefox, as i said, could depend a lot on what you do).<br><br>But maybe more interesting could be thinking how would be things if there was no innovation. following the same reasoning.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you realize that a feature is a killer one , one good enough that you ca n't figure how you lived without it before ?
Think in simple things , like browser tabs , extensions or things like that .
And maybe more important , what is a " killer feature " for you could not be for someone else ( i.e .
for me could be menussh and nagstamon under gnome , or firebug and some of other extensions that depend on them for firefox , as i said , could depend a lot on what you do ) .But maybe more interesting could be thinking how would be things if there was no innovation .
following the same reasoning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you realize that a feature is a killer one, one good enough that you can't figure how you lived without it before?
Think in simple things, like browser tabs,  extensions or things like that.
And maybe more important, what is a "killer feature" for you could not be for someone else (i.e.
for me could be menussh and nagstamon under gnome, or firebug and some of other extensions that depend on them for firefox, as i said, could depend a lot on what you do).But maybe more interesting could be thinking how would be things if there was no innovation.
following the same reasoning.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415621</id>
	<title>Warning: Kubuntu rant imminent!</title>
	<author>Jim Efaw</author>
	<datestamp>1245597540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll dive right in because this story popped right after I've reinstalled my main console, and I had to reinstall exactly because of my desktop getting "innovated" so much it was crippled.  Maybe all these complaints of mine have already been covered elsewhere.  But Linux GUI desktop developers had better get their stuff together and start thinking about how to make the GUI desktop quickly navigable for the full range of everyday work.  (Not just for <em>simple</em> tasks, and not the new interface idea the GUI developers invent each month after a round of 'shrooms.)  Between the Gnome Project's obsession with castrating its core programs' options, and KDE's obsession with making a new KDE app for every single type of application yet not being able to get its desktop and window decorations to be intuitive, I'm looking back at svgalib days with fondness.  Or maybe Windows 3.1 days.  Maybe I'm getting older.  Maybe I used to have more time for this kind of involuntary "adventure" than I do now.  Right-clicks and resizing task bars should not have to be treated as uncharted waters for a user at this point.</p><p>On my main console machine, I've had Kubuntu 8.10 for a few months, "upgraded" from 7.04.  It was clear that 8.10 had damaged the configs unsalvagably - it still refused to mount USB drives so that the normal user could read them.  I always had to remount manually on the command line.  Yesterday I just wiped the whole OS off my machine (except for moving my old home directory out of the way) and installed Kubuntu 9.04 clean.  We'll see how it goes.  If this doesn't behave like something other than a damaged system within the next couple weeks, I'm switching to Xubuntu or something - at least it resizes and moves almost anything when you click on the edge, instead of having windows do one thing, tool bars do another, the "desktop" box another.  I switched away from Ubuntu to Kubuntu because I couldn't stand Gnome apps censoring any option that didn't fit an 8-year-old kid's reading level.  (Fortunately Gimp and Pidgin ignored the the rules.  They were hard to learn for their own reasons anyway, so what did they care?  At least they <em>could</em> be learned though - Pidgin only played moving-target once when it switched from Gaim.)  Now I'm thinking of dumping Kubuntu because there are hundreds of options somewhere, but I can't find them.  Xubuntu (what little I've used it) seems to behave very politely on my dual-boot laptop.</p><p>Kubuntu 8.10 should never have happened.  KDE 4.0 should never have happened.  KDE 4.1 shouldn't have even happened.  Plasma (KDE's new desktop interface) is too clever by half.  It is extremely non-intuitive.  I've dealt with Apple II Plus system monitor prompts through ProDOS with AppleWorks, through years of custom BBS menus in ANSI, then Windows 3.1 through 95, 2000, XP, and Vista, with a liberal helping full-screen DOS apps, OS/2, and old X display managers whose menus only appear when you hold down Ctrl or Alt.  Yet I <em>still</em> can't figure out how to get the KDE 4 taskbar to form 2 rows of tasks instead of just growing enormous icons for no reason when I change the size.</p><p>Anything non-KDE inside KDE is, of course, not quite equal.  Firefox has "nice" rounded GUI element emulation in Kubuntu 8.10 but hides things like window tabs under other things (like the web page) when I launch it directly from the menus - but has simpler buttons and works fine when I run it from a shell prompt inside Konsole!  How come Firefox has a different skin from Konsole than directly from the KDE menus?!</p><p>P.S. while I'm ranting: Why does the KDE "Utilities" menu have an icon that looks like a console prompt, then Konsole <em>isn't</em> in that menu?!  Konsole is hiding in System, among the control panels.  And how come KDE 4 <em>sometimes</em> does the same thing with right click as left click?  If I right-click, it's because I <em>didn't like</em> what the left click did and I'm looking for some other option!  Argh!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll dive right in because this story popped right after I 've reinstalled my main console , and I had to reinstall exactly because of my desktop getting " innovated " so much it was crippled .
Maybe all these complaints of mine have already been covered elsewhere .
But Linux GUI desktop developers had better get their stuff together and start thinking about how to make the GUI desktop quickly navigable for the full range of everyday work .
( Not just for simple tasks , and not the new interface idea the GUI developers invent each month after a round of 'shrooms .
) Between the Gnome Project 's obsession with castrating its core programs ' options , and KDE 's obsession with making a new KDE app for every single type of application yet not being able to get its desktop and window decorations to be intuitive , I 'm looking back at svgalib days with fondness .
Or maybe Windows 3.1 days .
Maybe I 'm getting older .
Maybe I used to have more time for this kind of involuntary " adventure " than I do now .
Right-clicks and resizing task bars should not have to be treated as uncharted waters for a user at this point.On my main console machine , I 've had Kubuntu 8.10 for a few months , " upgraded " from 7.04 .
It was clear that 8.10 had damaged the configs unsalvagably - it still refused to mount USB drives so that the normal user could read them .
I always had to remount manually on the command line .
Yesterday I just wiped the whole OS off my machine ( except for moving my old home directory out of the way ) and installed Kubuntu 9.04 clean .
We 'll see how it goes .
If this does n't behave like something other than a damaged system within the next couple weeks , I 'm switching to Xubuntu or something - at least it resizes and moves almost anything when you click on the edge , instead of having windows do one thing , tool bars do another , the " desktop " box another .
I switched away from Ubuntu to Kubuntu because I could n't stand Gnome apps censoring any option that did n't fit an 8-year-old kid 's reading level .
( Fortunately Gimp and Pidgin ignored the the rules .
They were hard to learn for their own reasons anyway , so what did they care ?
At least they could be learned though - Pidgin only played moving-target once when it switched from Gaim .
) Now I 'm thinking of dumping Kubuntu because there are hundreds of options somewhere , but I ca n't find them .
Xubuntu ( what little I 've used it ) seems to behave very politely on my dual-boot laptop.Kubuntu 8.10 should never have happened .
KDE 4.0 should never have happened .
KDE 4.1 should n't have even happened .
Plasma ( KDE 's new desktop interface ) is too clever by half .
It is extremely non-intuitive .
I 've dealt with Apple II Plus system monitor prompts through ProDOS with AppleWorks , through years of custom BBS menus in ANSI , then Windows 3.1 through 95 , 2000 , XP , and Vista , with a liberal helping full-screen DOS apps , OS/2 , and old X display managers whose menus only appear when you hold down Ctrl or Alt .
Yet I still ca n't figure out how to get the KDE 4 taskbar to form 2 rows of tasks instead of just growing enormous icons for no reason when I change the size.Anything non-KDE inside KDE is , of course , not quite equal .
Firefox has " nice " rounded GUI element emulation in Kubuntu 8.10 but hides things like window tabs under other things ( like the web page ) when I launch it directly from the menus - but has simpler buttons and works fine when I run it from a shell prompt inside Konsole !
How come Firefox has a different skin from Konsole than directly from the KDE menus ? ! P.S .
while I 'm ranting : Why does the KDE " Utilities " menu have an icon that looks like a console prompt , then Konsole is n't in that menu ? !
Konsole is hiding in System , among the control panels .
And how come KDE 4 sometimes does the same thing with right click as left click ?
If I right-click , it 's because I did n't like what the left click did and I 'm looking for some other option !
Argh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll dive right in because this story popped right after I've reinstalled my main console, and I had to reinstall exactly because of my desktop getting "innovated" so much it was crippled.
Maybe all these complaints of mine have already been covered elsewhere.
But Linux GUI desktop developers had better get their stuff together and start thinking about how to make the GUI desktop quickly navigable for the full range of everyday work.
(Not just for simple tasks, and not the new interface idea the GUI developers invent each month after a round of 'shrooms.
)  Between the Gnome Project's obsession with castrating its core programs' options, and KDE's obsession with making a new KDE app for every single type of application yet not being able to get its desktop and window decorations to be intuitive, I'm looking back at svgalib days with fondness.
Or maybe Windows 3.1 days.
Maybe I'm getting older.
Maybe I used to have more time for this kind of involuntary "adventure" than I do now.
Right-clicks and resizing task bars should not have to be treated as uncharted waters for a user at this point.On my main console machine, I've had Kubuntu 8.10 for a few months, "upgraded" from 7.04.
It was clear that 8.10 had damaged the configs unsalvagably - it still refused to mount USB drives so that the normal user could read them.
I always had to remount manually on the command line.
Yesterday I just wiped the whole OS off my machine (except for moving my old home directory out of the way) and installed Kubuntu 9.04 clean.
We'll see how it goes.
If this doesn't behave like something other than a damaged system within the next couple weeks, I'm switching to Xubuntu or something - at least it resizes and moves almost anything when you click on the edge, instead of having windows do one thing, tool bars do another, the "desktop" box another.
I switched away from Ubuntu to Kubuntu because I couldn't stand Gnome apps censoring any option that didn't fit an 8-year-old kid's reading level.
(Fortunately Gimp and Pidgin ignored the the rules.
They were hard to learn for their own reasons anyway, so what did they care?
At least they could be learned though - Pidgin only played moving-target once when it switched from Gaim.
)  Now I'm thinking of dumping Kubuntu because there are hundreds of options somewhere, but I can't find them.
Xubuntu (what little I've used it) seems to behave very politely on my dual-boot laptop.Kubuntu 8.10 should never have happened.
KDE 4.0 should never have happened.
KDE 4.1 shouldn't have even happened.
Plasma (KDE's new desktop interface) is too clever by half.
It is extremely non-intuitive.
I've dealt with Apple II Plus system monitor prompts through ProDOS with AppleWorks, through years of custom BBS menus in ANSI, then Windows 3.1 through 95, 2000, XP, and Vista, with a liberal helping full-screen DOS apps, OS/2, and old X display managers whose menus only appear when you hold down Ctrl or Alt.
Yet I still can't figure out how to get the KDE 4 taskbar to form 2 rows of tasks instead of just growing enormous icons for no reason when I change the size.Anything non-KDE inside KDE is, of course, not quite equal.
Firefox has "nice" rounded GUI element emulation in Kubuntu 8.10 but hides things like window tabs under other things (like the web page) when I launch it directly from the menus - but has simpler buttons and works fine when I run it from a shell prompt inside Konsole!
How come Firefox has a different skin from Konsole than directly from the KDE menus?!P.S.
while I'm ranting: Why does the KDE "Utilities" menu have an icon that looks like a console prompt, then Konsole isn't in that menu?!
Konsole is hiding in System, among the control panels.
And how come KDE 4 sometimes does the same thing with right click as left click?
If I right-click, it's because I didn't like what the left click did and I'm looking for some other option!
Argh!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414381</id>
	<title>Re:not really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245585600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The average user is a bratty 16 year old with an ebay account?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The average user is a bratty 16 year old with an ebay account ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The average user is a bratty 16 year old with an ebay account?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414877</id>
	<title>shi?T</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245590040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FreeBSD'S</htmltext>
<tokenext>FreeBSD 'S</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FreeBSD'S</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416773</id>
	<title>Re:Seigo has gotten it all wrong</title>
	<author>mpapet</author>
	<datestamp>1245605640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Making everything into desktop widgets (including social networking fads like facebook) isn't a bold new vision of the desktop environment... it's glitzy eye-candy.</i></p><p>I'm not sure where the criticism is with this statement.  Widgets are bad?  Are you suggesting that the goal of making it easier to add features to a desktop is not worth pursuing?  Because as far as I can tell, that's what the project is after.</p><p>Maybe they don't have widgets you like, but I'm not sure where you get off dumping on a project that cost you nothing.  You know, there's a bug list among other ways to communicate with the developers.</p><p><i>Seigo peppers every idea he has with colorful language like "new paradigms" but his ideas so far are hardly innovative.</i></p><p>Uh huh.  I see.  Get back to me after coding something as big and complicated as a desktop that \_actually\_ works and attracts users/contributors.  I'll  be sure to criticize your efforts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Making everything into desktop widgets ( including social networking fads like facebook ) is n't a bold new vision of the desktop environment... it 's glitzy eye-candy.I 'm not sure where the criticism is with this statement .
Widgets are bad ?
Are you suggesting that the goal of making it easier to add features to a desktop is not worth pursuing ?
Because as far as I can tell , that 's what the project is after.Maybe they do n't have widgets you like , but I 'm not sure where you get off dumping on a project that cost you nothing .
You know , there 's a bug list among other ways to communicate with the developers.Seigo peppers every idea he has with colorful language like " new paradigms " but his ideas so far are hardly innovative.Uh huh .
I see .
Get back to me after coding something as big and complicated as a desktop that \ _actually \ _ works and attracts users/contributors .
I 'll be sure to criticize your efforts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Making everything into desktop widgets (including social networking fads like facebook) isn't a bold new vision of the desktop environment... it's glitzy eye-candy.I'm not sure where the criticism is with this statement.
Widgets are bad?
Are you suggesting that the goal of making it easier to add features to a desktop is not worth pursuing?
Because as far as I can tell, that's what the project is after.Maybe they don't have widgets you like, but I'm not sure where you get off dumping on a project that cost you nothing.
You know, there's a bug list among other ways to communicate with the developers.Seigo peppers every idea he has with colorful language like "new paradigms" but his ideas so far are hardly innovative.Uh huh.
I see.
Get back to me after coding something as big and complicated as a desktop that \_actually\_ works and attracts users/contributors.
I'll  be sure to criticize your efforts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28428381</id>
	<title>Re:"Free Software" vs "Open Source" vs... whatever</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245663480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does Ubuntu get worse on my laptop if it's not out there conquering the world?</p></div><p>As long as hardware makers are happy with releasing undocumented hardware with window$-only drivers - yes it gets.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does Ubuntu get worse on my laptop if it 's not out there conquering the world ? As long as hardware makers are happy with releasing undocumented hardware with window $ -only drivers - yes it gets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does Ubuntu get worse on my laptop if it's not out there conquering the world?As long as hardware makers are happy with releasing undocumented hardware with window$-only drivers - yes it gets.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415633</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28418379</id>
	<title>Those who put in the effort deserve the control</title>
	<author>Helldesk Hound</author>
	<datestamp>1245663060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; He points to instances of user backlash, and concludes 'Free software is still<br>&gt; driven by developers working on what interests or concerns them. The problem<br>&gt; is, the days when users of free software were also its developers are long<br>&gt; gone, but the habits of those days remain.</p><p>I am not a software developer.</p><p>However, I am a user of Free software.</p><p>It is my opinion that those persons who put in the time and effort to write the Free software (or to assist with testing, or the production of supporting documentation) are the persons who have a right to have an input in what direction that Free software is heading in, and what features it has.</p><p>I am thankful that so many software developers have produced such a rich and diverse wealth of Free software,  and that by virtue of the GNU General Public License all that software continues to give all users and developers the 4 fundamental software freedoms.</p><p>I think ordinary users should not have a deciding voice in what direction Free software goes - I think that much more deservingly belongs to those whose hard work actually gives us that Free software.</p><p>You want the privilege of a vote? How about you putting in some time working on some of those applications you want?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; He points to instances of user backlash , and concludes 'Free software is still &gt; driven by developers working on what interests or concerns them .
The problem &gt; is , the days when users of free software were also its developers are long &gt; gone , but the habits of those days remain.I am not a software developer.However , I am a user of Free software.It is my opinion that those persons who put in the time and effort to write the Free software ( or to assist with testing , or the production of supporting documentation ) are the persons who have a right to have an input in what direction that Free software is heading in , and what features it has.I am thankful that so many software developers have produced such a rich and diverse wealth of Free software , and that by virtue of the GNU General Public License all that software continues to give all users and developers the 4 fundamental software freedoms.I think ordinary users should not have a deciding voice in what direction Free software goes - I think that much more deservingly belongs to those whose hard work actually gives us that Free software.You want the privilege of a vote ?
How about you putting in some time working on some of those applications you want ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; He points to instances of user backlash, and concludes 'Free software is still&gt; driven by developers working on what interests or concerns them.
The problem&gt; is, the days when users of free software were also its developers are long&gt; gone, but the habits of those days remain.I am not a software developer.However, I am a user of Free software.It is my opinion that those persons who put in the time and effort to write the Free software (or to assist with testing, or the production of supporting documentation) are the persons who have a right to have an input in what direction that Free software is heading in, and what features it has.I am thankful that so many software developers have produced such a rich and diverse wealth of Free software,  and that by virtue of the GNU General Public License all that software continues to give all users and developers the 4 fundamental software freedoms.I think ordinary users should not have a deciding voice in what direction Free software goes - I think that much more deservingly belongs to those whose hard work actually gives us that Free software.You want the privilege of a vote?
How about you putting in some time working on some of those applications you want?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414773</id>
	<title>Re:Innovate is the wrong word</title>
	<author>bertoelcon</author>
	<datestamp>1245589200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On a related note, this particular problem is an excellent example of over-innovation on the part of Vista; am I the only one who despises Vista's new network connections configuration GUI?  It was perfectly unbroken in XP, IMHO, and they went and "fixed" it.</p></div><p>That was the majority of UI things they "fixed" for Vista and Office 07, none were really "broken", but looked "better" the new way but got hated since that old way was more ingrained since circa Win 95.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On a related note , this particular problem is an excellent example of over-innovation on the part of Vista ; am I the only one who despises Vista 's new network connections configuration GUI ?
It was perfectly unbroken in XP , IMHO , and they went and " fixed " it.That was the majority of UI things they " fixed " for Vista and Office 07 , none were really " broken " , but looked " better " the new way but got hated since that old way was more ingrained since circa Win 95 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a related note, this particular problem is an excellent example of over-innovation on the part of Vista; am I the only one who despises Vista's new network connections configuration GUI?
It was perfectly unbroken in XP, IMHO, and they went and "fixed" it.That was the majority of UI things they "fixed" for Vista and Office 07, none were really "broken", but looked "better" the new way but got hated since that old way was more ingrained since circa Win 95.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28432047</id>
	<title>Make use of extended attributes</title>
	<author>kentsin</author>
	<datestamp>1245676860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Extended attributes are universal now. but the usage is still low.</p><p>Attributes can be used to track the usage of a file, for example, a pdf file, word file. and all the settings the user last set can be stored as attributes and next time it got open the user can continue the work.</p><p>If copy of a file, or move a file reserve the attributes, that means a lot better world.</p><p>There are many use of attributes, and it can allow users to be creative. We just need a few tools and examples.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Extended attributes are universal now .
but the usage is still low.Attributes can be used to track the usage of a file , for example , a pdf file , word file .
and all the settings the user last set can be stored as attributes and next time it got open the user can continue the work.If copy of a file , or move a file reserve the attributes , that means a lot better world.There are many use of attributes , and it can allow users to be creative .
We just need a few tools and examples .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Extended attributes are universal now.
but the usage is still low.Attributes can be used to track the usage of a file, for example, a pdf file, word file.
and all the settings the user last set can be stored as attributes and next time it got open the user can continue the work.If copy of a file, or move a file reserve the attributes, that means a lot better world.There are many use of attributes, and it can allow users to be creative.
We just need a few tools and examples.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416275</id>
	<title>Re:Continuity is the winning strategy.</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1245602400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>kde4 has themes for kde1-3,BII,win9x,ettc so if people just want to make the desktop look the same, that is not a problem</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>kde4 has themes for kde1-3,BII,win9x,ettc so if people just want to make the desktop look the same , that is not a problem</tokentext>
<sentencetext>kde4 has themes for kde1-3,BII,win9x,ettc so if people just want to make the desktop look the same, that is not a problem</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414701</id>
	<title>What innovation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245588540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the past few years we've seen Expose, Spotlight, Time Machine, Aero Glass, and Growl, QuickSilver, and other innovations.</p><p>None of those have been in linux.</p><p>From my point of view, Linux has been getting better, but I wouldn't call it innovative. I don't remember hearing about any relatively innovative things on the Linux desktop.</p><p>The best I can think of is Ubuntu shipping the new notification mechanism, but that sounds a bit like Growl for OS X to me. I give them points for shipping it so everyone has it and it's not an incremental add-on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the past few years we 've seen Expose , Spotlight , Time Machine , Aero Glass , and Growl , QuickSilver , and other innovations.None of those have been in linux.From my point of view , Linux has been getting better , but I would n't call it innovative .
I do n't remember hearing about any relatively innovative things on the Linux desktop.The best I can think of is Ubuntu shipping the new notification mechanism , but that sounds a bit like Growl for OS X to me .
I give them points for shipping it so everyone has it and it 's not an incremental add-on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the past few years we've seen Expose, Spotlight, Time Machine, Aero Glass, and Growl, QuickSilver, and other innovations.None of those have been in linux.From my point of view, Linux has been getting better, but I wouldn't call it innovative.
I don't remember hearing about any relatively innovative things on the Linux desktop.The best I can think of is Ubuntu shipping the new notification mechanism, but that sounds a bit like Growl for OS X to me.
I give them points for shipping it so everyone has it and it's not an incremental add-on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414797</id>
	<title>Speaking of which...</title>
	<author>NotQuiteReal</author>
	<datestamp>1245589320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Better be careful - you wouldn't want to goad Microsoft into turning "Clippy Bob" into a Linux
app.
<br>
<br>
Heh, I thought you said;
<br>
<br>
<i>Closed source companies have to add useless and failed
features to public domain projects, to confuse and muddy the waters, otherwise the investors may sue the company.</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Better be careful - you would n't want to goad Microsoft into turning " Clippy Bob " into a Linux app .
Heh , I thought you said ; Closed source companies have to add useless and failed features to public domain projects , to confuse and muddy the waters , otherwise the investors may sue the company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better be careful - you wouldn't want to goad Microsoft into turning "Clippy Bob" into a Linux
app.
Heh, I thought you said;


Closed source companies have to add useless and failed
features to public domain projects, to confuse and muddy the waters, otherwise the investors may sue the company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417261</id>
	<title>Wrong Innovation</title>
	<author>ljuwaidah</author>
	<datestamp>1245609720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like I said on my blog[1], "Linux developers ARE innovative, just not in the right path".</p><p>I'm glad somebody else brought this up.</p><p>PS: I use Windows 7 RC now.</p><p>[1] <a href="http://ljuwaidah.blogspot.com/2009/04/linuxs-desktop-environments-are-failing.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://ljuwaidah.blogspot.com/2009/04/linuxs-desktop-environments-are-failing.html</a> [blogspot.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like I said on my blog [ 1 ] , " Linux developers ARE innovative , just not in the right path " .I 'm glad somebody else brought this up.PS : I use Windows 7 RC now .
[ 1 ] http : //ljuwaidah.blogspot.com/2009/04/linuxs-desktop-environments-are-failing.html [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like I said on my blog[1], "Linux developers ARE innovative, just not in the right path".I'm glad somebody else brought this up.PS: I use Windows 7 RC now.
[1] http://ljuwaidah.blogspot.com/2009/04/linuxs-desktop-environments-are-failing.html [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415577</id>
	<title>Re:Linux's ability to fail</title>
	<author>Waccoon</author>
	<datestamp>1245597180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So is all the innovation bad for Linux? Nope.</p></div><p>Innovation is simply change, not improvement.</p><p>If people don't have a clear idea of why they need innovation, just changing things for the sake of making them different does not make the product better.  Linux people have a very hard time understanding this, and it probably explains why many (but not all) things in the Linux community are designed to look and feel as much like Windows and OSX in the first place.  Linux is hardly a source for good, progressive innovation.</p><p>Personally, I see Linux-based desktops as one of the biggest disappointments since the Amiga.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And recovery time from failure? Almost zero in the case of Linux. People just keep on keepin' on.</p></div><p>GUI-driven versions of GNU/Linux have been around for more than 10 years, and Linux itself has been around for quite a lot longer.  After all this time, Linux is still struggling to gain even a fraction of market share, despite being free and readily available to practically everyone.  And, of course, Linux users keep complaining that Linux is ready for the desktop and should be much more popular among casual computer users.</p><p>Unless Linux is meant exclusively for geeks, I don't see much success, let alone recovery time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So is all the innovation bad for Linux ?
Nope.Innovation is simply change , not improvement.If people do n't have a clear idea of why they need innovation , just changing things for the sake of making them different does not make the product better .
Linux people have a very hard time understanding this , and it probably explains why many ( but not all ) things in the Linux community are designed to look and feel as much like Windows and OSX in the first place .
Linux is hardly a source for good , progressive innovation.Personally , I see Linux-based desktops as one of the biggest disappointments since the Amiga.And recovery time from failure ?
Almost zero in the case of Linux .
People just keep on keepin ' on.GUI-driven versions of GNU/Linux have been around for more than 10 years , and Linux itself has been around for quite a lot longer .
After all this time , Linux is still struggling to gain even a fraction of market share , despite being free and readily available to practically everyone .
And , of course , Linux users keep complaining that Linux is ready for the desktop and should be much more popular among casual computer users.Unless Linux is meant exclusively for geeks , I do n't see much success , let alone recovery time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So is all the innovation bad for Linux?
Nope.Innovation is simply change, not improvement.If people don't have a clear idea of why they need innovation, just changing things for the sake of making them different does not make the product better.
Linux people have a very hard time understanding this, and it probably explains why many (but not all) things in the Linux community are designed to look and feel as much like Windows and OSX in the first place.
Linux is hardly a source for good, progressive innovation.Personally, I see Linux-based desktops as one of the biggest disappointments since the Amiga.And recovery time from failure?
Almost zero in the case of Linux.
People just keep on keepin' on.GUI-driven versions of GNU/Linux have been around for more than 10 years, and Linux itself has been around for quite a lot longer.
After all this time, Linux is still struggling to gain even a fraction of market share, despite being free and readily available to practically everyone.
And, of course, Linux users keep complaining that Linux is ready for the desktop and should be much more popular among casual computer users.Unless Linux is meant exclusively for geeks, I don't see much success, let alone recovery time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414633</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416965</id>
	<title>Re:This seems a bit backwards</title>
	<author>mpapet</author>
	<datestamp>1245607140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Last I checked, Linux desktops were loaded with exciting new innovative features but failing on extremely basic tasks.</i></p><p>WTF?  I got email.  I got chat.  I got flash.  I got browsers.  I got media players.  Done.</p><p><i>NYTimes article on Ubuntu Linux</i> Last time I checked, Ubuntu uses everyone else's projects.  None of which look to the NY Times for affirmation.  That's a good thing and I hope it stays that way for a long, long time.</p><p>I suspect you are the only one who cares what the NY Times has to say.<br><i>Here are some no-brainers, if you want to see linux improve:</i></p><p>Your list suggests you have some corner-case hardware or pipe dream you want someone else to write for you.  Good luck with that.</p><p><i>* Write documentation sometimes. Format it well an ship it with your projects!</i></p><p>Uhhh.  man pages?  If the CLI is too frightening, then there's the gui-fied man pages that many desktops have.  Most mainstream projects are well documented.  I'm not sure what you are talking about here.  Wait,do you mean that \_one\_ application that's not documented???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last I checked , Linux desktops were loaded with exciting new innovative features but failing on extremely basic tasks.WTF ?
I got email .
I got chat .
I got flash .
I got browsers .
I got media players .
Done.NYTimes article on Ubuntu Linux Last time I checked , Ubuntu uses everyone else 's projects .
None of which look to the NY Times for affirmation .
That 's a good thing and I hope it stays that way for a long , long time.I suspect you are the only one who cares what the NY Times has to say.Here are some no-brainers , if you want to see linux improve : Your list suggests you have some corner-case hardware or pipe dream you want someone else to write for you .
Good luck with that .
* Write documentation sometimes .
Format it well an ship it with your projects ! Uhhh .
man pages ?
If the CLI is too frightening , then there 's the gui-fied man pages that many desktops have .
Most mainstream projects are well documented .
I 'm not sure what you are talking about here .
Wait,do you mean that \ _one \ _ application that 's not documented ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last I checked, Linux desktops were loaded with exciting new innovative features but failing on extremely basic tasks.WTF?
I got email.
I got chat.
I got flash.
I got browsers.
I got media players.
Done.NYTimes article on Ubuntu Linux Last time I checked, Ubuntu uses everyone else's projects.
None of which look to the NY Times for affirmation.
That's a good thing and I hope it stays that way for a long, long time.I suspect you are the only one who cares what the NY Times has to say.Here are some no-brainers, if you want to see linux improve:Your list suggests you have some corner-case hardware or pipe dream you want someone else to write for you.
Good luck with that.
* Write documentation sometimes.
Format it well an ship it with your projects!Uhhh.
man pages?
If the CLI is too frightening, then there's the gui-fied man pages that many desktops have.
Most mainstream projects are well documented.
I'm not sure what you are talking about here.
Wait,do you mean that \_one\_ application that's not documented??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414527</id>
	<title>Re:What do I owe the user again?</title>
	<author>turbidostato</author>
	<datestamp>1245586860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The essential problem with free software is that most of it is written to scratch someone's itch."</p><p>The proprietary software is for the most written to scratch someone's itch.</p><p>Oh! you meant "someone's *own* itch"!  Well, that's the case with proprietary software too.  It's only that free software tends to focus on someone's own technical/functional/motivational itch while proprietary scratch someone's own financial itch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The essential problem with free software is that most of it is written to scratch someone 's itch .
" The proprietary software is for the most written to scratch someone 's itch.Oh !
you meant " someone 's * own * itch " !
Well , that 's the case with proprietary software too .
It 's only that free software tends to focus on someone 's own technical/functional/motivational itch while proprietary scratch someone 's own financial itch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The essential problem with free software is that most of it is written to scratch someone's itch.
"The proprietary software is for the most written to scratch someone's itch.Oh!
you meant "someone's *own* itch"!
Well, that's the case with proprietary software too.
It's only that free software tends to focus on someone's own technical/functional/motivational itch while proprietary scratch someone's own financial itch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415481</id>
	<title>Re:Continuity is the winning strategy.</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1245596220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"One thing that Microsoft has done well is to maintain continuity with the past. The desktop of Windows 95 is still available on all consumer versions of Windows up to Windows 7."</p><p>They did, until Office 2007. Getting rid of the menu bar was a huge break with backwards compatibility, and IMO not at all a good one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" One thing that Microsoft has done well is to maintain continuity with the past .
The desktop of Windows 95 is still available on all consumer versions of Windows up to Windows 7 .
" They did , until Office 2007 .
Getting rid of the menu bar was a huge break with backwards compatibility , and IMO not at all a good one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"One thing that Microsoft has done well is to maintain continuity with the past.
The desktop of Windows 95 is still available on all consumer versions of Windows up to Windows 7.
"They did, until Office 2007.
Getting rid of the menu bar was a huge break with backwards compatibility, and IMO not at all a good one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28420941</id>
	<title>bogus issues ..</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1245681480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>He points to instances of user backlash</i>"<br> <br>

Nowhere in the article are any concrete backlash issues raised. It's all opinion by the author. For people who want to get involved in beta testing, there's the support forums. For the rest of us we wait for the next stable release.<br> <br>

"<i>developers function far too much in isolation from their user base</i>"<br> <br>

The thing about Open Source is that no one is forcing you to upgrade. As for developers  too isolation from their user base, that is an equally bogus issue. Personally, when evere I have had a problem with software, I contacted the lead developer directly and got a polite response. When was the last time the average Windows user got to talk to the Windows developers?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" He points to instances of user backlash " Nowhere in the article are any concrete backlash issues raised .
It 's all opinion by the author .
For people who want to get involved in beta testing , there 's the support forums .
For the rest of us we wait for the next stable release .
" developers function far too much in isolation from their user base " The thing about Open Source is that no one is forcing you to upgrade .
As for developers too isolation from their user base , that is an equally bogus issue .
Personally , when evere I have had a problem with software , I contacted the lead developer directly and got a polite response .
When was the last time the average Windows user got to talk to the Windows developers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"He points to instances of user backlash" 

Nowhere in the article are any concrete backlash issues raised.
It's all opinion by the author.
For people who want to get involved in beta testing, there's the support forums.
For the rest of us we wait for the next stable release.
"developers function far too much in isolation from their user base" 

The thing about Open Source is that no one is forcing you to upgrade.
As for developers  too isolation from their user base, that is an equally bogus issue.
Personally, when evere I have had a problem with software, I contacted the lead developer directly and got a polite response.
When was the last time the average Windows user got to talk to the Windows developers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417363</id>
	<title>There are other things that need addressing first</title>
	<author>giorgosts</author>
	<datestamp>1245610800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like the inferiority of Openoffice vs MsOffice. (even vs MsOffice2003 for god's sake). Or aMSN vs Messenger (esp. webcam support).</p><p>It's all about the apps. Any Linux app. that is not computer-related, is inferior to its commercial counterpart. (Excepting firefox and ffmpeg. May be a development model like mozilla's is needed to reverse the general stagnation)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like the inferiority of Openoffice vs MsOffice .
( even vs MsOffice2003 for god 's sake ) .
Or aMSN vs Messenger ( esp .
webcam support ) .It 's all about the apps .
Any Linux app .
that is not computer-related , is inferior to its commercial counterpart .
( Excepting firefox and ffmpeg .
May be a development model like mozilla 's is needed to reverse the general stagnation )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like the inferiority of Openoffice vs MsOffice.
(even vs MsOffice2003 for god's sake).
Or aMSN vs Messenger (esp.
webcam support).It's all about the apps.
Any Linux app.
that is not computer-related, is inferior to its commercial counterpart.
(Excepting firefox and ffmpeg.
May be a development model like mozilla's is needed to reverse the general stagnation)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28429471</id>
	<title>Re:"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self</title>
	<author>diego.viola</author>
	<datestamp>1245667140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Linux is already mainstream, it's being used everywhere... and I think that's good, people keep building interesting things on top of Linux, and I think it will always be like that, from geeks by geeks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux is already mainstream , it 's being used everywhere... and I think that 's good , people keep building interesting things on top of Linux , and I think it will always be like that , from geeks by geeks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux is already mainstream, it's being used everywhere... and I think that's good, people keep building interesting things on top of Linux, and I think it will always be like that, from geeks by geeks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415061</id>
	<title>Re:Continuity is the winning strategy.</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1245591840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Most people -- except tech geeks -- do not want to learn a new way of doing things once they learn a particular way that suits their needs. </i>
</p><p>In my experience, the "tech geeks" are the ones most resistant to change.  Exhibit A: the immediate disabling of the XP-style Start Menu by pretty much anyone who calls themselves a "power user".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people -- except tech geeks -- do not want to learn a new way of doing things once they learn a particular way that suits their needs .
In my experience , the " tech geeks " are the ones most resistant to change .
Exhibit A : the immediate disabling of the XP-style Start Menu by pretty much anyone who calls themselves a " power user " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Most people -- except tech geeks -- do not want to learn a new way of doing things once they learn a particular way that suits their needs.
In my experience, the "tech geeks" are the ones most resistant to change.
Exhibit A: the immediate disabling of the XP-style Start Menu by pretty much anyone who calls themselves a "power user".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28418153</id>
	<title>are you kidding?</title>
	<author>speedtux</author>
	<datestamp>1245704040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>X is architecturally inferior to WindowServer and Windows' display layer for desktop-oriented tasks. A simplified windowing system that puts graphics first and drops the cruft would go a long way in making linux seem modern and easy to maintain.</i></p><p>The graphics subsystem in Windows is a frame buffer graphics library poorly retrofitted for asynchronous calls.  X was designed from the start for asynchronous client/server communications and operation in a separate "window server".  X got it right 20 years ago.  After two decades and several rewrites, both Microsoft and Apple have finally arrived at an X-like architecture.</p><p>There are some parts of X that aren't being used much and where desktops like Gnome have their own systems (e.g., Gnome configuration data and DBUS communication).  The solutions adopted by the desktops are generally still inferior to the original X mechanisms.</p><p>If anything should change, it's that people should take a good hard look at Gnome and KDE and get rid of some of their windows-inspired cruft and replace it with better X-based solutions.  This may involve an overhaul of some X mechanisms (X properties and events probably aren't up to the demands of a modern desktop, but that's fixable), but the principles and approaches embodied by X are superior to the "single user desktop PC" view of Windows and its clones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>X is architecturally inferior to WindowServer and Windows ' display layer for desktop-oriented tasks .
A simplified windowing system that puts graphics first and drops the cruft would go a long way in making linux seem modern and easy to maintain.The graphics subsystem in Windows is a frame buffer graphics library poorly retrofitted for asynchronous calls .
X was designed from the start for asynchronous client/server communications and operation in a separate " window server " .
X got it right 20 years ago .
After two decades and several rewrites , both Microsoft and Apple have finally arrived at an X-like architecture.There are some parts of X that are n't being used much and where desktops like Gnome have their own systems ( e.g. , Gnome configuration data and DBUS communication ) .
The solutions adopted by the desktops are generally still inferior to the original X mechanisms.If anything should change , it 's that people should take a good hard look at Gnome and KDE and get rid of some of their windows-inspired cruft and replace it with better X-based solutions .
This may involve an overhaul of some X mechanisms ( X properties and events probably are n't up to the demands of a modern desktop , but that 's fixable ) , but the principles and approaches embodied by X are superior to the " single user desktop PC " view of Windows and its clones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>X is architecturally inferior to WindowServer and Windows' display layer for desktop-oriented tasks.
A simplified windowing system that puts graphics first and drops the cruft would go a long way in making linux seem modern and easy to maintain.The graphics subsystem in Windows is a frame buffer graphics library poorly retrofitted for asynchronous calls.
X was designed from the start for asynchronous client/server communications and operation in a separate "window server".
X got it right 20 years ago.
After two decades and several rewrites, both Microsoft and Apple have finally arrived at an X-like architecture.There are some parts of X that aren't being used much and where desktops like Gnome have their own systems (e.g., Gnome configuration data and DBUS communication).
The solutions adopted by the desktops are generally still inferior to the original X mechanisms.If anything should change, it's that people should take a good hard look at Gnome and KDE and get rid of some of their windows-inspired cruft and replace it with better X-based solutions.
This may involve an overhaul of some X mechanisms (X properties and events probably aren't up to the demands of a modern desktop, but that's fixable), but the principles and approaches embodied by X are superior to the "single user desktop PC" view of Windows and its clones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28420299</id>
	<title>Re:Warning: Kubuntu rant imminent!</title>
	<author>kojot350</author>
	<datestamp>1245678660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope you've reported those bugs to bugtracker<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)
I've tried KUbuntu but it has tendency to give the worst KDE experience of all. I've switched to openSUSE, works great for me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope you 've reported those bugs to bugtracker ; ) I 've tried KUbuntu but it has tendency to give the worst KDE experience of all .
I 've switched to openSUSE , works great for me : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope you've reported those bugs to bugtracker ;)
I've tried KUbuntu but it has tendency to give the worst KDE experience of all.
I've switched to openSUSE, works great for me :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414845</id>
	<title>Re:Most users don't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245589740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All they want is something that will be stable and get the job done, in a consistent manner. Often times the bells and whistles for the sake of having htem just get in the way, and damages consistency making things confusing when they don't need to be.</p></div><p>I disagree, when I see what people prefer, I see people seeking out bloated, overly complicated pieces of crap on the grounds that more features are better. It's a shame, but most users don't care about how something was written and the "simplicity is beauty" philosophy is meaningless, modern day programmers are all too happy to entertain this mentality.</p><p>As for all this stuff about users and developers being in different camps, all I can say is that maybe free (as in cost) software is the wrong approach.</p><p>People who develop for users should be paid for their work. The free model just isn't appropriate for work that isn't "fun".</p><p>Doesn't mean it has to be closed source! you can sell open source if you want to.</p><p>I find it interesting how people (especially developers) have such strong convictions that software should be free of charge. There's nothing shameful about getting paid for what you do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All they want is something that will be stable and get the job done , in a consistent manner .
Often times the bells and whistles for the sake of having htem just get in the way , and damages consistency making things confusing when they do n't need to be.I disagree , when I see what people prefer , I see people seeking out bloated , overly complicated pieces of crap on the grounds that more features are better .
It 's a shame , but most users do n't care about how something was written and the " simplicity is beauty " philosophy is meaningless , modern day programmers are all too happy to entertain this mentality.As for all this stuff about users and developers being in different camps , all I can say is that maybe free ( as in cost ) software is the wrong approach.People who develop for users should be paid for their work .
The free model just is n't appropriate for work that is n't " fun " .Does n't mean it has to be closed source !
you can sell open source if you want to.I find it interesting how people ( especially developers ) have such strong convictions that software should be free of charge .
There 's nothing shameful about getting paid for what you do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All they want is something that will be stable and get the job done, in a consistent manner.
Often times the bells and whistles for the sake of having htem just get in the way, and damages consistency making things confusing when they don't need to be.I disagree, when I see what people prefer, I see people seeking out bloated, overly complicated pieces of crap on the grounds that more features are better.
It's a shame, but most users don't care about how something was written and the "simplicity is beauty" philosophy is meaningless, modern day programmers are all too happy to entertain this mentality.As for all this stuff about users and developers being in different camps, all I can say is that maybe free (as in cost) software is the wrong approach.People who develop for users should be paid for their work.
The free model just isn't appropriate for work that isn't "fun".Doesn't mean it has to be closed source!
you can sell open source if you want to.I find it interesting how people (especially developers) have such strong convictions that software should be free of charge.
There's nothing shameful about getting paid for what you do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414709</id>
	<title>Re:Continuity is the winning strategy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245588600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lol, claiming windows is consistent across versions.  what kind of drugs are you on and where can i get some.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lol , claiming windows is consistent across versions .
what kind of drugs are you on and where can i get some .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lol, claiming windows is consistent across versions.
what kind of drugs are you on and where can i get some.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28419747</id>
	<title>The only innovation I want</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1245674760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>is keeping anything mono-tainted out of all default installs.  If users want to infect themselves with the Novel/Microsoft/Icaza virus, they should have to inflict that damage on themselves intentionally.</htmltext>
<tokenext>is keeping anything mono-tainted out of all default installs .
If users want to infect themselves with the Novel/Microsoft/Icaza virus , they should have to inflict that damage on themselves intentionally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is keeping anything mono-tainted out of all default installs.
If users want to infect themselves with the Novel/Microsoft/Icaza virus, they should have to inflict that damage on themselves intentionally.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414869</id>
	<title>Maybe /. should read this article</title>
	<author>cjjjer</author>
	<datestamp>1245589920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just give me a list of articles and the comments to them, screw all of this fancy graphics and layout for comments.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just give me a list of articles and the comments to them , screw all of this fancy graphics and layout for comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just give me a list of articles and the comments to them, screw all of this fancy graphics and layout for comments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417575</id>
	<title>The real problem: Users just want things that work</title>
	<author>Agent ME</author>
	<datestamp>1245612600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I could care less if my UI is some brand-new redesigned thing, or something that looks just like Windows 95.</p><p>I want basic features that I've been used to on Windows.<br>When I'm playing a game, and I want to change the volume, pressing the volume control buttons on my keyboard should change the volume. Pressing the next song button better get my media player running in the background to the next song.<br>And if I get an instant message while playing a game, I certainly should be able to alt-tab away from the game to Pidgin to type a reply.</p><p>I can do none of these things when a program grabs control of the keyboard and mouse in Ubuntu. Some games I can release the mouse grab by dropping down the console (thank you Quake 3), but if a game doesn't let me do this (UT2004), then the system is perfectly happy to keep me locked into it until hell freezes over or I exit the game prematurely just to message my friend I'm in a game... or was.</p><p>And it's not even limited to games. If I have a drop-down menu open, such as Firefox's bookmarks menu, then same thing: the volume and media control keys don't work. I end up mashing the key several times wondering when it will catch up before I remember this frustrating glitch.</p><p>On top of all this, almost to add insult to injury, the screensaver will come on while playing certain games, even if you're actively pressing keys. At least there's a bug report for this-- er, a 3 year old bug report for this: <a href="https://bugs.launchpad.net/gnome-screensaver/+bug/32457" title="launchpad.net" rel="nofollow">https://bugs.launchpad.net/gnome-screensaver/+bug/32457</a> [launchpad.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could care less if my UI is some brand-new redesigned thing , or something that looks just like Windows 95.I want basic features that I 've been used to on Windows.When I 'm playing a game , and I want to change the volume , pressing the volume control buttons on my keyboard should change the volume .
Pressing the next song button better get my media player running in the background to the next song.And if I get an instant message while playing a game , I certainly should be able to alt-tab away from the game to Pidgin to type a reply.I can do none of these things when a program grabs control of the keyboard and mouse in Ubuntu .
Some games I can release the mouse grab by dropping down the console ( thank you Quake 3 ) , but if a game does n't let me do this ( UT2004 ) , then the system is perfectly happy to keep me locked into it until hell freezes over or I exit the game prematurely just to message my friend I 'm in a game... or was.And it 's not even limited to games .
If I have a drop-down menu open , such as Firefox 's bookmarks menu , then same thing : the volume and media control keys do n't work .
I end up mashing the key several times wondering when it will catch up before I remember this frustrating glitch.On top of all this , almost to add insult to injury , the screensaver will come on while playing certain games , even if you 're actively pressing keys .
At least there 's a bug report for this-- er , a 3 year old bug report for this : https : //bugs.launchpad.net/gnome-screensaver/ + bug/32457 [ launchpad.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could care less if my UI is some brand-new redesigned thing, or something that looks just like Windows 95.I want basic features that I've been used to on Windows.When I'm playing a game, and I want to change the volume, pressing the volume control buttons on my keyboard should change the volume.
Pressing the next song button better get my media player running in the background to the next song.And if I get an instant message while playing a game, I certainly should be able to alt-tab away from the game to Pidgin to type a reply.I can do none of these things when a program grabs control of the keyboard and mouse in Ubuntu.
Some games I can release the mouse grab by dropping down the console (thank you Quake 3), but if a game doesn't let me do this (UT2004), then the system is perfectly happy to keep me locked into it until hell freezes over or I exit the game prematurely just to message my friend I'm in a game... or was.And it's not even limited to games.
If I have a drop-down menu open, such as Firefox's bookmarks menu, then same thing: the volume and media control keys don't work.
I end up mashing the key several times wondering when it will catch up before I remember this frustrating glitch.On top of all this, almost to add insult to injury, the screensaver will come on while playing certain games, even if you're actively pressing keys.
At least there's a bug report for this-- er, a 3 year old bug report for this: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gnome-screensaver/+bug/32457 [launchpad.net]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414947</id>
	<title>Re:Continuity is the winning strategy.</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1245590700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same observation here. I much prefer a more basic look and feel. Too much clutter gets in the way of what I actually want to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same observation here .
I much prefer a more basic look and feel .
Too much clutter gets in the way of what I actually want to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same observation here.
I much prefer a more basic look and feel.
Too much clutter gets in the way of what I actually want to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28424613</id>
	<title>Nothing new here...</title>
	<author>Eskarel</author>
	<datestamp>1245693780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Open source developers primarily work for free, so they work on projects that interest them, either because the problem is interesting, they need or want the features being implemented or implementing the problem will gain them status within the community. That is to say they, like everyone else on this planet, work for personal gain even if it's not monetary in nature.</p><p>No amount of user testing is going to change this, because Linux isn't developed for the users, it's developed for the developers. If you want people to do boring stuff which they don't want and which isn't in any way impressive, then you have to motivate them in some other way. This generally means money, and most of the paid Linux programming jobs are on the server side of things.</p><p>Note there's nothing wrong with any of this, it's just reality and human nature, when people are doing stuff for fun, they tend to not want to do stuff that isn't fun. Why should they? I'd hazard a guess that a lot of open source developers make a living doing something else and whatever that is will have plenty of boring, tedious stuff which gets you no recognition or reward, why would people want to do more of that at home for free?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open source developers primarily work for free , so they work on projects that interest them , either because the problem is interesting , they need or want the features being implemented or implementing the problem will gain them status within the community .
That is to say they , like everyone else on this planet , work for personal gain even if it 's not monetary in nature.No amount of user testing is going to change this , because Linux is n't developed for the users , it 's developed for the developers .
If you want people to do boring stuff which they do n't want and which is n't in any way impressive , then you have to motivate them in some other way .
This generally means money , and most of the paid Linux programming jobs are on the server side of things.Note there 's nothing wrong with any of this , it 's just reality and human nature , when people are doing stuff for fun , they tend to not want to do stuff that is n't fun .
Why should they ?
I 'd hazard a guess that a lot of open source developers make a living doing something else and whatever that is will have plenty of boring , tedious stuff which gets you no recognition or reward , why would people want to do more of that at home for free ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open source developers primarily work for free, so they work on projects that interest them, either because the problem is interesting, they need or want the features being implemented or implementing the problem will gain them status within the community.
That is to say they, like everyone else on this planet, work for personal gain even if it's not monetary in nature.No amount of user testing is going to change this, because Linux isn't developed for the users, it's developed for the developers.
If you want people to do boring stuff which they don't want and which isn't in any way impressive, then you have to motivate them in some other way.
This generally means money, and most of the paid Linux programming jobs are on the server side of things.Note there's nothing wrong with any of this, it's just reality and human nature, when people are doing stuff for fun, they tend to not want to do stuff that isn't fun.
Why should they?
I'd hazard a guess that a lot of open source developers make a living doing something else and whatever that is will have plenty of boring, tedious stuff which gets you no recognition or reward, why would people want to do more of that at home for free?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415035</id>
	<title>Every innovation makes it easier to use</title>
	<author>kawabago</author>
	<datestamp>1245591540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mind you Mozilla is getting pretty bloated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mind you Mozilla is getting pretty bloated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mind you Mozilla is getting pretty bloated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415467</id>
	<title>Re:Continuity is the winning strategy.</title>
	<author>DirePickle</author>
	<datestamp>1245596100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm this way. Unfortunately, in Vista the 'classic' look is actually slower than Aero for some reason. The entire UI becomes far less responsive than XP's classic-look UI. There's horrendous tearing whenever you drag a window, for instance. I think that in Vista, classic must not even be 2D accelerated or something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm this way .
Unfortunately , in Vista the 'classic ' look is actually slower than Aero for some reason .
The entire UI becomes far less responsive than XP 's classic-look UI .
There 's horrendous tearing whenever you drag a window , for instance .
I think that in Vista , classic must not even be 2D accelerated or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm this way.
Unfortunately, in Vista the 'classic' look is actually slower than Aero for some reason.
The entire UI becomes far less responsive than XP's classic-look UI.
There's horrendous tearing whenever you drag a window, for instance.
I think that in Vista, classic must not even be 2D accelerated or something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415545</id>
	<title>Wait until GNOME does it ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245596940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Call me a conspiracy theorist but the day GNOME/GTK devs announce building social networking right into the desktop/cloud/(next cool word), everyone will jump with joy and announce it as the greatest thing since sliced bread, wheel etc. its just because KDE seems to be the place where OSS is innovating, there are poison tongues wagging.</p><p>Bait? You bet its a bait. OSS media and columnists only want one desktop and what better way to do it then criticize everything that comes from one camp (KDE) but when $DEITY's own desktop does it (GNOME) it makes history!</p><p>Disgusting, to say the least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Call me a conspiracy theorist but the day GNOME/GTK devs announce building social networking right into the desktop/cloud/ ( next cool word ) , everyone will jump with joy and announce it as the greatest thing since sliced bread , wheel etc .
its just because KDE seems to be the place where OSS is innovating , there are poison tongues wagging.Bait ?
You bet its a bait .
OSS media and columnists only want one desktop and what better way to do it then criticize everything that comes from one camp ( KDE ) but when $ DEITY 's own desktop does it ( GNOME ) it makes history ! Disgusting , to say the least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Call me a conspiracy theorist but the day GNOME/GTK devs announce building social networking right into the desktop/cloud/(next cool word), everyone will jump with joy and announce it as the greatest thing since sliced bread, wheel etc.
its just because KDE seems to be the place where OSS is innovating, there are poison tongues wagging.Bait?
You bet its a bait.
OSS media and columnists only want one desktop and what better way to do it then criticize everything that comes from one camp (KDE) but when $DEITY's own desktop does it (GNOME) it makes history!Disgusting, to say the least.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28434199</id>
	<title>maybe...</title>
	<author>smash</author>
	<datestamp>1245688260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... if KDE 4.x is anything to go by.
<p>
I've been a linux user off/on for about 14 years.  Have used KDE as desktop environment of choice since version 2.0, previously a Windowmaker junkie.
</p><p>
I've tried KDE4 a couple of times and irresepective of all the architecture changes, my immediate reaction was something like this:
</p><ul>
<li>hmm, start menu is a bit buggy, i click on stuff and sometimes i thinks i've tried to move things</li><li>all my desktop icons are no longer seamlessly placed on the desktop, but in a shitty folder window</li><li>hmm, theme is different</li><li>hmm, crashes a bit</li></ul><p>
KDE 3.x was solid, from an end user's perspective.  4.x is arse.
</p><p>
For "getting shit done" KDE3 was pretty hard to beat.  ioslaves are the shit, and the interface was fairly clean and usable.  As far as 4.x goes, I just don't see anything that helps me "get shit done" in a more efficient manner.
</p><p>
For those who are about to retort "ahh but you need to give it some time to learn the new features" - i shouldn't have to.  They shouldn't be so vague and not immediately obvious that a Linux user of 14 years doesn't see/notice them, and only sees the downsides...
</p><p>
Windows 7 vs previous versions - interface is a dramatic, intuitive, immediately noticable improvement.  KDE 4.x is a joke.  I'm going back to Windowmaker and getting into GNUstep programming I think...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... if KDE 4.x is anything to go by .
I 've been a linux user off/on for about 14 years .
Have used KDE as desktop environment of choice since version 2.0 , previously a Windowmaker junkie .
I 've tried KDE4 a couple of times and irresepective of all the architecture changes , my immediate reaction was something like this : hmm , start menu is a bit buggy , i click on stuff and sometimes i thinks i 've tried to move thingsall my desktop icons are no longer seamlessly placed on the desktop , but in a shitty folder windowhmm , theme is differenthmm , crashes a bit KDE 3.x was solid , from an end user 's perspective .
4.x is arse .
For " getting shit done " KDE3 was pretty hard to beat .
ioslaves are the shit , and the interface was fairly clean and usable .
As far as 4.x goes , I just do n't see anything that helps me " get shit done " in a more efficient manner .
For those who are about to retort " ahh but you need to give it some time to learn the new features " - i should n't have to .
They should n't be so vague and not immediately obvious that a Linux user of 14 years does n't see/notice them , and only sees the downsides.. . Windows 7 vs previous versions - interface is a dramatic , intuitive , immediately noticable improvement .
KDE 4.x is a joke .
I 'm going back to Windowmaker and getting into GNUstep programming I think.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... if KDE 4.x is anything to go by.
I've been a linux user off/on for about 14 years.
Have used KDE as desktop environment of choice since version 2.0, previously a Windowmaker junkie.
I've tried KDE4 a couple of times and irresepective of all the architecture changes, my immediate reaction was something like this:

hmm, start menu is a bit buggy, i click on stuff and sometimes i thinks i've tried to move thingsall my desktop icons are no longer seamlessly placed on the desktop, but in a shitty folder windowhmm, theme is differenthmm, crashes a bit
KDE 3.x was solid, from an end user's perspective.
4.x is arse.
For "getting shit done" KDE3 was pretty hard to beat.
ioslaves are the shit, and the interface was fairly clean and usable.
As far as 4.x goes, I just don't see anything that helps me "get shit done" in a more efficient manner.
For those who are about to retort "ahh but you need to give it some time to learn the new features" - i shouldn't have to.
They shouldn't be so vague and not immediately obvious that a Linux user of 14 years doesn't see/notice them, and only sees the downsides...

Windows 7 vs previous versions - interface is a dramatic, intuitive, immediately noticable improvement.
KDE 4.x is a joke.
I'm going back to Windowmaker and getting into GNUstep programming I think...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414483</id>
	<title>Re:Innovate is the wrong word</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1245586500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems like the Major Linux Distributions have put effort into fancy eye candy for eye candy sake not for usability sake.   There are so many details that the Linux community has never really considered to make a major part of the distributions.  It has 2 main targets, the complete Idiot user, and the expert user.  Between that gap there is really a big hole.</p><p>Just recently I needed to switch my network settings from DHCP to a Static IP address.  For Windows and a Mac that is a simple task. Fill out the form and it checks for bad input and and the changes go live.  For Ubuntu, after digging threw the GUI settings, I had to go to the terminal and put the changes in interfaces file.  While I have been using Linux for about 15 years, it wasn't that big of a deal, but still it was annoying that there wasn't a GUI where I could quickly change the setting, while focusing on putting in the right data.  Not remembering the name to use for the configuration file, or the format is just an annoyance for tasks that you may not do every day or every month, heck or every year.  For this case I was glad I had my iPhone where I could do a quick reference.</p><p>There is a gap that is very slowly filling in Linux for people who know how to use a computer however they don't want to remember outdated command lines and poorly documented config file just so they can get work done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems like the Major Linux Distributions have put effort into fancy eye candy for eye candy sake not for usability sake .
There are so many details that the Linux community has never really considered to make a major part of the distributions .
It has 2 main targets , the complete Idiot user , and the expert user .
Between that gap there is really a big hole.Just recently I needed to switch my network settings from DHCP to a Static IP address .
For Windows and a Mac that is a simple task .
Fill out the form and it checks for bad input and and the changes go live .
For Ubuntu , after digging threw the GUI settings , I had to go to the terminal and put the changes in interfaces file .
While I have been using Linux for about 15 years , it was n't that big of a deal , but still it was annoying that there was n't a GUI where I could quickly change the setting , while focusing on putting in the right data .
Not remembering the name to use for the configuration file , or the format is just an annoyance for tasks that you may not do every day or every month , heck or every year .
For this case I was glad I had my iPhone where I could do a quick reference.There is a gap that is very slowly filling in Linux for people who know how to use a computer however they do n't want to remember outdated command lines and poorly documented config file just so they can get work done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems like the Major Linux Distributions have put effort into fancy eye candy for eye candy sake not for usability sake.
There are so many details that the Linux community has never really considered to make a major part of the distributions.
It has 2 main targets, the complete Idiot user, and the expert user.
Between that gap there is really a big hole.Just recently I needed to switch my network settings from DHCP to a Static IP address.
For Windows and a Mac that is a simple task.
Fill out the form and it checks for bad input and and the changes go live.
For Ubuntu, after digging threw the GUI settings, I had to go to the terminal and put the changes in interfaces file.
While I have been using Linux for about 15 years, it wasn't that big of a deal, but still it was annoying that there wasn't a GUI where I could quickly change the setting, while focusing on putting in the right data.
Not remembering the name to use for the configuration file, or the format is just an annoyance for tasks that you may not do every day or every month, heck or every year.
For this case I was glad I had my iPhone where I could do a quick reference.There is a gap that is very slowly filling in Linux for people who know how to use a computer however they don't want to remember outdated command lines and poorly documented config file just so they can get work done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417149</id>
	<title>It's better than marketing driven development...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245608820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"Free software is still driven by developers working on what interests or concerns them."</i> <br>Yes... and that's exactly the reason why it is working so well.<br>...btw how is this so called problem different from MS redesigning Windows / Office UI ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Free software is still driven by developers working on what interests or concerns them .
" Yes... and that 's exactly the reason why it is working so well....btw how is this so called problem different from MS redesigning Windows / Office UI ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Free software is still driven by developers working on what interests or concerns them.
" Yes... and that's exactly the reason why it is working so well....btw how is this so called problem different from MS redesigning Windows / Office UI ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417369</id>
	<title>Applying the same logic...</title>
	<author>l00sr</author>
	<datestamp>1245610860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not very successful with women.  Could it be that I'm just<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/too/ attractive?  Hmm...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not very successful with women .
Could it be that I 'm just /too/ attractive ?
Hmm.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not very successful with women.
Could it be that I'm just /too/ attractive?
Hmm...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28420935</id>
	<title>Re:are you kidding?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245681420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>90\% of my Linux problems are because of X windows and graphics drivers.  It started with Red Hat 5.2, and it continues to today.</p><p>The Linux community needs to create testing tools for companies that make video cards to see if they would work with Linux and what problems there are.</p><p>And at the beginning of the year, there needs to be a best Linux hardware list that names the top video card that works in Linux for the price and should be the only card that Linux users buy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>90 \ % of my Linux problems are because of X windows and graphics drivers .
It started with Red Hat 5.2 , and it continues to today.The Linux community needs to create testing tools for companies that make video cards to see if they would work with Linux and what problems there are.And at the beginning of the year , there needs to be a best Linux hardware list that names the top video card that works in Linux for the price and should be the only card that Linux users buy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>90\% of my Linux problems are because of X windows and graphics drivers.
It started with Red Hat 5.2, and it continues to today.The Linux community needs to create testing tools for companies that make video cards to see if they would work with Linux and what problems there are.And at the beginning of the year, there needs to be a best Linux hardware list that names the top video card that works in Linux for the price and should be the only card that Linux users buy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28418153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28432569</id>
	<title>Re:Seigo has gotten it all wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245679320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when did Bruce Byfield become a Linux pundit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when did Bruce Byfield become a Linux pundit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when did Bruce Byfield become a Linux pundit?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415669</id>
	<title>Re:yet another implicit "oh noes, not windowz" ran</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1245597840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And there are very easy ways to see where Gnome is headed. They freaking plaster it all over their website!<br> <br>I tested the Gnome Shell stuff and thought it was brilliant. It will take some work, but at the point it's at now, I have no worries whatsoever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And there are very easy ways to see where Gnome is headed .
They freaking plaster it all over their website !
I tested the Gnome Shell stuff and thought it was brilliant .
It will take some work , but at the point it 's at now , I have no worries whatsoever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And there are very easy ways to see where Gnome is headed.
They freaking plaster it all over their website!
I tested the Gnome Shell stuff and thought it was brilliant.
It will take some work, but at the point it's at now, I have no worries whatsoever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417133</id>
	<title>Re:Linux's ability to fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245608760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We all see what happens when Windows fails (Vista?)</p> </div><p>It rakes in billions of dollars and gains 30\% market share?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We all see what happens when Windows fails ( Vista ?
) It rakes in billions of dollars and gains 30 \ % market share ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all see what happens when Windows fails (Vista?
) It rakes in billions of dollars and gains 30\% market share?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414633</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28418927</id>
	<title>Re:Most users don't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245668100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing is, if you start a project and extend it to levels you hardly presumed, most of the time the code becomes a unmaintainable mess after some time. It is filled with hacks noone (including the programmer) understands. Bugs there will never be fixed, because the chance of breaking something more important is too high.</p><p>The cost of further improving the product raise to unjustifiable heights. So you have to either start from scratch or you try to review some parts of the product. Either way will lead to a less stable and complete product for a while. But given the previous experiences the new code will be better to handle than the old one. And the result will be a better experience for the programmer and the user.</p><p>And take a look at KDE4. Even if you say that KDE3 could do everything you ever want, there is still the underlying framework Qt that has to be considered. Qt 4.0 celebrates its 4th anniversary next week. How long do you think KDE could have sticked with Qt 3? Sometimes the technology you rely on changes.</p><p>What I want to say is that an evolutionary aproach brings you only so far in software development. Just because the user doesn't want to hear about that, will not change the facts. Writing software is unlike any other engineering branch. For these you have formulas and models that will lead to sure success if you know them. Writing formal proven code is just far to costly and in some cases hardly possible. If we sticked to formal proven code we wouldn't even have the software of the 1980s.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is , if you start a project and extend it to levels you hardly presumed , most of the time the code becomes a unmaintainable mess after some time .
It is filled with hacks noone ( including the programmer ) understands .
Bugs there will never be fixed , because the chance of breaking something more important is too high.The cost of further improving the product raise to unjustifiable heights .
So you have to either start from scratch or you try to review some parts of the product .
Either way will lead to a less stable and complete product for a while .
But given the previous experiences the new code will be better to handle than the old one .
And the result will be a better experience for the programmer and the user.And take a look at KDE4 .
Even if you say that KDE3 could do everything you ever want , there is still the underlying framework Qt that has to be considered .
Qt 4.0 celebrates its 4th anniversary next week .
How long do you think KDE could have sticked with Qt 3 ?
Sometimes the technology you rely on changes.What I want to say is that an evolutionary aproach brings you only so far in software development .
Just because the user does n't want to hear about that , will not change the facts .
Writing software is unlike any other engineering branch .
For these you have formulas and models that will lead to sure success if you know them .
Writing formal proven code is just far to costly and in some cases hardly possible .
If we sticked to formal proven code we would n't even have the software of the 1980s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is, if you start a project and extend it to levels you hardly presumed, most of the time the code becomes a unmaintainable mess after some time.
It is filled with hacks noone (including the programmer) understands.
Bugs there will never be fixed, because the chance of breaking something more important is too high.The cost of further improving the product raise to unjustifiable heights.
So you have to either start from scratch or you try to review some parts of the product.
Either way will lead to a less stable and complete product for a while.
But given the previous experiences the new code will be better to handle than the old one.
And the result will be a better experience for the programmer and the user.And take a look at KDE4.
Even if you say that KDE3 could do everything you ever want, there is still the underlying framework Qt that has to be considered.
Qt 4.0 celebrates its 4th anniversary next week.
How long do you think KDE could have sticked with Qt 3?
Sometimes the technology you rely on changes.What I want to say is that an evolutionary aproach brings you only so far in software development.
Just because the user doesn't want to hear about that, will not change the facts.
Writing software is unlike any other engineering branch.
For these you have formulas and models that will lead to sure success if you know them.
Writing formal proven code is just far to costly and in some cases hardly possible.
If we sticked to formal proven code we wouldn't even have the software of the 1980s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414965</id>
	<title>Re:A Benevolent Cat-Herder-for-Life is good for Li</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1245590820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is, the worst of the Apple experience is over-simplified, lacking in features and compatibility, and "is different just to be different" because it only has a Steve Jobs to set the vision and nobody with the ability to tell him to STFU and do it properly. That's not a problem in the F/OSS world, and I'm not willing to trade that just to have a more 'user-oriented' experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is , the worst of the Apple experience is over-simplified , lacking in features and compatibility , and " is different just to be different " because it only has a Steve Jobs to set the vision and nobody with the ability to tell him to STFU and do it properly .
That 's not a problem in the F/OSS world , and I 'm not willing to trade that just to have a more 'user-oriented ' experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is, the worst of the Apple experience is over-simplified, lacking in features and compatibility, and "is different just to be different" because it only has a Steve Jobs to set the vision and nobody with the ability to tell him to STFU and do it properly.
That's not a problem in the F/OSS world, and I'm not willing to trade that just to have a more 'user-oriented' experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414675</id>
	<title>Let the innovation continue!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245588240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only way to get to the next step in computer tech is to innovate like crazy - 99.99\% of those innovations will fall flat... but that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.01\% that doesn't? THAT is the future.</p><p>No - don't slow down. If anything speed up!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only way to get to the next step in computer tech is to innovate like crazy - 99.99 \ % of those innovations will fall flat... but that .01 \ % that does n't ?
THAT is the future.No - do n't slow down .
If anything speed up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only way to get to the next step in computer tech is to innovate like crazy - 99.99\% of those innovations will fall flat... but that .01\% that doesn't?
THAT is the future.No - don't slow down.
If anything speed up!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28420683</id>
	<title>Screw the users.</title>
	<author>GargamelSpaceman</author>
	<datestamp>1245680460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously.  I am not joking. They don't know what is good for them most of the time.  Neither do developers, but by innovating and finding out what works, that's how improvements that do work are winnowed from the chaff.
</p><p>Giving users what they want is often like giving your 4 year old what she wants for breakfast.  She'll choose the donut and candy breakfast of champions every time.  You have to show her what she really wants because she is 4, and you know of better and more wholesome things than she can even imagine to want.  Once she's introduced to them, she'll be greatful because they really are better.  Sometimes grownups know best.
</p><p>I'm thinking of tools like the command line, emacs, and vi here.  Users don't like them.  They require some chewing, but once you learn to love em, they're much better for you.  In the long run learning them will give you increased productivity not possible in the world of ooey gui candy.   But even gui tools, follow the same pattern.  Children ( novice adults ) don't like them at first if they're any good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
I am not joking .
They do n't know what is good for them most of the time .
Neither do developers , but by innovating and finding out what works , that 's how improvements that do work are winnowed from the chaff .
Giving users what they want is often like giving your 4 year old what she wants for breakfast .
She 'll choose the donut and candy breakfast of champions every time .
You have to show her what she really wants because she is 4 , and you know of better and more wholesome things than she can even imagine to want .
Once she 's introduced to them , she 'll be greatful because they really are better .
Sometimes grownups know best .
I 'm thinking of tools like the command line , emacs , and vi here .
Users do n't like them .
They require some chewing , but once you learn to love em , they 're much better for you .
In the long run learning them will give you increased productivity not possible in the world of ooey gui candy .
But even gui tools , follow the same pattern .
Children ( novice adults ) do n't like them at first if they 're any good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
I am not joking.
They don't know what is good for them most of the time.
Neither do developers, but by innovating and finding out what works, that's how improvements that do work are winnowed from the chaff.
Giving users what they want is often like giving your 4 year old what she wants for breakfast.
She'll choose the donut and candy breakfast of champions every time.
You have to show her what she really wants because she is 4, and you know of better and more wholesome things than she can even imagine to want.
Once she's introduced to them, she'll be greatful because they really are better.
Sometimes grownups know best.
I'm thinking of tools like the command line, emacs, and vi here.
Users don't like them.
They require some chewing, but once you learn to love em, they're much better for you.
In the long run learning them will give you increased productivity not possible in the world of ooey gui candy.
But even gui tools, follow the same pattern.
Children ( novice adults ) don't like them at first if they're any good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28419775</id>
	<title>Re:This seems a bit backwards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245675000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I subscribe to all that except for the X part. The X architecture is great (Not the architecture of the X server). The implementation and the products using it went down fast over the last years. People shouldve been working with the X architecture and not around. Older toolkits especially are much faster than what we get from gnome or kde, because they dont send everypixel to the server but cache more. Hardware X terminals had better gl support than the new eye-candy server.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I subscribe to all that except for the X part .
The X architecture is great ( Not the architecture of the X server ) .
The implementation and the products using it went down fast over the last years .
People shouldve been working with the X architecture and not around .
Older toolkits especially are much faster than what we get from gnome or kde , because they dont send everypixel to the server but cache more .
Hardware X terminals had better gl support than the new eye-candy server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I subscribe to all that except for the X part.
The X architecture is great (Not the architecture of the X server).
The implementation and the products using it went down fast over the last years.
People shouldve been working with the X architecture and not around.
Older toolkits especially are much faster than what we get from gnome or kde, because they dont send everypixel to the server but cache more.
Hardware X terminals had better gl support than the new eye-candy server.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415325</id>
	<title>Disrespect</title>
	<author>mrmeval</author>
	<datestamp>1245594540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The current meme among the developers is to defeature the desktop to pablum and rip out the ability to turn features back on for power users. When users complain about this as best they are able they are mocked and ignored.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The current meme among the developers is to defeature the desktop to pablum and rip out the ability to turn features back on for power users .
When users complain about this as best they are able they are mocked and ignored .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The current meme among the developers is to defeature the desktop to pablum and rip out the ability to turn features back on for power users.
When users complain about this as best they are able they are mocked and ignored.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28423425</id>
	<title>Imputus</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245689820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>he identifies that open developers only develop to either scratch their own itch or to develop cool things then says they'd be much better off doing boring things. Essentially there is no suggestion as to why they would do boring things. OS developers aren't a commodity they are simply entertaining themselves and if bug fixing isn'y entertaining then why would they bother.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>he identifies that open developers only develop to either scratch their own itch or to develop cool things then says they 'd be much better off doing boring things .
Essentially there is no suggestion as to why they would do boring things .
OS developers are n't a commodity they are simply entertaining themselves and if bug fixing isn'y entertaining then why would they bother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he identifies that open developers only develop to either scratch their own itch or to develop cool things then says they'd be much better off doing boring things.
Essentially there is no suggestion as to why they would do boring things.
OS developers aren't a commodity they are simply entertaining themselves and if bug fixing isn'y entertaining then why would they bother.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415131</id>
	<title>It's offical.</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1245592740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>slashdot&gt;linux&gt;kdawson<p>
it's nothing but one big circle jerk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>slashdot &gt; linux &gt; kdawson it 's nothing but one big circle jerk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>slashdot&gt;linux&gt;kdawson
it's nothing but one big circle jerk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414917</id>
	<title>change != innovate</title>
	<author>tyler\_larson</author>
	<datestamp>1245590340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because you made it different doesn't mean you made it better.
</p><p>That goes double for UI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because you made it different does n't mean you made it better .
That goes double for UI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because you made it different doesn't mean you made it better.
That goes double for UI.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28423107</id>
	<title>innovation...</title>
	<author>SCHecklerX</author>
	<datestamp>1245688800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this one occurred to me when setting ubuntu up for dad yesterday.</p><p>Why don't sub-folders in "My Places" expand within the menu?  Seems like it should, being that you are in a menu.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this one occurred to me when setting ubuntu up for dad yesterday.Why do n't sub-folders in " My Places " expand within the menu ?
Seems like it should , being that you are in a menu .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this one occurred to me when setting ubuntu up for dad yesterday.Why don't sub-folders in "My Places" expand within the menu?
Seems like it should, being that you are in a menu.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415321</id>
	<title>People don't know what they want.</title>
	<author>TermV</author>
	<datestamp>1245594480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People don't know what they want; it's the job of the innovators to tell them. 20 years ago, nobody was "asking" for any of the features we have in a modern operating system. The operating system did more or less what they wanted or needed based on their understanding of what computers were all about. The innovators would think of some fancy new feature and people would just go 'hey wow, this is pretty cool' and that would a standard or necessary feature of all subsequent OSes. It fundamentally changes how we think about computers and how we use them. The new features are what adds excitement and drives the adoption rate. We could have had the "perfect" cell phone 15 years ago but the market would be saturated and stagnant. If the Linux desktop stops its innovation then it will just get steamrolled by all the "useless" features in Windows/MacOS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People do n't know what they want ; it 's the job of the innovators to tell them .
20 years ago , nobody was " asking " for any of the features we have in a modern operating system .
The operating system did more or less what they wanted or needed based on their understanding of what computers were all about .
The innovators would think of some fancy new feature and people would just go 'hey wow , this is pretty cool ' and that would a standard or necessary feature of all subsequent OSes .
It fundamentally changes how we think about computers and how we use them .
The new features are what adds excitement and drives the adoption rate .
We could have had the " perfect " cell phone 15 years ago but the market would be saturated and stagnant .
If the Linux desktop stops its innovation then it will just get steamrolled by all the " useless " features in Windows/MacOS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People don't know what they want; it's the job of the innovators to tell them.
20 years ago, nobody was "asking" for any of the features we have in a modern operating system.
The operating system did more or less what they wanted or needed based on their understanding of what computers were all about.
The innovators would think of some fancy new feature and people would just go 'hey wow, this is pretty cool' and that would a standard or necessary feature of all subsequent OSes.
It fundamentally changes how we think about computers and how we use them.
The new features are what adds excitement and drives the adoption rate.
We could have had the "perfect" cell phone 15 years ago but the market would be saturated and stagnant.
If the Linux desktop stops its innovation then it will just get steamrolled by all the "useless" features in Windows/MacOS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414839</id>
	<title>Re:Continuity is the winning strategy.</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1245589740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In Windows 7, you can select the "classic" appearance for the desktop to get the Windows-95 look and feel.</p></div><p>Have you tried it? I have, and it feels less like Win2K and more like a Windows-like KDE2 skin. As far as I know Vista is the same, so it could easily be argued that the Win95 desktop's continuity ended with XP.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Moreover, learning takes time and money. If your company has 100,000 employees, then training them to use a new desktop can cost millions of dollars.</p></div><p>You've got any sources for that? I've heard about employees needing training to switch applications (Word Perfect to MS Office and such), but never for just a switch in desktops, so I'm curious to see whether its truly a concern, or normal people simply don't care as long as the apps stay the same. MS' regular desktop redesigns certainly suggest the latter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Windows 7 , you can select the " classic " appearance for the desktop to get the Windows-95 look and feel.Have you tried it ?
I have , and it feels less like Win2K and more like a Windows-like KDE2 skin .
As far as I know Vista is the same , so it could easily be argued that the Win95 desktop 's continuity ended with XP.Moreover , learning takes time and money .
If your company has 100,000 employees , then training them to use a new desktop can cost millions of dollars.You 've got any sources for that ?
I 've heard about employees needing training to switch applications ( Word Perfect to MS Office and such ) , but never for just a switch in desktops , so I 'm curious to see whether its truly a concern , or normal people simply do n't care as long as the apps stay the same .
MS ' regular desktop redesigns certainly suggest the latter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Windows 7, you can select the "classic" appearance for the desktop to get the Windows-95 look and feel.Have you tried it?
I have, and it feels less like Win2K and more like a Windows-like KDE2 skin.
As far as I know Vista is the same, so it could easily be argued that the Win95 desktop's continuity ended with XP.Moreover, learning takes time and money.
If your company has 100,000 employees, then training them to use a new desktop can cost millions of dollars.You've got any sources for that?
I've heard about employees needing training to switch applications (Word Perfect to MS Office and such), but never for just a switch in desktops, so I'm curious to see whether its truly a concern, or normal people simply don't care as long as the apps stay the same.
MS' regular desktop redesigns certainly suggest the latter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416635</id>
	<title>That's really not what is needed</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1245604740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What would work better is to do a better development environment from top to bottom for entertainment type software. Design a full featured API set that does everything a game/media player/etc needs. I'm talking 2D and 3D video, sound, music, input and so on. Basically something that does everything DirectX does, probably even a bit more. Make it real easy to develop for. Then, once that spec is solid, make a dynamite development tool for it, like Visual Studio but better. Have something that makes writing software easy for your API. Port that to Windows and Linux (heck MacOS too). Make sure that it does a good job of providing access to the native system, and that it provides as much as it can in easy cross platform objects. Finally, port the API to all the platforms. Make it a system addition, just like OpenGL is on Windows. All of it needs to be high speed, no slow interpreters or virtual machines.</p><p>At this point, you've got something to market to game companies and the like. They develop using this tool, and cross platform porting is trivial, maybe even zero effort. You give them an API that they want to use instead of DirectX, even if their target is Windows only. Of course if it is then easy to also make other versions, well many will do that as well.</p><p>That would be the real way to do it. Barring all that, at least do that same sort of thing on Linux itself. A good, unified API that ALL Linux distros use and that is the primary method for video and sound access. Tie that in with a slick visual, rapid, development tool to make software for it. None of this "Edit text files and compile with GCC," crap. None of this "10 different sound APIs, none of which work well." Make an easy development environment for entertainment software, and maybe more of it gets developed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What would work better is to do a better development environment from top to bottom for entertainment type software .
Design a full featured API set that does everything a game/media player/etc needs .
I 'm talking 2D and 3D video , sound , music , input and so on .
Basically something that does everything DirectX does , probably even a bit more .
Make it real easy to develop for .
Then , once that spec is solid , make a dynamite development tool for it , like Visual Studio but better .
Have something that makes writing software easy for your API .
Port that to Windows and Linux ( heck MacOS too ) .
Make sure that it does a good job of providing access to the native system , and that it provides as much as it can in easy cross platform objects .
Finally , port the API to all the platforms .
Make it a system addition , just like OpenGL is on Windows .
All of it needs to be high speed , no slow interpreters or virtual machines.At this point , you 've got something to market to game companies and the like .
They develop using this tool , and cross platform porting is trivial , maybe even zero effort .
You give them an API that they want to use instead of DirectX , even if their target is Windows only .
Of course if it is then easy to also make other versions , well many will do that as well.That would be the real way to do it .
Barring all that , at least do that same sort of thing on Linux itself .
A good , unified API that ALL Linux distros use and that is the primary method for video and sound access .
Tie that in with a slick visual , rapid , development tool to make software for it .
None of this " Edit text files and compile with GCC , " crap .
None of this " 10 different sound APIs , none of which work well .
" Make an easy development environment for entertainment software , and maybe more of it gets developed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would work better is to do a better development environment from top to bottom for entertainment type software.
Design a full featured API set that does everything a game/media player/etc needs.
I'm talking 2D and 3D video, sound, music, input and so on.
Basically something that does everything DirectX does, probably even a bit more.
Make it real easy to develop for.
Then, once that spec is solid, make a dynamite development tool for it, like Visual Studio but better.
Have something that makes writing software easy for your API.
Port that to Windows and Linux (heck MacOS too).
Make sure that it does a good job of providing access to the native system, and that it provides as much as it can in easy cross platform objects.
Finally, port the API to all the platforms.
Make it a system addition, just like OpenGL is on Windows.
All of it needs to be high speed, no slow interpreters or virtual machines.At this point, you've got something to market to game companies and the like.
They develop using this tool, and cross platform porting is trivial, maybe even zero effort.
You give them an API that they want to use instead of DirectX, even if their target is Windows only.
Of course if it is then easy to also make other versions, well many will do that as well.That would be the real way to do it.
Barring all that, at least do that same sort of thing on Linux itself.
A good, unified API that ALL Linux distros use and that is the primary method for video and sound access.
Tie that in with a slick visual, rapid, development tool to make software for it.
None of this "Edit text files and compile with GCC," crap.
None of this "10 different sound APIs, none of which work well.
" Make an easy development environment for entertainment software, and maybe more of it gets developed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414999</id>
	<title>Re:A Benevolent Cat-Herder-for-Life is good for Li</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245591120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, hence "cat-herder" vs. dictator.  I don't know anything about Shuttleworth's management effectiveness, but we agree that an actual Steve Jobs style could not work in FOSS.</p><p>But in FOSS-land, Shuttleworth seems to be in the best position to put out a distro unified behind making the end-user experience great, which is what Jobs clearly aims for in his products.</p><p>And personally I think Fedora is already shifting some of its focus towards more end-user happiness <i>in response to Ubuntu</i>, where Fedora developers once made manly sport of scoffing at end-user concerns.  (Having said that, I'm obliged to point out that Fedora devs have made huge pre-Ubuntu contributions to stuff that "just works" for users, like NetworkManager.  Ubuntu has a long way to catch up to contributing actual lines-of-code, but they are ahead in setting the direction and thus gaining users IMO.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , hence " cat-herder " vs. dictator. I do n't know anything about Shuttleworth 's management effectiveness , but we agree that an actual Steve Jobs style could not work in FOSS.But in FOSS-land , Shuttleworth seems to be in the best position to put out a distro unified behind making the end-user experience great , which is what Jobs clearly aims for in his products.And personally I think Fedora is already shifting some of its focus towards more end-user happiness in response to Ubuntu , where Fedora developers once made manly sport of scoffing at end-user concerns .
( Having said that , I 'm obliged to point out that Fedora devs have made huge pre-Ubuntu contributions to stuff that " just works " for users , like NetworkManager .
Ubuntu has a long way to catch up to contributing actual lines-of-code , but they are ahead in setting the direction and thus gaining users IMO .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, hence "cat-herder" vs. dictator.  I don't know anything about Shuttleworth's management effectiveness, but we agree that an actual Steve Jobs style could not work in FOSS.But in FOSS-land, Shuttleworth seems to be in the best position to put out a distro unified behind making the end-user experience great, which is what Jobs clearly aims for in his products.And personally I think Fedora is already shifting some of its focus towards more end-user happiness in response to Ubuntu, where Fedora developers once made manly sport of scoffing at end-user concerns.
(Having said that, I'm obliged to point out that Fedora devs have made huge pre-Ubuntu contributions to stuff that "just works" for users, like NetworkManager.
Ubuntu has a long way to catch up to contributing actual lines-of-code, but they are ahead in setting the direction and thus gaining users IMO.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415141</id>
	<title>Re:Innovate is the wrong word</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245592800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>Granted, I believe this dialog is quite a recent addition to the project; I'm quite sure it wasn't there a couple of months ago.</em></p><p>I thought NM had had a dialog for that for a while; certainly, Ubuntu has had a GUI for changing settings such as DHCP/static IP for as long as I can remember. That the OP couldn't find the setting is, I guess, a problem, although it's not obvious to me where would be a better location than the "Network Connections" item on the "System" menu.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Granted , I believe this dialog is quite a recent addition to the project ; I 'm quite sure it was n't there a couple of months ago.I thought NM had had a dialog for that for a while ; certainly , Ubuntu has had a GUI for changing settings such as DHCP/static IP for as long as I can remember .
That the OP could n't find the setting is , I guess , a problem , although it 's not obvious to me where would be a better location than the " Network Connections " item on the " System " menu .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Granted, I believe this dialog is quite a recent addition to the project; I'm quite sure it wasn't there a couple of months ago.I thought NM had had a dialog for that for a while; certainly, Ubuntu has had a GUI for changing settings such as DHCP/static IP for as long as I can remember.
That the OP couldn't find the setting is, I guess, a problem, although it's not obvious to me where would be a better location than the "Network Connections" item on the "System" menu.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414721</id>
	<title>Re:Innovate is the wrong word</title>
	<author>cyber-vandal</author>
	<datestamp>1245588720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It made Microsoft very wealthy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It made Microsoft very wealthy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It made Microsoft very wealthy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28419555</id>
	<title>Yes.</title>
	<author>FreakyGreenLeaky</author>
	<datestamp>1245673200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From a business perspective, yes.  By <i>business</i> I mean it's adoption by Joe Soap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From a business perspective , yes .
By business I mean it 's adoption by Joe Soap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From a business perspective, yes.
By business I mean it's adoption by Joe Soap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415891</id>
	<title>Re:Innovate is the wrong word</title>
	<author>kklein</author>
	<datestamp>1245600300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is a gap that is very slowly filling in Linux for people who know how to use a computer however they don't want to remember outdated command lines and poorly documented config file just so they can get work done.</p></div><p>This is exactly why I'm on the Mac after bailing out of Windows, and not on Linux, where I had kind of intended to be. I have successfully set up Ubuntu machines for people who do nothing with their computers, and as long as they don't try to buy software at Walmart, they're fine. I also have several friends who work in servers and use Linux there and also at home. I'm squarely in the middle. I don't mind getting my hands dirty in command line, but I don't think I should have to get in there to do totally routine things. I also don't think I should have to get in there just to make the graphics work. Or the wi-fi.

</p><p>On the Mac, I pop the Terminal open fairly regularly to make small, undocumented tweaks in behavior. I'm totally comfortable with that, and it's actually one of the main reasons I went to the Mac. I have Linux-like control of the machine, without needing it just to get things done.

</p><p>Cue the hordes calling me a lazy idiot, but I stand by what I've said. I don't use computers for the joy of it; I used them because I have things to do. Now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a gap that is very slowly filling in Linux for people who know how to use a computer however they do n't want to remember outdated command lines and poorly documented config file just so they can get work done.This is exactly why I 'm on the Mac after bailing out of Windows , and not on Linux , where I had kind of intended to be .
I have successfully set up Ubuntu machines for people who do nothing with their computers , and as long as they do n't try to buy software at Walmart , they 're fine .
I also have several friends who work in servers and use Linux there and also at home .
I 'm squarely in the middle .
I do n't mind getting my hands dirty in command line , but I do n't think I should have to get in there to do totally routine things .
I also do n't think I should have to get in there just to make the graphics work .
Or the wi-fi .
On the Mac , I pop the Terminal open fairly regularly to make small , undocumented tweaks in behavior .
I 'm totally comfortable with that , and it 's actually one of the main reasons I went to the Mac .
I have Linux-like control of the machine , without needing it just to get things done .
Cue the hordes calling me a lazy idiot , but I stand by what I 've said .
I do n't use computers for the joy of it ; I used them because I have things to do .
Now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a gap that is very slowly filling in Linux for people who know how to use a computer however they don't want to remember outdated command lines and poorly documented config file just so they can get work done.This is exactly why I'm on the Mac after bailing out of Windows, and not on Linux, where I had kind of intended to be.
I have successfully set up Ubuntu machines for people who do nothing with their computers, and as long as they don't try to buy software at Walmart, they're fine.
I also have several friends who work in servers and use Linux there and also at home.
I'm squarely in the middle.
I don't mind getting my hands dirty in command line, but I don't think I should have to get in there to do totally routine things.
I also don't think I should have to get in there just to make the graphics work.
Or the wi-fi.
On the Mac, I pop the Terminal open fairly regularly to make small, undocumented tweaks in behavior.
I'm totally comfortable with that, and it's actually one of the main reasons I went to the Mac.
I have Linux-like control of the machine, without needing it just to get things done.
Cue the hordes calling me a lazy idiot, but I stand by what I've said.
I don't use computers for the joy of it; I used them because I have things to do.
Now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28420535</id>
	<title>Re:"Free Software" vs "Open Source" vs... whatever</title>
	<author>FooBarWidget</author>
	<datestamp>1245679860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, yes, it does. If Ubuntu has conquered the world then device support will become better because all manufacturers will be forced to create Ubuntu drivers. Until that happens, I have to choose my hardware very carefully by checking for Linux support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , yes , it does .
If Ubuntu has conquered the world then device support will become better because all manufacturers will be forced to create Ubuntu drivers .
Until that happens , I have to choose my hardware very carefully by checking for Linux support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, yes, it does.
If Ubuntu has conquered the world then device support will become better because all manufacturers will be forced to create Ubuntu drivers.
Until that happens, I have to choose my hardware very carefully by checking for Linux support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415633</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28425419</id>
	<title>Re:are you kidding?</title>
	<author>Yunzil</author>
	<datestamp>1245696540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>X got it right 20 years ago.</i></p><p>X got it "right" 20 years ago when graphics were expensive.  That's no longer the case.  I feel the things that X does well are now liabilities rather than assets, but YMMV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>X got it right 20 years ago.X got it " right " 20 years ago when graphics were expensive .
That 's no longer the case .
I feel the things that X does well are now liabilities rather than assets , but YMMV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>X got it right 20 years ago.X got it "right" 20 years ago when graphics were expensive.
That's no longer the case.
I feel the things that X does well are now liabilities rather than assets, but YMMV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28418153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28421207</id>
	<title>Teleportation Technology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245682440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Using Linux is too often like having an uncooperative alien teleport into your workshop (er, 'room'). Sometimes he cares to tell you that there is a trap-door or hidden panel - where you can find something that'll tell how to identify and communicate with it.</p><p>Documentation is the difficulty. Sane, simple, pertinent, simple, recognizable, pertinent, accessible, simple documentation or help is always a trick or twenty away. It is usually in unannounced locations, in deep folds and corners. And, all too frequently, is 90\% irrelevant, unnenecessary, jumbled together with everything plus a few kitchen sinks,  and is often outdated or obsolete, or both (you have to guess which parts remain relevant).</p><p>Having to discern and nitpick your own solution from the chaotic morass that swamps you from the internet - when often you can't even really define the problem - is 'a bit of a bummer'. To put it mildly.</p><p>But the desktops / interfaces can definitively still improve. A lot, if my observations of novel users' difficulties is any indication. And, if something better is presented - present it, first ! Really ! And not just 'hints'. Go to the trouble of making dynamic illustrated how-to tutorials for the most common uses. Not \_all\_ uses. The obvious ones, first. Then the less obvious ones, if development can be so bothered.</p><p>But documentation is really a difficulty. Social, as well as technical. Wiki is helping, a bit. But collaborative documenting really needs stronger - more useful frameworks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Using Linux is too often like having an uncooperative alien teleport into your workshop ( er , 'room ' ) .
Sometimes he cares to tell you that there is a trap-door or hidden panel - where you can find something that 'll tell how to identify and communicate with it.Documentation is the difficulty .
Sane , simple , pertinent , simple , recognizable , pertinent , accessible , simple documentation or help is always a trick or twenty away .
It is usually in unannounced locations , in deep folds and corners .
And , all too frequently , is 90 \ % irrelevant , unnenecessary , jumbled together with everything plus a few kitchen sinks , and is often outdated or obsolete , or both ( you have to guess which parts remain relevant ) .Having to discern and nitpick your own solution from the chaotic morass that swamps you from the internet - when often you ca n't even really define the problem - is 'a bit of a bummer' .
To put it mildly.But the desktops / interfaces can definitively still improve .
A lot , if my observations of novel users ' difficulties is any indication .
And , if something better is presented - present it , first !
Really !
And not just 'hints' .
Go to the trouble of making dynamic illustrated how-to tutorials for the most common uses .
Not \ _all \ _ uses .
The obvious ones , first .
Then the less obvious ones , if development can be so bothered.But documentation is really a difficulty .
Social , as well as technical .
Wiki is helping , a bit .
But collaborative documenting really needs stronger - more useful frameworks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using Linux is too often like having an uncooperative alien teleport into your workshop (er, 'room').
Sometimes he cares to tell you that there is a trap-door or hidden panel - where you can find something that'll tell how to identify and communicate with it.Documentation is the difficulty.
Sane, simple, pertinent, simple, recognizable, pertinent, accessible, simple documentation or help is always a trick or twenty away.
It is usually in unannounced locations, in deep folds and corners.
And, all too frequently, is 90\% irrelevant, unnenecessary, jumbled together with everything plus a few kitchen sinks,  and is often outdated or obsolete, or both (you have to guess which parts remain relevant).Having to discern and nitpick your own solution from the chaotic morass that swamps you from the internet - when often you can't even really define the problem - is 'a bit of a bummer'.
To put it mildly.But the desktops / interfaces can definitively still improve.
A lot, if my observations of novel users' difficulties is any indication.
And, if something better is presented - present it, first !
Really !
And not just 'hints'.
Go to the trouble of making dynamic illustrated how-to tutorials for the most common uses.
Not \_all\_ uses.
The obvious ones, first.
Then the less obvious ones, if development can be so bothered.But documentation is really a difficulty.
Social, as well as technical.
Wiki is helping, a bit.
But collaborative documenting really needs stronger - more useful frameworks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28419473</id>
	<title>Re:"Free Software" vs "Open Source" vs... whatever</title>
	<author>tburkhol</author>
	<datestamp>1245672720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I (the royal 'I' here), am not being paid for my time or more code, then "users" should just be glad that 'I' have decided to make the fruits of my labor available to them, too.</p></div><p>Perhaps the "users," in sending 'you' UI and feature suggestions are saying how grateful they are to have the fruits of 'your' labor, how great it is now, but also how a couple of tweaks could really move it to the next level.  If they weren't grateful, didn't think the result was good, they'd just move on to the next similar project.  My experience has been that everything I do benefits from constructive criticism, though it's sometimes difficult to accept criticism as constructive.  If I'm going to put my time into a project, I want it to be the best thing possible, whether it's a short story, a chair, or a computer widget.  What I do myself is locked in my own head, and it's only when someone else points out their different interpretation or sense of my work that I can see where I've been accommodating to my own idiosyncrasies.</p><p>If you're releasing code because it's something you wrote to solve a particular problem and you think it might be useful to some other schmuck in a similar situation, that's good.  That's one of the neat things that can happen with FOSS and it can make people's life much easier.  But it's not "Developing."  Development implies a commitment to the code and the project and a willingness to improve.  If someone sent you corrections to a core algorithm, you'd care about that - why not usability?  Make the users grateful for your thoughtfulness and not resentful of your user-antagonistic interface.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I ( the royal 'I ' here ) , am not being paid for my time or more code , then " users " should just be glad that 'I ' have decided to make the fruits of my labor available to them , too.Perhaps the " users , " in sending 'you ' UI and feature suggestions are saying how grateful they are to have the fruits of 'your ' labor , how great it is now , but also how a couple of tweaks could really move it to the next level .
If they were n't grateful , did n't think the result was good , they 'd just move on to the next similar project .
My experience has been that everything I do benefits from constructive criticism , though it 's sometimes difficult to accept criticism as constructive .
If I 'm going to put my time into a project , I want it to be the best thing possible , whether it 's a short story , a chair , or a computer widget .
What I do myself is locked in my own head , and it 's only when someone else points out their different interpretation or sense of my work that I can see where I 've been accommodating to my own idiosyncrasies.If you 're releasing code because it 's something you wrote to solve a particular problem and you think it might be useful to some other schmuck in a similar situation , that 's good .
That 's one of the neat things that can happen with FOSS and it can make people 's life much easier .
But it 's not " Developing .
" Development implies a commitment to the code and the project and a willingness to improve .
If someone sent you corrections to a core algorithm , you 'd care about that - why not usability ?
Make the users grateful for your thoughtfulness and not resentful of your user-antagonistic interface .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I (the royal 'I' here), am not being paid for my time or more code, then "users" should just be glad that 'I' have decided to make the fruits of my labor available to them, too.Perhaps the "users," in sending 'you' UI and feature suggestions are saying how grateful they are to have the fruits of 'your' labor, how great it is now, but also how a couple of tweaks could really move it to the next level.
If they weren't grateful, didn't think the result was good, they'd just move on to the next similar project.
My experience has been that everything I do benefits from constructive criticism, though it's sometimes difficult to accept criticism as constructive.
If I'm going to put my time into a project, I want it to be the best thing possible, whether it's a short story, a chair, or a computer widget.
What I do myself is locked in my own head, and it's only when someone else points out their different interpretation or sense of my work that I can see where I've been accommodating to my own idiosyncrasies.If you're releasing code because it's something you wrote to solve a particular problem and you think it might be useful to some other schmuck in a similar situation, that's good.
That's one of the neat things that can happen with FOSS and it can make people's life much easier.
But it's not "Developing.
"  Development implies a commitment to the code and the project and a willingness to improve.
If someone sent you corrections to a core algorithm, you'd care about that - why not usability?
Make the users grateful for your thoughtfulness and not resentful of your user-antagonistic interface.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28437391</id>
	<title>What Linux is missing (and what it's not)</title>
	<author>Kaldesh</author>
	<datestamp>1245763980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think that the biggest problem Linux has currently is its need completely redesign its applications so often. It's not that innovation isn't the answer. The problem I find is that all too often they throw the baby out with the bath water. In order to keep on the innovation band wagon I see far too many projects throw tried and tested functionality out saying 'we'll add that back into the new version later'. KDE4 is just the most visible culprit right now. Projects like Amarok 2 are guilty of it as well.

Don't get me wrong I love Linux. I use Linux in every place possible. FC10 is my Desktop at work. Ubuntu 9.04 runs on my Netbook (and runs well I might add). MythDora is my media center hub w/ Boxee integrated. My main desktop runs Arch Linux. But I digress.

Linux to me is the ultimate desktop for it's advanced and flexibility, nobody else can claim that. It's also the most stable platform to run a server on bar none.

However I think we like a lot of geeks suffer from the 'look before you leap' senario. We come up with an idea or see a new way of doing something and immediately rush it into the redesign of an application. Now for technically minded people that's not a big deal, we can work around a programs quirks and still enjoy it. But in order for Linux to be used by the public we need to have a more stable base line.

Microsoft wins the OS wars not because they're on the bleeding edge but because they're not. They wait and let everyone else try out new ideas... then they 'borrow' them. They're successful because there's always that common tie in in Windows. No matter what they do to that OS it still has the windows 'feel' so the average joe can navigate it. That's what we're missing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that the biggest problem Linux has currently is its need completely redesign its applications so often .
It 's not that innovation is n't the answer .
The problem I find is that all too often they throw the baby out with the bath water .
In order to keep on the innovation band wagon I see far too many projects throw tried and tested functionality out saying 'we 'll add that back into the new version later' .
KDE4 is just the most visible culprit right now .
Projects like Amarok 2 are guilty of it as well .
Do n't get me wrong I love Linux .
I use Linux in every place possible .
FC10 is my Desktop at work .
Ubuntu 9.04 runs on my Netbook ( and runs well I might add ) .
MythDora is my media center hub w/ Boxee integrated .
My main desktop runs Arch Linux .
But I digress .
Linux to me is the ultimate desktop for it 's advanced and flexibility , nobody else can claim that .
It 's also the most stable platform to run a server on bar none .
However I think we like a lot of geeks suffer from the 'look before you leap ' senario .
We come up with an idea or see a new way of doing something and immediately rush it into the redesign of an application .
Now for technically minded people that 's not a big deal , we can work around a programs quirks and still enjoy it .
But in order for Linux to be used by the public we need to have a more stable base line .
Microsoft wins the OS wars not because they 're on the bleeding edge but because they 're not .
They wait and let everyone else try out new ideas... then they 'borrow ' them .
They 're successful because there 's always that common tie in in Windows .
No matter what they do to that OS it still has the windows 'feel ' so the average joe can navigate it .
That 's what we 're missing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that the biggest problem Linux has currently is its need completely redesign its applications so often.
It's not that innovation isn't the answer.
The problem I find is that all too often they throw the baby out with the bath water.
In order to keep on the innovation band wagon I see far too many projects throw tried and tested functionality out saying 'we'll add that back into the new version later'.
KDE4 is just the most visible culprit right now.
Projects like Amarok 2 are guilty of it as well.
Don't get me wrong I love Linux.
I use Linux in every place possible.
FC10 is my Desktop at work.
Ubuntu 9.04 runs on my Netbook (and runs well I might add).
MythDora is my media center hub w/ Boxee integrated.
My main desktop runs Arch Linux.
But I digress.
Linux to me is the ultimate desktop for it's advanced and flexibility, nobody else can claim that.
It's also the most stable platform to run a server on bar none.
However I think we like a lot of geeks suffer from the 'look before you leap' senario.
We come up with an idea or see a new way of doing something and immediately rush it into the redesign of an application.
Now for technically minded people that's not a big deal, we can work around a programs quirks and still enjoy it.
But in order for Linux to be used by the public we need to have a more stable base line.
Microsoft wins the OS wars not because they're on the bleeding edge but because they're not.
They wait and let everyone else try out new ideas... then they 'borrow' them.
They're successful because there's always that common tie in in Windows.
No matter what they do to that OS it still has the windows 'feel' so the average joe can navigate it.
That's what we're missing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416507</id>
	<title>Innovate too much? not possible</title>
	<author>mrdtr</author>
	<datestamp>1245603840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nobody is forced to keep up with the most current incarnations of the desktop. Some like Gnome, some like KDE 3.5, others like Xfce, I happen to like KDE 4.
Yes some features were missing when kde4 came out, but it's starting to be pretty good now. I wouldn't go back to kde3.5, ever.

The problem is not so much the KDE developers, I blame the users that can't cope with change. There is a general fear of change in our society and it starting to really get on my nerves.

I'm a believer that sometimes it's a good thing to start over fresh, rather than fixing, patching, adding, to old code.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody is forced to keep up with the most current incarnations of the desktop .
Some like Gnome , some like KDE 3.5 , others like Xfce , I happen to like KDE 4 .
Yes some features were missing when kde4 came out , but it 's starting to be pretty good now .
I would n't go back to kde3.5 , ever .
The problem is not so much the KDE developers , I blame the users that ca n't cope with change .
There is a general fear of change in our society and it starting to really get on my nerves .
I 'm a believer that sometimes it 's a good thing to start over fresh , rather than fixing , patching , adding , to old code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody is forced to keep up with the most current incarnations of the desktop.
Some like Gnome, some like KDE 3.5, others like Xfce, I happen to like KDE 4.
Yes some features were missing when kde4 came out, but it's starting to be pretty good now.
I wouldn't go back to kde3.5, ever.
The problem is not so much the KDE developers, I blame the users that can't cope with change.
There is a general fear of change in our society and it starting to really get on my nerves.
I'm a believer that sometimes it's a good thing to start over fresh, rather than fixing, patching, adding, to old code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28420155</id>
	<title>If Linux Innovation is unneeded...</title>
	<author>brunes69</author>
	<datestamp>1245677760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then how come everything has turned upside-down and Microsoft and Apple are now copying the Linux desktop instead of vice-versa?</p><p>Take a closer look at Windows 7 and Snow Leapord - almost every new UI design concept has been taken directly from KDE4.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then how come everything has turned upside-down and Microsoft and Apple are now copying the Linux desktop instead of vice-versa ? Take a closer look at Windows 7 and Snow Leapord - almost every new UI design concept has been taken directly from KDE4 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then how come everything has turned upside-down and Microsoft and Apple are now copying the Linux desktop instead of vice-versa?Take a closer look at Windows 7 and Snow Leapord - almost every new UI design concept has been taken directly from KDE4.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28419503</id>
	<title>Re:This seems a bit backwards</title>
	<author>daffmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1245672900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Perhaps the community should be asking whether it's more important that we add a fun new Swirl effect to switch to another desktop or if people would rather have a sane and complete GL API. Do we need the entire desktop to be rethought or should we simply settle for having a sane and unified sound solution?</p></div><p>I take your point but you have to remember that it's not one big community, collectively deciding what's most important. It's lots of little communities each doing the thing that interests them.</p><p>The guys writing bling for compiz are doing it, for free, because they enjoy it. They don't want to work on the Open GL API (I'm guessing).</p><p>The guys playing around with new desktop metaphors are doing that, for free, because it interests them. They aren't interested in sound sub-systems.</p><p>To say that people should work on X rather than Y is an interesting wish, but completely misunderstands the development model of open source. To make it work you need a different development model, like say, a company with product managers and paid developers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps the community should be asking whether it 's more important that we add a fun new Swirl effect to switch to another desktop or if people would rather have a sane and complete GL API .
Do we need the entire desktop to be rethought or should we simply settle for having a sane and unified sound solution ? I take your point but you have to remember that it 's not one big community , collectively deciding what 's most important .
It 's lots of little communities each doing the thing that interests them.The guys writing bling for compiz are doing it , for free , because they enjoy it .
They do n't want to work on the Open GL API ( I 'm guessing ) .The guys playing around with new desktop metaphors are doing that , for free , because it interests them .
They are n't interested in sound sub-systems.To say that people should work on X rather than Y is an interesting wish , but completely misunderstands the development model of open source .
To make it work you need a different development model , like say , a company with product managers and paid developers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps the community should be asking whether it's more important that we add a fun new Swirl effect to switch to another desktop or if people would rather have a sane and complete GL API.
Do we need the entire desktop to be rethought or should we simply settle for having a sane and unified sound solution?I take your point but you have to remember that it's not one big community, collectively deciding what's most important.
It's lots of little communities each doing the thing that interests them.The guys writing bling for compiz are doing it, for free, because they enjoy it.
They don't want to work on the Open GL API (I'm guessing).The guys playing around with new desktop metaphors are doing that, for free, because it interests them.
They aren't interested in sound sub-systems.To say that people should work on X rather than Y is an interesting wish, but completely misunderstands the development model of open source.
To make it work you need a different development model, like say, a company with product managers and paid developers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28425745</id>
	<title>Re:Too Much?</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1245697680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Closed source companies have to add useless and failed features to their products, otherwise the time spend has been wasted and investors may sue the company.</p></div><p>If adding said features hurts the value of the product, doesn't the fiduciary duty dictate that you <em>don't</em> add them?</p><p>Can't the cost of implementing a feature, including it and then removing it be chalked up as marketing research?  "We invested money to find out that our product is the most valuable <em>without</em> Clippy"?</p><p>Or are investors really thinking the way you suggest?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Closed source companies have to add useless and failed features to their products , otherwise the time spend has been wasted and investors may sue the company.If adding said features hurts the value of the product , does n't the fiduciary duty dictate that you do n't add them ? Ca n't the cost of implementing a feature , including it and then removing it be chalked up as marketing research ?
" We invested money to find out that our product is the most valuable without Clippy " ? Or are investors really thinking the way you suggest ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Closed source companies have to add useless and failed features to their products, otherwise the time spend has been wasted and investors may sue the company.If adding said features hurts the value of the product, doesn't the fiduciary duty dictate that you don't add them?Can't the cost of implementing a feature, including it and then removing it be chalked up as marketing research?
"We invested money to find out that our product is the most valuable without Clippy"?Or are investors really thinking the way you suggest?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414657</id>
	<title>Seigo has gotten it all wrong</title>
	<author>QCompson</author>
	<datestamp>1245588060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aaron Seigo thinks he is embarking on a bold new vision of the desktop, but so far, he's produced only developments that inhibit productivity.  Making everything into desktop widgets (including social networking fads like facebook) isn't a bold new vision of the desktop environment... it's glitzy eye-candy.  Seigo peppers every idea he has with colorful language like "new paradigms" but his ideas so far are hardly innovative.  Desktop widgets?  Already done.  Animations?  Compiz did it.  Creating folder containments and extra desktop views?  No one ever asked for it, nor apparently like it.  He is a man with solutions in search of a problem.
<br> <br>
The only thing that KDE4 has accomplished to date is to offer <i>less</i> features than 3.5, and make everything slower and a little more mouse dependent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Aaron Seigo thinks he is embarking on a bold new vision of the desktop , but so far , he 's produced only developments that inhibit productivity .
Making everything into desktop widgets ( including social networking fads like facebook ) is n't a bold new vision of the desktop environment... it 's glitzy eye-candy .
Seigo peppers every idea he has with colorful language like " new paradigms " but his ideas so far are hardly innovative .
Desktop widgets ?
Already done .
Animations ? Compiz did it .
Creating folder containments and extra desktop views ?
No one ever asked for it , nor apparently like it .
He is a man with solutions in search of a problem .
The only thing that KDE4 has accomplished to date is to offer less features than 3.5 , and make everything slower and a little more mouse dependent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aaron Seigo thinks he is embarking on a bold new vision of the desktop, but so far, he's produced only developments that inhibit productivity.
Making everything into desktop widgets (including social networking fads like facebook) isn't a bold new vision of the desktop environment... it's glitzy eye-candy.
Seigo peppers every idea he has with colorful language like "new paradigms" but his ideas so far are hardly innovative.
Desktop widgets?
Already done.
Animations?  Compiz did it.
Creating folder containments and extra desktop views?
No one ever asked for it, nor apparently like it.
He is a man with solutions in search of a problem.
The only thing that KDE4 has accomplished to date is to offer less features than 3.5, and make everything slower and a little more mouse dependent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414383</id>
	<title>Tough Love</title>
	<author>headkase</author>
	<datestamp>1245585600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm prefacing this with the fact that I ran Linux as my only OS for a year (SuSE 9) then I switched back to Microsoft.  Linux and GNU are a superior development process - inclusive and plural - but Microsoft right now has the superior ecosystem.  When everyone uses it everything gets written for it especially entertainment wise.  How does Free go about breaking this lock-in?  I know for me if it wasn't for entertainment software I would be all over GNU.  Wine steps in and fills that void somewhat but currently does not have enough compatibility to bring me over to the good side.  I like Linux, I want to use it, but my games don't play in it and thats the only thing that keeps a closed OS on my desktop.  Way back in the early '80s a machine was introduced called the Commodore 128.  It was the successor to the Commodore 64 machine and it featured a full compatibility mode with the 64.  The issue was that most 128 owners ran their machine in 64 mode therefore the 128 never caught on as no one would make software for it.  I see Wine as having a flavor of that situation <i>but</i> since it is contained within a Open OS other applications can run concurrently so that pitfall is lessened.  To me, Wine is the application that deserves focus in Linux development because it has the potential to break the dead-lock and provide the bridge from Pay to GNU.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm prefacing this with the fact that I ran Linux as my only OS for a year ( SuSE 9 ) then I switched back to Microsoft .
Linux and GNU are a superior development process - inclusive and plural - but Microsoft right now has the superior ecosystem .
When everyone uses it everything gets written for it especially entertainment wise .
How does Free go about breaking this lock-in ?
I know for me if it was n't for entertainment software I would be all over GNU .
Wine steps in and fills that void somewhat but currently does not have enough compatibility to bring me over to the good side .
I like Linux , I want to use it , but my games do n't play in it and thats the only thing that keeps a closed OS on my desktop .
Way back in the early '80s a machine was introduced called the Commodore 128 .
It was the successor to the Commodore 64 machine and it featured a full compatibility mode with the 64 .
The issue was that most 128 owners ran their machine in 64 mode therefore the 128 never caught on as no one would make software for it .
I see Wine as having a flavor of that situation but since it is contained within a Open OS other applications can run concurrently so that pitfall is lessened .
To me , Wine is the application that deserves focus in Linux development because it has the potential to break the dead-lock and provide the bridge from Pay to GNU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm prefacing this with the fact that I ran Linux as my only OS for a year (SuSE 9) then I switched back to Microsoft.
Linux and GNU are a superior development process - inclusive and plural - but Microsoft right now has the superior ecosystem.
When everyone uses it everything gets written for it especially entertainment wise.
How does Free go about breaking this lock-in?
I know for me if it wasn't for entertainment software I would be all over GNU.
Wine steps in and fills that void somewhat but currently does not have enough compatibility to bring me over to the good side.
I like Linux, I want to use it, but my games don't play in it and thats the only thing that keeps a closed OS on my desktop.
Way back in the early '80s a machine was introduced called the Commodore 128.
It was the successor to the Commodore 64 machine and it featured a full compatibility mode with the 64.
The issue was that most 128 owners ran their machine in 64 mode therefore the 128 never caught on as no one would make software for it.
I see Wine as having a flavor of that situation but since it is contained within a Open OS other applications can run concurrently so that pitfall is lessened.
To me, Wine is the application that deserves focus in Linux development because it has the potential to break the dead-lock and provide the bridge from Pay to GNU.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416571</id>
	<title>That's fine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245604260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is a very valid viewpoint to hold. You can most certianly say "I don't owe the user shit." It is your software and you are nice enough to let others use it. Thus they can use it on your terms.</p><p>HOWEVER, when you do that you lose any and all right to claim that your software is "better" for the user or "what they should use." If they have objections to the way it works, you need to be graceful and say "Ya, my software doesn't do that well, I don't care to fix it so if something else works for you, go to it."</p><p>The problem is that there seem to be a number of OSS types that want to have their cake and eat it too. They evangelize an "OSS for everyone," position. You should use all OSS all the time, it is the One True Way(tm) and gives you better software because everyone collaborates. However, when a user then says "Hey this doesn't work as well as my commercial app," they get angry and say "You didn't pay me, I'll do what I want, fix it yourself if you don't like it."</p><p>Sorry, can't have it both ways. If it is a situation where you think your way is the best way and you want everyone to use it, then you've got to work to accommodate users. You need to make it do what they need as good or better than their old apps. On the flip side if you want to offer it with no support, you then need to offer it as is. Don't push it as being things it isn't and won't be.</p><p>This is a problem I've run in to with people trying to covert me to Linux. I tell them the things I want to do, but can't seem to. They then give me things that aren't real alternatives. When I say "This doesn't do what I need," I get told that I either "shouldn't do that" or that I "should write it myself." Sorry, those aren't legit options. If you want me to use your stuff, it needs to work for me. If you don't want to make it work for me, then don't push it as a solution for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is a very valid viewpoint to hold .
You can most certianly say " I do n't owe the user shit .
" It is your software and you are nice enough to let others use it .
Thus they can use it on your terms.HOWEVER , when you do that you lose any and all right to claim that your software is " better " for the user or " what they should use .
" If they have objections to the way it works , you need to be graceful and say " Ya , my software does n't do that well , I do n't care to fix it so if something else works for you , go to it .
" The problem is that there seem to be a number of OSS types that want to have their cake and eat it too .
They evangelize an " OSS for everyone , " position .
You should use all OSS all the time , it is the One True Way ( tm ) and gives you better software because everyone collaborates .
However , when a user then says " Hey this does n't work as well as my commercial app , " they get angry and say " You did n't pay me , I 'll do what I want , fix it yourself if you do n't like it .
" Sorry , ca n't have it both ways .
If it is a situation where you think your way is the best way and you want everyone to use it , then you 've got to work to accommodate users .
You need to make it do what they need as good or better than their old apps .
On the flip side if you want to offer it with no support , you then need to offer it as is .
Do n't push it as being things it is n't and wo n't be.This is a problem I 've run in to with people trying to covert me to Linux .
I tell them the things I want to do , but ca n't seem to .
They then give me things that are n't real alternatives .
When I say " This does n't do what I need , " I get told that I either " should n't do that " or that I " should write it myself .
" Sorry , those are n't legit options .
If you want me to use your stuff , it needs to work for me .
If you do n't want to make it work for me , then do n't push it as a solution for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is a very valid viewpoint to hold.
You can most certianly say "I don't owe the user shit.
" It is your software and you are nice enough to let others use it.
Thus they can use it on your terms.HOWEVER, when you do that you lose any and all right to claim that your software is "better" for the user or "what they should use.
" If they have objections to the way it works, you need to be graceful and say "Ya, my software doesn't do that well, I don't care to fix it so if something else works for you, go to it.
"The problem is that there seem to be a number of OSS types that want to have their cake and eat it too.
They evangelize an "OSS for everyone," position.
You should use all OSS all the time, it is the One True Way(tm) and gives you better software because everyone collaborates.
However, when a user then says "Hey this doesn't work as well as my commercial app," they get angry and say "You didn't pay me, I'll do what I want, fix it yourself if you don't like it.
"Sorry, can't have it both ways.
If it is a situation where you think your way is the best way and you want everyone to use it, then you've got to work to accommodate users.
You need to make it do what they need as good or better than their old apps.
On the flip side if you want to offer it with no support, you then need to offer it as is.
Don't push it as being things it isn't and won't be.This is a problem I've run in to with people trying to covert me to Linux.
I tell them the things I want to do, but can't seem to.
They then give me things that aren't real alternatives.
When I say "This doesn't do what I need," I get told that I either "shouldn't do that" or that I "should write it myself.
" Sorry, those aren't legit options.
If you want me to use your stuff, it needs to work for me.
If you don't want to make it work for me, then don't push it as a solution for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414257</id>
	<title>Innovate is the wrong word</title>
	<author>wampus</author>
	<datestamp>1245584520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>UI and workflow design and project management aren't glamorous or interesting so they don't get done.  Cowboy coding only gets you so far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>UI and workflow design and project management are n't glamorous or interesting so they do n't get done .
Cowboy coding only gets you so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>UI and workflow design and project management aren't glamorous or interesting so they don't get done.
Cowboy coding only gets you so far.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414789</id>
	<title>He did not understand Linux at all.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1245589260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linux is not at all about the average user. It's about having a choice and about having a professional OS.</p><p>Luckily, by having a choice, you can make it a consumer OS too. Or whatever you like.</p><p>Nobody forces anyone to use the new things. He can live in his primitive little world and stifle progress as long as he likes.</p><p>So if anything is wrong, it's that someone thinking everything is like in Windows, where you have only one choice, and everything has to be dumbed down, until you have to be dumb to be able to use it, is getting a voice in any media. The whole thing is a complete joke.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux is not at all about the average user .
It 's about having a choice and about having a professional OS.Luckily , by having a choice , you can make it a consumer OS too .
Or whatever you like.Nobody forces anyone to use the new things .
He can live in his primitive little world and stifle progress as long as he likes.So if anything is wrong , it 's that someone thinking everything is like in Windows , where you have only one choice , and everything has to be dumbed down , until you have to be dumb to be able to use it , is getting a voice in any media .
The whole thing is a complete joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux is not at all about the average user.
It's about having a choice and about having a professional OS.Luckily, by having a choice, you can make it a consumer OS too.
Or whatever you like.Nobody forces anyone to use the new things.
He can live in his primitive little world and stifle progress as long as he likes.So if anything is wrong, it's that someone thinking everything is like in Windows, where you have only one choice, and everything has to be dumbed down, until you have to be dumb to be able to use it, is getting a voice in any media.
The whole thing is a complete joke.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414313</id>
	<title>Continuity is the winning strategy.</title>
	<author>reporter</author>
	<datestamp>1245585060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>One thing that Microsoft has done well is to maintain continuity with the past.  The desktop of Windows 95 is still available on all consumer versions of Windows up to Windows 7.  In Windows 7, you can select the "classic" appearance for the desktop to get the Windows-95 look and feel.
<p>
Most people -- except tech geeks -- do not want to learn a new way of doing things once they learn a particular way that suits their needs.
</p><p>
Moreover, learning takes time and money.  If your company has 100,000 employees, then training them to use a new desktop can cost millions of dollars.
</p><p>
If GNOME developers want Linux to take a significant share of the consumer market, then they must ensure continuity with the past.  Before they embark on the next super-duper upgrade of the desktop, they should spend some time in asking their grandmothers what they want in the next super-duper GNOME desktop.  Grandma's advice could help a lot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing that Microsoft has done well is to maintain continuity with the past .
The desktop of Windows 95 is still available on all consumer versions of Windows up to Windows 7 .
In Windows 7 , you can select the " classic " appearance for the desktop to get the Windows-95 look and feel .
Most people -- except tech geeks -- do not want to learn a new way of doing things once they learn a particular way that suits their needs .
Moreover , learning takes time and money .
If your company has 100,000 employees , then training them to use a new desktop can cost millions of dollars .
If GNOME developers want Linux to take a significant share of the consumer market , then they must ensure continuity with the past .
Before they embark on the next super-duper upgrade of the desktop , they should spend some time in asking their grandmothers what they want in the next super-duper GNOME desktop .
Grandma 's advice could help a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing that Microsoft has done well is to maintain continuity with the past.
The desktop of Windows 95 is still available on all consumer versions of Windows up to Windows 7.
In Windows 7, you can select the "classic" appearance for the desktop to get the Windows-95 look and feel.
Most people -- except tech geeks -- do not want to learn a new way of doing things once they learn a particular way that suits their needs.
Moreover, learning takes time and money.
If your company has 100,000 employees, then training them to use a new desktop can cost millions of dollars.
If GNOME developers want Linux to take a significant share of the consumer market, then they must ensure continuity with the past.
Before they embark on the next super-duper upgrade of the desktop, they should spend some time in asking their grandmothers what they want in the next super-duper GNOME desktop.
Grandma's advice could help a lot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415633</id>
	<title>Re:"Free Software" vs "Open Source" vs... whatever</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1245597600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Way to miss the point. He's saying, you know, maybe we shouldn't try to compete.<br> <br>I agree with his premise. Who gives a shit if Linux has 1-2\% market share? Does Ubuntu get worse on my laptop if it's not out there conquering the world?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Way to miss the point .
He 's saying , you know , maybe we should n't try to compete .
I agree with his premise .
Who gives a shit if Linux has 1-2 \ % market share ?
Does Ubuntu get worse on my laptop if it 's not out there conquering the world ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Way to miss the point.
He's saying, you know, maybe we shouldn't try to compete.
I agree with his premise.
Who gives a shit if Linux has 1-2\% market share?
Does Ubuntu get worse on my laptop if it's not out there conquering the world?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28422221</id>
	<title>What the heck is "Linux Desktop" anyway?</title>
	<author>hotfireball</author>
	<datestamp>1245685800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What the heck is "Linux Desktop" anyway? And what is the major difference between "Solaris Desktop" and "FreeBSD/PC-BSD Desktop"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What the heck is " Linux Desktop " anyway ?
And what is the major difference between " Solaris Desktop " and " FreeBSD/PC-BSD Desktop " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the heck is "Linux Desktop" anyway?
And what is the major difference between "Solaris Desktop" and "FreeBSD/PC-BSD Desktop"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415407</id>
	<title>"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-im</title>
	<author>felixhummel</author>
	<datestamp>1245595380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope Linux remains being a platform for "tinkerers" for a long time to come. Why go mainstream so fast? Let's keep building cool new features - from geeks for geeks.</p><p>If the average consumer can profit from it - good for him. But why put time and energy into compensating his "learning laziness"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope Linux remains being a platform for " tinkerers " for a long time to come .
Why go mainstream so fast ?
Let 's keep building cool new features - from geeks for geeks.If the average consumer can profit from it - good for him .
But why put time and energy into compensating his " learning laziness " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope Linux remains being a platform for "tinkerers" for a long time to come.
Why go mainstream so fast?
Let's keep building cool new features - from geeks for geeks.If the average consumer can profit from it - good for him.
But why put time and energy into compensating his "learning laziness"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28432569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28420299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28429471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415061
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28422417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417357
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28419989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28431451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28424917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28425637
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28421469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28427917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28422053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28419775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28418153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28420935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28418153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28425419
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416149
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28419853
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28418769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28422057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28425745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28419391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28423661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28418247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28419473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28420739
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28431053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417151
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28420535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28423015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28434877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28419503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28433795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28418927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28428381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28423303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28462849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28418199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28424397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28418179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2042245_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28419329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2042245.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28422231
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2042245.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28423015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414845
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28418927
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2042245.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28425637
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28418769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28423303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28424917
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2042245.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28429471
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2042245.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417013
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2042245.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414313
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414415
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414947
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414871
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414585
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415061
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28419391
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28433795
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415481
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2042245.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415765
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2042245.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28424397
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28422417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414505
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415581
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28425745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414797
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2042245.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417369
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2042245.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417457
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416773
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28419853
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28432569
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2042245.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28419387
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2042245.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417151
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28423661
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2042245.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414483
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416039
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415891
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414653
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415141
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28434877
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416107
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414773
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415031
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414741
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414721
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2042245.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414379
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414525
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28431053
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414999
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28427917
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28418247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415039
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2042245.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28418199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28420299
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2042245.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414629
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2042245.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28419775
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28418153
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28425419
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28420935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416801
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28419503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28418179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417401
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417315
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2042245.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414737
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415633
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28462849
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28428381
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28420739
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28420535
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28419329
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28431451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414401
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28419473
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2042245.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414211
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2042245.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417131
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2042245.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414701
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2042245.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415369
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2042245.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414633
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415577
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28421469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417133
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2042245.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28422057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28415413
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2042245.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416507
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2042245.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414323
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28416571
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28419989
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414527
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417155
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2042245.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28417077
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2042245.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28422053
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28414381
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2042245.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2042245.28420155
</commentlist>
</conversation>
