<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_27_1759255</id>
	<title>Richard Stallman Says No To Mono</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1246127400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://slashdot.org/~twitter/journal/217907" rel="nofollow">twitter</a> writes <i>"There's been a lot of fuss about mono lately.  After SCO and MS suing over FAT patents, you would think avoiding anything MS would be a matter of common sense.  RMS now <a href="http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono">steps into the fray to warn against a serious mistake</a>: 'Debian's decision to include Mono in the default installation, for the sake of Tomboy which is an application written in C#, leads the community in a risky direction. It is dangerous to depend on C#, so we need to discourage its use. .... This is not to say that implementing C# is a bad thing. ... [writing and using applications in mono] is taking a gratuitous risk.'"</i> <b>Update: 06/27 20:22 GMT</b> by <b> <a href="http://www.monkey.org/~timothy/">T</a> </b>: Read on below for one Mono-eschewing attempt at getting the (excellent) Tomboy's functionality, via a similar program called Gnote. <b>Update: 06/27 21:07 GMT</b> by <b>T</b>: On the other side of the coin, reader im\_thatoneguy writes "Jo Shields, a Mono Developer, has published an article on '<a href="http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/rants/124/">Why Mono Doesn't Suck</a>,' why it is not a threat to FOSS, why it is desirable to developers and why it should be included in Ubuntu by default."</htmltext>
<tokenext>twitter writes " There 's been a lot of fuss about mono lately .
After SCO and MS suing over FAT patents , you would think avoiding anything MS would be a matter of common sense .
RMS now steps into the fray to warn against a serious mistake : 'Debian 's decision to include Mono in the default installation , for the sake of Tomboy which is an application written in C # , leads the community in a risky direction .
It is dangerous to depend on C # , so we need to discourage its use .
.... This is not to say that implementing C # is a bad thing .
... [ writing and using applications in mono ] is taking a gratuitous risk .
' " Update : 06/27 20 : 22 GMT by T : Read on below for one Mono-eschewing attempt at getting the ( excellent ) Tomboy 's functionality , via a similar program called Gnote .
Update : 06/27 21 : 07 GMT by T : On the other side of the coin , reader im \ _thatoneguy writes " Jo Shields , a Mono Developer , has published an article on 'Why Mono Does n't Suck, ' why it is not a threat to FOSS , why it is desirable to developers and why it should be included in Ubuntu by default .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>twitter writes "There's been a lot of fuss about mono lately.
After SCO and MS suing over FAT patents, you would think avoiding anything MS would be a matter of common sense.
RMS now steps into the fray to warn against a serious mistake: 'Debian's decision to include Mono in the default installation, for the sake of Tomboy which is an application written in C#, leads the community in a risky direction.
It is dangerous to depend on C#, so we need to discourage its use.
.... This is not to say that implementing C# is a bad thing.
... [writing and using applications in mono] is taking a gratuitous risk.
'" Update: 06/27 20:22 GMT by  T : Read on below for one Mono-eschewing attempt at getting the (excellent) Tomboy's functionality, via a similar program called Gnote.
Update: 06/27 21:07 GMT by T: On the other side of the coin, reader im\_thatoneguy writes "Jo Shields, a Mono Developer, has published an article on 'Why Mono Doesn't Suck,' why it is not a threat to FOSS, why it is desirable to developers and why it should be included in Ubuntu by default.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497821</id>
	<title>wtf?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246097700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>are you frakkin kidding me, all this mono runtime crap because of a stupid<br>notetaking app? people to stupid to use a textfile? yeah windows sucks, but you know, linux stinks as well.</p><p><a href="http://freebsd.org/" title="freebsd.org" rel="nofollow">http://freebsd.org/</a> [freebsd.org] the new linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>are you frakkin kidding me , all this mono runtime crap because of a stupidnotetaking app ?
people to stupid to use a textfile ?
yeah windows sucks , but you know , linux stinks as well.http : //freebsd.org/ [ freebsd.org ] the new linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>are you frakkin kidding me, all this mono runtime crap because of a stupidnotetaking app?
people to stupid to use a textfile?
yeah windows sucks, but you know, linux stinks as well.http://freebsd.org/ [freebsd.org] the new linux.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28512665</id>
	<title>Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things?</title>
	<author>itsybitsy</author>
	<datestamp>1246282260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you wish to become more enlightened about the dangers of the CULT OF GPL see this article and the related videos: <a href="http://pathstoknowledge.wordpress.com/2009/04/30/bsd-apache-mit-et-al-are-truly-free-and-open-souce-when-compared-with-the-stallmanistic-geekie-hippie-communistic-license-of-the-gpl-viral-infective-code/" title="wordpress.com">BSD, Apache, MIT, et. al. are truly free and open souce when compared with the Stallmanistic Geekie Hippie Communistic License of the GPL Viral Infective Code</a> [wordpress.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you wish to become more enlightened about the dangers of the CULT OF GPL see this article and the related videos : BSD , Apache , MIT , et .
al. are truly free and open souce when compared with the Stallmanistic Geekie Hippie Communistic License of the GPL Viral Infective Code [ wordpress.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you wish to become more enlightened about the dangers of the CULT OF GPL see this article and the related videos: BSD, Apache, MIT, et.
al. are truly free and open souce when compared with the Stallmanistic Geekie Hippie Communistic License of the GPL Viral Infective Code [wordpress.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498355</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this antithetical to GNU in general?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246101900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Plain wrong : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL\_v.\_BSDi</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plain wrong : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL \ _v. \ _BSDi</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plain wrong : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL\_v.\_BSDi</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496767</id>
	<title>i wonder what RMS uses</title>
	<author>FudRucker</author>
	<datestamp>1246134420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>what does RMS use on his personal computers in his home, basement boiler room or wherever he lives?</htmltext>
<tokenext>what does RMS use on his personal computers in his home , basement boiler room or wherever he lives ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what does RMS use on his personal computers in his home, basement boiler room or wherever he lives?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28500795</id>
	<title>Re:Pot calling the kettle black</title>
	<author>putaro</author>
	<datestamp>1246122120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmmm...that was a very interesting and disingenuous comparison that he made.</p><p>AT&amp;T had a monopoly in telecommunications, not in computers.  AT&amp;T did not have a long history of embrace, extend, extinguish as Microsoft has.  AT&amp;T did not have a history (successful, at least) of using its monopoly to create new monopolies in other areas unlike Microsoft (for example, Microsoft leveraging their OS monopoly into a office suite monopoly).</p><p>At the time that GNU was started, software was not patentable.  Cloning a copyrighted system only opens you to legal problem if you actually copy the code.  Cloning a system with patents will leave not just the cloner but also any users open to patent infringement lawsuits.</p><p>The two situation are not as parallel as the glib comment would make it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm...that was a very interesting and disingenuous comparison that he made.AT&amp;T had a monopoly in telecommunications , not in computers .
AT&amp;T did not have a long history of embrace , extend , extinguish as Microsoft has .
AT&amp;T did not have a history ( successful , at least ) of using its monopoly to create new monopolies in other areas unlike Microsoft ( for example , Microsoft leveraging their OS monopoly into a office suite monopoly ) .At the time that GNU was started , software was not patentable .
Cloning a copyrighted system only opens you to legal problem if you actually copy the code .
Cloning a system with patents will leave not just the cloner but also any users open to patent infringement lawsuits.The two situation are not as parallel as the glib comment would make it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm...that was a very interesting and disingenuous comparison that he made.AT&amp;T had a monopoly in telecommunications, not in computers.
AT&amp;T did not have a long history of embrace, extend, extinguish as Microsoft has.
AT&amp;T did not have a history (successful, at least) of using its monopoly to create new monopolies in other areas unlike Microsoft (for example, Microsoft leveraging their OS monopoly into a office suite monopoly).At the time that GNU was started, software was not patentable.
Cloning a copyrighted system only opens you to legal problem if you actually copy the code.
Cloning a system with patents will leave not just the cloner but also any users open to patent infringement lawsuits.The two situation are not as parallel as the glib comment would make it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496683</id>
	<title>so use basket...</title>
	<author>dkh</author>
	<datestamp>1246134000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://basket.kde.org/" title="kde.org" rel="nofollow">http://basket.kde.org/</a> [kde.org]
<p>
oh, wait, that's a kde thing... I forget, is that evil or not now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //basket.kde.org/ [ kde.org ] oh , wait , that 's a kde thing... I forget , is that evil or not now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://basket.kde.org/ [kde.org]

oh, wait, that's a kde thing... I forget, is that evil or not now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28501917</id>
	<title>Stallman doesn't know what he is talking about</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1246181100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(1) Although Microsoft has applied on a patent for the (non-ECMA/ISO)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET APIs, Tomboy and other Mono applications don't use those.</p><p>(2) Any free software is threatened by patents and the patents can come from any company; with C#, people at least have looked at this issue in detail and come up empty.</p><p>Legally speaking, it's probably safer to use Mono than any other platform other than C at this point.</p><p>The statement from Stallman is particularly bizarre because the entire GNU project started out under a huge cloud of legal uncertainty: AT&amp;T had extensive intellectual property claims to UNIX, including patents, and Stallman just ignored all of those.</p><p>Furthermore, if Stallman wants us not to use Mono, he needs to come up with a better alternative; so far, there is none.  The closest we have to a successor to C/C++ is D, but it has limitations and isn't widely accepted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( 1 ) Although Microsoft has applied on a patent for the ( non-ECMA/ISO ) .NET APIs , Tomboy and other Mono applications do n't use those .
( 2 ) Any free software is threatened by patents and the patents can come from any company ; with C # , people at least have looked at this issue in detail and come up empty.Legally speaking , it 's probably safer to use Mono than any other platform other than C at this point.The statement from Stallman is particularly bizarre because the entire GNU project started out under a huge cloud of legal uncertainty : AT&amp;T had extensive intellectual property claims to UNIX , including patents , and Stallman just ignored all of those.Furthermore , if Stallman wants us not to use Mono , he needs to come up with a better alternative ; so far , there is none .
The closest we have to a successor to C/C + + is D , but it has limitations and is n't widely accepted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(1) Although Microsoft has applied on a patent for the (non-ECMA/ISO) .NET APIs, Tomboy and other Mono applications don't use those.
(2) Any free software is threatened by patents and the patents can come from any company; with C#, people at least have looked at this issue in detail and come up empty.Legally speaking, it's probably safer to use Mono than any other platform other than C at this point.The statement from Stallman is particularly bizarre because the entire GNU project started out under a huge cloud of legal uncertainty: AT&amp;T had extensive intellectual property claims to UNIX, including patents, and Stallman just ignored all of those.Furthermore, if Stallman wants us not to use Mono, he needs to come up with a better alternative; so far, there is none.
The closest we have to a successor to C/C++ is D, but it has limitations and isn't widely accepted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497755</id>
	<title>Re:another reason:it doesn't play to Linux's stren</title>
	<author>Jaime2</author>
	<datestamp>1246097340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since someone already jumped on the argument that C# is as good a high level language as any, I'll jump on the low level argument.  C# is actually a good language for most application, even if they have a smattering of low level sections.  I wouldn't write a device driver in C#, but I would write an image processing application in C#.  One of the nifty features of C# is to admit that it isn't perfect for everything and it allows in-line C.  So, instead of throwing away a high-level language for the 90\% of an application that can benefit from it, simply write the application in C# and implement the 10\% that would be better written in C, in C embedded directly in C#.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since someone already jumped on the argument that C # is as good a high level language as any , I 'll jump on the low level argument .
C # is actually a good language for most application , even if they have a smattering of low level sections .
I would n't write a device driver in C # , but I would write an image processing application in C # .
One of the nifty features of C # is to admit that it is n't perfect for everything and it allows in-line C. So , instead of throwing away a high-level language for the 90 \ % of an application that can benefit from it , simply write the application in C # and implement the 10 \ % that would be better written in C , in C embedded directly in C # .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since someone already jumped on the argument that C# is as good a high level language as any, I'll jump on the low level argument.
C# is actually a good language for most application, even if they have a smattering of low level sections.
I wouldn't write a device driver in C#, but I would write an image processing application in C#.
One of the nifty features of C# is to admit that it isn't perfect for everything and it allows in-line C.  So, instead of throwing away a high-level language for the 90\% of an application that can benefit from it, simply write the application in C# and implement the 10\% that would be better written in C, in C embedded directly in C#.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499339</id>
	<title>Debian bringing this upon itself?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246110420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that the Debian folks, although they are doing a impressive job in maintaining the project, are very close to a situation where one could wonder if they don't keep double standards. But to make matters more grim I can't help wonder if they didn't bring this whole situation upon themselves.</p><p>When it comes to licenses and the slightest indication of software possibly being "non free" then Debian holds very high standards. And don't get me wrong: rightfully so. But where things started getting heavily off course (IMO naturally) is when they include broken software to make up for the loss of the original. There are many examples but the one I personally experienced was with Java. Instead of simply making the point "No, we don't include Java because its not open source" (an opinion which I still find highly questionable) they chose to include broken software and presented it in a way as Java (it "looked" and "felt" the same after all). Unfortunately, that horribly POS (personal opinion) wasn't even capable of getting people through the first chapters of the official <a href="http://www.thejavatutorial.com/" title="thejavatutorial.com" rel="nofollow">Java tutorial</a> [thejavatutorial.com]. A situation which I think has put many people on the wrong track with regards to Java, even to a point where they concluded that Java on Linux was broke.</p><p>And now I'm wondering if that same approach hasn't moved many Debian (or deratives) users away from Java due to the extreme hassle around it only to adopt another (seemingly) better supported platform; C# in the form of Mono. Maybe this is a little too black/white portraited but I still think it might apply to some of them. So in that aspect I can't help wonder if Debian brought this entirely upon itself.</p><p>As for Stallman and his worries; I have to agree to some extend. History has shown us multiple times that you can't trust MS with things like these. I'm even shocked to see that Debian would exclude the official Java implementation because they deemed it "not open source" (only because the source was freely available, but not under a license which people liked) but will happily include an environment which cannot be deemed entirely free (yet?). But on the other hand, if you take a closer look at MS's <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/library/toolbar/3.0/trademarks/en-us.mspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">trademarks</a> [microsoft.com] you will see that there isn't any friction (yet) when comparing those to what can be seen on the <a href="http://mono-project.com/Main\_Page" title="mono-project.com" rel="nofollow">Mono website</a> [mono-project.com].</p><p>Because please bear well in mind the header of that MS page: "<i>The absence of a name or logo in this list does not constitute a waiver of any and all intellectual property rights that Microsoft Corporation or its subsidiaries have established in any of their product, feature, or service names or logos.</i>". But one could always wonder; should MS do start throwing some weight around; what is stopping Mono from changing their: "We provide C# on other platforms" to "We provide a MS powered java-like platform on other platforms.".</p><p>All in all I think Debian is making a grave mistake, but I doubt it can result in a scenario as forewarned by Stallman.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that the Debian folks , although they are doing a impressive job in maintaining the project , are very close to a situation where one could wonder if they do n't keep double standards .
But to make matters more grim I ca n't help wonder if they did n't bring this whole situation upon themselves.When it comes to licenses and the slightest indication of software possibly being " non free " then Debian holds very high standards .
And do n't get me wrong : rightfully so .
But where things started getting heavily off course ( IMO naturally ) is when they include broken software to make up for the loss of the original .
There are many examples but the one I personally experienced was with Java .
Instead of simply making the point " No , we do n't include Java because its not open source " ( an opinion which I still find highly questionable ) they chose to include broken software and presented it in a way as Java ( it " looked " and " felt " the same after all ) .
Unfortunately , that horribly POS ( personal opinion ) was n't even capable of getting people through the first chapters of the official Java tutorial [ thejavatutorial.com ] .
A situation which I think has put many people on the wrong track with regards to Java , even to a point where they concluded that Java on Linux was broke.And now I 'm wondering if that same approach has n't moved many Debian ( or deratives ) users away from Java due to the extreme hassle around it only to adopt another ( seemingly ) better supported platform ; C # in the form of Mono .
Maybe this is a little too black/white portraited but I still think it might apply to some of them .
So in that aspect I ca n't help wonder if Debian brought this entirely upon itself.As for Stallman and his worries ; I have to agree to some extend .
History has shown us multiple times that you ca n't trust MS with things like these .
I 'm even shocked to see that Debian would exclude the official Java implementation because they deemed it " not open source " ( only because the source was freely available , but not under a license which people liked ) but will happily include an environment which can not be deemed entirely free ( yet ? ) .
But on the other hand , if you take a closer look at MS 's trademarks [ microsoft.com ] you will see that there is n't any friction ( yet ) when comparing those to what can be seen on the Mono website [ mono-project.com ] .Because please bear well in mind the header of that MS page : " The absence of a name or logo in this list does not constitute a waiver of any and all intellectual property rights that Microsoft Corporation or its subsidiaries have established in any of their product , feature , or service names or logos. " .
But one could always wonder ; should MS do start throwing some weight around ; what is stopping Mono from changing their : " We provide C # on other platforms " to " We provide a MS powered java-like platform on other platforms .
" .All in all I think Debian is making a grave mistake , but I doubt it can result in a scenario as forewarned by Stallman .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that the Debian folks, although they are doing a impressive job in maintaining the project, are very close to a situation where one could wonder if they don't keep double standards.
But to make matters more grim I can't help wonder if they didn't bring this whole situation upon themselves.When it comes to licenses and the slightest indication of software possibly being "non free" then Debian holds very high standards.
And don't get me wrong: rightfully so.
But where things started getting heavily off course (IMO naturally) is when they include broken software to make up for the loss of the original.
There are many examples but the one I personally experienced was with Java.
Instead of simply making the point "No, we don't include Java because its not open source" (an opinion which I still find highly questionable) they chose to include broken software and presented it in a way as Java (it "looked" and "felt" the same after all).
Unfortunately, that horribly POS (personal opinion) wasn't even capable of getting people through the first chapters of the official Java tutorial [thejavatutorial.com].
A situation which I think has put many people on the wrong track with regards to Java, even to a point where they concluded that Java on Linux was broke.And now I'm wondering if that same approach hasn't moved many Debian (or deratives) users away from Java due to the extreme hassle around it only to adopt another (seemingly) better supported platform; C# in the form of Mono.
Maybe this is a little too black/white portraited but I still think it might apply to some of them.
So in that aspect I can't help wonder if Debian brought this entirely upon itself.As for Stallman and his worries; I have to agree to some extend.
History has shown us multiple times that you can't trust MS with things like these.
I'm even shocked to see that Debian would exclude the official Java implementation because they deemed it "not open source" (only because the source was freely available, but not under a license which people liked) but will happily include an environment which cannot be deemed entirely free (yet?).
But on the other hand, if you take a closer look at MS's trademarks [microsoft.com] you will see that there isn't any friction (yet) when comparing those to what can be seen on the Mono website [mono-project.com].Because please bear well in mind the header of that MS page: "The absence of a name or logo in this list does not constitute a waiver of any and all intellectual property rights that Microsoft Corporation or its subsidiaries have established in any of their product, feature, or service names or logos.".
But one could always wonder; should MS do start throwing some weight around; what is stopping Mono from changing their: "We provide C# on other platforms" to "We provide a MS powered java-like platform on other platforms.
".All in all I think Debian is making a grave mistake, but I doubt it can result in a scenario as forewarned by Stallman.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498469</id>
	<title>The real damage of Mono</title>
	<author>Phatmanotoo</author>
	<datestamp>1246102800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any competent and well-informed programmer knows that the openness of C#/.NET is a total sham.  Sure the core is open, but there's so many Windows-only extensions that it's virtually impossible to make cross-platform apps.  Plus the fact that the Mono implementation is always waay behind Microsoft's.</p><p>But MS has been very clever. They know that it's only technical people who can see this; the rest will just get the subliminal message that ".NET is now also cross-platform, just as Java".</p><p>This is the real damage of Mono.  Its existence provides the right excuse for PHB and clueless tech decision-makers to sway the decision towards<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET instead
of Java, because, "hey, Microsoft is also cross-platform now".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any competent and well-informed programmer knows that the openness of C # /.NET is a total sham .
Sure the core is open , but there 's so many Windows-only extensions that it 's virtually impossible to make cross-platform apps .
Plus the fact that the Mono implementation is always waay behind Microsoft 's.But MS has been very clever .
They know that it 's only technical people who can see this ; the rest will just get the subliminal message that " .NET is now also cross-platform , just as Java " .This is the real damage of Mono .
Its existence provides the right excuse for PHB and clueless tech decision-makers to sway the decision towards .NET instead of Java , because , " hey , Microsoft is also cross-platform now " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any competent and well-informed programmer knows that the openness of C#/.NET is a total sham.
Sure the core is open, but there's so many Windows-only extensions that it's virtually impossible to make cross-platform apps.
Plus the fact that the Mono implementation is always waay behind Microsoft's.But MS has been very clever.
They know that it's only technical people who can see this; the rest will just get the subliminal message that ".NET is now also cross-platform, just as Java".This is the real damage of Mono.
Its existence provides the right excuse for PHB and clueless tech decision-makers to sway the decision towards .NET instead
of Java, because, "hey, Microsoft is also cross-platform now".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499335</id>
	<title>Re:"M$"</title>
	<author>Timex</author>
	<datestamp>1246110360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the reasons you listed are probably closer to the reasoning for the "M$" crap than the opening line in your reply...</p><p>"M$" has been in use as a childish stab at Microsoft since the heady days of Windows 3.11, if not before.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the reasons you listed are probably closer to the reasoning for the " M $ " crap than the opening line in your reply... " M $ " has been in use as a childish stab at Microsoft since the heady days of Windows 3.11 , if not before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the reasons you listed are probably closer to the reasoning for the "M$" crap than the opening line in your reply..."M$" has been in use as a childish stab at Microsoft since the heady days of Windows 3.11, if not before.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496693</id>
	<title>Re:"M$"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246134060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sir, I fully agree with you. Slashdot's quality is getting lower and lower each week it seems.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sir , I fully agree with you .
Slashdot 's quality is getting lower and lower each week it seems .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sir, I fully agree with you.
Slashdot's quality is getting lower and lower each week it seems.
:(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497555</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry RMS: Linux != GNU...</title>
	<author>Odemia</author>
	<datestamp>1246096200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The use of "GNU/Linux" does get a bit annoying and he does come off as a purist. But the argument of:</p><p>"purity" vs "usefulness"</p><p>Is a straw-man version of what RMS said.  He never said don't include anything C#.  Just not to include it in the default installation.  Not where people will be encouraged to use it and an ecosystem of apps grow around and become an integral part of the community.  And I see his argument if Mono (or C# more generally) becomes a integral part of the community it becomes a target.</p><p>So, is encouraging the use of C# in Linux distros worth it?  To answer that I guess we have to ask the following: How safe are the free implementations from patent threat?  How much will the software ecosystem around Mono grow if it is installed by default vs if it is an additional package that needs to be installed post install?  How many apps can safely rely on Mono without making the cost of loosing Mono x the probability of loosing Mono too much?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The use of " GNU/Linux " does get a bit annoying and he does come off as a purist .
But the argument of : " purity " vs " usefulness " Is a straw-man version of what RMS said .
He never said do n't include anything C # .
Just not to include it in the default installation .
Not where people will be encouraged to use it and an ecosystem of apps grow around and become an integral part of the community .
And I see his argument if Mono ( or C # more generally ) becomes a integral part of the community it becomes a target.So , is encouraging the use of C # in Linux distros worth it ?
To answer that I guess we have to ask the following : How safe are the free implementations from patent threat ?
How much will the software ecosystem around Mono grow if it is installed by default vs if it is an additional package that needs to be installed post install ?
How many apps can safely rely on Mono without making the cost of loosing Mono x the probability of loosing Mono too much ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The use of "GNU/Linux" does get a bit annoying and he does come off as a purist.
But the argument of:"purity" vs "usefulness"Is a straw-man version of what RMS said.
He never said don't include anything C#.
Just not to include it in the default installation.
Not where people will be encouraged to use it and an ecosystem of apps grow around and become an integral part of the community.
And I see his argument if Mono (or C# more generally) becomes a integral part of the community it becomes a target.So, is encouraging the use of C# in Linux distros worth it?
To answer that I guess we have to ask the following: How safe are the free implementations from patent threat?
How much will the software ecosystem around Mono grow if it is installed by default vs if it is an additional package that needs to be installed post install?
How many apps can safely rely on Mono without making the cost of loosing Mono x the probability of loosing Mono too much?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496467</id>
	<title>FFS edit the summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246132620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Change the damn summary to read Microsoft, or MS. This is really, really stupid. Is slashdot's target audience 10-year olds now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Change the damn summary to read Microsoft , or MS. This is really , really stupid .
Is slashdot 's target audience 10-year olds now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Change the damn summary to read Microsoft, or MS. This is really, really stupid.
Is slashdot's target audience 10-year olds now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499571</id>
	<title>Re:Pot calling the kettle black</title>
	<author>DeVilla</author>
	<datestamp>1246111920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They are both old.  They are well published.  There are no trade secrets left in C or UNIX and there have not been for decades.  I don't believe the public knows what was in that agreement between Novell and Microsoft.  Mono is fertile ground for another FAT or RAMBUS case.  Maybe one day it will be safe, but for now, no Free system should risk becoming dependent on Mono.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are both old .
They are well published .
There are no trade secrets left in C or UNIX and there have not been for decades .
I do n't believe the public knows what was in that agreement between Novell and Microsoft .
Mono is fertile ground for another FAT or RAMBUS case .
Maybe one day it will be safe , but for now , no Free system should risk becoming dependent on Mono .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are both old.
They are well published.
There are no trade secrets left in C or UNIX and there have not been for decades.
I don't believe the public knows what was in that agreement between Novell and Microsoft.
Mono is fertile ground for another FAT or RAMBUS case.
Maybe one day it will be safe, but for now, no Free system should risk becoming dependent on Mono.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497841</id>
	<title>Re:Yes to Mono!</title>
	<author>clintp</author>
	<datestamp>1246097820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I develop on both Windows and other OS's.  (25+ years of writing for Unix and Windows.)</p><p>Mono's great for the occasions that I need to write code that work fine on Linux and Windows.  The tools are fine, the porting is seamless, and it just works.  If MS decides to submarine-patent Mono somehow (which still hasn't been specified *how*...) then I'll move my tools to something else.  In the meantime it works and its easy to use.</p><p>These FUD sessions are unproductive for everyone.  Go write some code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I develop on both Windows and other OS 's .
( 25 + years of writing for Unix and Windows .
) Mono 's great for the occasions that I need to write code that work fine on Linux and Windows .
The tools are fine , the porting is seamless , and it just works .
If MS decides to submarine-patent Mono somehow ( which still has n't been specified * how * ... ) then I 'll move my tools to something else .
In the meantime it works and its easy to use.These FUD sessions are unproductive for everyone .
Go write some code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I develop on both Windows and other OS's.
(25+ years of writing for Unix and Windows.
)Mono's great for the occasions that I need to write code that work fine on Linux and Windows.
The tools are fine, the porting is seamless, and it just works.
If MS decides to submarine-patent Mono somehow (which still hasn't been specified *how*...) then I'll move my tools to something else.
In the meantime it works and its easy to use.These FUD sessions are unproductive for everyone.
Go write some code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497579</id>
	<title>Did Microsoft relented all posible patents?</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1246096320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, sorry, you are posting as an AC.</p><p>Surprising how many MS defenders decide to post as ACs....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , sorry , you are posting as an AC.Surprising how many MS defenders decide to post as ACs... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, sorry, you are posting as an AC.Surprising how many MS defenders decide to post as ACs....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497509</id>
	<title>Re:Pot calling the kettle black</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1246095960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How is this a troll? C and UNIX were both developed by an even bigger, eviler company than MS could ever hope to be.</p></div></blockquote><p>Which should be obvious when you look at their <a href="http://www.underconsideration.com/speakup\_v2/top100/images/logo\_att.gif" title="underconsideration.com">old logo</a> [underconsideration.com] and notice it looks like The Death Star from Star Wars!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this a troll ?
C and UNIX were both developed by an even bigger , eviler company than MS could ever hope to be.Which should be obvious when you look at their old logo [ underconsideration.com ] and notice it looks like The Death Star from Star Wars !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this a troll?
C and UNIX were both developed by an even bigger, eviler company than MS could ever hope to be.Which should be obvious when you look at their old logo [underconsideration.com] and notice it looks like The Death Star from Star Wars!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28569723</id>
	<title>.Net is an ECMA standard, so what ?</title>
	<author>sebsauvage</author>
	<datestamp>1246617960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>C# and CLI are ECMA standards, so what ? They're safe to use ?<br>
<br>
Remember MP3 ? This is an ISO standard.<br>
Try to implement a commercial MP3 encoder, and in no time Thomson/Fraunhofer will knock at the door to reclaim payment of a license fee.<br>
Oh... and Thomson/Fraunhofer have themselves been attacked (by Alcatel) regarding patented technologies used in the MP3 format.<br>
<br>
Don't assume because something is a standard is has no strings attached (patents, licenses).</htmltext>
<tokenext>C # and CLI are ECMA standards , so what ?
They 're safe to use ?
Remember MP3 ?
This is an ISO standard .
Try to implement a commercial MP3 encoder , and in no time Thomson/Fraunhofer will knock at the door to reclaim payment of a license fee .
Oh... and Thomson/Fraunhofer have themselves been attacked ( by Alcatel ) regarding patented technologies used in the MP3 format .
Do n't assume because something is a standard is has no strings attached ( patents , licenses ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C# and CLI are ECMA standards, so what ?
They're safe to use ?
Remember MP3 ?
This is an ISO standard.
Try to implement a commercial MP3 encoder, and in no time Thomson/Fraunhofer will knock at the door to reclaim payment of a license fee.
Oh... and Thomson/Fraunhofer have themselves been attacked (by Alcatel) regarding patented technologies used in the MP3 format.
Don't assume because something is a standard is has no strings attached (patents, licenses).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28505909</id>
	<title>No Mono in openoffice.org, please!</title>
	<author>fritsd</author>
	<datestamp>1246218180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would like it if in Debian-like linux distro's, mono can be easily uninstalled (which also un-installs all "dependent" packages (programs and libraries)). This means that if I've installed your apps, and if (for whatever reason) I decide to purge mono from my system, that I would have to give up using your apps, too.
<br>
So far, so good. My personal gripe is if important packages (Debian version of openoffice.org 3.1.0-5) that everyone uses are dependent on mono.
<br>
Do you happen to be one of the developers of openoffice.org?
<br>
On <a href="http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=openoffice.org" title="bjorn.haxx.se">the bjorn.haxx.se site</a> [bjorn.haxx.se] describing when packages go into testing, there seems to be somewhere a "Build-Depends:" of the openoffice.org package on mono, which is why openoffice 3.1 is currently not yet in Debian testing.
<br>
Before you flame me, I know that this doesn't mean that all openoffice.org programs actually depend on mono, it's probably only for <a href="http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=cli-uno-bridge" title="debian.org">cli-uno-bridge</a> [debian.org], but I would strongly prefer an openoffice.org NOT dependent on mono, and then if necessary, an openoffice.org-extras-mono package containing those parts dependent on mono.
<br>
I haven't yet had time to open a wishlist bug against openoffice.org. Sorry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like it if in Debian-like linux distro 's , mono can be easily uninstalled ( which also un-installs all " dependent " packages ( programs and libraries ) ) .
This means that if I 've installed your apps , and if ( for whatever reason ) I decide to purge mono from my system , that I would have to give up using your apps , too .
So far , so good .
My personal gripe is if important packages ( Debian version of openoffice.org 3.1.0-5 ) that everyone uses are dependent on mono .
Do you happen to be one of the developers of openoffice.org ?
On the bjorn.haxx.se site [ bjorn.haxx.se ] describing when packages go into testing , there seems to be somewhere a " Build-Depends : " of the openoffice.org package on mono , which is why openoffice 3.1 is currently not yet in Debian testing .
Before you flame me , I know that this does n't mean that all openoffice.org programs actually depend on mono , it 's probably only for cli-uno-bridge [ debian.org ] , but I would strongly prefer an openoffice.org NOT dependent on mono , and then if necessary , an openoffice.org-extras-mono package containing those parts dependent on mono .
I have n't yet had time to open a wishlist bug against openoffice.org .
Sorry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like it if in Debian-like linux distro's, mono can be easily uninstalled (which also un-installs all "dependent" packages (programs and libraries)).
This means that if I've installed your apps, and if (for whatever reason) I decide to purge mono from my system, that I would have to give up using your apps, too.
So far, so good.
My personal gripe is if important packages (Debian version of openoffice.org 3.1.0-5) that everyone uses are dependent on mono.
Do you happen to be one of the developers of openoffice.org?
On the bjorn.haxx.se site [bjorn.haxx.se] describing when packages go into testing, there seems to be somewhere a "Build-Depends:" of the openoffice.org package on mono, which is why openoffice 3.1 is currently not yet in Debian testing.
Before you flame me, I know that this doesn't mean that all openoffice.org programs actually depend on mono, it's probably only for cli-uno-bridge [debian.org], but I would strongly prefer an openoffice.org NOT dependent on mono, and then if necessary, an openoffice.org-extras-mono package containing those parts dependent on mono.
I haven't yet had time to open a wishlist bug against openoffice.org.
Sorry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499503</id>
	<title>Re:We need a better alternative to Mono then</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246111500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Richard Stallman can say whatever he wants, why can&rsquo;t you just ignore him and go on programming in Mono?<br>
And if you need an IDE running on Linux for other languages, you can try Netbeans: it&rsquo;s a bit slow, but it&rsquo;s nice and supports Java, C/C++, Ruby, PHP, and (beta) Python.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Richard Stallman can say whatever he wants , why can    t you just ignore him and go on programming in Mono ?
And if you need an IDE running on Linux for other languages , you can try Netbeans : it    s a bit slow , but it    s nice and supports Java , C/C + + , Ruby , PHP , and ( beta ) Python .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Richard Stallman can say whatever he wants, why can’t you just ignore him and go on programming in Mono?
And if you need an IDE running on Linux for other languages, you can try Netbeans: it’s a bit slow, but it’s nice and supports Java, C/C++, Ruby, PHP, and (beta) Python.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497317</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497073</id>
	<title>Playing right into Microsoft's Hands?</title>
	<author>c0d3g33k</author>
	<datestamp>1246093200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft wants people to remain exclusively Windows.  Mono and similar implementations allow people to run their<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET code on alternate platforms (eg. Linux, Mac, BSD) if the code is sufficiently portable (not that hard to do).  By refraining from exploring portable solutions on other platforms due to vague, non-specified fears about some nebulous future threat, developers are doing what Microsoft wants most: giving people a reason to stay devoted to Windows.  It's the safe bet.  As others have pointed out above, the threat of patent infringement didn't prevent re-implementation of other commercial technologies.  Linux as we know it today wouldn't exist if people had succumbed to the same kind of fear.  I always thought one of the more ethical aspects of free-as-in-freedom software was to provide an alternative to less-free proprietary software.  As such, Mono should be welcomed as a way for people to escape the control of Microsoft.  I'm not sure I like this new fear-driven approach to deciding what's worthy of being acceptable as FLOSS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft wants people to remain exclusively Windows .
Mono and similar implementations allow people to run their .NET code on alternate platforms ( eg .
Linux , Mac , BSD ) if the code is sufficiently portable ( not that hard to do ) .
By refraining from exploring portable solutions on other platforms due to vague , non-specified fears about some nebulous future threat , developers are doing what Microsoft wants most : giving people a reason to stay devoted to Windows .
It 's the safe bet .
As others have pointed out above , the threat of patent infringement did n't prevent re-implementation of other commercial technologies .
Linux as we know it today would n't exist if people had succumbed to the same kind of fear .
I always thought one of the more ethical aspects of free-as-in-freedom software was to provide an alternative to less-free proprietary software .
As such , Mono should be welcomed as a way for people to escape the control of Microsoft .
I 'm not sure I like this new fear-driven approach to deciding what 's worthy of being acceptable as FLOSS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft wants people to remain exclusively Windows.
Mono and similar implementations allow people to run their .NET code on alternate platforms (eg.
Linux, Mac, BSD) if the code is sufficiently portable (not that hard to do).
By refraining from exploring portable solutions on other platforms due to vague, non-specified fears about some nebulous future threat, developers are doing what Microsoft wants most: giving people a reason to stay devoted to Windows.
It's the safe bet.
As others have pointed out above, the threat of patent infringement didn't prevent re-implementation of other commercial technologies.
Linux as we know it today wouldn't exist if people had succumbed to the same kind of fear.
I always thought one of the more ethical aspects of free-as-in-freedom software was to provide an alternative to less-free proprietary software.
As such, Mono should be welcomed as a way for people to escape the control of Microsoft.
I'm not sure I like this new fear-driven approach to deciding what's worthy of being acceptable as FLOSS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>saleenS281</author>
	<datestamp>1246132080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Funny, we've been a customer of Microsoft's for 20 years and have yet to experience this "raping" you speak of.  I know it's all sorts of fun and games to bash MS on slashdot, but seriously?  Comparing them to rape?  Grow up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , we 've been a customer of Microsoft 's for 20 years and have yet to experience this " raping " you speak of .
I know it 's all sorts of fun and games to bash MS on slashdot , but seriously ?
Comparing them to rape ?
Grow up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, we've been a customer of Microsoft's for 20 years and have yet to experience this "raping" you speak of.
I know it's all sorts of fun and games to bash MS on slashdot, but seriously?
Comparing them to rape?
Grow up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499449</id>
	<title>Re:Yup</title>
	<author>DeVilla</author>
	<datestamp>1246111080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mono is not a safe, Free (FSF type free) implementation of C#.  Is there such an implementation?    If mono's all we really have at the moment, then the language itself is a trap.
<p>
Sure, you could maybe try to write or stabilize an implementation that is not a patent minefield.  I'm guessing Richard isn't really pushing for that because there is already C, C++, Objective-C, Objective-C++, Java and he's really a Lisp bigot.  He probably isn't fond of any of the OO C based languages and isn't look to have yet another.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mono is not a safe , Free ( FSF type free ) implementation of C # .
Is there such an implementation ?
If mono 's all we really have at the moment , then the language itself is a trap .
Sure , you could maybe try to write or stabilize an implementation that is not a patent minefield .
I 'm guessing Richard is n't really pushing for that because there is already C , C + + , Objective-C , Objective-C + + , Java and he 's really a Lisp bigot .
He probably is n't fond of any of the OO C based languages and is n't look to have yet another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mono is not a safe, Free (FSF type free) implementation of C#.
Is there such an implementation?
If mono's all we really have at the moment, then the language itself is a trap.
Sure, you could maybe try to write or stabilize an implementation that is not a patent minefield.
I'm guessing Richard isn't really pushing for that because there is already C, C++, Objective-C, Objective-C++, Java and he's really a Lisp bigot.
He probably isn't fond of any of the OO C based languages and isn't look to have yet another.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497231</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1246094160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Rape doesn't simply mean forced sexual intercourse. As a verb... well...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...The loggers raped the virgin forest</p></div></blockquote><p>I don't get it.  What makes you think this isn't about sex?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rape does n't simply mean forced sexual intercourse .
As a verb... well... ...The loggers raped the virgin forestI do n't get it .
What makes you think this is n't about sex ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rape doesn't simply mean forced sexual intercourse.
As a verb... well... ...The loggers raped the virgin forestI don't get it.
What makes you think this isn't about sex?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28507141</id>
	<title>Re:Yes to Mono!</title>
	<author>imtheguru</author>
	<datestamp>1246185180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ubuntu (I can't speak for debian) has 2 default applications written using mono, fspot photo editor and one other that has been ported (i forget its name but the replacement binary is 4 meg).</p></div><p>Beagle, 4657k.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ubuntu ( I ca n't speak for debian ) has 2 default applications written using mono , fspot photo editor and one other that has been ported ( i forget its name but the replacement binary is 4 meg ) .Beagle , 4657k .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ubuntu (I can't speak for debian) has 2 default applications written using mono, fspot photo editor and one other that has been ported (i forget its name but the replacement binary is 4 meg).Beagle, 4657k.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496953</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>NickFortune</author>
	<datestamp>1246135440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Mono is a independent open source project. Microsoft has no real control over this code.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
The concern that MS may have one or more submarine patents that apply to the framework. Open source development is a wonderful thing, but the protection it offers against a patent lawsuit is slim to non-existent, depending on the extent to which the aggressor relies on open source software.
</p><blockquote><div><p> *IF* Microsoft tried to hijack or close down Mono, it would need to do so through the courts, when was the last time Microsoft won a case like that?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
That will be a great comfort to TomTom, I'm sure.
</p><blockquote><div><p>When Sun tried to dictate control over their platform Microsoft simply stopped shipping the JVM on their OS and soon after started shipping the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET runtime. The Mono crew would simply do the same, by simply forking and become something that is not<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET compliant,</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Bit of a pointless exercise, that. The only real draw of Mono over Java is compaibility with MS. Forking Mono would be a hugely stupid move. On top of which, most of the mono developers work for Novell, who are unlikely to worry about MS patent threats. On the contrary, they might well welcome such a development which, properly timed, it could leave them as the only enterprise-credible commercial distro. So that's another concern - the conflict of interest at Novell.
</p><blockquote><div><p>This is simply sensless anti-MS zealotry. Applications written on Mono are no more of a risk than those written on any other platofrm</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
I disagree. I'm not always Stallman's biggest fan (check my posting history) and I've used Mono professionally for the last four years. But in the case of Debian, I think Stallman's got it right. Not only does Debian not need Mono, but also in adopting the framework, it potentially leaves itself open to attack. Needlessly.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mono is a independent open source project .
Microsoft has no real control over this code .
The concern that MS may have one or more submarine patents that apply to the framework .
Open source development is a wonderful thing , but the protection it offers against a patent lawsuit is slim to non-existent , depending on the extent to which the aggressor relies on open source software .
* IF * Microsoft tried to hijack or close down Mono , it would need to do so through the courts , when was the last time Microsoft won a case like that ?
That will be a great comfort to TomTom , I 'm sure .
When Sun tried to dictate control over their platform Microsoft simply stopped shipping the JVM on their OS and soon after started shipping the .NET runtime .
The Mono crew would simply do the same , by simply forking and become something that is not .NET compliant , Bit of a pointless exercise , that .
The only real draw of Mono over Java is compaibility with MS. Forking Mono would be a hugely stupid move .
On top of which , most of the mono developers work for Novell , who are unlikely to worry about MS patent threats .
On the contrary , they might well welcome such a development which , properly timed , it could leave them as the only enterprise-credible commercial distro .
So that 's another concern - the conflict of interest at Novell .
This is simply sensless anti-MS zealotry .
Applications written on Mono are no more of a risk than those written on any other platofrm I disagree .
I 'm not always Stallman 's biggest fan ( check my posting history ) and I 've used Mono professionally for the last four years .
But in the case of Debian , I think Stallman 's got it right .
Not only does Debian not need Mono , but also in adopting the framework , it potentially leaves itself open to attack .
Needlessly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mono is a independent open source project.
Microsoft has no real control over this code.
The concern that MS may have one or more submarine patents that apply to the framework.
Open source development is a wonderful thing, but the protection it offers against a patent lawsuit is slim to non-existent, depending on the extent to which the aggressor relies on open source software.
*IF* Microsoft tried to hijack or close down Mono, it would need to do so through the courts, when was the last time Microsoft won a case like that?
That will be a great comfort to TomTom, I'm sure.
When Sun tried to dictate control over their platform Microsoft simply stopped shipping the JVM on their OS and soon after started shipping the .NET runtime.
The Mono crew would simply do the same, by simply forking and become something that is not .NET compliant,

Bit of a pointless exercise, that.
The only real draw of Mono over Java is compaibility with MS. Forking Mono would be a hugely stupid move.
On top of which, most of the mono developers work for Novell, who are unlikely to worry about MS patent threats.
On the contrary, they might well welcome such a development which, properly timed, it could leave them as the only enterprise-credible commercial distro.
So that's another concern - the conflict of interest at Novell.
This is simply sensless anti-MS zealotry.
Applications written on Mono are no more of a risk than those written on any other platofrm

I disagree.
I'm not always Stallman's biggest fan (check my posting history) and I've used Mono professionally for the last four years.
But in the case of Debian, I think Stallman's got it right.
Not only does Debian not need Mono, but also in adopting the framework, it potentially leaves itself open to attack.
Needlessly.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497471</id>
	<title>Yes... 40 years ago.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246095660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, Unix and C were developed by an eviler company than Microsoft...  About 40 years ago. Any patents filed on the core of C or Unix have long since expired.</p><p>When the GNU project started there were virtually no software patents, and what existed were effectively non-enforceable. It wasn't until 1981 that anyone really believed a software patent could be enforced, and not until the creation of the federal circuit (which handed the patent attorneys complete control of the courts for patents) in 1982 did you have any chance of enforcing one.</p><p>The GNU project started at a unique moment in history when technology was cheap enough to make it possible but before the patenting of software could make it impossible.</p><p>Were it not for work sparked by the GNU project unix systems would likely have died out over a decade ago, and certainly would have missed all the user friendly enhancements built by the linux distributions in the intervening time. There would also be a lot less open development generating an undeniable wall of prior art, catching up using 20 year old technology would probably not be possible.</p><p>Because of the patent situation it seems pretty unlikely that the GNU project could be started today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , Unix and C were developed by an eviler company than Microsoft... About 40 years ago .
Any patents filed on the core of C or Unix have long since expired.When the GNU project started there were virtually no software patents , and what existed were effectively non-enforceable .
It was n't until 1981 that anyone really believed a software patent could be enforced , and not until the creation of the federal circuit ( which handed the patent attorneys complete control of the courts for patents ) in 1982 did you have any chance of enforcing one.The GNU project started at a unique moment in history when technology was cheap enough to make it possible but before the patenting of software could make it impossible.Were it not for work sparked by the GNU project unix systems would likely have died out over a decade ago , and certainly would have missed all the user friendly enhancements built by the linux distributions in the intervening time .
There would also be a lot less open development generating an undeniable wall of prior art , catching up using 20 year old technology would probably not be possible.Because of the patent situation it seems pretty unlikely that the GNU project could be started today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, Unix and C were developed by an eviler company than Microsoft...  About 40 years ago.
Any patents filed on the core of C or Unix have long since expired.When the GNU project started there were virtually no software patents, and what existed were effectively non-enforceable.
It wasn't until 1981 that anyone really believed a software patent could be enforced, and not until the creation of the federal circuit (which handed the patent attorneys complete control of the courts for patents) in 1982 did you have any chance of enforcing one.The GNU project started at a unique moment in history when technology was cheap enough to make it possible but before the patenting of software could make it impossible.Were it not for work sparked by the GNU project unix systems would likely have died out over a decade ago, and certainly would have missed all the user friendly enhancements built by the linux distributions in the intervening time.
There would also be a lot less open development generating an undeniable wall of prior art, catching up using 20 year old technology would probably not be possible.Because of the patent situation it seems pretty unlikely that the GNU project could be started today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498111</id>
	<title>Re:"M$"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246099860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent several million insightful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent several million insightful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent several million insightful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497029</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this antithetical to GNU in general?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246135980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Mono is a free (GPL) reimplementation of commercial software. Isn't that how GNU got started in the first place? Didn't Stallman and friends reimplement the commercial Unix libraries as free (GPL) software? <b>Wasn't he potentially violating patents?</b></p></div> </blockquote><p>No.</p><p>Software was not considered patentable back then.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mono is a free ( GPL ) reimplementation of commercial software .
Is n't that how GNU got started in the first place ?
Did n't Stallman and friends reimplement the commercial Unix libraries as free ( GPL ) software ?
Was n't he potentially violating patents ?
No.Software was not considered patentable back then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mono is a free (GPL) reimplementation of commercial software.
Isn't that how GNU got started in the first place?
Didn't Stallman and friends reimplement the commercial Unix libraries as free (GPL) software?
Wasn't he potentially violating patents?
No.Software was not considered patentable back then.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497245</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>SplashMyBandit</author>
	<datestamp>1246094280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You pay too much for the software you obtain due to a lack of competition in the marketplace. Microsoft have been found guilty (in California at least) of setting arbitrary pricing of their products due to their monopoly situation. This term "rape' is used with poetic license to describe this situation. It is good you are a satisfied customer, but please take your blinkers off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You pay too much for the software you obtain due to a lack of competition in the marketplace .
Microsoft have been found guilty ( in California at least ) of setting arbitrary pricing of their products due to their monopoly situation .
This term " rape ' is used with poetic license to describe this situation .
It is good you are a satisfied customer , but please take your blinkers off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You pay too much for the software you obtain due to a lack of competition in the marketplace.
Microsoft have been found guilty (in California at least) of setting arbitrary pricing of their products due to their monopoly situation.
This term "rape' is used with poetic license to describe this situation.
It is good you are a satisfied customer, but please take your blinkers off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498397</id>
	<title>Re:"M$"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246102260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wooosh!</p><p>Think he meant use the full name rather than the shorter non-grammatically correct version.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wooosh ! Think he meant use the full name rather than the shorter non-grammatically correct version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wooosh!Think he meant use the full name rather than the shorter non-grammatically correct version.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499527</id>
	<title>Re:Yup</title>
	<author>machine321</author>
	<datestamp>1246111620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please don't say "Trojan" and "Stallman" in the same sentence again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please do n't say " Trojan " and " Stallman " in the same sentence again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please don't say "Trojan" and "Stallman" in the same sentence again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496305</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497665</id>
	<title>RMS weighs in on mono?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246096740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>About time, but did anyone expect anything different from him?</p><p>FYI, I refuse to use mono,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net or c pound. (Man does it piss off the ms marketing rep when I call it that)</p><p>I've been a Novell guy since the their very beginnings, Anyone else remember Non dedicated 286 Netware? DCB's?</p><p>Ahh, the good old days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>About time , but did anyone expect anything different from him ? FYI , I refuse to use mono , .net or c pound .
( Man does it piss off the ms marketing rep when I call it that ) I 've been a Novell guy since the their very beginnings , Anyone else remember Non dedicated 286 Netware ?
DCB 's ? Ahh , the good old days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About time, but did anyone expect anything different from him?FYI, I refuse to use mono, .net or c pound.
(Man does it piss off the ms marketing rep when I call it that)I've been a Novell guy since the their very beginnings, Anyone else remember Non dedicated 286 Netware?
DCB's?Ahh, the good old days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498701</id>
	<title>Mono is a trojan horse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246104600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stallman is right.  Those of you that say he is nuts don't have the faith.  All of you unbelievers please exit to the door on the left.  The rest of you may continue to listen to the truly enlightened man Mr. RMS.  His position on digital freedom is important for society.  Mono is a subversive measure for Microsoft to undermine digital freedoms and the do-it-yourself trend, if not now then later on given the first opportunity.  The fact that someone actually had enough influence to put tomboy and mono in the default debian repository is quite scary.  It should stay in the contribs and not be installed by default.  Let the mono believers install it from contrib repository.</p><p>Anyone in their right mind knows all the viruses in Windows are brought to you by the wonderfully obfuscating automation technology OLE/ActiveX/COM/DCOM/.NET.  If you bring<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET to Linux by installing MONO, then you invite all the computer viruses already written for it to automate their obfuscated infestations on your computer.</p><p>I prefer my computer without MONO and hope the rest of the Linux users listen to RMS because he is among the oldest and the wisest of all the computer gurus out there and he is looking out for everyone's digital freedoms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stallman is right .
Those of you that say he is nuts do n't have the faith .
All of you unbelievers please exit to the door on the left .
The rest of you may continue to listen to the truly enlightened man Mr. RMS. His position on digital freedom is important for society .
Mono is a subversive measure for Microsoft to undermine digital freedoms and the do-it-yourself trend , if not now then later on given the first opportunity .
The fact that someone actually had enough influence to put tomboy and mono in the default debian repository is quite scary .
It should stay in the contribs and not be installed by default .
Let the mono believers install it from contrib repository.Anyone in their right mind knows all the viruses in Windows are brought to you by the wonderfully obfuscating automation technology OLE/ActiveX/COM/DCOM/.NET .
If you bring .NET to Linux by installing MONO , then you invite all the computer viruses already written for it to automate their obfuscated infestations on your computer.I prefer my computer without MONO and hope the rest of the Linux users listen to RMS because he is among the oldest and the wisest of all the computer gurus out there and he is looking out for everyone 's digital freedoms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stallman is right.
Those of you that say he is nuts don't have the faith.
All of you unbelievers please exit to the door on the left.
The rest of you may continue to listen to the truly enlightened man Mr. RMS.  His position on digital freedom is important for society.
Mono is a subversive measure for Microsoft to undermine digital freedoms and the do-it-yourself trend, if not now then later on given the first opportunity.
The fact that someone actually had enough influence to put tomboy and mono in the default debian repository is quite scary.
It should stay in the contribs and not be installed by default.
Let the mono believers install it from contrib repository.Anyone in their right mind knows all the viruses in Windows are brought to you by the wonderfully obfuscating automation technology OLE/ActiveX/COM/DCOM/.NET.
If you bring .NET to Linux by installing MONO, then you invite all the computer viruses already written for it to automate their obfuscated infestations on your computer.I prefer my computer without MONO and hope the rest of the Linux users listen to RMS because he is among the oldest and the wisest of all the computer gurus out there and he is looking out for everyone's digital freedoms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496305</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28585505</id>
	<title>Re:"M$"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246793340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We'll just need to type an equivalent symbol for Linux.  Now where is the foodstamp sign?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 'll just need to type an equivalent symbol for Linux .
Now where is the foodstamp sign ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We'll just need to type an equivalent symbol for Linux.
Now where is the foodstamp sign?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498135</id>
	<title>"cleanroom" provides no defense against patents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246100100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "cleanroom" technique to which you are referrring is a precaution against inadvertant copyright violation and NDA violations.  It has nothing to do with patents.</p><p>Patents can be enforced even if the "offending" party has never heard of either the patent or the product protected by the patents.</p><p>That's why people who understand software generally think software should not be patentable, or at least patents should not be enforceable without evidence that the "infringer" "stole" the idea covered by the patent from the patent holder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " cleanroom " technique to which you are referrring is a precaution against inadvertant copyright violation and NDA violations .
It has nothing to do with patents.Patents can be enforced even if the " offending " party has never heard of either the patent or the product protected by the patents.That 's why people who understand software generally think software should not be patentable , or at least patents should not be enforceable without evidence that the " infringer " " stole " the idea covered by the patent from the patent holder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "cleanroom" technique to which you are referrring is a precaution against inadvertant copyright violation and NDA violations.
It has nothing to do with patents.Patents can be enforced even if the "offending" party has never heard of either the patent or the product protected by the patents.That's why people who understand software generally think software should not be patentable, or at least patents should not be enforceable without evidence that the "infringer" "stole" the idea covered by the patent from the patent holder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497241</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>Teckla</author>
	<datestamp>1246094280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Funny, we've been a customer of Microsoft's for 20 years and have yet to experience this "raping" you speak of. I know it's all sorts of fun and games to bash MS on slashdot, but seriously? Comparing them to rape? Grow up.</p></div><p>There's more than one definition for the word "rape". Try looking it up, before you get on your high horse and condemn other people.</p><p>I've been a professional developer for 20 years, and programmed computers as a hobby for 10 years beyond that. Yeah, I'm old, I've been around a while. And I've watched Microsoft's behavior all those years.</p><p>Microsoft is very random about some things. You never know when they're going to blindside you (wielding their FAT patent bat, anyone?).</p><p>It could very well be they'll never raise a finger to discourage Mono. On the other hand, they could start rattling their saber (simple threats) or use outright litigation anytime.</p><p>I'm not a fan of Richard Stallman, or even the GPL/LGPL, but on this issue, I think he's right. Microsoft could step in and start causing Mono developers and users grief at pretty much any time. It's very risky and you can't trust that they haven't done anything yet (once again, may I mention FAT?).</p><p>Use Mono at your own risk. And it's quite a risk.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , we 've been a customer of Microsoft 's for 20 years and have yet to experience this " raping " you speak of .
I know it 's all sorts of fun and games to bash MS on slashdot , but seriously ?
Comparing them to rape ?
Grow up.There 's more than one definition for the word " rape " .
Try looking it up , before you get on your high horse and condemn other people.I 've been a professional developer for 20 years , and programmed computers as a hobby for 10 years beyond that .
Yeah , I 'm old , I 've been around a while .
And I 've watched Microsoft 's behavior all those years.Microsoft is very random about some things .
You never know when they 're going to blindside you ( wielding their FAT patent bat , anyone ?
) .It could very well be they 'll never raise a finger to discourage Mono .
On the other hand , they could start rattling their saber ( simple threats ) or use outright litigation anytime.I 'm not a fan of Richard Stallman , or even the GPL/LGPL , but on this issue , I think he 's right .
Microsoft could step in and start causing Mono developers and users grief at pretty much any time .
It 's very risky and you ca n't trust that they have n't done anything yet ( once again , may I mention FAT ?
) .Use Mono at your own risk .
And it 's quite a risk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, we've been a customer of Microsoft's for 20 years and have yet to experience this "raping" you speak of.
I know it's all sorts of fun and games to bash MS on slashdot, but seriously?
Comparing them to rape?
Grow up.There's more than one definition for the word "rape".
Try looking it up, before you get on your high horse and condemn other people.I've been a professional developer for 20 years, and programmed computers as a hobby for 10 years beyond that.
Yeah, I'm old, I've been around a while.
And I've watched Microsoft's behavior all those years.Microsoft is very random about some things.
You never know when they're going to blindside you (wielding their FAT patent bat, anyone?
).It could very well be they'll never raise a finger to discourage Mono.
On the other hand, they could start rattling their saber (simple threats) or use outright litigation anytime.I'm not a fan of Richard Stallman, or even the GPL/LGPL, but on this issue, I think he's right.
Microsoft could step in and start causing Mono developers and users grief at pretty much any time.
It's very risky and you can't trust that they haven't done anything yet (once again, may I mention FAT?
).Use Mono at your own risk.
And it's quite a risk.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28501271</id>
	<title>ohh free software</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246126740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of this because of an application with such features as:</p><p>Highlighting text<br>Inline spelll checking<br>Auto-linking web &amp; email addresses<br>Undo/redo<br>Font styling &amp; sizing<br>Bulleted lists</p><p>Wow! I bet that couldn't have been written using languages and libraries that everyone is practically guaranteed to have - say oh, C and GTK!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of this because of an application with such features as : Highlighting textInline spelll checkingAuto-linking web &amp; email addressesUndo/redoFont styling &amp; sizingBulleted listsWow !
I bet that could n't have been written using languages and libraries that everyone is practically guaranteed to have - say oh , C and GTK !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of this because of an application with such features as:Highlighting textInline spelll checkingAuto-linking web &amp; email addressesUndo/redoFont styling &amp; sizingBulleted listsWow!
I bet that couldn't have been written using languages and libraries that everyone is practically guaranteed to have - say oh, C and GTK!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496565</id>
	<title>Re:contradiction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246133160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just like it's good to have Wine, but it's bad for people to write applications using Wine. Even when google made their applications available through libWine people cried about native code.</p><p>I don't see how it's different for Mono</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like it 's good to have Wine , but it 's bad for people to write applications using Wine .
Even when google made their applications available through libWine people cried about native code.I do n't see how it 's different for Mono</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like it's good to have Wine, but it's bad for people to write applications using Wine.
Even when google made their applications available through libWine people cried about native code.I don't see how it's different for Mono</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497335</id>
	<title>Re:Open Office? Wine? Drivers?</title>
	<author>SplashMyBandit</author>
	<datestamp>1246094700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The early versions of the Word format are undocumented "trade secrets". They can be reverse engineered without a problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The early versions of the Word format are undocumented " trade secrets " .
They can be reverse engineered without a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The early versions of the Word format are undocumented "trade secrets".
They can be reverse engineered without a problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497803</id>
	<title>Please re-read the thread.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1246097580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He didn't say what you seem to believe he said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He did n't say what you seem to believe he said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He didn't say what you seem to believe he said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496641</id>
	<title>Re:Yup</title>
	<author>Vahokif</author>
	<datestamp>1246133520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And GNU is an AT&amp;T trap, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And GNU is an AT&amp;T trap , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And GNU is an AT&amp;T trap, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496305</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496907</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246135200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try to switch from MS to anything else. Open source, half open source, closed source. That will be the time when you understand what ''rape'' is.</p><p>You know, mafia types are cool and friendly people until you do something bothering their business.</p><p>My attitude against Mono is something really different. If you want to use MS technology, fine, use it... Just don't fool yourself with half ass clones of it. What is the latest and greatest server from MS? Windows Server 2008? OK, buy it, install<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET 3.5, Visual Studio and have fun. Just don't be fooled by MS or their trojans since the open source planet who actually knows what open source philosophy about it laughs at you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try to switch from MS to anything else .
Open source , half open source , closed source .
That will be the time when you understand what ''rape' ' is.You know , mafia types are cool and friendly people until you do something bothering their business.My attitude against Mono is something really different .
If you want to use MS technology , fine , use it... Just do n't fool yourself with half ass clones of it .
What is the latest and greatest server from MS ?
Windows Server 2008 ?
OK , buy it , install .NET 3.5 , Visual Studio and have fun .
Just do n't be fooled by MS or their trojans since the open source planet who actually knows what open source philosophy about it laughs at you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try to switch from MS to anything else.
Open source, half open source, closed source.
That will be the time when you understand what ''rape'' is.You know, mafia types are cool and friendly people until you do something bothering their business.My attitude against Mono is something really different.
If you want to use MS technology, fine, use it... Just don't fool yourself with half ass clones of it.
What is the latest and greatest server from MS?
Windows Server 2008?
OK, buy it, install .NET 3.5, Visual Studio and have fun.
Just don't be fooled by MS or their trojans since the open source planet who actually knows what open source philosophy about it laughs at you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497265</id>
	<title>Re:Yes to Mono!</title>
	<author>blackest\_k</author>
	<datestamp>1246094400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with mono is making it a dependency for the Desktop, Ubuntu (I can't speak for debian) has 2 default applications written using mono, fspot photo editor and one other that has been ported (i forget its name but the replacement binary is 4 meg). The default install of mono requires about 50 meg of disk space.</p><p>Now there is no reason for me to waste over 50 meg of hdd space for 2 mono applications I don't use, is there?</p><p>I'm not a hairshirt fundamentalist, I accept that there could be a Mono App I'd like to use.<br>So apt-get install your.app will get me your app and the dependencies it needs which would be mono.</p><p>If I don't want your app, then I don't need mono. If the worst came to the worst and Microsoft did invoke its mono related patents then I lose a few apps, if its a dependency for the desktop to install then it gets a bit more complicated, much more if there is some fundamental part of the desktop without a monoless alternative.</p><p>As long as mono isn't a dependency its relatively safe to use it. In fact as a developer writing mono apps your in a worse position if MS throws its weight around and your users are forced to chose between your app and getting sued.</p><p>Like I say use mono but keep it from being a system dependency. Adobe Flash for example is probably on most installations but it isn't a system dependency and installed by default. Heck maybe install mono by default just keep it removable, fair enough, should keep most of us happy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with mono is making it a dependency for the Desktop , Ubuntu ( I ca n't speak for debian ) has 2 default applications written using mono , fspot photo editor and one other that has been ported ( i forget its name but the replacement binary is 4 meg ) .
The default install of mono requires about 50 meg of disk space.Now there is no reason for me to waste over 50 meg of hdd space for 2 mono applications I do n't use , is there ? I 'm not a hairshirt fundamentalist , I accept that there could be a Mono App I 'd like to use.So apt-get install your.app will get me your app and the dependencies it needs which would be mono.If I do n't want your app , then I do n't need mono .
If the worst came to the worst and Microsoft did invoke its mono related patents then I lose a few apps , if its a dependency for the desktop to install then it gets a bit more complicated , much more if there is some fundamental part of the desktop without a monoless alternative.As long as mono is n't a dependency its relatively safe to use it .
In fact as a developer writing mono apps your in a worse position if MS throws its weight around and your users are forced to chose between your app and getting sued.Like I say use mono but keep it from being a system dependency .
Adobe Flash for example is probably on most installations but it is n't a system dependency and installed by default .
Heck maybe install mono by default just keep it removable , fair enough , should keep most of us happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with mono is making it a dependency for the Desktop, Ubuntu (I can't speak for debian) has 2 default applications written using mono, fspot photo editor and one other that has been ported (i forget its name but the replacement binary is 4 meg).
The default install of mono requires about 50 meg of disk space.Now there is no reason for me to waste over 50 meg of hdd space for 2 mono applications I don't use, is there?I'm not a hairshirt fundamentalist, I accept that there could be a Mono App I'd like to use.So apt-get install your.app will get me your app and the dependencies it needs which would be mono.If I don't want your app, then I don't need mono.
If the worst came to the worst and Microsoft did invoke its mono related patents then I lose a few apps, if its a dependency for the desktop to install then it gets a bit more complicated, much more if there is some fundamental part of the desktop without a monoless alternative.As long as mono isn't a dependency its relatively safe to use it.
In fact as a developer writing mono apps your in a worse position if MS throws its weight around and your users are forced to chose between your app and getting sued.Like I say use mono but keep it from being a system dependency.
Adobe Flash for example is probably on most installations but it isn't a system dependency and installed by default.
Heck maybe install mono by default just keep it removable, fair enough, should keep most of us happy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497183</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry RMS: Linux != GNU...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246093920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or use gnotes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Fedora 12 will apparently have no Mono in the default installation for this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or use gnotes ... Fedora 12 will apparently have no Mono in the default installation for this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or use gnotes ... Fedora 12 will apparently have no Mono in the default installation for this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28504727</id>
	<title>RMS conflict of interest?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246210800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't C# a threat to C / C++ for which RMS' GNU tools contributions are the primary tools on Linux?  Perhaps there's more at work in this protest than his usual all open, all the time crusade?</p><p>It would at least be useful to see him separately say whether C# and Mono are bad because they're not GNU vs whether they're bad because of perceived IP risks and to see him specify what he thinks those risks really are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't C # a threat to C / C + + for which RMS ' GNU tools contributions are the primary tools on Linux ?
Perhaps there 's more at work in this protest than his usual all open , all the time crusade ? It would at least be useful to see him separately say whether C # and Mono are bad because they 're not GNU vs whether they 're bad because of perceived IP risks and to see him specify what he thinks those risks really are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't C# a threat to C / C++ for which RMS' GNU tools contributions are the primary tools on Linux?
Perhaps there's more at work in this protest than his usual all open, all the time crusade?It would at least be useful to see him separately say whether C# and Mono are bad because they're not GNU vs whether they're bad because of perceived IP risks and to see him specify what he thinks those risks really are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28507445</id>
	<title>The best way to make open source "win"...</title>
	<author>bhtooefr</author>
	<datestamp>1246187520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...is not RMS-style bitching out people who don't follow his One True Way(tm,) and avoiding things that just work purely because they deviate slightly.</p><p>I suspect the best way is to actually use a variation on Microsoft's embrace-extend-extinguish methods.</p><p>Here's what that means:</p><p>1. Throw support behind ReactOS and Mono. Embrace.<br>2. Get them to be ~100\% compatible with Windows. Extend.<br>3. Once you've achieved compatibility and feature parity, you'll have control of the API. Add new features that Microsoft doesn't have, in a way that would be very difficult for Microsoft to implement in a real NT kernel. Extinguish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...is not RMS-style bitching out people who do n't follow his One True Way ( tm , ) and avoiding things that just work purely because they deviate slightly.I suspect the best way is to actually use a variation on Microsoft 's embrace-extend-extinguish methods.Here 's what that means : 1 .
Throw support behind ReactOS and Mono .
Embrace.2. Get them to be ~ 100 \ % compatible with Windows .
Extend.3. Once you 've achieved compatibility and feature parity , you 'll have control of the API .
Add new features that Microsoft does n't have , in a way that would be very difficult for Microsoft to implement in a real NT kernel .
Extinguish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is not RMS-style bitching out people who don't follow his One True Way(tm,) and avoiding things that just work purely because they deviate slightly.I suspect the best way is to actually use a variation on Microsoft's embrace-extend-extinguish methods.Here's what that means:1.
Throw support behind ReactOS and Mono.
Embrace.2. Get them to be ~100\% compatible with Windows.
Extend.3. Once you've achieved compatibility and feature parity, you'll have control of the API.
Add new features that Microsoft doesn't have, in a way that would be very difficult for Microsoft to implement in a real NT kernel.
Extinguish.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496903</id>
	<title>Re:Confused</title>
	<author>synthespian</author>
	<datestamp>1246135140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing. This is Stallman FUD. This issue has been beaten to death. Mono works with an ECMA spec. That's it.</p><p>Let''s do the rational thing: ignore Stallman. He's going the way of the dodo. More and more projects are open source and please-use-this-in-your-business-without-restrictions and he hates that world. He'd like everyone to catch his virus, but it's not happening.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing .
This is Stallman FUD .
This issue has been beaten to death .
Mono works with an ECMA spec .
That 's it.Let ' 's do the rational thing : ignore Stallman .
He 's going the way of the dodo .
More and more projects are open source and please-use-this-in-your-business-without-restrictions and he hates that world .
He 'd like everyone to catch his virus , but it 's not happening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing.
This is Stallman FUD.
This issue has been beaten to death.
Mono works with an ECMA spec.
That's it.Let''s do the rational thing: ignore Stallman.
He's going the way of the dodo.
More and more projects are open source and please-use-this-in-your-business-without-restrictions and he hates that world.
He'd like everyone to catch his virus, but it's not happening.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497629</id>
	<title>Both.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1246096620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no use to have a system that is open to be torpedoed by a company that actually has threatened to use its patent portfolio.</p><p>Why should one ignore the threats?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no use to have a system that is open to be torpedoed by a company that actually has threatened to use its patent portfolio.Why should one ignore the threats ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no use to have a system that is open to be torpedoed by a company that actually has threatened to use its patent portfolio.Why should one ignore the threats?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28502491</id>
	<title>Re:Summary for those who didn't read it</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1246190820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I'm curious why they have their own implementation anyhow. From their site, it sounds like they're doing much the same thing as Mono, but are maybe a bit further behind. Mono is already open source, so... why?!?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I 'm curious why they have their own implementation anyhow .
From their site , it sounds like they 're doing much the same thing as Mono , but are maybe a bit further behind .
Mono is already open source , so.. .
why ? ! ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I'm curious why they have their own implementation anyhow.
From their site, it sounds like they're doing much the same thing as Mono, but are maybe a bit further behind.
Mono is already open source, so...
why?!?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28508913</id>
	<title>Re:C# / .NET is a standard</title>
	<author>Jamie Lokier</author>
	<datestamp>1246201320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>C# version 2 is an ECMA standard.  But the current version of C# is not.</p><p>C# is covered by patents.  You can tell because ECMA has a letter from Microsoft promising to license any patents under reasonable terms.</p><p>But Microsoft does not promise to license C# patents under royalty-free terms.  So they retain the right to block any free / open source implementation, at any time in the future until the patents expire.</p><p>.NET is not a standard at all.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET is much like Windows, but better documented.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>C # version 2 is an ECMA standard .
But the current version of C # is not.C # is covered by patents .
You can tell because ECMA has a letter from Microsoft promising to license any patents under reasonable terms.But Microsoft does not promise to license C # patents under royalty-free terms .
So they retain the right to block any free / open source implementation , at any time in the future until the patents expire..NET is not a standard at all .
.NET is much like Windows , but better documented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C# version 2 is an ECMA standard.
But the current version of C# is not.C# is covered by patents.
You can tell because ECMA has a letter from Microsoft promising to license any patents under reasonable terms.But Microsoft does not promise to license C# patents under royalty-free terms.
So they retain the right to block any free / open source implementation, at any time in the future until the patents expire..NET is not a standard at all.
.NET is much like Windows, but better documented.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496311</id>
	<title>Stallman Says No To Mono</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246131420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...yes to AID$.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...yes to AID $ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...yes to AID$.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496651</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1246133580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's the point. He doesn't "have to." Every techie (possibly except him, though I doubt it) understood this years ago. By saying this now, though, he gets attention.</p></div><p>Apparently not EVERY techie else it wouldn't have been included into Debian in the first place.</p><p>He's saying it now because they are doing it NOW.  Not because he is an attention whore.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the point .
He does n't " have to .
" Every techie ( possibly except him , though I doubt it ) understood this years ago .
By saying this now , though , he gets attention.Apparently not EVERY techie else it would n't have been included into Debian in the first place.He 's saying it now because they are doing it NOW .
Not because he is an attention whore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the point.
He doesn't "have to.
" Every techie (possibly except him, though I doubt it) understood this years ago.
By saying this now, though, he gets attention.Apparently not EVERY techie else it wouldn't have been included into Debian in the first place.He's saying it now because they are doing it NOW.
Not because he is an attention whore.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496733</id>
	<title>No mo' for Mono?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246134300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'Nuff said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'Nuff said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Nuff said.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496689</id>
	<title>Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things?</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1246134000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People have agendas and they often like to voice them.  He simply has a different point of view from you but he is by no means less entitled to express it.  Everyone has the right voice their own opinions and it really irks me when people get mad about this.</p><p>In other words, why do some people feel such a need to try to impose restrictions on other peoples freedom of speech?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People have agendas and they often like to voice them .
He simply has a different point of view from you but he is by no means less entitled to express it .
Everyone has the right voice their own opinions and it really irks me when people get mad about this.In other words , why do some people feel such a need to try to impose restrictions on other peoples freedom of speech ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People have agendas and they often like to voice them.
He simply has a different point of view from you but he is by no means less entitled to express it.
Everyone has the right voice their own opinions and it really irks me when people get mad about this.In other words, why do some people feel such a need to try to impose restrictions on other peoples freedom of speech?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28514227</id>
	<title>Running list of thing RMS says is a trap-</title>
	<author>DogAlmity</author>
	<datestamp>1246291440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> - Java <br>
 - Javascript <br>
 - Cloud Computing <br>
 - Talkies <br>
 - Certain crayons <br>
 - and now, Mono<br> <br>


Well done sir.</htmltext>
<tokenext>- Java - Javascript - Cloud Computing - Talkies - Certain crayons - and now , Mono Well done sir .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> - Java 
 - Javascript 
 - Cloud Computing 
 - Talkies 
 - Certain crayons 
 - and now, Mono 


Well done sir.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28501213</id>
	<title>Re:Summary for those who didn't read it</title>
	<author>malevolentjelly</author>
	<datestamp>1246126020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the end, there will be a war between people who actually need coherent technologies to write code on and the massive GNU/FSF circle jerk, who would have you run your enterprise into the ground with crappy half-assed technologies to maintain your "freedom". Who needs engineering standards? It's more fun to be a hacker!</p><p>Thank goodness no one really listens to RMS. He's just a crazy old man living in a cave, really. Look at how much the world accomplishes without him. What does he do anymore? He's just a loud-mouthed obstructionist.</p><p>Let's hear it from someone who has a real job and has to face these technologies day to day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the end , there will be a war between people who actually need coherent technologies to write code on and the massive GNU/FSF circle jerk , who would have you run your enterprise into the ground with crappy half-assed technologies to maintain your " freedom " .
Who needs engineering standards ?
It 's more fun to be a hacker ! Thank goodness no one really listens to RMS .
He 's just a crazy old man living in a cave , really .
Look at how much the world accomplishes without him .
What does he do anymore ?
He 's just a loud-mouthed obstructionist.Let 's hear it from someone who has a real job and has to face these technologies day to day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the end, there will be a war between people who actually need coherent technologies to write code on and the massive GNU/FSF circle jerk, who would have you run your enterprise into the ground with crappy half-assed technologies to maintain your "freedom".
Who needs engineering standards?
It's more fun to be a hacker!Thank goodness no one really listens to RMS.
He's just a crazy old man living in a cave, really.
Look at how much the world accomplishes without him.
What does he do anymore?
He's just a loud-mouthed obstructionist.Let's hear it from someone who has a real job and has to face these technologies day to day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498849</id>
	<title>Re:Stallman - growing increasingly irrelavant</title>
	<author>peppepz</author>
	<datestamp>1246106100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does anybody really care what he has to say about Mono &amp; C#?</p></div><p>I do.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>
After fighting a decade+ long losing battle about Linux vs. GNU/Linux naming, he just enjoys trying to continue controlling others and telling them what to do and not do.</p></div><p>

I see him as fighting a winning battle about bringing free software into relevance.<br>
The "Linux vs GNU/Linux" naming issue is negligible when compared to the other issues he cares for.<br>
And I don&rsquo;t think he can actually control anyone. In the free software world, coders have the power.<br>
Sometimes he says, well, stupid things and people just ignore him. In this specific case I think he&rsquo;s right - his statement have nothing of extremist or preconceived. He&rsquo;s just issuing a warning that makes sense from his point of view.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anybody really care what he has to say about Mono &amp; C # ? I do .
After fighting a decade + long losing battle about Linux vs. GNU/Linux naming , he just enjoys trying to continue controlling others and telling them what to do and not do .
I see him as fighting a winning battle about bringing free software into relevance .
The " Linux vs GNU/Linux " naming issue is negligible when compared to the other issues he cares for .
And I don    t think he can actually control anyone .
In the free software world , coders have the power .
Sometimes he says , well , stupid things and people just ignore him .
In this specific case I think he    s right - his statement have nothing of extremist or preconceived .
He    s just issuing a warning that makes sense from his point of view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anybody really care what he has to say about Mono &amp; C#?I do.
After fighting a decade+ long losing battle about Linux vs. GNU/Linux naming, he just enjoys trying to continue controlling others and telling them what to do and not do.
I see him as fighting a winning battle about bringing free software into relevance.
The "Linux vs GNU/Linux" naming issue is negligible when compared to the other issues he cares for.
And I don’t think he can actually control anyone.
In the free software world, coders have the power.
Sometimes he says, well, stupid things and people just ignore him.
In this specific case I think he’s right - his statement have nothing of extremist or preconceived.
He’s just issuing a warning that makes sense from his point of view.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28502423</id>
	<title>Re:MS is smart enough not to do this</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1246190040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Making a non-portable Java app is trivial; all you need is to use a native library that isn't available on every platform. Interestingly enough, this (not MS-specific extensions) is also the primary reason that not all CIL apps are portable between<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET and Mono. The vast majority of pure managed code applications are quite portable, although it si true that Mono is still behind<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET in terms of implemented API.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Making a non-portable Java app is trivial ; all you need is to use a native library that is n't available on every platform .
Interestingly enough , this ( not MS-specific extensions ) is also the primary reason that not all CIL apps are portable between .NET and Mono .
The vast majority of pure managed code applications are quite portable , although it si true that Mono is still behind .NET in terms of implemented API .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Making a non-portable Java app is trivial; all you need is to use a native library that isn't available on every platform.
Interestingly enough, this (not MS-specific extensions) is also the primary reason that not all CIL apps are portable between .NET and Mono.
The vast majority of pure managed code applications are quite portable, although it si true that Mono is still behind .NET in terms of implemented API.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498517</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this antithetical to GNU in general?</title>
	<author>ricegf</author>
	<datestamp>1246103160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Didn't Stallman and friends reimplement the commercial Unix libraries as free (GPL) software?</p></div></blockquote><p>
Gnu's Not Unix.  I read that somewhere...
</p><blockquote><div><p>Wasn't he potentially violating patents?</p></div></blockquote><p>
<b>All</b> software implementations potentially violate patents.  Mono just happens to likely violate those of a convicted monopolist who has called the GPL a "cancer" and claimed Linux violates hundreds of unspecified patents in order to FUD the credulous into paying Microsoft for inferior software.
</p><blockquote><div><p>Do the commercial Unix vendors holding those patents behave any differently than Microsoft (ahem SCO)?</p></div></blockquote><p>
Welcome to the 21st century. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO-Linux\_controversies" title="wikipedia.org">SCO does not own Unix</a> [wikipedia.org]; Novell does.
</p><blockquote><div><p>Mono is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... a very nice easy path for the majority of all developers in the world (WINDOWS Developers) to make the transition to Linux and GNU</p></div></blockquote><p>
Don't be silly. Mono is a very nice path to ensure that free software is dependent on <em>real</em> Microsoft patents, as opposed to the imaginary ones that Ballmer is always ranting about between chair tosses. It's the equivalent of George Bailey taking a job with Mr. Potter because "you won, George... you've beaten me".  But Microsoft "sits around here and spins your little webs and you think the whole world revolves around you and your money. Well, it doesn't, Mr. Ballmer. In the whole vast configuration of things, I'd say you were nothing but a scurvy little spider. And... [turning to his aide, Miguel de Icaza] And that goes for you, too!"
</p><p>
If you're a Windows developer looking to make the transition to Linux and GNU, try something that's actually innovative.  QT4 comes to mind at random. Or Python for quick IT apps (it works for Google). Or Android for phones. Now, <em>welcome to freedom</em>.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't Stallman and friends reimplement the commercial Unix libraries as free ( GPL ) software ?
Gnu 's Not Unix .
I read that somewhere.. . Was n't he potentially violating patents ?
All software implementations potentially violate patents .
Mono just happens to likely violate those of a convicted monopolist who has called the GPL a " cancer " and claimed Linux violates hundreds of unspecified patents in order to FUD the credulous into paying Microsoft for inferior software .
Do the commercial Unix vendors holding those patents behave any differently than Microsoft ( ahem SCO ) ?
Welcome to the 21st century .
SCO does not own Unix [ wikipedia.org ] ; Novell does .
Mono is ... a very nice easy path for the majority of all developers in the world ( WINDOWS Developers ) to make the transition to Linux and GNU Do n't be silly .
Mono is a very nice path to ensure that free software is dependent on real Microsoft patents , as opposed to the imaginary ones that Ballmer is always ranting about between chair tosses .
It 's the equivalent of George Bailey taking a job with Mr. Potter because " you won , George... you 've beaten me " .
But Microsoft " sits around here and spins your little webs and you think the whole world revolves around you and your money .
Well , it does n't , Mr. Ballmer. In the whole vast configuration of things , I 'd say you were nothing but a scurvy little spider .
And... [ turning to his aide , Miguel de Icaza ] And that goes for you , too !
" If you 're a Windows developer looking to make the transition to Linux and GNU , try something that 's actually innovative .
QT4 comes to mind at random .
Or Python for quick IT apps ( it works for Google ) .
Or Android for phones .
Now , welcome to freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't Stallman and friends reimplement the commercial Unix libraries as free (GPL) software?
Gnu's Not Unix.
I read that somewhere...
Wasn't he potentially violating patents?
All software implementations potentially violate patents.
Mono just happens to likely violate those of a convicted monopolist who has called the GPL a "cancer" and claimed Linux violates hundreds of unspecified patents in order to FUD the credulous into paying Microsoft for inferior software.
Do the commercial Unix vendors holding those patents behave any differently than Microsoft (ahem SCO)?
Welcome to the 21st century.
SCO does not own Unix [wikipedia.org]; Novell does.
Mono is ... a very nice easy path for the majority of all developers in the world (WINDOWS Developers) to make the transition to Linux and GNU
Don't be silly.
Mono is a very nice path to ensure that free software is dependent on real Microsoft patents, as opposed to the imaginary ones that Ballmer is always ranting about between chair tosses.
It's the equivalent of George Bailey taking a job with Mr. Potter because "you won, George... you've beaten me".
But Microsoft "sits around here and spins your little webs and you think the whole world revolves around you and your money.
Well, it doesn't, Mr. Ballmer. In the whole vast configuration of things, I'd say you were nothing but a scurvy little spider.
And... [turning to his aide, Miguel de Icaza] And that goes for you, too!
"

If you're a Windows developer looking to make the transition to Linux and GNU, try something that's actually innovative.
QT4 comes to mind at random.
Or Python for quick IT apps (it works for Google).
Or Android for phones.
Now, welcome to freedom.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497837</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this antithetical to GNU in general?</title>
	<author>JohnnyBGod</author>
	<datestamp>1246097820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Wasn't he potentially violating patents?</p></div></blockquote><p>Given that there weren't software patents back then, I'd say no.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't he potentially violating patents ? Given that there were n't software patents back then , I 'd say no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't he potentially violating patents?Given that there weren't software patents back then, I'd say no.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497125</id>
	<title>.NET is an Open Standard</title>
	<author>Jet\_Blazer</author>
	<datestamp>1246093560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really don't understand all the fuzz behind this.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET (CLI, C#, MSIL) has been submitted to ECMA/ISO and its an Open Standard. Assuming a completely hypothetical and unrealistic scenario (where MS is desperate to attack mono despite officially supporting it via moonlight and others (read: Novell agreement)), It is legally impossible for MS to sue mono in the long run because its based on a OPEN STANDARD. It's like saying Adobe can lash out a patent against all<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.pdf documents which is impossible since Adobe passed on the PDF as an open specification. Eventhough Adobe invented it, they have no legal control over it anymore.

FOSS crowd should wake up to the realities of the world. Whether you like it or not, managed languages are definitely the future and MS came up with the best specification for it in the industry (yeah,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET is lightyears ahead of Java, don't kid yourself). The key word here is "specification". Not the implementation. Mono does not use *any* code from the official MS C# compiler for example. Its a totally different compiler based on an open specification just like how the "official" C# compiler from MS.

I am frankly tired of C++ (after professionally coding in it for years). Not to say that C++ limited me. I'd say 90\% of my applications were very successful but I can literally write the same application in C# at least 50\% faster without any worries on security, memory management, etc and just as efficient. Only true C/C++ gurus can truly optimize a C/C++ application and theres not many of them. I don't claim to be on of them either. The CLR is just as fast as a "regular" C++ application anyday, if not even faster. Besides, the FOSS community or actually any organization has no alternative for some of the cool technologies in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET like WPF for instance.


I think Mono is the answer Linux has been waiting for all these years. A multiplatform and more importantly a "consistent" framework. Like it or not, you need to get those Windows Dev crowd to Linux. Once Mono really takes off, I reckon most<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET app devs will pay attention to Mono and attempt to make it compatible (if not for Linux, at least for Mac which is again good for Linux anyway). Might as well as switch to Mono/C# sooner than later than rejecting it with...well...for no apparent reason except that it originated from MS of course.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't understand all the fuzz behind this .
.NET ( CLI , C # , MSIL ) has been submitted to ECMA/ISO and its an Open Standard .
Assuming a completely hypothetical and unrealistic scenario ( where MS is desperate to attack mono despite officially supporting it via moonlight and others ( read : Novell agreement ) ) , It is legally impossible for MS to sue mono in the long run because its based on a OPEN STANDARD .
It 's like saying Adobe can lash out a patent against all .pdf documents which is impossible since Adobe passed on the PDF as an open specification .
Eventhough Adobe invented it , they have no legal control over it anymore .
FOSS crowd should wake up to the realities of the world .
Whether you like it or not , managed languages are definitely the future and MS came up with the best specification for it in the industry ( yeah , .NET is lightyears ahead of Java , do n't kid yourself ) .
The key word here is " specification " .
Not the implementation .
Mono does not use * any * code from the official MS C # compiler for example .
Its a totally different compiler based on an open specification just like how the " official " C # compiler from MS . I am frankly tired of C + + ( after professionally coding in it for years ) .
Not to say that C + + limited me .
I 'd say 90 \ % of my applications were very successful but I can literally write the same application in C # at least 50 \ % faster without any worries on security , memory management , etc and just as efficient .
Only true C/C + + gurus can truly optimize a C/C + + application and theres not many of them .
I do n't claim to be on of them either .
The CLR is just as fast as a " regular " C + + application anyday , if not even faster .
Besides , the FOSS community or actually any organization has no alternative for some of the cool technologies in .NET like WPF for instance .
I think Mono is the answer Linux has been waiting for all these years .
A multiplatform and more importantly a " consistent " framework .
Like it or not , you need to get those Windows Dev crowd to Linux .
Once Mono really takes off , I reckon most .NET app devs will pay attention to Mono and attempt to make it compatible ( if not for Linux , at least for Mac which is again good for Linux anyway ) .
Might as well as switch to Mono/C # sooner than later than rejecting it with...well...for no apparent reason except that it originated from MS of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't understand all the fuzz behind this.
.NET (CLI, C#, MSIL) has been submitted to ECMA/ISO and its an Open Standard.
Assuming a completely hypothetical and unrealistic scenario (where MS is desperate to attack mono despite officially supporting it via moonlight and others (read: Novell agreement)), It is legally impossible for MS to sue mono in the long run because its based on a OPEN STANDARD.
It's like saying Adobe can lash out a patent against all .pdf documents which is impossible since Adobe passed on the PDF as an open specification.
Eventhough Adobe invented it, they have no legal control over it anymore.
FOSS crowd should wake up to the realities of the world.
Whether you like it or not, managed languages are definitely the future and MS came up with the best specification for it in the industry (yeah, .NET is lightyears ahead of Java, don't kid yourself).
The key word here is "specification".
Not the implementation.
Mono does not use *any* code from the official MS C# compiler for example.
Its a totally different compiler based on an open specification just like how the "official" C# compiler from MS.

I am frankly tired of C++ (after professionally coding in it for years).
Not to say that C++ limited me.
I'd say 90\% of my applications were very successful but I can literally write the same application in C# at least 50\% faster without any worries on security, memory management, etc and just as efficient.
Only true C/C++ gurus can truly optimize a C/C++ application and theres not many of them.
I don't claim to be on of them either.
The CLR is just as fast as a "regular" C++ application anyday, if not even faster.
Besides, the FOSS community or actually any organization has no alternative for some of the cool technologies in .NET like WPF for instance.
I think Mono is the answer Linux has been waiting for all these years.
A multiplatform and more importantly a "consistent" framework.
Like it or not, you need to get those Windows Dev crowd to Linux.
Once Mono really takes off, I reckon most .NET app devs will pay attention to Mono and attempt to make it compatible (if not for Linux, at least for Mac which is again good for Linux anyway).
Might as well as switch to Mono/C# sooner than later than rejecting it with...well...for no apparent reason except that it originated from MS of course.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498757</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry RMS: Linux != GNU...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246105020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>IS the goal to create a useful system or a pure system?</p></div><p>Are the two mutually exclusive?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IS the goal to create a useful system or a pure system ? Are the two mutually exclusive ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IS the goal to create a useful system or a pure system?Are the two mutually exclusive?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496597</id>
	<title>Re:FFS edit the summary</title>
	<author>binarylarry</author>
	<datestamp>1246133400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you don't like it when they call M$, M$?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you do n't like it when they call M $ , M $ ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you don't like it when they call M$, M$?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28500519</id>
	<title>Re:Confused</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246119900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Mono is a cleanroom implementation of the CLR as specified by EMCA and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net libraries, right?  What exactly do you risk by using it?</p></div><p>1. No. Mono is NOT a cleanroom implementation of anything. If there was no deal between MS and Novell, Mono wouldn't exist.</p><p>2. Even IF it's a cleanroom implementation, it doesn't imply that it's safe to use it. FAT is an ECMA spec too. Look what happened to TomTom for reimplementing FAT.</p><p>3. If there is truth in the claim "it is possible to build a compatible re-implementation of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET without help from Microsoft", why would the Mono team often need help from Microsoft? For instance, they needed something from MS to make possible the broadcast of Presidential ceremony. Remember?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mono is a cleanroom implementation of the CLR as specified by EMCA and .Net libraries , right ?
What exactly do you risk by using it ? 1 .
No. Mono is NOT a cleanroom implementation of anything .
If there was no deal between MS and Novell , Mono would n't exist.2 .
Even IF it 's a cleanroom implementation , it does n't imply that it 's safe to use it .
FAT is an ECMA spec too .
Look what happened to TomTom for reimplementing FAT.3 .
If there is truth in the claim " it is possible to build a compatible re-implementation of .NET without help from Microsoft " , why would the Mono team often need help from Microsoft ?
For instance , they needed something from MS to make possible the broadcast of Presidential ceremony .
Remember ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mono is a cleanroom implementation of the CLR as specified by EMCA and .Net libraries, right?
What exactly do you risk by using it?1.
No. Mono is NOT a cleanroom implementation of anything.
If there was no deal between MS and Novell, Mono wouldn't exist.2.
Even IF it's a cleanroom implementation, it doesn't imply that it's safe to use it.
FAT is an ECMA spec too.
Look what happened to TomTom for reimplementing FAT.3.
If there is truth in the claim "it is possible to build a compatible re-implementation of .NET without help from Microsoft", why would the Mono team often need help from Microsoft?
For instance, they needed something from MS to make possible the broadcast of Presidential ceremony.
Remember?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28512285</id>
	<title>Is Vala as bad as C#??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246278840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder how people feel about Vala, a language similar to C#. Is it also too closely tied to Microsoft technology and should it be boycotted??<br>See http://live.gnome.org/Vala</p><p>It is still not widely adopted, so now would be the time to kill it before it becomes too popular...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how people feel about Vala , a language similar to C # .
Is it also too closely tied to Microsoft technology and should it be boycotted ?
? See http : //live.gnome.org/ValaIt is still not widely adopted , so now would be the time to kill it before it becomes too popular.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how people feel about Vala, a language similar to C#.
Is it also too closely tied to Microsoft technology and should it be boycotted?
?See http://live.gnome.org/ValaIt is still not widely adopted, so now would be the time to kill it before it becomes too popular...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28501473</id>
	<title>Re:Yes to Mono!</title>
	<author>molnarcs</author>
	<datestamp>1246130100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I heard the cross platform argument before, so I'll bite. Mono has been around for how many years exactly? And in that time, how many great, or wait, I settle for <i>useful</i> cross platform applications has been written that run on both *nix and windows?<p>
Care to point to yours or anyone else's windows app written in C# that I <b>need</b> on linux (and is actually feasable to port)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard the cross platform argument before , so I 'll bite .
Mono has been around for how many years exactly ?
And in that time , how many great , or wait , I settle for useful cross platform applications has been written that run on both * nix and windows ?
Care to point to yours or anyone else 's windows app written in C # that I need on linux ( and is actually feasable to port ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard the cross platform argument before, so I'll bite.
Mono has been around for how many years exactly?
And in that time, how many great, or wait, I settle for useful cross platform applications has been written that run on both *nix and windows?
Care to point to yours or anyone else's windows app written in C# that I need on linux (and is actually feasable to port)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28506509</id>
	<title>Re:Summary for those who didn't read it</title>
	<author>IBBoard</author>
	<datestamp>1246222680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>Also... use our C# implementation "DotGNU Portable.NET" instead. We are immune to everything I just said in the article and I won't bother you with why.</p></div></blockquote><p>In otherwords, I'm confused. Does he like C# or not? If he doesn't, why does the FSF have their own<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET implementation? What makes theirs so special?</p></div></blockquote><p>Not just that, but they even implement the "not set as a standard" part - System.Windows.Forms! Of all the bits that's most likely to have patent issues, you'd have thought it'd have been that. They'd have had a marginally better argument if they'd just implemented the standardised part so that they could at least say "there's dangers implementing/using the non-standard parts, but stick to the standard and you might not be compatible with the latest MS changes, but at least you've got a great framework to work with"!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also... use our C # implementation " DotGNU Portable.NET " instead .
We are immune to everything I just said in the article and I wo n't bother you with why.In otherwords , I 'm confused .
Does he like C # or not ?
If he does n't , why does the FSF have their own .NET implementation ?
What makes theirs so special ? Not just that , but they even implement the " not set as a standard " part - System.Windows.Forms !
Of all the bits that 's most likely to have patent issues , you 'd have thought it 'd have been that .
They 'd have had a marginally better argument if they 'd just implemented the standardised part so that they could at least say " there 's dangers implementing/using the non-standard parts , but stick to the standard and you might not be compatible with the latest MS changes , but at least you 've got a great framework to work with " !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also... use our C# implementation "DotGNU Portable.NET" instead.
We are immune to everything I just said in the article and I won't bother you with why.In otherwords, I'm confused.
Does he like C# or not?
If he doesn't, why does the FSF have their own .NET implementation?
What makes theirs so special?Not just that, but they even implement the "not set as a standard" part - System.Windows.Forms!
Of all the bits that's most likely to have patent issues, you'd have thought it'd have been that.
They'd have had a marginally better argument if they'd just implemented the standardised part so that they could at least say "there's dangers implementing/using the non-standard parts, but stick to the standard and you might not be compatible with the latest MS changes, but at least you've got a great framework to work with"!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497067</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry RMS: Linux != GNU...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246136280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Is the goal to create a useful system or a pure system?</p></div></blockquote><p>Debian's goal is to create a pure system. Other distros concentrate on usability, Debian's goal has historically been to settle have all the potential legal matters and forbid any software that does not grant complete freedom to the user.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the goal to create a useful system or a pure system ? Debian 's goal is to create a pure system .
Other distros concentrate on usability , Debian 's goal has historically been to settle have all the potential legal matters and forbid any software that does not grant complete freedom to the user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the goal to create a useful system or a pure system?Debian's goal is to create a pure system.
Other distros concentrate on usability, Debian's goal has historically been to settle have all the potential legal matters and forbid any software that does not grant complete freedom to the user.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496459</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246132560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want bad business partnership, look for IBM. Compared to them Microsoft are saints. What IBM does is raping even their best partners' income instantly when they smell even the tiniest bit of money in something. And they smell that often. Only a genuine psychopath forms a business alliance with IBM.</p><p>This comes from an IBM technologies consultant by the way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want bad business partnership , look for IBM .
Compared to them Microsoft are saints .
What IBM does is raping even their best partners ' income instantly when they smell even the tiniest bit of money in something .
And they smell that often .
Only a genuine psychopath forms a business alliance with IBM.This comes from an IBM technologies consultant by the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want bad business partnership, look for IBM.
Compared to them Microsoft are saints.
What IBM does is raping even their best partners' income instantly when they smell even the tiniest bit of money in something.
And they smell that often.
Only a genuine psychopath forms a business alliance with IBM.This comes from an IBM technologies consultant by the way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496627</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>aztektum</author>
	<datestamp>1246133460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rape doesn't simply mean forced sexual intercourse. As a verb... well...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Verb</p><p>Infinitive<br>to rape</p><p>Third person singular<br>rapes</p><p>Simple past<br>raped</p><p>Past participle<br>raped</p><p>Present participle<br>raping</p><p>to rape (third-person singular simple present rapes, present participle raping, simple past and past participle raped)</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1. To force sexual intercourse or other sexual activity upon another person, without their consent.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 2. To abuse an object in an extreme manner.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The loggers raped the virgin forest</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 3. (slang) To dominate in a contest.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; My experienced opponent will rape me at chess.</p></div><p>I'd say they have abused their dominance in the tech world to the extreme more than once.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rape does n't simply mean forced sexual intercourse .
As a verb... well...VerbInfinitiveto rapeThird person singularrapesSimple pastrapedPast participlerapedPresent participlerapingto rape ( third-person singular simple present rapes , present participle raping , simple past and past participle raped )       1 .
To force sexual intercourse or other sexual activity upon another person , without their consent .
      2 .
To abuse an object in an extreme manner .
                    The loggers raped the virgin forest       3 .
( slang ) To dominate in a contest .
                    My experienced opponent will rape me at chess.I 'd say they have abused their dominance in the tech world to the extreme more than once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rape doesn't simply mean forced sexual intercourse.
As a verb... well...VerbInfinitiveto rapeThird person singularrapesSimple pastrapedPast participlerapedPresent participlerapingto rape (third-person singular simple present rapes, present participle raping, simple past and past participle raped)
      1.
To force sexual intercourse or other sexual activity upon another person, without their consent.
      2.
To abuse an object in an extreme manner.
                    The loggers raped the virgin forest
      3.
(slang) To dominate in a contest.
                    My experienced opponent will rape me at chess.I'd say they have abused their dominance in the tech world to the extreme more than once.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498161</id>
	<title>Re:Pot calling the kettle black</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246100280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did not know Bell Labs was an evil company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did not know Bell Labs was an evil company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did not know Bell Labs was an evil company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496537</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>MickDownUnder</author>
	<datestamp>1246133040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a crock.</p><p>Mono is a independent open source project.  Microsoft has no real control over this code.</p><p>*IF* Microsoft tried to hijack or close down Mono, it would need to do so through the courts, when was the last time Microsoft won a case like that?</p><p>I think if Microsoft ever tried to do such a thing, the Mono community would simply do the same thing that Microsoft did to Sun's Java platform (the true origins of C#). When Sun tried to dictate control over their platform Microsoft simply stopped shipping the JVM on their OS and soon after started shipping the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET runtime.  The Mono crew would simply do the same, by simply forking and become something that is not<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET compliant,</p><p>This is simply sensless anti-MS zealotry. Applications written on Mono are no more of a risk than those written on any other platofrm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a crock.Mono is a independent open source project .
Microsoft has no real control over this code .
* IF * Microsoft tried to hijack or close down Mono , it would need to do so through the courts , when was the last time Microsoft won a case like that ? I think if Microsoft ever tried to do such a thing , the Mono community would simply do the same thing that Microsoft did to Sun 's Java platform ( the true origins of C # ) .
When Sun tried to dictate control over their platform Microsoft simply stopped shipping the JVM on their OS and soon after started shipping the .NET runtime .
The Mono crew would simply do the same , by simply forking and become something that is not .NET compliant,This is simply sensless anti-MS zealotry .
Applications written on Mono are no more of a risk than those written on any other platofrm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a crock.Mono is a independent open source project.
Microsoft has no real control over this code.
*IF* Microsoft tried to hijack or close down Mono, it would need to do so through the courts, when was the last time Microsoft won a case like that?I think if Microsoft ever tried to do such a thing, the Mono community would simply do the same thing that Microsoft did to Sun's Java platform (the true origins of C#).
When Sun tried to dictate control over their platform Microsoft simply stopped shipping the JVM on their OS and soon after started shipping the .NET runtime.
The Mono crew would simply do the same, by simply forking and become something that is not .NET compliant,This is simply sensless anti-MS zealotry.
Applications written on Mono are no more of a risk than those written on any other platofrm</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496991</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>StormReaver</author>
	<datestamp>1246135680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Funny, we've been a customer of Microsoft's for 20 years and have yet to experience this "raping" you speak of.</p><p>Everything is fine if you're in lock-step with Microsoft's business plans.  But try getting out from underneath Microsoft's thumb, and you'll start to understand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Funny , we 've been a customer of Microsoft 's for 20 years and have yet to experience this " raping " you speak of.Everything is fine if you 're in lock-step with Microsoft 's business plans .
But try getting out from underneath Microsoft 's thumb , and you 'll start to understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Funny, we've been a customer of Microsoft's for 20 years and have yet to experience this "raping" you speak of.Everything is fine if you're in lock-step with Microsoft's business plans.
But try getting out from underneath Microsoft's thumb, and you'll start to understand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496431</id>
	<title>Sorry RMS: Linux != GNU...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246132320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As much as Stallman would like to say otherwise, Linux is not GNU/Linux, and GNU is not all free software.</p><p>And lets face it, Debian has a choice:</p><p>Either not include a useful application for the sake of "purity", or include a useful runtime and applications which use it.</p><p>IS the goal to create a useful system or a pure system?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as Stallman would like to say otherwise , Linux is not GNU/Linux , and GNU is not all free software.And lets face it , Debian has a choice : Either not include a useful application for the sake of " purity " , or include a useful runtime and applications which use it.IS the goal to create a useful system or a pure system ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as Stallman would like to say otherwise, Linux is not GNU/Linux, and GNU is not all free software.And lets face it, Debian has a choice:Either not include a useful application for the sake of "purity", or include a useful runtime and applications which use it.IS the goal to create a useful system or a pure system?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496867</id>
	<title>Re:Pot calling the kettle black</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246135020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>C is an international standard and isn't owned by any company, nor is it or its standard library covered by patents.</htmltext>
<tokenext>C is an international standard and is n't owned by any company , nor is it or its standard library covered by patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C is an international standard and isn't owned by any company, nor is it or its standard library covered by patents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28500907</id>
	<title>My 2 Cents</title>
	<author>danigr</author>
	<datestamp>1246123200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For me what will happen is that Microsoft will claim in the future that Linux is very good because it uses part of Microsoft technologies. It will sound to the noob as it was Microsoft that made Linux great. I even go further:
<br> <br>
Why Linux is so great mr. Balmer?
<br> <br>
-Linux employs one of our core technologies,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, a robust and feature rich API that developers developers developers love so much. Thanks to our efforts Linux is now gaining momentum. Next year we plan to release Microsoft Linux XP...
<br>
<br>
Then the world implodes. *mooB*</htmltext>
<tokenext>For me what will happen is that Microsoft will claim in the future that Linux is very good because it uses part of Microsoft technologies .
It will sound to the noob as it was Microsoft that made Linux great .
I even go further : Why Linux is so great mr. Balmer ? -Linux employs one of our core technologies , .NET , a robust and feature rich API that developers developers developers love so much .
Thanks to our efforts Linux is now gaining momentum .
Next year we plan to release Microsoft Linux XP.. . Then the world implodes .
* mooB *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For me what will happen is that Microsoft will claim in the future that Linux is very good because it uses part of Microsoft technologies.
It will sound to the noob as it was Microsoft that made Linux great.
I even go further:
 
Why Linux is so great mr. Balmer?
 
-Linux employs one of our core technologies, .NET, a robust and feature rich API that developers developers developers love so much.
Thanks to our efforts Linux is now gaining momentum.
Next year we plan to release Microsoft Linux XP...


Then the world implodes.
*mooB*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497155</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246093800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really?  What is your company?  I really want to sell you software!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
What is your company ?
I really want to sell you software !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
What is your company?
I really want to sell you software!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498637</id>
	<title>Re:Confused</title>
	<author>peppepz</author>
	<datestamp>1246104120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No. Mono (justly) implements much more than the ECMA spec, and the programs make use of much more than the ECMA spec (which is so basic that you can&rsquo;t actually code much by targeting it alone.)<br>
For instance, tomboy makes use of classes from the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET framework that is not part of the ECMA specification.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
Mono ( justly ) implements much more than the ECMA spec , and the programs make use of much more than the ECMA spec ( which is so basic that you can    t actually code much by targeting it alone .
) For instance , tomboy makes use of classes from the .NET framework that is not part of the ECMA specification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
Mono (justly) implements much more than the ECMA spec, and the programs make use of much more than the ECMA spec (which is so basic that you can’t actually code much by targeting it alone.
)
For instance, tomboy makes use of classes from the .NET framework that is not part of the ECMA specification.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497317</id>
	<title>We need a better alternative to Mono then</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1246094640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mono was great for porting Visual Studio projects to Linux, etc. Mono supports the C# and Visual BASIC languages.</p><p>When you are a Windows developer that writes software for Windows, you usually use Visual Studio and C# or Visual BASIC as your primary language and like to take the code you write and port it to other platforms. Novell Mono made that possible, with a few rewrites of Form code as Windows Forms are not part of Mono. Windows developers use Visual Studio because Microsoft gives them a discount on it and even bundles it as part of the MSDN Microsoft Development Network subscription program to get Microsoft operating systems and development software and applications at a discounted rate for developers.</p><p>Visual Studio is easy to program in because the IDE is as easy to use as a paint program and you just drag and drop objects to create the Forms needed for the application, Delphi and other languages had about the same type of IDE. So an open source alternative would need an IDE that is just as easy to use as the Visual Studio and Mono IDEs.</p><p>I had planned to develop software for Windows under Visual BASIC 2005/2008 and then port it to Linux and Mac OSX using Novell Mono. But now I cannot if Richard Stallman says not to use Mono and I had planned on an open source version using Mono. So now what Visual BASIC code I wrote is useless and I'll have to rewrite it in a different programming language. Thanks Richard Stallman, I can see why you are the Saint of Open Source Software now.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Good thing I got some Python, C/C++, and Java skills, even if they are older skills I haven't used in a while. I have to give up my Visual Studio and Mono IDE easy to use crutch, and I hope I find an IDE for an approved Open Source Programming Language that I can use easily, without a huge learning curve and adapt to a different language.</p><p>Basically my Visual BASIC skills are now obsolete for Open Source Programming. This will either force me into close sourced code, or a different programming language I am not as good in for open source code. I've spent almost 17 years on Visual BASIC programming from Visual  BASIC 1.0 for DOS all the way up to Visual BASIC 2008, including the conversion from Classic Visual BASIC to Visual BASIC.Net which was hard, but I made it.</p><p>I am currently out of work and on disability, and had hoped to create some software applications in open source code for various businesses to use, and offer a professional customized version that is released from open source code and available for private use for a certain fee. I had also considered forming a non-profit like the Mozilla foundation and make open source programs available for free and ask for donations. But now, this changes everything and I have to reinvent myself and my business ideas and my plan to get off disability, and this will cause major delays.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mono was great for porting Visual Studio projects to Linux , etc .
Mono supports the C # and Visual BASIC languages.When you are a Windows developer that writes software for Windows , you usually use Visual Studio and C # or Visual BASIC as your primary language and like to take the code you write and port it to other platforms .
Novell Mono made that possible , with a few rewrites of Form code as Windows Forms are not part of Mono .
Windows developers use Visual Studio because Microsoft gives them a discount on it and even bundles it as part of the MSDN Microsoft Development Network subscription program to get Microsoft operating systems and development software and applications at a discounted rate for developers.Visual Studio is easy to program in because the IDE is as easy to use as a paint program and you just drag and drop objects to create the Forms needed for the application , Delphi and other languages had about the same type of IDE .
So an open source alternative would need an IDE that is just as easy to use as the Visual Studio and Mono IDEs.I had planned to develop software for Windows under Visual BASIC 2005/2008 and then port it to Linux and Mac OSX using Novell Mono .
But now I can not if Richard Stallman says not to use Mono and I had planned on an open source version using Mono .
So now what Visual BASIC code I wrote is useless and I 'll have to rewrite it in a different programming language .
Thanks Richard Stallman , I can see why you are the Saint of Open Source Software now .
: ) Good thing I got some Python , C/C + + , and Java skills , even if they are older skills I have n't used in a while .
I have to give up my Visual Studio and Mono IDE easy to use crutch , and I hope I find an IDE for an approved Open Source Programming Language that I can use easily , without a huge learning curve and adapt to a different language.Basically my Visual BASIC skills are now obsolete for Open Source Programming .
This will either force me into close sourced code , or a different programming language I am not as good in for open source code .
I 've spent almost 17 years on Visual BASIC programming from Visual BASIC 1.0 for DOS all the way up to Visual BASIC 2008 , including the conversion from Classic Visual BASIC to Visual BASIC.Net which was hard , but I made it.I am currently out of work and on disability , and had hoped to create some software applications in open source code for various businesses to use , and offer a professional customized version that is released from open source code and available for private use for a certain fee .
I had also considered forming a non-profit like the Mozilla foundation and make open source programs available for free and ask for donations .
But now , this changes everything and I have to reinvent myself and my business ideas and my plan to get off disability , and this will cause major delays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mono was great for porting Visual Studio projects to Linux, etc.
Mono supports the C# and Visual BASIC languages.When you are a Windows developer that writes software for Windows, you usually use Visual Studio and C# or Visual BASIC as your primary language and like to take the code you write and port it to other platforms.
Novell Mono made that possible, with a few rewrites of Form code as Windows Forms are not part of Mono.
Windows developers use Visual Studio because Microsoft gives them a discount on it and even bundles it as part of the MSDN Microsoft Development Network subscription program to get Microsoft operating systems and development software and applications at a discounted rate for developers.Visual Studio is easy to program in because the IDE is as easy to use as a paint program and you just drag and drop objects to create the Forms needed for the application, Delphi and other languages had about the same type of IDE.
So an open source alternative would need an IDE that is just as easy to use as the Visual Studio and Mono IDEs.I had planned to develop software for Windows under Visual BASIC 2005/2008 and then port it to Linux and Mac OSX using Novell Mono.
But now I cannot if Richard Stallman says not to use Mono and I had planned on an open source version using Mono.
So now what Visual BASIC code I wrote is useless and I'll have to rewrite it in a different programming language.
Thanks Richard Stallman, I can see why you are the Saint of Open Source Software now.
:)Good thing I got some Python, C/C++, and Java skills, even if they are older skills I haven't used in a while.
I have to give up my Visual Studio and Mono IDE easy to use crutch, and I hope I find an IDE for an approved Open Source Programming Language that I can use easily, without a huge learning curve and adapt to a different language.Basically my Visual BASIC skills are now obsolete for Open Source Programming.
This will either force me into close sourced code, or a different programming language I am not as good in for open source code.
I've spent almost 17 years on Visual BASIC programming from Visual  BASIC 1.0 for DOS all the way up to Visual BASIC 2008, including the conversion from Classic Visual BASIC to Visual BASIC.Net which was hard, but I made it.I am currently out of work and on disability, and had hoped to create some software applications in open source code for various businesses to use, and offer a professional customized version that is released from open source code and available for private use for a certain fee.
I had also considered forming a non-profit like the Mozilla foundation and make open source programs available for free and ask for donations.
But now, this changes everything and I have to reinvent myself and my business ideas and my plan to get off disability, and this will cause major delays.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498853</id>
	<title>Getting Really Old</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246106160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fear that Mono is Microsoft's evil way into Linux and into our every thought is really getting old. What seems to be forgotten is that there is real people (not monsters) working hard on GPL code for Mono/Gtk# and they are not evil they are not working for MS and they are not out to get anyone. They are helpful people who don't say RTFM to everyone with a question and they feel strongly like they are going something worth while. Go to the Mono blog and see what they are talking about and trying to do, once you get to know them you might feel differently about Mono/Gtk#.</p><p>Mono gives MS programmers like myself the ability to go home at night and contribute something to Linux in C#, VB, Iron Python etc where we are most comfortable and can get more done. It feels good to give back to the Linux community that had given me so much but I'm starting to wonder if it is worth it. Is the fact that I use C# make it where no one in Linux will even want my work? I can save a lot of time if I knew now so I can just stop trying.</p><p>I don't know copyright law (most of you don't either) I don't know about corporate conspiracies but I do recognize when a group of people are trying to help out and contribute to the development community at large. Otherwise if fear we should all pull our computers over our head and hope the the big boogie monster MS goes away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fear that Mono is Microsoft 's evil way into Linux and into our every thought is really getting old .
What seems to be forgotten is that there is real people ( not monsters ) working hard on GPL code for Mono/Gtk # and they are not evil they are not working for MS and they are not out to get anyone .
They are helpful people who do n't say RTFM to everyone with a question and they feel strongly like they are going something worth while .
Go to the Mono blog and see what they are talking about and trying to do , once you get to know them you might feel differently about Mono/Gtk # .Mono gives MS programmers like myself the ability to go home at night and contribute something to Linux in C # , VB , Iron Python etc where we are most comfortable and can get more done .
It feels good to give back to the Linux community that had given me so much but I 'm starting to wonder if it is worth it .
Is the fact that I use C # make it where no one in Linux will even want my work ?
I can save a lot of time if I knew now so I can just stop trying.I do n't know copyright law ( most of you do n't either ) I do n't know about corporate conspiracies but I do recognize when a group of people are trying to help out and contribute to the development community at large .
Otherwise if fear we should all pull our computers over our head and hope the the big boogie monster MS goes away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fear that Mono is Microsoft's evil way into Linux and into our every thought is really getting old.
What seems to be forgotten is that there is real people (not monsters) working hard on GPL code for Mono/Gtk# and they are not evil they are not working for MS and they are not out to get anyone.
They are helpful people who don't say RTFM to everyone with a question and they feel strongly like they are going something worth while.
Go to the Mono blog and see what they are talking about and trying to do, once you get to know them you might feel differently about Mono/Gtk#.Mono gives MS programmers like myself the ability to go home at night and contribute something to Linux in C#, VB, Iron Python etc where we are most comfortable and can get more done.
It feels good to give back to the Linux community that had given me so much but I'm starting to wonder if it is worth it.
Is the fact that I use C# make it where no one in Linux will even want my work?
I can save a lot of time if I knew now so I can just stop trying.I don't know copyright law (most of you don't either) I don't know about corporate conspiracies but I do recognize when a group of people are trying to help out and contribute to the development community at large.
Otherwise if fear we should all pull our computers over our head and hope the the big boogie monster MS goes away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496877</id>
	<title>Re:Java?</title>
	<author>moon3</author>
	<datestamp>1246135020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you use any of those corporate controlled runtime languages you are asking for trouble.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you use any of those corporate controlled runtime languages you are asking for trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you use any of those corporate controlled runtime languages you are asking for trouble.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496931</id>
	<title>Stallman's incongruent position.</title>
	<author>xoluxo</author>
	<datestamp>1246135320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Richard Stallman over the years has made it his goal to encourage and promote the creation of free software alternatives of commercial products, patented or not.</p><p>RMS decided to clone Unix when he started his GNU project.   This was at a time when ATT might have hold patents on the technology:</p><p><a href="http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html" title="gnu.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html</a> [gnu.org]</p><p>Microsoft has been vocal about their patent portfolio, but the danger of patents extends beyond anyone that is vocal.</p><p>As we saw with SCO, a company that is desperate for revenue will start taping into whatever they have at their disposal.   SCO lost market share and tried to capitalize on the Unix IP.</p><p>The same can easily happen to any software company today that owns patents and finds itself in financial trouble.   They will either try to license their patents or sell the patents for a third party to buy.</p><p>SGI was in such situation in 2002/2003 when they sold their OpenGL patent portfolio to Microsoft which now owns the OpenGL patents.</p><p>Smaller companies go out of business constantly and sell their patents as a last resort or as part of the bankruptcy proceedings (Chapter 12) that force a company to sell their assets to pay their debt.</p><p>Today the FSF is requesting clones for a number of technologies as can be seen here:</p><p><a href="http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority.html" title="fsf.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority.html</a> [fsf.org]</p><p>As the FSF becomes more irrelevant, their list of tasks becomes more irrelevant as well. Most of the work is now driven by external communities and there has not been a need for RMS to push for free implementations of key pieces of software as he did in the past.</p><p>Or they sponsor projects like GNUstep that would violate Apple/Nextstep patents as much as Mono would violate Microsoft patents.   The only difference being that Apple is more litigious than Microsoft.   It is part of their culture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Richard Stallman over the years has made it his goal to encourage and promote the creation of free software alternatives of commercial products , patented or not.RMS decided to clone Unix when he started his GNU project .
This was at a time when ATT might have hold patents on the technology : http : //www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html [ gnu.org ] Microsoft has been vocal about their patent portfolio , but the danger of patents extends beyond anyone that is vocal.As we saw with SCO , a company that is desperate for revenue will start taping into whatever they have at their disposal .
SCO lost market share and tried to capitalize on the Unix IP.The same can easily happen to any software company today that owns patents and finds itself in financial trouble .
They will either try to license their patents or sell the patents for a third party to buy.SGI was in such situation in 2002/2003 when they sold their OpenGL patent portfolio to Microsoft which now owns the OpenGL patents.Smaller companies go out of business constantly and sell their patents as a last resort or as part of the bankruptcy proceedings ( Chapter 12 ) that force a company to sell their assets to pay their debt.Today the FSF is requesting clones for a number of technologies as can be seen here : http : //www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority.html [ fsf.org ] As the FSF becomes more irrelevant , their list of tasks becomes more irrelevant as well .
Most of the work is now driven by external communities and there has not been a need for RMS to push for free implementations of key pieces of software as he did in the past.Or they sponsor projects like GNUstep that would violate Apple/Nextstep patents as much as Mono would violate Microsoft patents .
The only difference being that Apple is more litigious than Microsoft .
It is part of their culture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Richard Stallman over the years has made it his goal to encourage and promote the creation of free software alternatives of commercial products, patented or not.RMS decided to clone Unix when he started his GNU project.
This was at a time when ATT might have hold patents on the technology:http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html [gnu.org]Microsoft has been vocal about their patent portfolio, but the danger of patents extends beyond anyone that is vocal.As we saw with SCO, a company that is desperate for revenue will start taping into whatever they have at their disposal.
SCO lost market share and tried to capitalize on the Unix IP.The same can easily happen to any software company today that owns patents and finds itself in financial trouble.
They will either try to license their patents or sell the patents for a third party to buy.SGI was in such situation in 2002/2003 when they sold their OpenGL patent portfolio to Microsoft which now owns the OpenGL patents.Smaller companies go out of business constantly and sell their patents as a last resort or as part of the bankruptcy proceedings (Chapter 12) that force a company to sell their assets to pay their debt.Today the FSF is requesting clones for a number of technologies as can be seen here:http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority.html [fsf.org]As the FSF becomes more irrelevant, their list of tasks becomes more irrelevant as well.
Most of the work is now driven by external communities and there has not been a need for RMS to push for free implementations of key pieces of software as he did in the past.Or they sponsor projects like GNUstep that would violate Apple/Nextstep patents as much as Mono would violate Microsoft patents.
The only difference being that Apple is more litigious than Microsoft.
It is part of their culture.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498049</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>Tanuki64</author>
	<datestamp>1246099560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good for you. But it just means you have nothing M$ is interested in and your are no thread for their profit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good for you .
But it just means you have nothing M $ is interested in and your are no thread for their profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good for you.
But it just means you have nothing M$ is interested in and your are no thread for their profit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499495</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>nidarus</author>
	<datestamp>1246111500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Funny, we've been a customer of Microsoft's for 20 years and have yet to experience this "raping" you speak of</i>

</p><p>Are you sure you're not suffering from stockholm syndrome?</p></div><p>It's not rape if it's consensual</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , we 've been a customer of Microsoft 's for 20 years and have yet to experience this " raping " you speak of Are you sure you 're not suffering from stockholm syndrome ? It 's not rape if it 's consensual</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Funny, we've been a customer of Microsoft's for 20 years and have yet to experience this "raping" you speak of

Are you sure you're not suffering from stockholm syndrome?It's not rape if it's consensual
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496269</id>
	<title>easy solution</title>
	<author>ionix5891</author>
	<datestamp>1246131240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>rename it to GNU/Mono</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>rename it to GNU/Mono</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rename it to GNU/Mono</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497643</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>gyrogeerloose</author>
	<datestamp>1246096680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention stealing the source code for the original Mac operating system, which was supplied to them as a Mac developer by Apple, and then using it in Windows 1.0.</p><p> If that's not enough, how about Microsoft stealing QuickTime and using it in Windows Media? I have no illusions about how cutthroat the business world is but theft is theft no matter how you cut it and Microsoft has made billions of dollars by stealing the work of others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention stealing the source code for the original Mac operating system , which was supplied to them as a Mac developer by Apple , and then using it in Windows 1.0 .
If that 's not enough , how about Microsoft stealing QuickTime and using it in Windows Media ?
I have no illusions about how cutthroat the business world is but theft is theft no matter how you cut it and Microsoft has made billions of dollars by stealing the work of others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention stealing the source code for the original Mac operating system, which was supplied to them as a Mac developer by Apple, and then using it in Windows 1.0.
If that's not enough, how about Microsoft stealing QuickTime and using it in Windows Media?
I have no illusions about how cutthroat the business world is but theft is theft no matter how you cut it and Microsoft has made billions of dollars by stealing the work of others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497751</id>
	<title>Have they threatened Linux with patents?</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1246097280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny to answer a question with another...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny to answer a question with another.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny to answer a question with another...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498195</id>
	<title>Re:"M$"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246100580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you're unable to get your point across by spelling words properly?</p><p>That part would be the childish thing about this, anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you 're unable to get your point across by spelling words properly ? That part would be the childish thing about this , anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you're unable to get your point across by spelling words properly?That part would be the childish thing about this, anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496373</id>
	<title>Confused</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246131840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mono is a cleanroom implementation of the CLR as specified by EMCA and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net libraries, right?  What exactly do you risk by using it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mono is a cleanroom implementation of the CLR as specified by EMCA and .Net libraries , right ?
What exactly do you risk by using it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mono is a cleanroom implementation of the CLR as specified by EMCA and .Net libraries, right?
What exactly do you risk by using it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496633</id>
	<title>Re:Summary for those who didn't read it</title>
	<author>kripkenstein</author>
	<datestamp>1246133520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>As he explained, a C# implementation is useful in that it lets you run C# code that already exists, on non-Windows OSes. That is a good thing, and that is why he says he has no problem with the implementations. But, he says, writing our <b>own</b> apps in C# is a bad idea.
<br> <br>
Feel free to disagree with him, but I thought the distinction between the C# implementation and the act of writing apps in C# makes a lot of sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As he explained , a C # implementation is useful in that it lets you run C # code that already exists , on non-Windows OSes .
That is a good thing , and that is why he says he has no problem with the implementations .
But , he says , writing our own apps in C # is a bad idea .
Feel free to disagree with him , but I thought the distinction between the C # implementation and the act of writing apps in C # makes a lot of sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As he explained, a C# implementation is useful in that it lets you run C# code that already exists, on non-Windows OSes.
That is a good thing, and that is why he says he has no problem with the implementations.
But, he says, writing our own apps in C# is a bad idea.
Feel free to disagree with him, but I thought the distinction between the C# implementation and the act of writing apps in C# makes a lot of sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497565</id>
	<title>Re:"M$"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246096260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the 90s, Microsoft was CAUGHT paying university administrators $10,000 to standardize their schools on Microsoft Office and Windows NT.  Office for the Mac was written in a emulator designed to DELIBERATELY slow performance until users said "What's up with this slow Office on the Macs" with the idea being people would say "Just use Windows.  Office 97 on Windows is better and faster."  These are basic anti-trust violations.</p><p>This is America.  It's A-OK (at least in this country) to criticize and mock public companies who are caught doing shenanigans not in the public interest.  M$ makes some really nice software (NT 4 was a wicked desktop OS) and their development tools are really sweet.  But that doesn't make them above criticism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the 90s , Microsoft was CAUGHT paying university administrators $ 10,000 to standardize their schools on Microsoft Office and Windows NT .
Office for the Mac was written in a emulator designed to DELIBERATELY slow performance until users said " What 's up with this slow Office on the Macs " with the idea being people would say " Just use Windows .
Office 97 on Windows is better and faster .
" These are basic anti-trust violations.This is America .
It 's A-OK ( at least in this country ) to criticize and mock public companies who are caught doing shenanigans not in the public interest .
M $ makes some really nice software ( NT 4 was a wicked desktop OS ) and their development tools are really sweet .
But that does n't make them above criticism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the 90s, Microsoft was CAUGHT paying university administrators $10,000 to standardize their schools on Microsoft Office and Windows NT.
Office for the Mac was written in a emulator designed to DELIBERATELY slow performance until users said "What's up with this slow Office on the Macs" with the idea being people would say "Just use Windows.
Office 97 on Windows is better and faster.
"  These are basic anti-trust violations.This is America.
It's A-OK (at least in this country) to criticize and mock public companies who are caught doing shenanigans not in the public interest.
M$ makes some really nice software (NT 4 was a wicked desktop OS) and their development tools are really sweet.
But that doesn't make them above criticism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28503029</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>gaspyy</author>
	<datestamp>1246197540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it depends on how big the minimum quarterly fee was...</p><p>And please, don't toss words like "rape" around unless you mean a really traumatic event. In Spyglass' case, the proper word would be "tricked".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it depends on how big the minimum quarterly fee was...And please , do n't toss words like " rape " around unless you mean a really traumatic event .
In Spyglass ' case , the proper word would be " tricked " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it depends on how big the minimum quarterly fee was...And please, don't toss words like "rape" around unless you mean a really traumatic event.
In Spyglass' case, the proper word would be "tricked".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28508173</id>
	<title>Re:Hey Miguel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246194240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Tell us how you know that Mono doesn't infringe on Microsoft's patents. Tell us how Moonlight doesn't infringe on Microsoft patents. Clear this stuff up.</p></div></blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr><i>/sigh</i>
</p><p>I'm not sure you understand how patents work.

</p><p>Mono is an implementation of the standards on which<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET is built. It shares absolutely nothing else in common with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET. The Mono team can be absolutely certain that their product does not infringe on Microsoft's <i>copyright</i> on the code, but no one can ever be certain about whether or not their product infringes on anyone's patents. That's what makes patents so scary.

</p><p>Likewise, Richard Stallman can never be certain that GCC doesn't infringe on Microsoft's patents regarding Microsoft's C compiler, or that Emacs doesn't infringe on any patents in Microsoft Word.

</p><p>What's worse is that actually researching to see if there <i>is</i> any patent infringement opens you up to more danger, because if you looked, then you'd be subject to triple damages in any court case for <i>knowingly</i> infringing on a patent. This is why the Linux kernel team intentionally avoids researching Microsoft's patent claims regarding Linux.

</p><p>Mono is neither more nor less susceptible to patent claims from Microsoft than any other project; be it Python, Ruby, Java, AbiWord, or Gnome-Terminal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell us how you know that Mono does n't infringe on Microsoft 's patents .
Tell us how Moonlight does n't infringe on Microsoft patents .
Clear this stuff up .
/sigh I 'm not sure you understand how patents work .
Mono is an implementation of the standards on which .NET is built .
It shares absolutely nothing else in common with .NET .
The Mono team can be absolutely certain that their product does not infringe on Microsoft 's copyright on the code , but no one can ever be certain about whether or not their product infringes on anyone 's patents .
That 's what makes patents so scary .
Likewise , Richard Stallman can never be certain that GCC does n't infringe on Microsoft 's patents regarding Microsoft 's C compiler , or that Emacs does n't infringe on any patents in Microsoft Word .
What 's worse is that actually researching to see if there is any patent infringement opens you up to more danger , because if you looked , then you 'd be subject to triple damages in any court case for knowingly infringing on a patent .
This is why the Linux kernel team intentionally avoids researching Microsoft 's patent claims regarding Linux .
Mono is neither more nor less susceptible to patent claims from Microsoft than any other project ; be it Python , Ruby , Java , AbiWord , or Gnome-Terminal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell us how you know that Mono doesn't infringe on Microsoft's patents.
Tell us how Moonlight doesn't infringe on Microsoft patents.
Clear this stuff up.
/sigh
I'm not sure you understand how patents work.
Mono is an implementation of the standards on which .NET is built.
It shares absolutely nothing else in common with .NET.
The Mono team can be absolutely certain that their product does not infringe on Microsoft's copyright on the code, but no one can ever be certain about whether or not their product infringes on anyone's patents.
That's what makes patents so scary.
Likewise, Richard Stallman can never be certain that GCC doesn't infringe on Microsoft's patents regarding Microsoft's C compiler, or that Emacs doesn't infringe on any patents in Microsoft Word.
What's worse is that actually researching to see if there is any patent infringement opens you up to more danger, because if you looked, then you'd be subject to triple damages in any court case for knowingly infringing on a patent.
This is why the Linux kernel team intentionally avoids researching Microsoft's patent claims regarding Linux.
Mono is neither more nor less susceptible to patent claims from Microsoft than any other project; be it Python, Ruby, Java, AbiWord, or Gnome-Terminal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496701</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246134120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lets see.... Have you noticed that when compared to other vendors your prices keep going up? Lets see, Windows XP Pro (OEM for system builders because I couldn't find anything else) currently costs $130 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116515), Windows Vista Business costs $139 for the same thing (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116475) and if you unlucky enough to not get a free Windows 7 upgrade, Windows 7 pro costs you $200 for even an upgrade version (http://redmondmag.com/articles/2009/06/25/windows-7-pricing-discounts-unveiled.aspx). On the other hand, Linux runs on the same hardware, is free, and support can range from free to pricey depending on distro, level of support you want and how many Linux-knowing techs you have. And if you had Mac hardware, the price to upgrade OSes would be $130 for Leopard (assuming in this that you had an x86 version of Tiger which as far as I know was not sold separately but bundled with the early x86 Macs) (http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC094/Mac-OSX-Leopard?mco=MTIxMTY) and $30 for Snow Leopard when it comes out (http://www.pcworld.com/article/166327/5\_things\_you\_should\_know\_about\_snow\_leopard.html). Sure, there is the costs of other things such as Mac only hardware, but either you aren't looking for alternatives or you are totally naive to see that MS has been screwing you with the price of its OS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets see.... Have you noticed that when compared to other vendors your prices keep going up ?
Lets see , Windows XP Pro ( OEM for system builders because I could n't find anything else ) currently costs $ 130 ( http : //www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx ? Item = N82E16832116515 ) , Windows Vista Business costs $ 139 for the same thing ( http : //www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx ? Item = N82E16832116475 ) and if you unlucky enough to not get a free Windows 7 upgrade , Windows 7 pro costs you $ 200 for even an upgrade version ( http : //redmondmag.com/articles/2009/06/25/windows-7-pricing-discounts-unveiled.aspx ) .
On the other hand , Linux runs on the same hardware , is free , and support can range from free to pricey depending on distro , level of support you want and how many Linux-knowing techs you have .
And if you had Mac hardware , the price to upgrade OSes would be $ 130 for Leopard ( assuming in this that you had an x86 version of Tiger which as far as I know was not sold separately but bundled with the early x86 Macs ) ( http : //store.apple.com/us/product/MC094/Mac-OSX-Leopard ? mco = MTIxMTY ) and $ 30 for Snow Leopard when it comes out ( http : //www.pcworld.com/article/166327/5 \ _things \ _you \ _should \ _know \ _about \ _snow \ _leopard.html ) .
Sure , there is the costs of other things such as Mac only hardware , but either you are n't looking for alternatives or you are totally naive to see that MS has been screwing you with the price of its OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets see.... Have you noticed that when compared to other vendors your prices keep going up?
Lets see, Windows XP Pro (OEM for system builders because I couldn't find anything else) currently costs $130 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116515), Windows Vista Business costs $139 for the same thing (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116475) and if you unlucky enough to not get a free Windows 7 upgrade, Windows 7 pro costs you $200 for even an upgrade version (http://redmondmag.com/articles/2009/06/25/windows-7-pricing-discounts-unveiled.aspx).
On the other hand, Linux runs on the same hardware, is free, and support can range from free to pricey depending on distro, level of support you want and how many Linux-knowing techs you have.
And if you had Mac hardware, the price to upgrade OSes would be $130 for Leopard (assuming in this that you had an x86 version of Tiger which as far as I know was not sold separately but bundled with the early x86 Macs) (http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC094/Mac-OSX-Leopard?mco=MTIxMTY) and $30 for Snow Leopard when it comes out (http://www.pcworld.com/article/166327/5\_things\_you\_should\_know\_about\_snow\_leopard.html).
Sure, there is the costs of other things such as Mac only hardware, but either you aren't looking for alternatives or you are totally naive to see that MS has been screwing you with the price of its OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496657</id>
	<title>Re:Confused</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246133700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, look where OS/2 got by supporting Windows APIs...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , look where OS/2 got by supporting Windows APIs.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, look where OS/2 got by supporting Windows APIs...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28510079</id>
	<title>love stallman</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246212600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Love Stallman.  I am sure many of you do, but surely many people think he's a little too far over the edge.  Honestly, this is a good thing.  We need crazy people on both sides to even things out.  On one side of the ring we have the beloved Mr. Gates.  I am glad we have Richard Stallman to lock in a cage with him.</p><p>Also.... Sadly, with much regret to my fellow nerds, I mistook Mono in the title for the kissing disease.  I am sure most of you usually do the opposite.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Love Stallman .
I am sure many of you do , but surely many people think he 's a little too far over the edge .
Honestly , this is a good thing .
We need crazy people on both sides to even things out .
On one side of the ring we have the beloved Mr. Gates. I am glad we have Richard Stallman to lock in a cage with him.Also.... Sadly , with much regret to my fellow nerds , I mistook Mono in the title for the kissing disease .
I am sure most of you usually do the opposite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Love Stallman.
I am sure many of you do, but surely many people think he's a little too far over the edge.
Honestly, this is a good thing.
We need crazy people on both sides to even things out.
On one side of the ring we have the beloved Mr. Gates.  I am glad we have Richard Stallman to lock in a cage with him.Also.... Sadly, with much regret to my fellow nerds, I mistook Mono in the title for the kissing disease.
I am sure most of you usually do the opposite.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497161</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this antithetical to GNU in general?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246093800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Software patents were not exactly prolific when the GNU project began. It wouldn't have mattered at the time whether they were copying Unix or whatever else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Software patents were not exactly prolific when the GNU project began .
It would n't have mattered at the time whether they were copying Unix or whatever else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Software patents were not exactly prolific when the GNU project began.
It wouldn't have mattered at the time whether they were copying Unix or whatever else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28511301</id>
	<title>Re:Pot calling the kettle black</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246268220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's say nobody is afraid that Bell can sue them and their customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's say nobody is afraid that Bell can sue them and their customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's say nobody is afraid that Bell can sue them and their customers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496473</id>
	<title>Awesome job /.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246132680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is brilliant by posting an article from twitter.  This way he can keep himself occupied by having a conversation among him and his sock puppets on this board and leave the rest of the stories alone.  twitter, I hope you're having fun making points and counter-points with yourself, then modding them all insightful.  What is your story dude... really?  <br> <br>
Also, M$... what is the point of that... really?  Reminds me of people calling Obama Obummer and McCain McLame.  You do realize you don't do ANYTHING for your argument when you use these ridiculous word games, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think / .
is brilliant by posting an article from twitter .
This way he can keep himself occupied by having a conversation among him and his sock puppets on this board and leave the rest of the stories alone .
twitter , I hope you 're having fun making points and counter-points with yourself , then modding them all insightful .
What is your story dude... really ? Also , M $ ... what is the point of that... really ? Reminds me of people calling Obama Obummer and McCain McLame .
You do realize you do n't do ANYTHING for your argument when you use these ridiculous word games , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think /.
is brilliant by posting an article from twitter.
This way he can keep himself occupied by having a conversation among him and his sock puppets on this board and leave the rest of the stories alone.
twitter, I hope you're having fun making points and counter-points with yourself, then modding them all insightful.
What is your story dude... really?   
Also, M$... what is the point of that... really?  Reminds me of people calling Obama Obummer and McCain McLame.
You do realize you don't do ANYTHING for your argument when you use these ridiculous word games, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497011</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this antithetical to GNU in general?</title>
	<author>Schnoodledorfer</author>
	<datestamp>1246135800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do the commercial Unix vendors holding those patents behave any differently than Microsoft (ahem SCO)?</p></div><p>At and before the time Linux was developed, yes, they behaved very differently. As a matter of fact, the real owners of the patents have always behaved differently. SCO never actually owned the patents, after all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do the commercial Unix vendors holding those patents behave any differently than Microsoft ( ahem SCO ) ? At and before the time Linux was developed , yes , they behaved very differently .
As a matter of fact , the real owners of the patents have always behaved differently .
SCO never actually owned the patents , after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do the commercial Unix vendors holding those patents behave any differently than Microsoft (ahem SCO)?At and before the time Linux was developed, yes, they behaved very differently.
As a matter of fact, the real owners of the patents have always behaved differently.
SCO never actually owned the patents, after all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496403</id>
	<title>another reason:it doesn't play to Linux's strength</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246132080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another reason to avoid Mono is that IMHO it doesn't play to Linux's strengths.</p><p>C# is almost kinda almost neat on Windows because it interacts nicely with windows's objects.   On Unix/Linux where things more often communicate through pipes, streams, files, etc, it seems to me Python's a better tool for most jobs.</p><p>And another gripe with C# and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.java is that they don't seem to me to ever be the best tool for a job.   They're horribly inefficient to develop in (python's much better), mediocre OO languages (ruby's better), bad at doing low level stuff (C's better), etc.    I'd say that Python + C extensions is a better solution for almost any problem C# can be used for except for interacting with Windows internals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another reason to avoid Mono is that IMHO it does n't play to Linux 's strengths.C # is almost kinda almost neat on Windows because it interacts nicely with windows 's objects .
On Unix/Linux where things more often communicate through pipes , streams , files , etc , it seems to me Python 's a better tool for most jobs.And another gripe with C # and .java is that they do n't seem to me to ever be the best tool for a job .
They 're horribly inefficient to develop in ( python 's much better ) , mediocre OO languages ( ruby 's better ) , bad at doing low level stuff ( C 's better ) , etc .
I 'd say that Python + C extensions is a better solution for almost any problem C # can be used for except for interacting with Windows internals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another reason to avoid Mono is that IMHO it doesn't play to Linux's strengths.C# is almost kinda almost neat on Windows because it interacts nicely with windows's objects.
On Unix/Linux where things more often communicate through pipes, streams, files, etc, it seems to me Python's a better tool for most jobs.And another gripe with C# and .java is that they don't seem to me to ever be the best tool for a job.
They're horribly inefficient to develop in (python's much better), mediocre OO languages (ruby's better), bad at doing low level stuff (C's better), etc.
I'd say that Python + C extensions is a better solution for almost any problem C# can be used for except for interacting with Windows internals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28509251</id>
	<title>Re:"M$"</title>
	<author>Tetsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1246204980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe we can use the old "long-s" glyph when spelling Microfoft?</p><p>(This joke would work better if I could put the proper Unicode glyph in there...  But Slashdot appears to foil my attempt at writing "Micro&#197;oft"...  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long\_s" title="wikipedia.org">Check this box!</a> [wikipedia.org])</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe we can use the old " long-s " glyph when spelling Microfoft ?
( This joke would work better if I could put the proper Unicode glyph in there... But Slashdot appears to foil my attempt at writing " Micro   oft " ... Check this box !
[ wikipedia.org ] )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe we can use the old "long-s" glyph when spelling Microfoft?
(This joke would work better if I could put the proper Unicode glyph in there...  But Slashdot appears to foil my attempt at writing "MicroÅoft"...  Check this box!
[wikipedia.org])</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496609</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1246133460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I know it's all sorts of fun and games to bash MS on slashdot, but seriously? Comparing them to rape? Grow up.</p></div><p>I know it all sorts of fun and games to bash people for semantics on slashdot, but seriously?  Complaining about a common colloquialism?  Grow up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know it 's all sorts of fun and games to bash MS on slashdot , but seriously ?
Comparing them to rape ?
Grow up.I know it all sorts of fun and games to bash people for semantics on slashdot , but seriously ?
Complaining about a common colloquialism ?
Grow up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know it's all sorts of fun and games to bash MS on slashdot, but seriously?
Comparing them to rape?
Grow up.I know it all sorts of fun and games to bash people for semantics on slashdot, but seriously?
Complaining about a common colloquialism?
Grow up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497035</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1246136100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No matter how you like to soften, it is the view of freedom, open source and it has been for ages.</p><p>It is anarchy, anti big corporation, some sense of communism, fanaticism. Don't let corporate monkeys like Icaza or Novell fool you.</p><p>A half ass fake C application and a clone of a clone of a framework has no place in Debian. It is not what Debian is. In fact, if this is the new policy of Debian, they should change the distro's name and allow people who understands what GNU/Linux is use the name.</p><p>If it was any other distro, it wouldn't bother people that much. We speak about benchmark of free software. Debian is actually used as reference when people get confused about some weird license developer uses. ''Does Debian have it?'' is a very common question in scene.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No matter how you like to soften , it is the view of freedom , open source and it has been for ages.It is anarchy , anti big corporation , some sense of communism , fanaticism .
Do n't let corporate monkeys like Icaza or Novell fool you.A half ass fake C application and a clone of a clone of a framework has no place in Debian .
It is not what Debian is .
In fact , if this is the new policy of Debian , they should change the distro 's name and allow people who understands what GNU/Linux is use the name.If it was any other distro , it would n't bother people that much .
We speak about benchmark of free software .
Debian is actually used as reference when people get confused about some weird license developer uses .
''Does Debian have it ?
' ' is a very common question in scene .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No matter how you like to soften, it is the view of freedom, open source and it has been for ages.It is anarchy, anti big corporation, some sense of communism, fanaticism.
Don't let corporate monkeys like Icaza or Novell fool you.A half ass fake C application and a clone of a clone of a framework has no place in Debian.
It is not what Debian is.
In fact, if this is the new policy of Debian, they should change the distro's name and allow people who understands what GNU/Linux is use the name.If it was any other distro, it wouldn't bother people that much.
We speak about benchmark of free software.
Debian is actually used as reference when people get confused about some weird license developer uses.
''Does Debian have it?
'' is a very common question in scene.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499523</id>
	<title>Re:C# / .NET is a standard</title>
	<author>PAjamian</author>
	<datestamp>1246111560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do not recognize the ECMA as a valid standards setting organization anymore after the mess with OOXML.  When they will basically rubber stamp any standard given to them by MS they are just an extension of MS.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It is not going to be revoked, it cannot be revoked.</p><p>Although initially this seems to give support to the MS platform, IMHO this is a move that will start to break the idea that to use C# one must have windows and say that you can write the same applications on linux.</p><p>Once people can write an application and deploy it anywhere, users will have real choice, even if C# isn't the best basis to stay on for life. Worry about getting users to the platform and then worry about putting the code in C/C++.</p></div><p>MS has patents that cover various aspects of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net standard.  At any time MS could choose to only license their patents in a manner which is not compatible with free software and aggressively pursue free software applications that use programming techniques and interfaces covered by the patents.  This could have the effect of killing off the free software programs that rely on the standard not to mention the legal headaches that a programmer can run into if MS decides to pursue you for patent infringement.  MS does not even need to have a valid case, just the costs of defending yourself in court is enough to effectively screw you over.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not recognize the ECMA as a valid standards setting organization anymore after the mess with OOXML .
When they will basically rubber stamp any standard given to them by MS they are just an extension of MS.It is not going to be revoked , it can not be revoked.Although initially this seems to give support to the MS platform , IMHO this is a move that will start to break the idea that to use C # one must have windows and say that you can write the same applications on linux.Once people can write an application and deploy it anywhere , users will have real choice , even if C # is n't the best basis to stay on for life .
Worry about getting users to the platform and then worry about putting the code in C/C + + .MS has patents that cover various aspects of the .Net standard .
At any time MS could choose to only license their patents in a manner which is not compatible with free software and aggressively pursue free software applications that use programming techniques and interfaces covered by the patents .
This could have the effect of killing off the free software programs that rely on the standard not to mention the legal headaches that a programmer can run into if MS decides to pursue you for patent infringement .
MS does not even need to have a valid case , just the costs of defending yourself in court is enough to effectively screw you over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not recognize the ECMA as a valid standards setting organization anymore after the mess with OOXML.
When they will basically rubber stamp any standard given to them by MS they are just an extension of MS.It is not going to be revoked, it cannot be revoked.Although initially this seems to give support to the MS platform, IMHO this is a move that will start to break the idea that to use C# one must have windows and say that you can write the same applications on linux.Once people can write an application and deploy it anywhere, users will have real choice, even if C# isn't the best basis to stay on for life.
Worry about getting users to the platform and then worry about putting the code in C/C++.MS has patents that cover various aspects of the .Net standard.
At any time MS could choose to only license their patents in a manner which is not compatible with free software and aggressively pursue free software applications that use programming techniques and interfaces covered by the patents.
This could have the effect of killing off the free software programs that rely on the standard not to mention the legal headaches that a programmer can run into if MS decides to pursue you for patent infringement.
MS does not even need to have a valid case, just the costs of defending yourself in court is enough to effectively screw you over.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497515</id>
	<title>Re:"M$"</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1246095960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. I am not "four years old". Are you?</p><p>I've been around long enough to remember MS-DOS, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, the original Windows NT and all of the<br>application associated malware that Microsoft has subjected us to over the years. I have also been around long<br>enough to be aware of the whole OEM strongarm thing, the shenanigan with DR-DOS,the back stabbing of IBM over<br>OS/2, Microsoft "cutting off Netscape's air supply", Linux being a cancer and TomTom being sued over VFAT.</p><p>Been around longer than 4 years.</p><p>Used their stuff. Found it lacking.</p><p>So yes it is too much to ask to "just use Microsoft".</p><p>The same goes for McDonalds, Campbells and Ford.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
I am not " four years old " .
Are you ? I 've been around long enough to remember MS-DOS , Windows 3.1 , Windows 95 , the original Windows NT and all of theapplication associated malware that Microsoft has subjected us to over the years .
I have also been around longenough to be aware of the whole OEM strongarm thing , the shenanigan with DR-DOS,the back stabbing of IBM overOS/2 , Microsoft " cutting off Netscape 's air supply " , Linux being a cancer and TomTom being sued over VFAT.Been around longer than 4 years.Used their stuff .
Found it lacking.So yes it is too much to ask to " just use Microsoft " .The same goes for McDonalds , Campbells and Ford .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
I am not "four years old".
Are you?I've been around long enough to remember MS-DOS, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, the original Windows NT and all of theapplication associated malware that Microsoft has subjected us to over the years.
I have also been around longenough to be aware of the whole OEM strongarm thing, the shenanigan with DR-DOS,the back stabbing of IBM overOS/2, Microsoft "cutting off Netscape's air supply", Linux being a cancer and TomTom being sued over VFAT.Been around longer than 4 years.Used their stuff.
Found it lacking.So yes it is too much to ask to "just use Microsoft".The same goes for McDonalds, Campbells and Ford.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496589</id>
	<title>Re:"M$"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246133340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OMFG, he used a $ for an S in MS! That's wonderful news. Instead of discussing the point he brought up, we can just complain about the $ and dismiss his criticism of Microsoft.</p><p>It might be childish to use M$, but it's more childish still to dismiss his argument because of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OMFG , he used a $ for an S in MS !
That 's wonderful news .
Instead of discussing the point he brought up , we can just complain about the $ and dismiss his criticism of Microsoft.It might be childish to use M $ , but it 's more childish still to dismiss his argument because of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OMFG, he used a $ for an S in MS!
That's wonderful news.
Instead of discussing the point he brought up, we can just complain about the $ and dismiss his criticism of Microsoft.It might be childish to use M$, but it's more childish still to dismiss his argument because of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496811</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246134660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>20 years?  How many examples do you want:</p><p>- illegally burying Lotus 123, and replacing it with an inferior product<br>- illegally killing stacker, and replacing it with the inferior doublespace<br>- buying winternals, and burying one of the most promising security tools for XP I'd ever seen<br>- illegally forcing their browser onto the market, creating some of the biggest security headaches IT admins have ever seen<br>- changing file formats with every release for no reason other than to force companies to upgrade Office</p><p>I'm a big user of Microsoft software, but I'm under no illusions as to their business practices, motivations, or horrendous track record when it comes to security and interoperability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>20 years ?
How many examples do you want : - illegally burying Lotus 123 , and replacing it with an inferior product- illegally killing stacker , and replacing it with the inferior doublespace- buying winternals , and burying one of the most promising security tools for XP I 'd ever seen- illegally forcing their browser onto the market , creating some of the biggest security headaches IT admins have ever seen- changing file formats with every release for no reason other than to force companies to upgrade OfficeI 'm a big user of Microsoft software , but I 'm under no illusions as to their business practices , motivations , or horrendous track record when it comes to security and interoperability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>20 years?
How many examples do you want:- illegally burying Lotus 123, and replacing it with an inferior product- illegally killing stacker, and replacing it with the inferior doublespace- buying winternals, and burying one of the most promising security tools for XP I'd ever seen- illegally forcing their browser onto the market, creating some of the biggest security headaches IT admins have ever seen- changing file formats with every release for no reason other than to force companies to upgrade OfficeI'm a big user of Microsoft software, but I'm under no illusions as to their business practices, motivations, or horrendous track record when it comes to security and interoperability.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497093</id>
	<title>What's In A Name</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246093260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>MS or M$ - Who cares? If people use M$ you can see their bias right away, which may be a good thing to help you evaluate their position. Should a website thriving on user comments start implementing strict spelling rules? MS also stands for a disease, which I find kind of ironic. So does mono.</htmltext>
<tokenext>MS or M $ - Who cares ?
If people use M $ you can see their bias right away , which may be a good thing to help you evaluate their position .
Should a website thriving on user comments start implementing strict spelling rules ?
MS also stands for a disease , which I find kind of ironic .
So does mono .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS or M$ - Who cares?
If people use M$ you can see their bias right away, which may be a good thing to help you evaluate their position.
Should a website thriving on user comments start implementing strict spelling rules?
MS also stands for a disease, which I find kind of ironic.
So does mono.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496505</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>colinrichardday</author>
	<datestamp>1246132800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this mean I should stop waiting for them to support OS/2?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean I should stop waiting for them to support OS/2 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean I should stop waiting for them to support OS/2?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28502013</id>
	<title>Re:"M$"</title>
	<author>tkinnun0</author>
	<datestamp>1246183140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Look at your post and then answer your question.<br>
<br>
Hint: there's no mention of either RMS or Mono in your post.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at your post and then answer your question .
Hint : there 's no mention of either RMS or Mono in your post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at your post and then answer your question.
Hint: there's no mention of either RMS or Mono in your post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496413</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246132140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the point. He doesn't "have to." Every techie (possibly except him, though I doubt it) understood this years ago. By saying this now, though, he gets attention.</p><p>Stallman feeds from attention.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the point .
He does n't " have to .
" Every techie ( possibly except him , though I doubt it ) understood this years ago .
By saying this now , though , he gets attention.Stallman feeds from attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the point.
He doesn't "have to.
" Every techie (possibly except him, though I doubt it) understood this years ago.
By saying this now, though, he gets attention.Stallman feeds from attention.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497699</id>
	<title>Re:People don't seem to be "getting" his point...</title>
	<author>MarkWatson</author>
	<datestamp>1246096920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that your post makes the most sense, so far (I have a few more comments still to read<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>Besides, if/when Microsoft starts to run out of their large pile of cash (LPOC), they might get even more aggressive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that your post makes the most sense , so far ( I have a few more comments still to read : - ) Besides , if/when Microsoft starts to run out of their large pile of cash ( LPOC ) , they might get even more aggressive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that your post makes the most sense, so far (I have a few more comments still to read :-)Besides, if/when Microsoft starts to run out of their large pile of cash (LPOC), they might get even more aggressive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496493</id>
	<title>Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things?</title>
	<author>IRWolfie-</author>
	<datestamp>1246132800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks for the anti-stallman rant there, but I dont think he's saying Mono is "evil". Its that future lawsuits by microsoft may cause it to be removed and everything that depends on it</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for the anti-stallman rant there , but I dont think he 's saying Mono is " evil " .
Its that future lawsuits by microsoft may cause it to be removed and everything that depends on it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for the anti-stallman rant there, but I dont think he's saying Mono is "evil".
Its that future lawsuits by microsoft may cause it to be removed and everything that depends on it</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499465</id>
	<title>Re:Open Office? Wine? Drivers?</title>
	<author>grege1</author>
	<datestamp>1246111200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is not the C# language that is the issue, it is the underlying mono libraries that may infringing patents on parts of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net libraries. If no one can say yes this is clean and clear then why use it. As for Wine, Wine is not part of GNU/Linux or Gnome itself, it is an add on to allow some programs from a foreign OS to function through GNU/Linux. If Wine disappeared it would be sad but Gnu/Linux would continue on. There has been suggestions by Mr de Icaza that Gnome, or parts of it, should be re-written in C#. The threat is where Gnome itself becomes dependent on patent encumbered libs and one court case can stop all comercial sales.

It is not simple and it is not easy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not the C # language that is the issue , it is the underlying mono libraries that may infringing patents on parts of the .net libraries .
If no one can say yes this is clean and clear then why use it .
As for Wine , Wine is not part of GNU/Linux or Gnome itself , it is an add on to allow some programs from a foreign OS to function through GNU/Linux .
If Wine disappeared it would be sad but Gnu/Linux would continue on .
There has been suggestions by Mr de Icaza that Gnome , or parts of it , should be re-written in C # .
The threat is where Gnome itself becomes dependent on patent encumbered libs and one court case can stop all comercial sales .
It is not simple and it is not easy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not the C# language that is the issue, it is the underlying mono libraries that may infringing patents on parts of the .net libraries.
If no one can say yes this is clean and clear then why use it.
As for Wine, Wine is not part of GNU/Linux or Gnome itself, it is an add on to allow some programs from a foreign OS to function through GNU/Linux.
If Wine disappeared it would be sad but Gnu/Linux would continue on.
There has been suggestions by Mr de Icaza that Gnome, or parts of it, should be re-written in C#.
The threat is where Gnome itself becomes dependent on patent encumbered libs and one court case can stop all comercial sales.
It is not simple and it is not easy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496619</id>
	<title>Re:Confused</title>
	<author>modmans2ndcoming</author>
	<datestamp>1246133460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>exposure to sun light by coming out of the c/c++ cave?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>exposure to sun light by coming out of the c/c + + cave ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>exposure to sun light by coming out of the c/c++ cave?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496835</id>
	<title>Re:Confused</title>
	<author>Directrix1</author>
	<datestamp>1246134840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe the issue is that the ECMA standard doesn't state the terms that patents pertaining to the standard are licensed.  And no one seems to be able to contact Microsoft to find out what the terms are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe the issue is that the ECMA standard does n't state the terms that patents pertaining to the standard are licensed .
And no one seems to be able to contact Microsoft to find out what the terms are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe the issue is that the ECMA standard doesn't state the terms that patents pertaining to the standard are licensed.
And no one seems to be able to contact Microsoft to find out what the terms are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497331</id>
	<title>Re:Yes to Mono!</title>
	<author>PAjamian</author>
	<datestamp>1246094700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The flip side to that argument is that it allows your bosses to justify that you continue to develop in C#.  Without Mono they would have to allow you to develop in  a more free language if they wanted their apps to run on platforms other than windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The flip side to that argument is that it allows your bosses to justify that you continue to develop in C # .
Without Mono they would have to allow you to develop in a more free language if they wanted their apps to run on platforms other than windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The flip side to that argument is that it allows your bosses to justify that you continue to develop in C#.
Without Mono they would have to allow you to develop in  a more free language if they wanted their apps to run on platforms other than windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28503895</id>
	<title>Re:fatwa issued against Mono</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246205040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you for the first funny post on this page.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you for the first funny post on this page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you for the first funny post on this page.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498279</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry RMS: Linux != GNU...</title>
	<author>wiredlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1246101300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Debian is the only distro to work hard at maintaining purity in the freeness of what is distributed. They have an isolated "non-free" section for packages with restrictive licenses and cross dependencies with packages in the normal archive are disallowed. Their dissatisfaction with the Firefox trademarking led to the creation of the Iceweasel fork. Why they would cave on mono escapes me. It may be GPL but the MS patent guillotine is hanging over the neck of every open source developer who uses it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Debian is the only distro to work hard at maintaining purity in the freeness of what is distributed .
They have an isolated " non-free " section for packages with restrictive licenses and cross dependencies with packages in the normal archive are disallowed .
Their dissatisfaction with the Firefox trademarking led to the creation of the Iceweasel fork .
Why they would cave on mono escapes me .
It may be GPL but the MS patent guillotine is hanging over the neck of every open source developer who uses it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Debian is the only distro to work hard at maintaining purity in the freeness of what is distributed.
They have an isolated "non-free" section for packages with restrictive licenses and cross dependencies with packages in the normal archive are disallowed.
Their dissatisfaction with the Firefox trademarking led to the creation of the Iceweasel fork.
Why they would cave on mono escapes me.
It may be GPL but the MS patent guillotine is hanging over the neck of every open source developer who uses it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499409</id>
	<title>Re:"M$"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246110840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>onsider Internet Explorer, and all the pain we have to go through to be compatible with that beast.</p></div><p>Let's not forget the drones that, for reasons completely unknown to me, decide to make their websites work <i>only</i> with IE...  It annoys me to no end.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>onsider Internet Explorer , and all the pain we have to go through to be compatible with that beast.Let 's not forget the drones that , for reasons completely unknown to me , decide to make their websites work only with IE... It annoys me to no end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>onsider Internet Explorer, and all the pain we have to go through to be compatible with that beast.Let's not forget the drones that, for reasons completely unknown to me, decide to make their websites work only with IE...  It annoys me to no end.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499489</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this antithetical to GNU in general?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246111440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "software patent" is really a new concept.  For a long time one could not patent and idea and software is an idea.  This was also true for processes as well. Today we have people attempting to patent the use of math and statics to predict failure in an attempt to keep others from using the 100 year math in that usage.  We have a person that patented the use of a spread sheet page to track where stuff was as it went though a factory towards completion (as it used a computer instead of a chalk board).  During the 80s and 90s almost every patent but insert an "electronic computer" into it.  The current trend is not do this again but include "a box that contains an electronic computer like device".  After sofware programmers have used "linked lists" for 50 years it was given a patent on 11 April 2004.  As far as I can see, all software patents should be killed as nothing truely new has happened in software that is not "redoing" something that has been done already.  One should look at the video presented in 1968 see:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; http://sloan.stanford.edu/MouseSite/1968Demo.html#complete<br>It is long...</p><p>It has video conferencing, collaborating between sites, windowing display, cording keyboard (pressing a combination of keys to trigger specific actions), the mouse being used, hypertext , etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " software patent " is really a new concept .
For a long time one could not patent and idea and software is an idea .
This was also true for processes as well .
Today we have people attempting to patent the use of math and statics to predict failure in an attempt to keep others from using the 100 year math in that usage .
We have a person that patented the use of a spread sheet page to track where stuff was as it went though a factory towards completion ( as it used a computer instead of a chalk board ) .
During the 80s and 90s almost every patent but insert an " electronic computer " into it .
The current trend is not do this again but include " a box that contains an electronic computer like device " .
After sofware programmers have used " linked lists " for 50 years it was given a patent on 11 April 2004 .
As far as I can see , all software patents should be killed as nothing truely new has happened in software that is not " redoing " something that has been done already .
One should look at the video presented in 1968 see :       http : //sloan.stanford.edu/MouseSite/1968Demo.html # completeIt is long...It has video conferencing , collaborating between sites , windowing display , cording keyboard ( pressing a combination of keys to trigger specific actions ) , the mouse being used , hypertext , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "software patent" is really a new concept.
For a long time one could not patent and idea and software is an idea.
This was also true for processes as well.
Today we have people attempting to patent the use of math and statics to predict failure in an attempt to keep others from using the 100 year math in that usage.
We have a person that patented the use of a spread sheet page to track where stuff was as it went though a factory towards completion (as it used a computer instead of a chalk board).
During the 80s and 90s almost every patent but insert an "electronic computer" into it.
The current trend is not do this again but include "a box that contains an electronic computer like device".
After sofware programmers have used "linked lists" for 50 years it was given a patent on 11 April 2004.
As far as I can see, all software patents should be killed as nothing truely new has happened in software that is not "redoing" something that has been done already.
One should look at the video presented in 1968 see:
      http://sloan.stanford.edu/MouseSite/1968Demo.html#completeIt is long...It has video conferencing, collaborating between sites, windowing display, cording keyboard (pressing a combination of keys to trigger specific actions), the mouse being used, hypertext , etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496345</id>
	<title>Yes to Mono!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246131660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm a C# [doze] developer, but I'm with the Linux/GNU crowd when it comes to FOSS ideologies. Installing mono by default on all Linuxes I think is a great idea, because it gives me the opportunity to port my apps painlessly to the widest possible audience! This includes mac.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a C # [ doze ] developer , but I 'm with the Linux/GNU crowd when it comes to FOSS ideologies .
Installing mono by default on all Linuxes I think is a great idea , because it gives me the opportunity to port my apps painlessly to the widest possible audience !
This includes mac .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a C# [doze] developer, but I'm with the Linux/GNU crowd when it comes to FOSS ideologies.
Installing mono by default on all Linuxes I think is a great idea, because it gives me the opportunity to port my apps painlessly to the widest possible audience!
This includes mac.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496923</id>
	<title>Re:You missed the part about patents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246135260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The issue is not Microsoft controlling the implementation of Mono. The issue is Microsoft's patents on various technologies used in the C# specification. If Microsoft ever got desperate enough they might start to sue people who used any Mono based applications, because *MICROSOFT* owns the patents that Mono *MUST* use to properly implement C#. There is no getting around the fact that parts of C# HAVE BEEN PATENTED.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue is not Microsoft controlling the implementation of Mono .
The issue is Microsoft 's patents on various technologies used in the C # specification .
If Microsoft ever got desperate enough they might start to sue people who used any Mono based applications , because * MICROSOFT * owns the patents that Mono * MUST * use to properly implement C # .
There is no getting around the fact that parts of C # HAVE BEEN PATENTED .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue is not Microsoft controlling the implementation of Mono.
The issue is Microsoft's patents on various technologies used in the C# specification.
If Microsoft ever got desperate enough they might start to sue people who used any Mono based applications, because *MICROSOFT* owns the patents that Mono *MUST* use to properly implement C#.
There is no getting around the fact that parts of C# HAVE BEEN PATENTED.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497939</id>
	<title>A corollary to Godwin's Law</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1246098600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Rape doesn't simply mean forced sexual intercourse. As a verb... well...</i> </p><p>But that remains its prime meaning.</p><p>To use the word in any other context pretty much ends the conversation.</p><p><i>I'd say they have abused their dominance in the tech world to the extreme more than once.</i> </p><p>The same could be said of every other company that is strongly positioned in tech - or in any other sector of the economy. </p><p> Corporate hardball - not Base Ball - to use the old spelling - has always been the American national game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rape does n't simply mean forced sexual intercourse .
As a verb... well... But that remains its prime meaning.To use the word in any other context pretty much ends the conversation.I 'd say they have abused their dominance in the tech world to the extreme more than once .
The same could be said of every other company that is strongly positioned in tech - or in any other sector of the economy .
Corporate hardball - not Base Ball - to use the old spelling - has always been the American national game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rape doesn't simply mean forced sexual intercourse.
As a verb... well... But that remains its prime meaning.To use the word in any other context pretty much ends the conversation.I'd say they have abused their dominance in the tech world to the extreme more than once.
The same could be said of every other company that is strongly positioned in tech - or in any other sector of the economy.
Corporate hardball - not Base Ball - to use the old spelling - has always been the American national game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498937</id>
	<title>Re:Yes to Mono!</title>
	<author>rohan972</author>
	<datestamp>1246107060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm a C# [doze] developer, but I'm with the Linux/GNU crowd when it comes to FOSS ideologies.</p></div><p>So you are someone who lives contrary to their ideology then? Perhaps I've misunderstood your post. It appears to me that you are a proprietary software developer, yes?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Installing mono by default on all Linuxes I think is a great idea, because it gives me the opportunity to port my apps painlessly to the widest possible audience! This includes mac.</p></div><p>burisch\_research, don't get me wrong, I have no problem with you earning your living that way. However, Free software is not made to cater to your ways, neither is your opinion on the direction Free software should take sought or valued.
<br> <br>
If I've read too much into your post and got it wrong, my apologies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a C # [ doze ] developer , but I 'm with the Linux/GNU crowd when it comes to FOSS ideologies.So you are someone who lives contrary to their ideology then ?
Perhaps I 've misunderstood your post .
It appears to me that you are a proprietary software developer , yes ? Installing mono by default on all Linuxes I think is a great idea , because it gives me the opportunity to port my apps painlessly to the widest possible audience !
This includes mac.burisch \ _research , do n't get me wrong , I have no problem with you earning your living that way .
However , Free software is not made to cater to your ways , neither is your opinion on the direction Free software should take sought or valued .
If I 've read too much into your post and got it wrong , my apologies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a C# [doze] developer, but I'm with the Linux/GNU crowd when it comes to FOSS ideologies.So you are someone who lives contrary to their ideology then?
Perhaps I've misunderstood your post.
It appears to me that you are a proprietary software developer, yes?Installing mono by default on all Linuxes I think is a great idea, because it gives me the opportunity to port my apps painlessly to the widest possible audience!
This includes mac.burisch\_research, don't get me wrong, I have no problem with you earning your living that way.
However, Free software is not made to cater to your ways, neither is your opinion on the direction Free software should take sought or valued.
If I've read too much into your post and got it wrong, my apologies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497441</id>
	<title>Re:Confused</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1246095480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cleanroom implementations protect you from copyright infringement. Not software patent infringement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cleanroom implementations protect you from copyright infringement .
Not software patent infringement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cleanroom implementations protect you from copyright infringement.
Not software patent infringement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496299</id>
	<title>Re:"M$"</title>
	<author>ionix5891</author>
	<datestamp>1246131360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sla$hdot makes money from adsense and other advertising, in order to make more money they need to bait readers in, i hope this site doesnt sell out altogether like t&#226;chcrunch tho...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sla $ hdot makes money from adsense and other advertising , in order to make more money they need to bait readers in , i hope this site doesnt sell out altogether like t   chcrunch tho.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sla$hdot makes money from adsense and other advertising, in order to make more money they need to bait readers in, i hope this site doesnt sell out altogether like tâchcrunch tho...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498457</id>
	<title>Re:MS is smart enough not to do this</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1246102740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it threatens their base, its gone.  Currently its just a bunch of 'outsiders' that have zero impact on Microsoft's bottom line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it threatens their base , its gone .
Currently its just a bunch of 'outsiders ' that have zero impact on Microsoft 's bottom line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it threatens their base, its gone.
Currently its just a bunch of 'outsiders' that have zero impact on Microsoft's bottom line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498947</id>
	<title>Re:Summary for those who didn't read it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246107180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's easy to be confused when you don't have the patience to read through the whole 4 paragraphs of TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We should systematically arrange to depend on the free C# implementations as little as possible. In other words, we should discourage people from writing programs in C#. Therefore, we should not include C# implementations in the default installation of GNU/Linux distributions, and we should distribute and recommend non-C# applications rather than comparable C# applications whenever possible.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's easy to be confused when you do n't have the patience to read through the whole 4 paragraphs of TFA : We should systematically arrange to depend on the free C # implementations as little as possible .
In other words , we should discourage people from writing programs in C # .
Therefore , we should not include C # implementations in the default installation of GNU/Linux distributions , and we should distribute and recommend non-C # applications rather than comparable C # applications whenever possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's easy to be confused when you don't have the patience to read through the whole 4 paragraphs of TFA:We should systematically arrange to depend on the free C# implementations as little as possible.
In other words, we should discourage people from writing programs in C#.
Therefore, we should not include C# implementations in the default installation of GNU/Linux distributions, and we should distribute and recommend non-C# applications rather than comparable C# applications whenever possible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28585467</id>
	<title>Re:Yes to Mono!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246792740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you believe in the Stallmanistic lunacy of the FSF, you wouldn't be a Windows developer at all.  You are trying to gain Linux Zealot cred by saying "'doze".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you believe in the Stallmanistic lunacy of the FSF , you would n't be a Windows developer at all .
You are trying to gain Linux Zealot cred by saying " 'doze " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you believe in the Stallmanistic lunacy of the FSF, you wouldn't be a Windows developer at all.
You are trying to gain Linux Zealot cred by saying "'doze".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496469</id>
	<title>Re:Yes to Mono!</title>
	<author>IRWolfie-</author>
	<datestamp>1246132620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>but as stallman was saying: there is still the risk if people starting writing new apps in C# that there will be a big dependency on it which could be crippling if removed a time later</htmltext>
<tokenext>but as stallman was saying : there is still the risk if people starting writing new apps in C # that there will be a big dependency on it which could be crippling if removed a time later</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but as stallman was saying: there is still the risk if people starting writing new apps in C# that there will be a big dependency on it which could be crippling if removed a time later</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28506505</id>
	<title>No worries</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246222680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't worry it is open source here, in 5 years they will have redeveloped a bunch of similar applications like Tomboy (already Gnote announced which is just a port of Tomboy using  C++) which eventually means that they will cover all possible patents for the given problem. Now here is the trick, then they should go make a patent for the list of patents</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry it is open source here , in 5 years they will have redeveloped a bunch of similar applications like Tomboy ( already Gnote announced which is just a port of Tomboy using C + + ) which eventually means that they will cover all possible patents for the given problem .
Now here is the trick , then they should go make a patent for the list of patents</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry it is open source here, in 5 years they will have redeveloped a bunch of similar applications like Tomboy (already Gnote announced which is just a port of Tomboy using  C++) which eventually means that they will cover all possible patents for the given problem.
Now here is the trick, then they should go make a patent for the list of patents</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498171</id>
	<title>Re:Yup</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246100340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>But the weird thing is that in the article he's not only against Mono, but against C# itself, which is as much of a standardized language as JavaScript. MS couldn't whip out any patents against C#, and as Stallman points out the FSF has its own C# implementation. So why is he speaking out against C#, a standardized language?<br> <br>

For once RMS has actually been too brief, and has left reasoning totally out of this brief memo.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But the weird thing is that in the article he 's not only against Mono , but against C # itself , which is as much of a standardized language as JavaScript .
MS could n't whip out any patents against C # , and as Stallman points out the FSF has its own C # implementation .
So why is he speaking out against C # , a standardized language ?
For once RMS has actually been too brief , and has left reasoning totally out of this brief memo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the weird thing is that in the article he's not only against Mono, but against C# itself, which is as much of a standardized language as JavaScript.
MS couldn't whip out any patents against C#, and as Stallman points out the FSF has its own C# implementation.
So why is he speaking out against C#, a standardized language?
For once RMS has actually been too brief, and has left reasoning totally out of this brief memo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496305</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28519527</id>
	<title>RMS is a pretentious douchebag</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246269000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Read the title.  That is all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the title .
That is all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the title.
That is all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28502227</id>
	<title>just like CSS and Web 2.0</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246186800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CSS is also a "standard". The problem is that it describes "what should happen in a parallel universe". If you write a "conforming" web browser based on the CSS specs, you just won't be able to do anything.</p><p>IOW, this is the time of broken pseudo standards. A standard is something you're supposed to be able to implement easilly from the specs. Giving a 200MB "specification" that doesn't cover all the corner cases is useless as a standard.</p><p>NET is a typical case of a non-implementable standard.</p><p>And it was about time RM$ said something because GNOME took off as the "GNU desktop system"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CSS is also a " standard " .
The problem is that it describes " what should happen in a parallel universe " .
If you write a " conforming " web browser based on the CSS specs , you just wo n't be able to do anything.IOW , this is the time of broken pseudo standards .
A standard is something you 're supposed to be able to implement easilly from the specs .
Giving a 200MB " specification " that does n't cover all the corner cases is useless as a standard.NET is a typical case of a non-implementable standard.And it was about time RM $ said something because GNOME took off as the " GNU desktop system "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CSS is also a "standard".
The problem is that it describes "what should happen in a parallel universe".
If you write a "conforming" web browser based on the CSS specs, you just won't be able to do anything.IOW, this is the time of broken pseudo standards.
A standard is something you're supposed to be able to implement easilly from the specs.
Giving a 200MB "specification" that doesn't cover all the corner cases is useless as a standard.NET is a typical case of a non-implementable standard.And it was about time RM$ said something because GNOME took off as the "GNU desktop system"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497087</id>
	<title>Re:i wonder what RMS uses</title>
	<author>dandart</author>
	<datestamp>1246093260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He doesn't live anywhere permanently you know. On campus and things.
And on his "box" he must want to use GNU/HURD and sends an email to a program that runs wget instead of a browser.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He does n't live anywhere permanently you know .
On campus and things .
And on his " box " he must want to use GNU/HURD and sends an email to a program that runs wget instead of a browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He doesn't live anywhere permanently you know.
On campus and things.
And on his "box" he must want to use GNU/HURD and sends an email to a program that runs wget instead of a browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496409</id>
	<title>contradiction</title>
	<author>kova70</author>
	<datestamp>1246132080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>what amazes me is that RMS is saying at the same time that it is good to have a C# implementation, but warns against writing apps in it... if not outright imbecile, that's at least a very stupid position</htmltext>
<tokenext>what amazes me is that RMS is saying at the same time that it is good to have a C # implementation , but warns against writing apps in it... if not outright imbecile , that 's at least a very stupid position</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what amazes me is that RMS is saying at the same time that it is good to have a C# implementation, but warns against writing apps in it... if not outright imbecile, that's at least a very stupid position</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497075</id>
	<title>Re:Yes to Mono!</title>
	<author>Erikderzweite</author>
	<datestamp>1246093200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you remember WISE? Windows Interface Source Environment. A program that purportedly allowed developers to write software to Windows APIs and run the resulting programs on Macintosh and UNIX systems. It was issued in 1994. By 1996 Microsoft had captured a large share of the corporate market and has proceeded to the next step: Microsoft has extended the Windows API without copying its changes to the WISE program. This meant that developers could no longer smoothly port applications to UNIX and<br>Macintosh. In public, however, Microsoft continued to lead developers into believing that this software was still fully cross-platform. In 1997, Bill Gates noted in an internal email that those developers who wrote applications for the then-available software without realizing that it would not port all APIs to UNIX and Macintosh were "just fucked."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you remember WISE ?
Windows Interface Source Environment .
A program that purportedly allowed developers to write software to Windows APIs and run the resulting programs on Macintosh and UNIX systems .
It was issued in 1994 .
By 1996 Microsoft had captured a large share of the corporate market and has proceeded to the next step : Microsoft has extended the Windows API without copying its changes to the WISE program .
This meant that developers could no longer smoothly port applications to UNIX andMacintosh .
In public , however , Microsoft continued to lead developers into believing that this software was still fully cross-platform .
In 1997 , Bill Gates noted in an internal email that those developers who wrote applications for the then-available software without realizing that it would not port all APIs to UNIX and Macintosh were " just fucked .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you remember WISE?
Windows Interface Source Environment.
A program that purportedly allowed developers to write software to Windows APIs and run the resulting programs on Macintosh and UNIX systems.
It was issued in 1994.
By 1996 Microsoft had captured a large share of the corporate market and has proceeded to the next step: Microsoft has extended the Windows API without copying its changes to the WISE program.
This meant that developers could no longer smoothly port applications to UNIX andMacintosh.
In public, however, Microsoft continued to lead developers into believing that this software was still fully cross-platform.
In 1997, Bill Gates noted in an internal email that those developers who wrote applications for the then-available software without realizing that it would not port all APIs to UNIX and Macintosh were "just fucked.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499083</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>jeremyp</author>
	<datestamp>1246108500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lotus buried Lotus 123.  In the good old days of Win16 they had the dominant spreadsheet.  It all went wrong when they failed to deliver a Win32 version of Lotus 123 in a timely manner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lotus buried Lotus 123 .
In the good old days of Win16 they had the dominant spreadsheet .
It all went wrong when they failed to deliver a Win32 version of Lotus 123 in a timely manner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lotus buried Lotus 123.
In the good old days of Win16 they had the dominant spreadsheet.
It all went wrong when they failed to deliver a Win32 version of Lotus 123 in a timely manner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497393</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry RMS: Linux != GNU...</title>
	<author>jmorris42</author>
	<datestamp>1246095180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; IS the goal to create a useful system or a pure system?</p><p>Until now Debian has been clearly in the pure camp.  Debian, moe RMS Pure than RMS over the GNU FDL.  Debian, endless wanking over whether firmware blobs have to get yanked for two major releases.  And so on.  Now suddenly they are taking the Novell "Mono is just another managed code environment licensed under the GPL, nothing to fear here" position.  when everyone else DOES see something to fear even if they ship Mono/Tomboy.  Fedora is planning on tossing Mono out of the standard install and RH has never shipped it in RHEL because their lawyers are uneasy.</p><p>In the end, if the system isn't fairly Pure it isn't ultimately going to be useful.  Patents exist, FUD attacks work.</p><p>Basically the only sensible way to treat C# is like Win32.  It is OK to import Windows applications using Mono or Wine but basing core parts of the Free World on such apps is unwise.  If for no other reason than basing our application stack on APIs controlled by people who want to destroy us is about as wise as the Western world basing our economy on oil imported from the Middle East.  An argument can be made that we have little choice regarding oil but we most certainly do regarding Mono as we didn't creep into a dependency over decades we are being asked to walk into this trap with our eyes wide open.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; IS the goal to create a useful system or a pure system ? Until now Debian has been clearly in the pure camp .
Debian , moe RMS Pure than RMS over the GNU FDL .
Debian , endless wanking over whether firmware blobs have to get yanked for two major releases .
And so on .
Now suddenly they are taking the Novell " Mono is just another managed code environment licensed under the GPL , nothing to fear here " position .
when everyone else DOES see something to fear even if they ship Mono/Tomboy .
Fedora is planning on tossing Mono out of the standard install and RH has never shipped it in RHEL because their lawyers are uneasy.In the end , if the system is n't fairly Pure it is n't ultimately going to be useful .
Patents exist , FUD attacks work.Basically the only sensible way to treat C # is like Win32 .
It is OK to import Windows applications using Mono or Wine but basing core parts of the Free World on such apps is unwise .
If for no other reason than basing our application stack on APIs controlled by people who want to destroy us is about as wise as the Western world basing our economy on oil imported from the Middle East .
An argument can be made that we have little choice regarding oil but we most certainly do regarding Mono as we did n't creep into a dependency over decades we are being asked to walk into this trap with our eyes wide open .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; IS the goal to create a useful system or a pure system?Until now Debian has been clearly in the pure camp.
Debian, moe RMS Pure than RMS over the GNU FDL.
Debian, endless wanking over whether firmware blobs have to get yanked for two major releases.
And so on.
Now suddenly they are taking the Novell "Mono is just another managed code environment licensed under the GPL, nothing to fear here" position.
when everyone else DOES see something to fear even if they ship Mono/Tomboy.
Fedora is planning on tossing Mono out of the standard install and RH has never shipped it in RHEL because their lawyers are uneasy.In the end, if the system isn't fairly Pure it isn't ultimately going to be useful.
Patents exist, FUD attacks work.Basically the only sensible way to treat C# is like Win32.
It is OK to import Windows applications using Mono or Wine but basing core parts of the Free World on such apps is unwise.
If for no other reason than basing our application stack on APIs controlled by people who want to destroy us is about as wise as the Western world basing our economy on oil imported from the Middle East.
An argument can be made that we have little choice regarding oil but we most certainly do regarding Mono as we didn't creep into a dependency over decades we are being asked to walk into this trap with our eyes wide open.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496371</id>
	<title>It's not Debian that needs to be discouraged</title>
	<author>eugene2k</author>
	<datestamp>1246131780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's GNOME. AFAIK Debian developers basically want to lessen the amount of resources devoted to repackaging GNOME.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's GNOME .
AFAIK Debian developers basically want to lessen the amount of resources devoted to repackaging GNOME .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's GNOME.
AFAIK Debian developers basically want to lessen the amount of resources devoted to repackaging GNOME.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498385</id>
	<title>Forced Office Upgrade?</title>
	<author>CrashNBrn</author>
	<datestamp>1246102200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thats pure BS. Microsoft hardly forces anyone to upgrade Office. The following work just dandy in Office 2000<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:: <br>
FileFormatConverters.exe<br>
compatibilitypacksp2-kb953331-fullfile-en-us.exe<br>
<br>
Office 2000 can read AND write Office2007 document, along with WordPerfect and the redundant "Works".<br>
As well as security fixes still - Word and Excel for Office2000 this past patch tuesday. Though I believe end-of-life support is ending soon. It still works just fine. So one MIGHT have to upgrade for the next office iteration.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats pure BS .
Microsoft hardly forces anyone to upgrade Office .
The following work just dandy in Office 2000 : : FileFormatConverters.exe compatibilitypacksp2-kb953331-fullfile-en-us.exe Office 2000 can read AND write Office2007 document , along with WordPerfect and the redundant " Works " .
As well as security fixes still - Word and Excel for Office2000 this past patch tuesday .
Though I believe end-of-life support is ending soon .
It still works just fine .
So one MIGHT have to upgrade for the next office iteration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats pure BS.
Microsoft hardly forces anyone to upgrade Office.
The following work just dandy in Office 2000 :: 
FileFormatConverters.exe
compatibilitypacksp2-kb953331-fullfile-en-us.exe

Office 2000 can read AND write Office2007 document, along with WordPerfect and the redundant "Works".
As well as security fixes still - Word and Excel for Office2000 this past patch tuesday.
Though I believe end-of-life support is ending soon.
It still works just fine.
So one MIGHT have to upgrade for the next office iteration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496543</id>
	<title>With friends like these, who needs enemies?</title>
	<author>ketilwaa</author>
	<datestamp>1246133040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interesting, compared to <a href="http://www.fsfe.org/documents/rms-fs-2006-03-09.en.html#q1" title="fsfe.org" rel="nofollow">this</a> [fsfe.org] which has been his comment earlier. Nice to see RMS give the Mono haters more fuel to their flame wars, so that developers can get tangled up in endless discussions about this in stead of actually hacking away. Again, this is one of the reasons GNU/Linux is not gaining more than it does. All MS needs to do in order to keep hackers busy not making great software (and cloning already great C# apps instead), is issue some kind of new vague statement on the nature of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET. Then, we all lose. Like we've been doing since day 1. Nice. Thanks. With friends like these, who needs enemies?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting , compared to this [ fsfe.org ] which has been his comment earlier .
Nice to see RMS give the Mono haters more fuel to their flame wars , so that developers can get tangled up in endless discussions about this in stead of actually hacking away .
Again , this is one of the reasons GNU/Linux is not gaining more than it does .
All MS needs to do in order to keep hackers busy not making great software ( and cloning already great C # apps instead ) , is issue some kind of new vague statement on the nature of .NET .
Then , we all lose .
Like we 've been doing since day 1 .
Nice. Thanks .
With friends like these , who needs enemies ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting, compared to this [fsfe.org] which has been his comment earlier.
Nice to see RMS give the Mono haters more fuel to their flame wars, so that developers can get tangled up in endless discussions about this in stead of actually hacking away.
Again, this is one of the reasons GNU/Linux is not gaining more than it does.
All MS needs to do in order to keep hackers busy not making great software (and cloning already great C# apps instead), is issue some kind of new vague statement on the nature of .NET.
Then, we all lose.
Like we've been doing since day 1.
Nice. Thanks.
With friends like these, who needs enemies?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499265</id>
	<title>Why Free Software Shouldn't Depend on Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246109880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why Free Software Shouldn't Depend on Linux or Any Programming Language<br>Another self-contradictory screed by Shoeless Joe Stallman</p><p>Debian's decision to include Linux in the default installation, for the sake of all applications which run on it which are written in many different languages, leads the community in a risky direction. It is dangerous to depend on Unix clones and programming languages, so we need to discourage their use.</p><p>The problem is not unique to Linux; any free implementation of a Unix clone would raise the same issue. The danger is that SCO is probably planning to force all free Unix API implementations underground some day using software patents. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO\_v.\_IBM.) This is could possibly be a serious danger maybe, and only fools, heathens, curs, Protestants, people with dandruff, girls with cooties, and the profoundly ignorant would ignore such a certainly probable danger until the day it actually maybe happens. We need to take precautions now to protect Ourselves from this future possible danger which might happen maybe.</p><p>This is not to say that implementing Unix and various programming lanuguages is a bad thing. For example, Free(tm) C implementations permit users to run their C programs on Free(tm) platforms, which is good.  (The GNU Project has an implementation of C also, called gcc.  It's OK for us to do it, just not you.  Also note how I freely conflate language and platform in this screed - pretty clever, huh?)  Ideally We(tm) want to provide Free(tm) implementations for all languages that programmers have used, even the ones that are encumbered by patents.  But we don't want you to do it.  Your obedience to Us(tm) is the only true Freedom(tm).</p><p>The problem is not in the C implementations, even though that's exactly what I've just stated, but rather in all the applications written in C. If we lose the use of C, we will lose them too. That doesn't make them unethical, but it means that writing them and using them is taking a gratuitous risk.  And only suckers, the unemployed, and idiots take gratuitous risks.  You don't want to be a sucker, do you?</p><p>We (not (tm), this "We" means "You") should systematically arrange some sort of Final Solution of the C Question, and depend on the free C implementations as little as possible. In other words, We(tm) (back to the (tm)'ed "We", this "We" is not "You") should discourage people from writing programs in C. Therefore, We (=="You") should not include C implementations in the default installation of Debian/GNU/Linux distributions (yes, true Freedom is Me(tm) telling You what to do), and We ("You" again) should distribute and recommend non-C applications rather than comparable applications written in no language and tied to no platform whenever possible.</p><p>Now, if y'all will excuse me, I am woefully behind in my screed quota for the year.  But fear not slavish Disciples, in the next few weeks, prepare to have your mind blown by the following rambling and often nonsensical manifestos, hot off the manual typewriter in my Montana-based tarpaper-shack headquarters-slash-kitchen-table-slash-place-where-I-sleep:</p><p>- Why You Must Switch From Linux To The GNU Hurd Kernel (Hint: I control the naming of one of them!)<br>- Why Unwashed, Shoeless Hippies Get All The Chicks<br>- Why We Have Two Emacs, and Why That's Now Good When It Used To Be Bad<br>- Why I(tm)'m Still Relevant And You Should Continue To Obey Me(tm) And Stop Laughing At Me(tm).<br>- Why You Should Browse The Web In Text Mode (Hint: FOR FREEDOM(tm)!)<br>- A Survey Of Developments In Computer Science Prior To The Invention of The VT-100 And Subsequent End Of All Development In The Field</p><p>Until then loyal Stallmaniacs, you remain faithfully mine,</p><p>Shoeless Joe Stallman</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why Free Software Should n't Depend on Linux or Any Programming LanguageAnother self-contradictory screed by Shoeless Joe StallmanDebian 's decision to include Linux in the default installation , for the sake of all applications which run on it which are written in many different languages , leads the community in a risky direction .
It is dangerous to depend on Unix clones and programming languages , so we need to discourage their use.The problem is not unique to Linux ; any free implementation of a Unix clone would raise the same issue .
The danger is that SCO is probably planning to force all free Unix API implementations underground some day using software patents .
( See http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO \ _v. \ _IBM .
) This is could possibly be a serious danger maybe , and only fools , heathens , curs , Protestants , people with dandruff , girls with cooties , and the profoundly ignorant would ignore such a certainly probable danger until the day it actually maybe happens .
We need to take precautions now to protect Ourselves from this future possible danger which might happen maybe.This is not to say that implementing Unix and various programming lanuguages is a bad thing .
For example , Free ( tm ) C implementations permit users to run their C programs on Free ( tm ) platforms , which is good .
( The GNU Project has an implementation of C also , called gcc .
It 's OK for us to do it , just not you .
Also note how I freely conflate language and platform in this screed - pretty clever , huh ?
) Ideally We ( tm ) want to provide Free ( tm ) implementations for all languages that programmers have used , even the ones that are encumbered by patents .
But we do n't want you to do it .
Your obedience to Us ( tm ) is the only true Freedom ( tm ) .The problem is not in the C implementations , even though that 's exactly what I 've just stated , but rather in all the applications written in C. If we lose the use of C , we will lose them too .
That does n't make them unethical , but it means that writing them and using them is taking a gratuitous risk .
And only suckers , the unemployed , and idiots take gratuitous risks .
You do n't want to be a sucker , do you ? We ( not ( tm ) , this " We " means " You " ) should systematically arrange some sort of Final Solution of the C Question , and depend on the free C implementations as little as possible .
In other words , We ( tm ) ( back to the ( tm ) 'ed " We " , this " We " is not " You " ) should discourage people from writing programs in C. Therefore , We ( = = " You " ) should not include C implementations in the default installation of Debian/GNU/Linux distributions ( yes , true Freedom is Me ( tm ) telling You what to do ) , and We ( " You " again ) should distribute and recommend non-C applications rather than comparable applications written in no language and tied to no platform whenever possible.Now , if y'all will excuse me , I am woefully behind in my screed quota for the year .
But fear not slavish Disciples , in the next few weeks , prepare to have your mind blown by the following rambling and often nonsensical manifestos , hot off the manual typewriter in my Montana-based tarpaper-shack headquarters-slash-kitchen-table-slash-place-where-I-sleep : - Why You Must Switch From Linux To The GNU Hurd Kernel ( Hint : I control the naming of one of them !
) - Why Unwashed , Shoeless Hippies Get All The Chicks- Why We Have Two Emacs , and Why That 's Now Good When It Used To Be Bad- Why I ( tm ) 'm Still Relevant And You Should Continue To Obey Me ( tm ) And Stop Laughing At Me ( tm ) .- Why You Should Browse The Web In Text Mode ( Hint : FOR FREEDOM ( tm ) !
) - A Survey Of Developments In Computer Science Prior To The Invention of The VT-100 And Subsequent End Of All Development In The FieldUntil then loyal Stallmaniacs , you remain faithfully mine,Shoeless Joe Stallman</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why Free Software Shouldn't Depend on Linux or Any Programming LanguageAnother self-contradictory screed by Shoeless Joe StallmanDebian's decision to include Linux in the default installation, for the sake of all applications which run on it which are written in many different languages, leads the community in a risky direction.
It is dangerous to depend on Unix clones and programming languages, so we need to discourage their use.The problem is not unique to Linux; any free implementation of a Unix clone would raise the same issue.
The danger is that SCO is probably planning to force all free Unix API implementations underground some day using software patents.
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO\_v.\_IBM.
) This is could possibly be a serious danger maybe, and only fools, heathens, curs, Protestants, people with dandruff, girls with cooties, and the profoundly ignorant would ignore such a certainly probable danger until the day it actually maybe happens.
We need to take precautions now to protect Ourselves from this future possible danger which might happen maybe.This is not to say that implementing Unix and various programming lanuguages is a bad thing.
For example, Free(tm) C implementations permit users to run their C programs on Free(tm) platforms, which is good.
(The GNU Project has an implementation of C also, called gcc.
It's OK for us to do it, just not you.
Also note how I freely conflate language and platform in this screed - pretty clever, huh?
)  Ideally We(tm) want to provide Free(tm) implementations for all languages that programmers have used, even the ones that are encumbered by patents.
But we don't want you to do it.
Your obedience to Us(tm) is the only true Freedom(tm).The problem is not in the C implementations, even though that's exactly what I've just stated, but rather in all the applications written in C. If we lose the use of C, we will lose them too.
That doesn't make them unethical, but it means that writing them and using them is taking a gratuitous risk.
And only suckers, the unemployed, and idiots take gratuitous risks.
You don't want to be a sucker, do you?We (not (tm), this "We" means "You") should systematically arrange some sort of Final Solution of the C Question, and depend on the free C implementations as little as possible.
In other words, We(tm) (back to the (tm)'ed "We", this "We" is not "You") should discourage people from writing programs in C. Therefore, We (=="You") should not include C implementations in the default installation of Debian/GNU/Linux distributions (yes, true Freedom is Me(tm) telling You what to do), and We ("You" again) should distribute and recommend non-C applications rather than comparable applications written in no language and tied to no platform whenever possible.Now, if y'all will excuse me, I am woefully behind in my screed quota for the year.
But fear not slavish Disciples, in the next few weeks, prepare to have your mind blown by the following rambling and often nonsensical manifestos, hot off the manual typewriter in my Montana-based tarpaper-shack headquarters-slash-kitchen-table-slash-place-where-I-sleep:- Why You Must Switch From Linux To The GNU Hurd Kernel (Hint: I control the naming of one of them!
)- Why Unwashed, Shoeless Hippies Get All The Chicks- Why We Have Two Emacs, and Why That's Now Good When It Used To Be Bad- Why I(tm)'m Still Relevant And You Should Continue To Obey Me(tm) And Stop Laughing At Me(tm).- Why You Should Browse The Web In Text Mode (Hint: FOR FREEDOM(tm)!
)- A Survey Of Developments In Computer Science Prior To The Invention of The VT-100 And Subsequent End Of All Development In The FieldUntil then loyal Stallmaniacs, you remain faithfully mine,Shoeless Joe Stallman</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498091</id>
	<title>Re:the dangers I see</title>
	<author>ray\_mccrae</author>
	<datestamp>1246099800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem people seem to have is that they seem to have a hard time understanding that something can be a published standard and still patented.</p><p>Here is the <a href="http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma\%20PATENT/ECMA-334\%20&amp;\%20335/2001ga-123\%20&amp;\%202002ga-003.pdf" title="ecma-international.org" rel="nofollow"> Patent declaration by Microsoft to ECMA body</a> [ecma-international.org]</p><p>"This letter is to inform you, in the event that ECMA adopts an ECMA Standard for C# Programming Language and the Common Language Infrastructure (CLI), Microsoft Corporation will grant, on a non-discriminatory basis, to any party requesting it, <b>licenses on reasonable term and conditions</b>, for its patent(s) deemed to be necessary for the implementation of the ECMA Standard."</p><p>Note that what is reasonable is at Microsoft's discretion and can have a monetary value which would be the kiss of death for a free project.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem people seem to have is that they seem to have a hard time understanding that something can be a published standard and still patented.Here is the Patent declaration by Microsoft to ECMA body [ ecma-international.org ] " This letter is to inform you , in the event that ECMA adopts an ECMA Standard for C # Programming Language and the Common Language Infrastructure ( CLI ) , Microsoft Corporation will grant , on a non-discriminatory basis , to any party requesting it , licenses on reasonable term and conditions , for its patent ( s ) deemed to be necessary for the implementation of the ECMA Standard .
" Note that what is reasonable is at Microsoft 's discretion and can have a monetary value which would be the kiss of death for a free project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem people seem to have is that they seem to have a hard time understanding that something can be a published standard and still patented.Here is the  Patent declaration by Microsoft to ECMA body [ecma-international.org]"This letter is to inform you, in the event that ECMA adopts an ECMA Standard for C# Programming Language and the Common Language Infrastructure (CLI), Microsoft Corporation will grant, on a non-discriminatory basis, to any party requesting it, licenses on reasonable term and conditions, for its patent(s) deemed to be necessary for the implementation of the ECMA Standard.
"Note that what is reasonable is at Microsoft's discretion and can have a monetary value which would be the kiss of death for a free project.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499423</id>
	<title>RICHARD STALLMAN IS AN IDIOT!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246110900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everything that Richard Stallman is for is damaging to the Linux community ultimately.  He takes some cosmetic issue like the one at hand and turns it all political for some perceived benefit and ends up screwing up Linux in the process.  If Linux is going to thrive the Linux community needs to not be such yes men to what this idiot says.  Many distros out there have been shipped half unusable because of political infighting like this.  Face it guys.  You can't change the world with your angry rants.  Just because you have an idiotic opinion does not mean everyone else should do things you want.  When did Linux become more of a religion than an operating system?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everything that Richard Stallman is for is damaging to the Linux community ultimately .
He takes some cosmetic issue like the one at hand and turns it all political for some perceived benefit and ends up screwing up Linux in the process .
If Linux is going to thrive the Linux community needs to not be such yes men to what this idiot says .
Many distros out there have been shipped half unusable because of political infighting like this .
Face it guys .
You ca n't change the world with your angry rants .
Just because you have an idiotic opinion does not mean everyone else should do things you want .
When did Linux become more of a religion than an operating system ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everything that Richard Stallman is for is damaging to the Linux community ultimately.
He takes some cosmetic issue like the one at hand and turns it all political for some perceived benefit and ends up screwing up Linux in the process.
If Linux is going to thrive the Linux community needs to not be such yes men to what this idiot says.
Many distros out there have been shipped half unusable because of political infighting like this.
Face it guys.
You can't change the world with your angry rants.
Just because you have an idiotic opinion does not mean everyone else should do things you want.
When did Linux become more of a religion than an operating system?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28505553</id>
	<title>RTFA</title>
	<author>DrJimbo</author>
	<datestamp>1246215900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Opps, sorry, for a moment I forget this was Slashdot.
<br> <br>
The fine article quotes Stallman as saying:<blockquote><div><p> <i>
This is not to say that implementing C# is a bad thing. Free C# implementations permit users to run their C# programs on free platforms, which is good. (The GNU Project has an implementation of C# also, called Portable.NET.) Ideally we want to provide free implementations for all languages that programmers have used.
</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>
The entire article (it is only five short paragraphs) makes it clear why what Stallman is saying is not antithetical to GNU in general.
<br> <br>
The <b>+5 Insightful</b> moderation indicates that many moderators are also anxious to take a swipe at Stallman without even bothering to read the fine article.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Opps , sorry , for a moment I forget this was Slashdot .
The fine article quotes Stallman as saying : This is not to say that implementing C # is a bad thing .
Free C # implementations permit users to run their C # programs on free platforms , which is good .
( The GNU Project has an implementation of C # also , called Portable.NET .
) Ideally we want to provide free implementations for all languages that programmers have used .
The entire article ( it is only five short paragraphs ) makes it clear why what Stallman is saying is not antithetical to GNU in general .
The + 5 Insightful moderation indicates that many moderators are also anxious to take a swipe at Stallman without even bothering to read the fine article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opps, sorry, for a moment I forget this was Slashdot.
The fine article quotes Stallman as saying: 
This is not to say that implementing C# is a bad thing.
Free C# implementations permit users to run their C# programs on free platforms, which is good.
(The GNU Project has an implementation of C# also, called Portable.NET.
) Ideally we want to provide free implementations for all languages that programmers have used.
The entire article (it is only five short paragraphs) makes it clear why what Stallman is saying is not antithetical to GNU in general.
The +5 Insightful moderation indicates that many moderators are also anxious to take a swipe at Stallman without even bothering to read the fine article.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499877</id>
	<title>Stallman...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246114440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After very long and careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that Richard Stallman is a nut.</p><p>He seems to miss the point repeatedly, and ends up throwing the baby out with the bathwater.    The idea of FOSS is to make development easier and lest beholden to special interests.  But he [and his cabal] are becoming their own special interest -- just like Microsoft, Novell, etc...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After very long and careful consideration , I have come to the conclusion that Richard Stallman is a nut.He seems to miss the point repeatedly , and ends up throwing the baby out with the bathwater .
The idea of FOSS is to make development easier and lest beholden to special interests .
But he [ and his cabal ] are becoming their own special interest -- just like Microsoft , Novell , etc.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After very long and careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that Richard Stallman is a nut.He seems to miss the point repeatedly, and ends up throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
The idea of FOSS is to make development easier and lest beholden to special interests.
But he [and his cabal] are becoming their own special interest -- just like Microsoft, Novell, etc...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496803</id>
	<title>Re:Confused</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246134600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.Net is a large technology stack that is growing by leaps and bounds through the daily efforts of thousands of Microsoft engineers.  The ECMA standard is a snapshot of a couple portions of that stack; it is already several years out of date.  It is an "unequal standard" in the sense that Microsoft controls it; they control the vast majority of deployments to businesses and consumers, and they have the vast majority of personnel assigned to maintaining and upgrading it.  Extensions to the standard most likely will fail in the marketplace unless they are backed by Microsoft (typically by having been originated by Microsoft).</p><p>Now, it is true that other software companies can develop and sell applications based on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net.  But (as we've seen from the testimony and documents from the DOJ antitrust suit) as soon as any software company enjoys significant success, Microsoft sees them as a competitor, even as a threat - and Microsoft will use almost any means, fair or foul, to derail them and capture their market share.  One weapon they have often used in the past was control over the Windows API  (Win32 and DCOM/Active-X in the old days, those plus<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net today).  These API are so vast that nobody can master them all, even if that were a full-time job (yes, I'm sure even top MS Press authors such as Jeff Richter or Charles Petzold would readily acknowledge that).  How easy is it to slip in some API that are more robust and/or much better performing than the "tried and true" API used by competitor's applications.  This is a game they played early and often all through the '90s (Andrew Schulman wrote a couple books about this, now out of print).</p><p>BTW ECMA is Microsoft's favorite standards organization.  Back in the '90s, when Java was a rising threat, Microsoft went to ECMA and had Active-X and DCOM certified as ECMA "standards".  What a joke!  Many of the key interfaces used by Active-X for Object Linking and Embedding made explicit reference to Win32 constructs such as Windows handles and handles to a Windows device context.  There was one European company that tried to implement the "standard" on Unix, but they eventually gave up.</p><p>And as C# and other framework languages, CLR, and especially the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net framework libraries grow and evolve, leaving the ECMA standard in the dust, who can be sure that Windows-specific references will not creep in (if they haven't already), or that Microsoft will claim and enforce patent rights to some of it.  Nobody can, that is the point Stallman (and others before him) is trying to make.</p><p>I'm not saying I agree with his conclusion about not pre-installing Mono, but I would say that based on Microsoft's past history, he has a very valid point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.Net is a large technology stack that is growing by leaps and bounds through the daily efforts of thousands of Microsoft engineers .
The ECMA standard is a snapshot of a couple portions of that stack ; it is already several years out of date .
It is an " unequal standard " in the sense that Microsoft controls it ; they control the vast majority of deployments to businesses and consumers , and they have the vast majority of personnel assigned to maintaining and upgrading it .
Extensions to the standard most likely will fail in the marketplace unless they are backed by Microsoft ( typically by having been originated by Microsoft ) .Now , it is true that other software companies can develop and sell applications based on .Net .
But ( as we 've seen from the testimony and documents from the DOJ antitrust suit ) as soon as any software company enjoys significant success , Microsoft sees them as a competitor , even as a threat - and Microsoft will use almost any means , fair or foul , to derail them and capture their market share .
One weapon they have often used in the past was control over the Windows API ( Win32 and DCOM/Active-X in the old days , those plus .Net today ) .
These API are so vast that nobody can master them all , even if that were a full-time job ( yes , I 'm sure even top MS Press authors such as Jeff Richter or Charles Petzold would readily acknowledge that ) .
How easy is it to slip in some API that are more robust and/or much better performing than the " tried and true " API used by competitor 's applications .
This is a game they played early and often all through the '90s ( Andrew Schulman wrote a couple books about this , now out of print ) .BTW ECMA is Microsoft 's favorite standards organization .
Back in the '90s , when Java was a rising threat , Microsoft went to ECMA and had Active-X and DCOM certified as ECMA " standards " .
What a joke !
Many of the key interfaces used by Active-X for Object Linking and Embedding made explicit reference to Win32 constructs such as Windows handles and handles to a Windows device context .
There was one European company that tried to implement the " standard " on Unix , but they eventually gave up.And as C # and other framework languages , CLR , and especially the .Net framework libraries grow and evolve , leaving the ECMA standard in the dust , who can be sure that Windows-specific references will not creep in ( if they have n't already ) , or that Microsoft will claim and enforce patent rights to some of it .
Nobody can , that is the point Stallman ( and others before him ) is trying to make.I 'm not saying I agree with his conclusion about not pre-installing Mono , but I would say that based on Microsoft 's past history , he has a very valid point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.Net is a large technology stack that is growing by leaps and bounds through the daily efforts of thousands of Microsoft engineers.
The ECMA standard is a snapshot of a couple portions of that stack; it is already several years out of date.
It is an "unequal standard" in the sense that Microsoft controls it; they control the vast majority of deployments to businesses and consumers, and they have the vast majority of personnel assigned to maintaining and upgrading it.
Extensions to the standard most likely will fail in the marketplace unless they are backed by Microsoft (typically by having been originated by Microsoft).Now, it is true that other software companies can develop and sell applications based on .Net.
But (as we've seen from the testimony and documents from the DOJ antitrust suit) as soon as any software company enjoys significant success, Microsoft sees them as a competitor, even as a threat - and Microsoft will use almost any means, fair or foul, to derail them and capture their market share.
One weapon they have often used in the past was control over the Windows API  (Win32 and DCOM/Active-X in the old days, those plus .Net today).
These API are so vast that nobody can master them all, even if that were a full-time job (yes, I'm sure even top MS Press authors such as Jeff Richter or Charles Petzold would readily acknowledge that).
How easy is it to slip in some API that are more robust and/or much better performing than the "tried and true" API used by competitor's applications.
This is a game they played early and often all through the '90s (Andrew Schulman wrote a couple books about this, now out of print).BTW ECMA is Microsoft's favorite standards organization.
Back in the '90s, when Java was a rising threat, Microsoft went to ECMA and had Active-X and DCOM certified as ECMA "standards".
What a joke!
Many of the key interfaces used by Active-X for Object Linking and Embedding made explicit reference to Win32 constructs such as Windows handles and handles to a Windows device context.
There was one European company that tried to implement the "standard" on Unix, but they eventually gave up.And as C# and other framework languages, CLR, and especially the .Net framework libraries grow and evolve, leaving the ECMA standard in the dust, who can be sure that Windows-specific references will not creep in (if they haven't already), or that Microsoft will claim and enforce patent rights to some of it.
Nobody can, that is the point Stallman (and others before him) is trying to make.I'm not saying I agree with his conclusion about not pre-installing Mono, but I would say that based on Microsoft's past history, he has a very valid point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28501843</id>
	<title>Re:"M$"</title>
	<author>daffmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1246222500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So out of curiosity, how do you spell McDonalds, Campbells and Ford when discussing their merits or shortcomings?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So out of curiosity , how do you spell McDonalds , Campbells and Ford when discussing their merits or shortcomings ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So out of curiosity, how do you spell McDonalds, Campbells and Ford when discussing their merits or shortcomings?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496783</id>
	<title>Re:Summary for those who didn't read it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246134480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You karma-whoring fucktard are deliberately changing what he says and insulting RMS on him. You might disagree with him but you're just an asshole for not reading and saying you did, or altering his message if you did.<br> <br>

He explicitly said not to use Portable.NET (the GNU<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET port) for the very same reasons as Mono, which are MS patents and uncertainty due to past actions MS took (also, it has been made clear Novell is the only vendor that MS promised not to attack for Mono).</htmltext>
<tokenext>You karma-whoring fucktard are deliberately changing what he says and insulting RMS on him .
You might disagree with him but you 're just an asshole for not reading and saying you did , or altering his message if you did .
He explicitly said not to use Portable.NET ( the GNU .NET port ) for the very same reasons as Mono , which are MS patents and uncertainty due to past actions MS took ( also , it has been made clear Novell is the only vendor that MS promised not to attack for Mono ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You karma-whoring fucktard are deliberately changing what he says and insulting RMS on him.
You might disagree with him but you're just an asshole for not reading and saying you did, or altering his message if you did.
He explicitly said not to use Portable.NET (the GNU .NET port) for the very same reasons as Mono, which are MS patents and uncertainty due to past actions MS took (also, it has been made clear Novell is the only vendor that MS promised not to attack for Mono).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496381</id>
	<title>C# / .NET is a standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246131900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is not going to be revoked, it cannot be revoked.</p><p>Although initially this seems to give support to the MS platform, IMHO this is a move that will start to break the idea that to use C# one must have windows and say that you can write the same applications on linux.</p><p>Once people can write an application and deploy it anywhere, users will have real choice, even if C# isn't the best basis to stay on for life. Worry about getting users to the platform and then worry about putting the code in C/C++.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not going to be revoked , it can not be revoked.Although initially this seems to give support to the MS platform , IMHO this is a move that will start to break the idea that to use C # one must have windows and say that you can write the same applications on linux.Once people can write an application and deploy it anywhere , users will have real choice , even if C # is n't the best basis to stay on for life .
Worry about getting users to the platform and then worry about putting the code in C/C + + .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not going to be revoked, it cannot be revoked.Although initially this seems to give support to the MS platform, IMHO this is a move that will start to break the idea that to use C# one must have windows and say that you can write the same applications on linux.Once people can write an application and deploy it anywhere, users will have real choice, even if C# isn't the best basis to stay on for life.
Worry about getting users to the platform and then worry about putting the code in C/C++.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28500755</id>
	<title>TiddlyWiki</title>
	<author>NoMoreBS</author>
	<datestamp>1246121700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Haven't personally used Gnote or Tomboy, but it sounds like <a href="http://www.tiddlywiki.com/" title="tiddlywiki.com" rel="nofollow">TiddlyWiki</a> [tiddlywiki.com] gives similar functionality, with the only requirement being a suitable browswer, e.g. Firefox.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have n't personally used Gnote or Tomboy , but it sounds like TiddlyWiki [ tiddlywiki.com ] gives similar functionality , with the only requirement being a suitable browswer , e.g .
Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haven't personally used Gnote or Tomboy, but it sounds like TiddlyWiki [tiddlywiki.com] gives similar functionality, with the only requirement being a suitable browswer, e.g.
Firefox.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497729</id>
	<title>Yes, people do.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1246097100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Otherwise you would not be incensed about he talking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Otherwise you would not be incensed about he talking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Otherwise you would not be incensed about he talking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497715</id>
	<title>Re:Summary for those who didn't read it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246097040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RTFA.</p><p>Stallman does not mind C#. He minds the many patents that surround it. He thinks an open source C# is a great idea, it just have to really be free.  And Mono is not free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RTFA.Stallman does not mind C # .
He minds the many patents that surround it .
He thinks an open source C # is a great idea , it just have to really be free .
And Mono is not free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RTFA.Stallman does not mind C#.
He minds the many patents that surround it.
He thinks an open source C# is a great idea, it just have to really be free.
And Mono is not free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28502561</id>
	<title>Re:"M$"</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1246191840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Backstabbing" IBM over OS/2 is a slightly excesive claim. IBM drove that project into the ground, insisting on too much control and changing requirements so much that it was falling far behind schedule. Thus, Microsoft started a new project called OS/2 NT, which would have been an intermediate OS (among other things, it included compatibility with OS/2 applications in the first few releases). IBM never stopped driving OS/2 into a hole, and then MS implemented their new Win32 API (first seen in NT; at this time, OS/2 was still 16-bit only due to IBM's insitence that it run on 286) in a consumer OS (Win95). Win32 took off, MS took what they had and ran with it, releasing NT 4 (not firmly under the Windows brand), and telling IBM where they could stick their absurd requirements.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Backstabbing " IBM over OS/2 is a slightly excesive claim .
IBM drove that project into the ground , insisting on too much control and changing requirements so much that it was falling far behind schedule .
Thus , Microsoft started a new project called OS/2 NT , which would have been an intermediate OS ( among other things , it included compatibility with OS/2 applications in the first few releases ) .
IBM never stopped driving OS/2 into a hole , and then MS implemented their new Win32 API ( first seen in NT ; at this time , OS/2 was still 16-bit only due to IBM 's insitence that it run on 286 ) in a consumer OS ( Win95 ) .
Win32 took off , MS took what they had and ran with it , releasing NT 4 ( not firmly under the Windows brand ) , and telling IBM where they could stick their absurd requirements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Backstabbing" IBM over OS/2 is a slightly excesive claim.
IBM drove that project into the ground, insisting on too much control and changing requirements so much that it was falling far behind schedule.
Thus, Microsoft started a new project called OS/2 NT, which would have been an intermediate OS (among other things, it included compatibility with OS/2 applications in the first few releases).
IBM never stopped driving OS/2 into a hole, and then MS implemented their new Win32 API (first seen in NT; at this time, OS/2 was still 16-bit only due to IBM's insitence that it run on 286) in a consumer OS (Win95).
Win32 took off, MS took what they had and ran with it, releasing NT 4 (not firmly under the Windows brand), and telling IBM where they could stick their absurd requirements.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497501</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>HermMunster</author>
	<datestamp>1246095840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They must be using the date rape drug on you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They must be using the date rape drug on you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They must be using the date rape drug on you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496893</id>
	<title>Re:"M$"</title>
	<author>ketilwaa</author>
	<datestamp>1246135140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree. Move this crap out, or tag it "typoinsummary"</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
Move this crap out , or tag it " typoinsummary "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
Move this crap out, or tag it "typoinsummary"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498505</id>
	<title>Re:Pot calling the kettle black</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1246103040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>AT&amp;T is no longer in a position to abuse their monopoly position, so it's ok.  When they were in that position, they did try: they had a long painful lawsuit going with BSD.  Do we really want to risk a repeat of that?  Microsoft has shown great ingenuity in finding ways to abuse their power: if they can use their position to screw you and gain an advantage, they will.  That is why you should not give them any advantage whatsoever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T is no longer in a position to abuse their monopoly position , so it 's ok. When they were in that position , they did try : they had a long painful lawsuit going with BSD .
Do we really want to risk a repeat of that ?
Microsoft has shown great ingenuity in finding ways to abuse their power : if they can use their position to screw you and gain an advantage , they will .
That is why you should not give them any advantage whatsoever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T is no longer in a position to abuse their monopoly position, so it's ok.  When they were in that position, they did try: they had a long painful lawsuit going with BSD.
Do we really want to risk a repeat of that?
Microsoft has shown great ingenuity in finding ways to abuse their power: if they can use their position to screw you and gain an advantage, they will.
That is why you should not give them any advantage whatsoever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499375</id>
	<title>Re:Confused</title>
	<author>telemachuszero</author>
	<datestamp>1246110600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Being owned in court by Microsoft due to patent infringement.</p><p>Or more likely, losing customers because mid development cycle Microsoft starts threatening to sue companies using Mono, as it infringes their patents.</p><p>They've rattled this sabre before.</p></div><p>They'll have to disclose the patents that they believe cover the implementation. Then the patents can be worked around, and the issue is solved.

They'll also have patents for many things, from the kernel up to the desktop. If they're going to sue users of Mono, why wouldn't they sue users of other software that also 'infringe' their patents? Mono at least has the excuse that it's implementing an international standard.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Being owned in court by Microsoft due to patent infringement.Or more likely , losing customers because mid development cycle Microsoft starts threatening to sue companies using Mono , as it infringes their patents.They 've rattled this sabre before.They 'll have to disclose the patents that they believe cover the implementation .
Then the patents can be worked around , and the issue is solved .
They 'll also have patents for many things , from the kernel up to the desktop .
If they 're going to sue users of Mono , why would n't they sue users of other software that also 'infringe ' their patents ?
Mono at least has the excuse that it 's implementing an international standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being owned in court by Microsoft due to patent infringement.Or more likely, losing customers because mid development cycle Microsoft starts threatening to sue companies using Mono, as it infringes their patents.They've rattled this sabre before.They'll have to disclose the patents that they believe cover the implementation.
Then the patents can be worked around, and the issue is solved.
They'll also have patents for many things, from the kernel up to the desktop.
If they're going to sue users of Mono, why wouldn't they sue users of other software that also 'infringe' their patents?
Mono at least has the excuse that it's implementing an international standard.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496549</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496599</id>
	<title>Re:Yup</title>
	<author>Livius</author>
	<datestamp>1246133400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why else did Microsoft put so much effort into plagiarizing Java?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why else did Microsoft put so much effort into plagiarizing Java ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why else did Microsoft put so much effort into plagiarizing Java?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496305</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496605</id>
	<title>People don't seem to be "getting" his point...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246133400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Love him or hate him, but at least listen to what he is actually saying.</p><ol> <li>He isn't saying that he doesn't "like" C#</li><li>He isn't saying that he is "against" C#</li><li>He isn't saying that Portable.NET is "better" than Mono</li><li>He isn't saying that "just because" it's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, it must be teh 3vil</li></ol><p>All he is saying is that Microsoft has already <a href="http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune\_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/" title="cnn.com">publicly claimed</a> [cnn.com] that Linux violates a couple hundred MS patents.  Recently, Microsoft invoked the Linux angle in a <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860\_3-10172442-56.html" title="cnet.com">patent suit</a> [cnet.com] it filed against Tom Tom.</p><p>Therefore, he says, it should be obvious to all that MS intends to enforce its patents.  So, the more one uses software based on MS technologies, the more likely it is that you may be impacted by a suit in the future.  He calls this a "gratuitous" risk.</p><p>Or, in his words:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem is not in the C# implementations, but rather in Tomboy and other applications written in C#. If we lose the use of C#, we will lose them too. That doesn't make them unethical, but it means that writing them and using them is taking a gratuitous risk.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Love him or hate him , but at least listen to what he is actually saying .
He is n't saying that he does n't " like " C # He is n't saying that he is " against " C # He is n't saying that Portable.NET is " better " than MonoHe is n't saying that " just because " it 's .NET , it must be teh 3vilAll he is saying is that Microsoft has already publicly claimed [ cnn.com ] that Linux violates a couple hundred MS patents .
Recently , Microsoft invoked the Linux angle in a patent suit [ cnet.com ] it filed against Tom Tom.Therefore , he says , it should be obvious to all that MS intends to enforce its patents .
So , the more one uses software based on MS technologies , the more likely it is that you may be impacted by a suit in the future .
He calls this a " gratuitous " risk.Or , in his words : The problem is not in the C # implementations , but rather in Tomboy and other applications written in C # .
If we lose the use of C # , we will lose them too .
That does n't make them unethical , but it means that writing them and using them is taking a gratuitous risk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Love him or hate him, but at least listen to what he is actually saying.
He isn't saying that he doesn't "like" C#He isn't saying that he is "against" C#He isn't saying that Portable.NET is "better" than MonoHe isn't saying that "just because" it's .NET, it must be teh 3vilAll he is saying is that Microsoft has already publicly claimed [cnn.com] that Linux violates a couple hundred MS patents.
Recently, Microsoft invoked the Linux angle in a patent suit [cnet.com] it filed against Tom Tom.Therefore, he says, it should be obvious to all that MS intends to enforce its patents.
So, the more one uses software based on MS technologies, the more likely it is that you may be impacted by a suit in the future.
He calls this a "gratuitous" risk.Or, in his words:The problem is not in the C# implementations, but rather in Tomboy and other applications written in C#.
If we lose the use of C#, we will lose them too.
That doesn't make them unethical, but it means that writing them and using them is taking a gratuitous risk.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28501047</id>
	<title>Re:"M$"</title>
	<author>man\_of\_mr\_e</author>
	<datestamp>1246124640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate to be all memeish and all.. but "citation needed".  I've been around a long time, and i've never heard of either of those events, and google searches don't seem to show anything either.</p><p>This really makes little sense, since Excel was written for the Mac, and later ported to OS/2 then Windows.  Word has been on the mac since nearly the beginning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to be all memeish and all.. but " citation needed " .
I 've been around a long time , and i 've never heard of either of those events , and google searches do n't seem to show anything either.This really makes little sense , since Excel was written for the Mac , and later ported to OS/2 then Windows .
Word has been on the mac since nearly the beginning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to be all memeish and all.. but "citation needed".
I've been around a long time, and i've never heard of either of those events, and google searches don't seem to show anything either.This really makes little sense, since Excel was written for the Mac, and later ported to OS/2 then Windows.
Word has been on the mac since nearly the beginning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496423</id>
	<title>the dangers I see</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246132260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know if this is overreaction.  But I can certainly agree with him under some circumstances.</p><p>1) Is there a licensing concern using the C# language, or any of the compiler technology?  Specifically, are there any software patents that could be leveraged against the open source community for using the C# implementation that could result in a massive court action?  I do not know the details of any agreements (if they exist) but knowing Microsoft's stance on OSS, there is certainly potential for future abuse.  Something along the lines of "Use of C# on any non-Microsoft platform is henceforth prohibited."<br>2) Is C# considered an open standard?  Secondly, is the specification controlled by Microsoft directly?  Or, is it influenced by the communities?  Java is a similar monster, but it's been my observation that Sun (Oracle) is a willing participant in the Linux/Unix space so it hasn't been such a problem.  An Example here would be something like, "C# compilers and applications now depend on a library that is currently available on Windows platform, any reverse engineering or decompilation or efforts to replicate this library will result in criminal penalties."</p><p>I'm certainly hesitant to use C# in anything simply because I don't trust Microsoft.  I admit it openly.  It doesn't mean I won't use what they make, and I think a healthy distrust isn't always a bad thing.  If I end up using anything based on C#, I'll keep it in the Windows space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if this is overreaction .
But I can certainly agree with him under some circumstances.1 ) Is there a licensing concern using the C # language , or any of the compiler technology ?
Specifically , are there any software patents that could be leveraged against the open source community for using the C # implementation that could result in a massive court action ?
I do not know the details of any agreements ( if they exist ) but knowing Microsoft 's stance on OSS , there is certainly potential for future abuse .
Something along the lines of " Use of C # on any non-Microsoft platform is henceforth prohibited .
" 2 ) Is C # considered an open standard ?
Secondly , is the specification controlled by Microsoft directly ?
Or , is it influenced by the communities ?
Java is a similar monster , but it 's been my observation that Sun ( Oracle ) is a willing participant in the Linux/Unix space so it has n't been such a problem .
An Example here would be something like , " C # compilers and applications now depend on a library that is currently available on Windows platform , any reverse engineering or decompilation or efforts to replicate this library will result in criminal penalties .
" I 'm certainly hesitant to use C # in anything simply because I do n't trust Microsoft .
I admit it openly .
It does n't mean I wo n't use what they make , and I think a healthy distrust is n't always a bad thing .
If I end up using anything based on C # , I 'll keep it in the Windows space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if this is overreaction.
But I can certainly agree with him under some circumstances.1) Is there a licensing concern using the C# language, or any of the compiler technology?
Specifically, are there any software patents that could be leveraged against the open source community for using the C# implementation that could result in a massive court action?
I do not know the details of any agreements (if they exist) but knowing Microsoft's stance on OSS, there is certainly potential for future abuse.
Something along the lines of "Use of C# on any non-Microsoft platform is henceforth prohibited.
"2) Is C# considered an open standard?
Secondly, is the specification controlled by Microsoft directly?
Or, is it influenced by the communities?
Java is a similar monster, but it's been my observation that Sun (Oracle) is a willing participant in the Linux/Unix space so it hasn't been such a problem.
An Example here would be something like, "C# compilers and applications now depend on a library that is currently available on Windows platform, any reverse engineering or decompilation or efforts to replicate this library will result in criminal penalties.
"I'm certainly hesitant to use C# in anything simply because I don't trust Microsoft.
I admit it openly.
It doesn't mean I won't use what they make, and I think a healthy distrust isn't always a bad thing.
If I end up using anything based on C#, I'll keep it in the Windows space.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496845</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>twistedcubic</author>
	<datestamp>1246134900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br> <i>Funny, we've been a customer of Microsoft's for 20 years and have yet to experience this "raping" you speak of.</i> <br>
<br>
I don't think you were supposed to take it literally.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , we 've been a customer of Microsoft 's for 20 years and have yet to experience this " raping " you speak of .
I do n't think you were supposed to take it literally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Funny, we've been a customer of Microsoft's for 20 years and have yet to experience this "raping" you speak of.
I don't think you were supposed to take it literally.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496615</id>
	<title>Re:C# / .NET is a standard</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1246133460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The issue at hand is does microsoft have patents that could one day be used to prevent other people from implementing that standard, for whatever microsofty reason they wish.  (Think MPEG, standarized but patent restricted)  Some people seem to think this may be the case and are therefore concerned.</p><p>(I don't really care about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET/Mono enough to have looked into this myself, or even really give a damn)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue at hand is does microsoft have patents that could one day be used to prevent other people from implementing that standard , for whatever microsofty reason they wish .
( Think MPEG , standarized but patent restricted ) Some people seem to think this may be the case and are therefore concerned .
( I do n't really care about .NET/Mono enough to have looked into this myself , or even really give a damn )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue at hand is does microsoft have patents that could one day be used to prevent other people from implementing that standard, for whatever microsofty reason they wish.
(Think MPEG, standarized but patent restricted)  Some people seem to think this may be the case and are therefore concerned.
(I don't really care about .NET/Mono enough to have looked into this myself, or even really give a damn)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497147</id>
	<title>Re:Summary for those who didn't read it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246093680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please read the article again.</p><p>rms says that is better to have a C# implementation than not to have it, but that programs written using C# should be avoided when possible. He is ok with mono and other free C# implementations, but wants their use to be limited to exceptional and not widely used programs, for the reasons the mentions in the article.</p><p>to agree or not, is one thing, but i don't find the article confusing at all, and I am not even a native speaker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please read the article again.rms says that is better to have a C # implementation than not to have it , but that programs written using C # should be avoided when possible .
He is ok with mono and other free C # implementations , but wants their use to be limited to exceptional and not widely used programs , for the reasons the mentions in the article.to agree or not , is one thing , but i do n't find the article confusing at all , and I am not even a native speaker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please read the article again.rms says that is better to have a C# implementation than not to have it, but that programs written using C# should be avoided when possible.
He is ok with mono and other free C# implementations, but wants their use to be limited to exceptional and not widely used programs, for the reasons the mentions in the article.to agree or not, is one thing, but i don't find the article confusing at all, and I am not even a native speaker.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496433</id>
	<title>Richard "Dick" Stallman also says no to...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246132320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Brushing his teeth<br>Bathing<br>Putting on clean clothes</htmltext>
<tokenext>Brushing his teethBathingPutting on clean clothes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Brushing his teethBathingPutting on clean clothes</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28513595</id>
	<title>Re:Summary for those who didn't read it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246288380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft is evil and is "probably" planning to kill every independent implementation of C#. We have no proof of this, but you have to trust us.</p></div><p>What are you talking about?  We have plenty of proof they will do this.  It is collectively known as the period from 1985 until now.</p><p>Every opportunity MS has had to do this in the past, they have done it.</p><p>In fact, one needs to bring proof to the table that they WILL NOT do it, before they are taken seriously.</p><p>Remember, we have literally zero amount of proof that gravity is correct and things wont fly off the face of the earth tomorrow morning either.  But with the fact it hasn't happened, without fail, one only needs proof that it didn't happen, not the other way around.  MS is the same here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is evil and is " probably " planning to kill every independent implementation of C # .
We have no proof of this , but you have to trust us.What are you talking about ?
We have plenty of proof they will do this .
It is collectively known as the period from 1985 until now.Every opportunity MS has had to do this in the past , they have done it.In fact , one needs to bring proof to the table that they WILL NOT do it , before they are taken seriously.Remember , we have literally zero amount of proof that gravity is correct and things wont fly off the face of the earth tomorrow morning either .
But with the fact it has n't happened , without fail , one only needs proof that it did n't happen , not the other way around .
MS is the same here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is evil and is "probably" planning to kill every independent implementation of C#.
We have no proof of this, but you have to trust us.What are you talking about?
We have plenty of proof they will do this.
It is collectively known as the period from 1985 until now.Every opportunity MS has had to do this in the past, they have done it.In fact, one needs to bring proof to the table that they WILL NOT do it, before they are taken seriously.Remember, we have literally zero amount of proof that gravity is correct and things wont fly off the face of the earth tomorrow morning either.
But with the fact it hasn't happened, without fail, one only needs proof that it didn't happen, not the other way around.
MS is the same here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28502887</id>
	<title>Software patents have changed...</title>
	<author>js\_sebastian</author>
	<datestamp>1246195920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Mono is a free (GPL) reimplementation of commercial software.  Isn't that how GNU got started in the first place?  Didn't Stallman and friends reimplement the commercial Unix libraries as free (GPL) software?  Wasn't he potentially violating patents?  Why was it okay then when it's Unix, but not okay now when the technology came from Microsoft?  Do the commercial Unix vendors holding those patents behave any differently than Microsoft (ahem SCO)?  (...)</p></div><p>SCO was suing on copyright grounds AFAIK, not on patent grounds. I would say a fundemental difference may well be the software patent landscape that we are currently living under, where it is to be expected that all sorts of trivial and non trivial "innovations" in the C sharp language are covered by software patents, that can be used to shut down anyone re-implementing the language. If microsoft comes up with a patent that some aspect of the linux kernel infringes on, the kernel can be patched to work around it. If they have a patent that a C sharp implementation cannot work around while still remaining compliant to the language standard, what do you do?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mono is a free ( GPL ) reimplementation of commercial software .
Is n't that how GNU got started in the first place ?
Did n't Stallman and friends reimplement the commercial Unix libraries as free ( GPL ) software ?
Was n't he potentially violating patents ?
Why was it okay then when it 's Unix , but not okay now when the technology came from Microsoft ?
Do the commercial Unix vendors holding those patents behave any differently than Microsoft ( ahem SCO ) ?
( ... ) SCO was suing on copyright grounds AFAIK , not on patent grounds .
I would say a fundemental difference may well be the software patent landscape that we are currently living under , where it is to be expected that all sorts of trivial and non trivial " innovations " in the C sharp language are covered by software patents , that can be used to shut down anyone re-implementing the language .
If microsoft comes up with a patent that some aspect of the linux kernel infringes on , the kernel can be patched to work around it .
If they have a patent that a C sharp implementation can not work around while still remaining compliant to the language standard , what do you do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mono is a free (GPL) reimplementation of commercial software.
Isn't that how GNU got started in the first place?
Didn't Stallman and friends reimplement the commercial Unix libraries as free (GPL) software?
Wasn't he potentially violating patents?
Why was it okay then when it's Unix, but not okay now when the technology came from Microsoft?
Do the commercial Unix vendors holding those patents behave any differently than Microsoft (ahem SCO)?
(...)SCO was suing on copyright grounds AFAIK, not on patent grounds.
I would say a fundemental difference may well be the software patent landscape that we are currently living under, where it is to be expected that all sorts of trivial and non trivial "innovations" in the C sharp language are covered by software patents, that can be used to shut down anyone re-implementing the language.
If microsoft comes up with a patent that some aspect of the linux kernel infringes on, the kernel can be patched to work around it.
If they have a patent that a C sharp implementation cannot work around while still remaining compliant to the language standard, what do you do?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496947</id>
	<title>Re:MS is smart enough not to do this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246135380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>there are many, many Microsoft specific extensions to the core</p></div><p>I'm just curious, which extensions specifically?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there are many , many Microsoft specific extensions to the coreI 'm just curious , which extensions specifically ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there are many, many Microsoft specific extensions to the coreI'm just curious, which extensions specifically?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496855</id>
	<title>Open Office? Wine? Drivers?</title>
	<author>Trerro</author>
	<datestamp>1246134960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is Stallman also saying Open Office should be discontinued because it can read a Word document? The<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc standard is closed, heavily patented, rigidly controlled, and arbitrarily changed... yet I think we all agree an office suite that wants to be relevant better be able to save files in that format. So sure, use<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.odf as your default... but if you can't convert to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc, you pretty much can't use it in the business world.</p><p>What about Wine? That implements the entire freaking Win32 API. If Mono, which implements a single language and a single programming technology for using multiple languages (.net) scares him, Wine must have him jumping at shadows.</p><p>Hell, even drivers could fall into this category. If you allow an MS mouse to function in Linux, are you afraid of patent suits there too? I certainly hope not, as mice are something you very much expect to work with zero effort.</p><p>C# may have been developed by a big bloated corporation that many consider evil (or at least unethical), but so was C! (AT&amp;T - anyone boycotting C/C++ over warrantless wiretapping? Didn't think so.) Does anyone coding in C or C++ (or making a compiler or IDE for it) seriously fear a patent lawsuit from AT&amp;T?</p><p>.net was clearly built as a Windows technology, but that's simply because MS made it. MS pretty much CAN'T claim patents on it, because<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net itself implements so many languages that MS had nothing to do with developing, that I think it's safe to say any<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net-based patent suit would die in seconds.</p><p>I'm no fan of MS, but I really don't see a problem with Mono unless you have Stallmanian paranoia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is Stallman also saying Open Office should be discontinued because it can read a Word document ?
The .doc standard is closed , heavily patented , rigidly controlled , and arbitrarily changed... yet I think we all agree an office suite that wants to be relevant better be able to save files in that format .
So sure , use .odf as your default... but if you ca n't convert to .doc , you pretty much ca n't use it in the business world.What about Wine ?
That implements the entire freaking Win32 API .
If Mono , which implements a single language and a single programming technology for using multiple languages ( .net ) scares him , Wine must have him jumping at shadows.Hell , even drivers could fall into this category .
If you allow an MS mouse to function in Linux , are you afraid of patent suits there too ?
I certainly hope not , as mice are something you very much expect to work with zero effort.C # may have been developed by a big bloated corporation that many consider evil ( or at least unethical ) , but so was C !
( AT&amp;T - anyone boycotting C/C + + over warrantless wiretapping ?
Did n't think so .
) Does anyone coding in C or C + + ( or making a compiler or IDE for it ) seriously fear a patent lawsuit from AT&amp;T ? .net was clearly built as a Windows technology , but that 's simply because MS made it .
MS pretty much CA N'T claim patents on it , because .net itself implements so many languages that MS had nothing to do with developing , that I think it 's safe to say any .net-based patent suit would die in seconds.I 'm no fan of MS , but I really do n't see a problem with Mono unless you have Stallmanian paranoia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is Stallman also saying Open Office should be discontinued because it can read a Word document?
The .doc standard is closed, heavily patented, rigidly controlled, and arbitrarily changed... yet I think we all agree an office suite that wants to be relevant better be able to save files in that format.
So sure, use .odf as your default... but if you can't convert to .doc, you pretty much can't use it in the business world.What about Wine?
That implements the entire freaking Win32 API.
If Mono, which implements a single language and a single programming technology for using multiple languages (.net) scares him, Wine must have him jumping at shadows.Hell, even drivers could fall into this category.
If you allow an MS mouse to function in Linux, are you afraid of patent suits there too?
I certainly hope not, as mice are something you very much expect to work with zero effort.C# may have been developed by a big bloated corporation that many consider evil (or at least unethical), but so was C!
(AT&amp;T - anyone boycotting C/C++ over warrantless wiretapping?
Didn't think so.
) Does anyone coding in C or C++ (or making a compiler or IDE for it) seriously fear a patent lawsuit from AT&amp;T?.net was clearly built as a Windows technology, but that's simply because MS made it.
MS pretty much CAN'T claim patents on it, because .net itself implements so many languages that MS had nothing to do with developing, that I think it's safe to say any .net-based patent suit would die in seconds.I'm no fan of MS, but I really don't see a problem with Mono unless you have Stallmanian paranoia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496779</id>
	<title>For *Tomboy*?</title>
	<author>Grendel Drago</author>
	<datestamp>1246134480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, hell. Isn't anyone concerned that this is all for <i>Tomboy</i>, an app which is frequently so sluggish as to be completely unusable? Remind me why we're not all simply using Gnote?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , hell .
Is n't anyone concerned that this is all for Tomboy , an app which is frequently so sluggish as to be completely unusable ?
Remind me why we 're not all simply using Gnote ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, hell.
Isn't anyone concerned that this is all for Tomboy, an app which is frequently so sluggish as to be completely unusable?
Remind me why we're not all simply using Gnote?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498013</id>
	<title>Who cares?</title>
	<author>shaitand</author>
	<datestamp>1246099260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mono doesn't even run netflix so who cares?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mono does n't even run netflix so who cares ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mono doesn't even run netflix so who cares?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496549</id>
	<title>Re:Confused</title>
	<author>binarylarry</author>
	<datestamp>1246133100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being owned in court by Microsoft due to patent infringement.</p><p>Or more likely, losing customers because mid development cycle Microsoft starts threatening to sue companies using Mono, as it infringes their patents.</p><p>They've rattled this sabre before.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being owned in court by Microsoft due to patent infringement.Or more likely , losing customers because mid development cycle Microsoft starts threatening to sue companies using Mono , as it infringes their patents.They 've rattled this sabre before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being owned in court by Microsoft due to patent infringement.Or more likely, losing customers because mid development cycle Microsoft starts threatening to sue companies using Mono, as it infringes their patents.They've rattled this sabre before.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496765</id>
	<title>Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246134420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When I used to use Bulletin Board systems to download software most of it was in the public domain. Now evil software licenses like GPL have ruined the public domain. It's quite sad to impose so many restrictions on free software.</p></div><p>There was an article the other day talking about copyfraud. Lazy people that want to take old work, charging for it while stopping anyone else from also distributing it.
<br> <br>
The GPL stops this kind of harmful behaviour. It still allows anyone to profit from the software, there is no restriction there. But it stops you from taking from the community and distributing without giving back.
<br> <br>
I can speculate as to what kind of person would like to see all that great GPL software fall into the public domain... But I'll keep such speculations to myself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I used to use Bulletin Board systems to download software most of it was in the public domain .
Now evil software licenses like GPL have ruined the public domain .
It 's quite sad to impose so many restrictions on free software.There was an article the other day talking about copyfraud .
Lazy people that want to take old work , charging for it while stopping anyone else from also distributing it .
The GPL stops this kind of harmful behaviour .
It still allows anyone to profit from the software , there is no restriction there .
But it stops you from taking from the community and distributing without giving back .
I can speculate as to what kind of person would like to see all that great GPL software fall into the public domain... But I 'll keep such speculations to myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I used to use Bulletin Board systems to download software most of it was in the public domain.
Now evil software licenses like GPL have ruined the public domain.
It's quite sad to impose so many restrictions on free software.There was an article the other day talking about copyfraud.
Lazy people that want to take old work, charging for it while stopping anyone else from also distributing it.
The GPL stops this kind of harmful behaviour.
It still allows anyone to profit from the software, there is no restriction there.
But it stops you from taking from the community and distributing without giving back.
I can speculate as to what kind of person would like to see all that great GPL software fall into the public domain... But I'll keep such speculations to myself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497949</id>
	<title>Re:MS is smart enough not to do this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246098660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Microsoft sueing the mono project and forcing it underground through software patents would be an enormous shoot to the foot.</i> </p><p>Kind of like suing TomTom was a major shot in the foot?  MS kept their patents, got their licensing fee from TomTom, and no one cares.  What would really happen if popular applications were written for the Common Language Runtime (say, Firefox or OpenOffice) is that as soon as Microsoft sued Linux distributions who shipped Mono, users would just switch to Windows to run their applications.  If there's anything to learn from the MS/Linux battle, it's that applications matter far more than operating systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft sueing the mono project and forcing it underground through software patents would be an enormous shoot to the foot .
Kind of like suing TomTom was a major shot in the foot ?
MS kept their patents , got their licensing fee from TomTom , and no one cares .
What would really happen if popular applications were written for the Common Language Runtime ( say , Firefox or OpenOffice ) is that as soon as Microsoft sued Linux distributions who shipped Mono , users would just switch to Windows to run their applications .
If there 's anything to learn from the MS/Linux battle , it 's that applications matter far more than operating systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft sueing the mono project and forcing it underground through software patents would be an enormous shoot to the foot.
Kind of like suing TomTom was a major shot in the foot?
MS kept their patents, got their licensing fee from TomTom, and no one cares.
What would really happen if popular applications were written for the Common Language Runtime (say, Firefox or OpenOffice) is that as soon as Microsoft sued Linux distributions who shipped Mono, users would just switch to Windows to run their applications.
If there's anything to learn from the MS/Linux battle, it's that applications matter far more than operating systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496879</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>tukang</author>
	<datestamp>1246135020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Funny, we've been a customer of Microsoft's for 20 years and have yet to experience this "raping" you speak of</i>

<p>Are you sure you're not suffering from stockholm syndrome?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , we 've been a customer of Microsoft 's for 20 years and have yet to experience this " raping " you speak of Are you sure you 're not suffering from stockholm syndrome ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, we've been a customer of Microsoft's for 20 years and have yet to experience this "raping" you speak of

Are you sure you're not suffering from stockholm syndrome?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28506561</id>
	<title>Re:Some delightful karma from Microshits insiders</title>
	<author>uassholes</author>
	<datestamp>1246179960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
"[W]e should just quietly grow j++ share and assume that people will take more
advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java
apps."
--Microsoft's Thomas Reardon
</p><p>
"Please give me one good reason why we should even consider [enabling
Microsoft technology to work on competing systems]. (Hint: any good answer
needs to include making more money and helping kill Unix, Sybase or Oracle.)"
--James Allchin, Microsoft Senior Vice-President
</p><p>
The Windows API is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... so deeply embedded in the source code of many Windows
apps that there is a huge switching cost to using a different operating system
instead.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... It is this switching cost that has given customers the patience to stick
with Windows through all our mistakes, our buggy drivers, our high TCO, our
lack of a sexy vision at times, and many other difficulties... Customers constantly
evaluate other desktop platforms, [but] it would be so much work to move over
that they hope we just improve Windows rather than force them to move. In short,
without this exclusive franchise called the Windows API, we would have been
dead a long time ago.
</p><p>
"The approach we will take is to detect dr [DOS] 6 and refuse to load. The error
message should be something like 'Invalid device driver interface.'"
--Phillip Barrett, Microsoft Windows Development Manager
</p><p>
"This anti-trust thing will blow over. We haven't changed our business practices at all."
-- Bill Gates, Microsoft founder and then-CEO (1995)
</p><p>
Much more here:
Microsoft A History of Anticompetitive Behavior and Consumer Harm</p><p>
 (PDF) <a href="http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion\_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf" title="www.ecis.eu" rel="nofollow">http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion\_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf</a> [www.ecis.eu]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" [ W ] e should just quietly grow j + + share and assume that people will take more advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java apps .
" --Microsoft 's Thomas Reardon " Please give me one good reason why we should even consider [ enabling Microsoft technology to work on competing systems ] .
( Hint : any good answer needs to include making more money and helping kill Unix , Sybase or Oracle .
) " --James Allchin , Microsoft Senior Vice-President The Windows API is ... so deeply embedded in the source code of many Windows apps that there is a huge switching cost to using a different operating system instead .
... It is this switching cost that has given customers the patience to stick with Windows through all our mistakes , our buggy drivers , our high TCO , our lack of a sexy vision at times , and many other difficulties... Customers constantly evaluate other desktop platforms , [ but ] it would be so much work to move over that they hope we just improve Windows rather than force them to move .
In short , without this exclusive franchise called the Windows API , we would have been dead a long time ago .
" The approach we will take is to detect dr [ DOS ] 6 and refuse to load .
The error message should be something like 'Invalid device driver interface .
' " --Phillip Barrett , Microsoft Windows Development Manager " This anti-trust thing will blow over .
We have n't changed our business practices at all .
" -- Bill Gates , Microsoft founder and then-CEO ( 1995 ) Much more here : Microsoft A History of Anticompetitive Behavior and Consumer Harm ( PDF ) http : //www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion \ _Consumerchoicepaper.pdf [ www.ecis.eu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
"[W]e should just quietly grow j++ share and assume that people will take more
advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java
apps.
"
--Microsoft's Thomas Reardon

"Please give me one good reason why we should even consider [enabling
Microsoft technology to work on competing systems].
(Hint: any good answer
needs to include making more money and helping kill Unix, Sybase or Oracle.
)"
--James Allchin, Microsoft Senior Vice-President

The Windows API is ... so deeply embedded in the source code of many Windows
apps that there is a huge switching cost to using a different operating system
instead.
... It is this switching cost that has given customers the patience to stick
with Windows through all our mistakes, our buggy drivers, our high TCO, our
lack of a sexy vision at times, and many other difficulties... Customers constantly
evaluate other desktop platforms, [but] it would be so much work to move over
that they hope we just improve Windows rather than force them to move.
In short,
without this exclusive franchise called the Windows API, we would have been
dead a long time ago.
"The approach we will take is to detect dr [DOS] 6 and refuse to load.
The error
message should be something like 'Invalid device driver interface.
'"
--Phillip Barrett, Microsoft Windows Development Manager

"This anti-trust thing will blow over.
We haven't changed our business practices at all.
"
-- Bill Gates, Microsoft founder and then-CEO (1995)

Much more here:
Microsoft A History of Anticompetitive Behavior and Consumer Harm
 (PDF) http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion\_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf [www.ecis.eu]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28501359</id>
	<title>Go with Stallman</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246127880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not a big fan of RMS.  He's a bit of a nutter.  But in this instance (ok, not exactly the first), he is absolutely correct.  Inside every large horse that you see camped outside your walled city, lies an army waiting to kill you while you sleep.  In this case, the horse has a large emblem written on the side that says "MONO", and inside is a patent minefield which wants to punch big holes in your city walls and bring ruin upon you.  Microsoft teamed up with Miguel de Icaza to destroy Linux.  de Icaza is no mere pawn.  He is in league with microsoft.  There is without a doubt, a paid connection between the two.  Anything relating to mono should be an 'add on after', and not part of the native distribution.  I have never expected microsoft to do the right thing, and they have never failed to disappoint.  "MONO NOT WELCOME HERE" should be the official Debian line.  Likewise with Novell.  They did the dishonorable act, and now must be treated as the vermin they are.  I don't want my system tainted with anything microsoft (I've seen, administered, installed and cursed their systems).  I know exactly how bad microsoft software is.  The only thing lower than the low low quality of their software is the moral compass of the company.  Stay away from mono, and remove it from my Debian (and Ubuntu).  Don't ever include it again, don't even consider that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a big fan of RMS .
He 's a bit of a nutter .
But in this instance ( ok , not exactly the first ) , he is absolutely correct .
Inside every large horse that you see camped outside your walled city , lies an army waiting to kill you while you sleep .
In this case , the horse has a large emblem written on the side that says " MONO " , and inside is a patent minefield which wants to punch big holes in your city walls and bring ruin upon you .
Microsoft teamed up with Miguel de Icaza to destroy Linux .
de Icaza is no mere pawn .
He is in league with microsoft .
There is without a doubt , a paid connection between the two .
Anything relating to mono should be an 'add on after ' , and not part of the native distribution .
I have never expected microsoft to do the right thing , and they have never failed to disappoint .
" MONO NOT WELCOME HERE " should be the official Debian line .
Likewise with Novell .
They did the dishonorable act , and now must be treated as the vermin they are .
I do n't want my system tainted with anything microsoft ( I 've seen , administered , installed and cursed their systems ) .
I know exactly how bad microsoft software is .
The only thing lower than the low low quality of their software is the moral compass of the company .
Stay away from mono , and remove it from my Debian ( and Ubuntu ) .
Do n't ever include it again , do n't even consider that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a big fan of RMS.
He's a bit of a nutter.
But in this instance (ok, not exactly the first), he is absolutely correct.
Inside every large horse that you see camped outside your walled city, lies an army waiting to kill you while you sleep.
In this case, the horse has a large emblem written on the side that says "MONO", and inside is a patent minefield which wants to punch big holes in your city walls and bring ruin upon you.
Microsoft teamed up with Miguel de Icaza to destroy Linux.
de Icaza is no mere pawn.
He is in league with microsoft.
There is without a doubt, a paid connection between the two.
Anything relating to mono should be an 'add on after', and not part of the native distribution.
I have never expected microsoft to do the right thing, and they have never failed to disappoint.
"MONO NOT WELCOME HERE" should be the official Debian line.
Likewise with Novell.
They did the dishonorable act, and now must be treated as the vermin they are.
I don't want my system tainted with anything microsoft (I've seen, administered, installed and cursed their systems).
I know exactly how bad microsoft software is.
The only thing lower than the low low quality of their software is the moral compass of the company.
Stay away from mono, and remove it from my Debian (and Ubuntu).
Don't ever include it again, don't even consider that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497543</id>
	<title>Just say no to RMS</title>
	<author>asm2750</author>
	<datestamp>1246096140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interoperability is a great thing to have, and might even spur more everyday people to adopt Linux in the future.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interoperability is a great thing to have , and might even spur more everyday people to adopt Linux in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interoperability is a great thing to have, and might even spur more everyday people to adopt Linux in the future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498841</id>
	<title>Re:Summary for those who didn't read it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246105980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is not to say that implementing C# is a bad thing.</p></div><p>From the summary, even. Making C# mission critical to your business is dumb if you think you might be sued. If you don't, or you live in a place where software patents are not a problem (most of the world), then<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET is there ready for you to use.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not to say that implementing C # is a bad thing.From the summary , even .
Making C # mission critical to your business is dumb if you think you might be sued .
If you do n't , or you live in a place where software patents are not a problem ( most of the world ) , then .NET is there ready for you to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not to say that implementing C# is a bad thing.From the summary, even.
Making C# mission critical to your business is dumb if you think you might be sued.
If you don't, or you live in a place where software patents are not a problem (most of the world), then .NET is there ready for you to use.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496257</id>
	<title>"M$"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246131120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, what are you, four years old?  Is it really that hard to just use Microsoft?</p><p>Where is the editor to edit this graffiti out?  This crap does not belong on the front page of news site at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , what are you , four years old ?
Is it really that hard to just use Microsoft ? Where is the editor to edit this graffiti out ?
This crap does not belong on the front page of news site at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, what are you, four years old?
Is it really that hard to just use Microsoft?Where is the editor to edit this graffiti out?
This crap does not belong on the front page of news site at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498363</id>
	<title>Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things?</title>
	<author>itsybitsy</author>
	<datestamp>1246101960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Troll eh? NOT!</p><p>You guys simply can't handle an informed and enlightened viewpoint that runs counter to your GPL Cult and as such you stifle on topic free speech at your whims. Pathetic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Troll eh ?
NOT ! You guys simply ca n't handle an informed and enlightened viewpoint that runs counter to your GPL Cult and as such you stifle on topic free speech at your whims .
Pathetic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Troll eh?
NOT!You guys simply can't handle an informed and enlightened viewpoint that runs counter to your GPL Cult and as such you stifle on topic free speech at your whims.
Pathetic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28507417</id>
	<title>Re:Confused</title>
	<author>fritsd</author>
	<datestamp>1246187340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Mono is a cleanroom implementation of the CLR as specified by EMCA and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net libraries, right? What exactly do you risk by using it?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
From what I've learned (on <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=108" title="groklaw.net">Groklaw</a> [groklaw.net]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-) ), cleanroom implementations help you indemnify your software against <b>copyright</b> violation allegiations.
<br>
Stallmann is here saying that there is a possibility that Mono violates Microsoft <b>software patents</b>, and that in that case, software *depending on* mono (i.e. written in C#) is at risk if mono ever has to be de-installed because of patent violation allegiations.
<br>
In fact, there's a famous other article by Stallmann about copyright, patents and trademarks, where he claims the use of the word "Intellectual Property" should be stopped, which directly addresses your confusion: I really, heartily, strongly recommend you to read it, it's mindblowingly easy to read and I found it very enlightening:
<br>
<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html" title="gnu.org">Did You Say &#226;oeIntellectual Property&#226;? It's a Seductive Mirage</a> [gnu.org]
<br>
IANA(P)L and I don't actually know much about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET or Microsoft software but his arguments make sense. Also bear in mind that the Microsoft-Novell software patent deal of 2006 (<a href="http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20061218045851480" title="groklaw.net">here</a> [groklaw.net], <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061203100147722" title="groklaw.net">here</a> [groklaw.net], <a href="http://www.linuxworld.com/news/2007/020707-jeremy-allison.html?page=1" title="linuxworld.com">here</a> [linuxworld.com]), where Microsoft promises not to sue Novell's customers for a limited period of time, expires in 2011 or so. So maybe then Ballmer will divulge what he meant with his <a href="http://news.cnet.com/Report-Microsoft-says-open-source-violates-235-patents/2100-1014\_3-6183437.html" title="cnet.com">"235 software patents Linux infringes"</a> [cnet.com] (maybe it should have been <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph\_McCarthy#Wheeling\_speech" title="wikipedia.org">205</a> [wikipedia.org] software patents<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-) but it's very possible that Ballmer is completely truthful here). Then again 2011 is years away and maybe software patents won't exist anymore in the U.S.A because they wanted to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software\_patents\_under\_TRIPs\_Agreement" title="wikipedia.org">harmonize</a> [wikipedia.org] with the rest of the world, which doesn't have them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mono is a cleanroom implementation of the CLR as specified by EMCA and .Net libraries , right ?
What exactly do you risk by using it ?
From what I 've learned ( on Groklaw [ groklaw.net ] ; - ) ) , cleanroom implementations help you indemnify your software against copyright violation allegiations .
Stallmann is here saying that there is a possibility that Mono violates Microsoft software patents , and that in that case , software * depending on * mono ( i.e .
written in C # ) is at risk if mono ever has to be de-installed because of patent violation allegiations .
In fact , there 's a famous other article by Stallmann about copyright , patents and trademarks , where he claims the use of the word " Intellectual Property " should be stopped , which directly addresses your confusion : I really , heartily , strongly recommend you to read it , it 's mindblowingly easy to read and I found it very enlightening : Did You Say   oeIntellectual Property   ?
It 's a Seductive Mirage [ gnu.org ] IANA ( P ) L and I do n't actually know much about .NET or Microsoft software but his arguments make sense .
Also bear in mind that the Microsoft-Novell software patent deal of 2006 ( here [ groklaw.net ] , here [ groklaw.net ] , here [ linuxworld.com ] ) , where Microsoft promises not to sue Novell 's customers for a limited period of time , expires in 2011 or so .
So maybe then Ballmer will divulge what he meant with his " 235 software patents Linux infringes " [ cnet.com ] ( maybe it should have been 205 [ wikipedia.org ] software patents ; - ) but it 's very possible that Ballmer is completely truthful here ) .
Then again 2011 is years away and maybe software patents wo n't exist anymore in the U.S.A because they wanted to harmonize [ wikipedia.org ] with the rest of the world , which does n't have them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mono is a cleanroom implementation of the CLR as specified by EMCA and .Net libraries, right?
What exactly do you risk by using it?
From what I've learned (on Groklaw [groklaw.net] ;-) ), cleanroom implementations help you indemnify your software against copyright violation allegiations.
Stallmann is here saying that there is a possibility that Mono violates Microsoft software patents, and that in that case, software *depending on* mono (i.e.
written in C#) is at risk if mono ever has to be de-installed because of patent violation allegiations.
In fact, there's a famous other article by Stallmann about copyright, patents and trademarks, where he claims the use of the word "Intellectual Property" should be stopped, which directly addresses your confusion: I really, heartily, strongly recommend you to read it, it's mindblowingly easy to read and I found it very enlightening:

Did You Say âoeIntellectual Propertyâ?
It's a Seductive Mirage [gnu.org]

IANA(P)L and I don't actually know much about .NET or Microsoft software but his arguments make sense.
Also bear in mind that the Microsoft-Novell software patent deal of 2006 (here [groklaw.net], here [groklaw.net], here [linuxworld.com]), where Microsoft promises not to sue Novell's customers for a limited period of time, expires in 2011 or so.
So maybe then Ballmer will divulge what he meant with his "235 software patents Linux infringes" [cnet.com] (maybe it should have been 205 [wikipedia.org] software patents ;-) but it's very possible that Ballmer is completely truthful here).
Then again 2011 is years away and maybe software patents won't exist anymore in the U.S.A because they wanted to harmonize [wikipedia.org] with the rest of the world, which doesn't have them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496365</id>
	<title>Summary for those who didn't read it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246131780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In short:</p><blockquote><div><p>Microsoft is evil and is "probably" planning to kill every independent implementation of C#.  We have no proof of this, but you have to trust us.</p><p>Also... use  <a href="http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/pnet.html" title="gnu.org" rel="nofollow">our C# implementation "DotGNU Portable.NET" instead</a> [gnu.org].  We are immune to everything I just said in the article and I won't bother you with why.</p></div></blockquote><p>In otherwords, I'm confused.  Does he like C# or not?  If he doesn't, why does the FSF have their own<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET implementation?  What makes theirs so special?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In short : Microsoft is evil and is " probably " planning to kill every independent implementation of C # .
We have no proof of this , but you have to trust us.Also... use our C # implementation " DotGNU Portable.NET " instead [ gnu.org ] .
We are immune to everything I just said in the article and I wo n't bother you with why.In otherwords , I 'm confused .
Does he like C # or not ?
If he does n't , why does the FSF have their own .NET implementation ?
What makes theirs so special ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In short:Microsoft is evil and is "probably" planning to kill every independent implementation of C#.
We have no proof of this, but you have to trust us.Also... use  our C# implementation "DotGNU Portable.NET" instead [gnu.org].
We are immune to everything I just said in the article and I won't bother you with why.In otherwords, I'm confused.
Does he like C# or not?
If he doesn't, why does the FSF have their own .NET implementation?
What makes theirs so special?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497293</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this antithetical to GNU in general?</title>
	<author>SplashMyBandit</author>
	<datestamp>1246094580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, back at the beginning operating systems and tools were originally open source. Once managers muscled the engineers aside stuff started getting closed up. Open sharing is what Stallman wants to get back to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , back at the beginning operating systems and tools were originally open source .
Once managers muscled the engineers aside stuff started getting closed up .
Open sharing is what Stallman wants to get back to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, back at the beginning operating systems and tools were originally open source.
Once managers muscled the engineers aside stuff started getting closed up.
Open sharing is what Stallman wants to get back to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497405</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this antithetical to GNU in general?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246095240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stallman and friends?  I smell a sitcom...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stallman and friends ?
I smell a sitcom.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stallman and friends?
I smell a sitcom...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496361</id>
	<title>MS is smart enough not to do this</title>
	<author>nateman1352</author>
	<datestamp>1246131720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft sueing the mono project and forcing it underground through software patents would be an enormous shoot to the foot.  Mono does nothing more and proliferate the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET platform, often at the expense of Java.  The thing that Microsoft likes so much about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET is that while mono and Portable.NET provide a way to make true cross platform apps, there are many, many Microsoft specific extensions to the core, which makes it very easy to make a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET app that is not portable.  In the late 90s Java was the same way thanks to Microsoft's JVM with builtin COM support, and various other Microsoft technologies.  The Java of today however is designed in such a way that it is difficult to make a Java app that is not cross platform, which is why that hate it so much.

Mono makes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET exactly what Microsoft wants it to be, technically open yet easily locked to thier platform.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft sueing the mono project and forcing it underground through software patents would be an enormous shoot to the foot .
Mono does nothing more and proliferate the .NET platform , often at the expense of Java .
The thing that Microsoft likes so much about .NET is that while mono and Portable.NET provide a way to make true cross platform apps , there are many , many Microsoft specific extensions to the core , which makes it very easy to make a .NET app that is not portable .
In the late 90s Java was the same way thanks to Microsoft 's JVM with builtin COM support , and various other Microsoft technologies .
The Java of today however is designed in such a way that it is difficult to make a Java app that is not cross platform , which is why that hate it so much .
Mono makes .NET exactly what Microsoft wants it to be , technically open yet easily locked to thier platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft sueing the mono project and forcing it underground through software patents would be an enormous shoot to the foot.
Mono does nothing more and proliferate the .NET platform, often at the expense of Java.
The thing that Microsoft likes so much about .NET is that while mono and Portable.NET provide a way to make true cross platform apps, there are many, many Microsoft specific extensions to the core, which makes it very easy to make a .NET app that is not portable.
In the late 90s Java was the same way thanks to Microsoft's JVM with builtin COM support, and various other Microsoft technologies.
The Java of today however is designed in such a way that it is difficult to make a Java app that is not cross platform, which is why that hate it so much.
Mono makes .NET exactly what Microsoft wants it to be, technically open yet easily locked to thier platform.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497487</id>
	<title>Re:Confused</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1246095780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mono implements WinForms, for one, which is not ECMA spec. The ECMA spec is mostly static and the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET platform and its languages, like C#, have kept evolving. You cannot implement a GUI application without using APIs which are not ECMA spec. How many of those are you interested in developing or using that couldn't be done just as well in another language?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET is a trap, and only an idiot thinks otherwise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mono implements WinForms , for one , which is not ECMA spec .
The ECMA spec is mostly static and the .NET platform and its languages , like C # , have kept evolving .
You can not implement a GUI application without using APIs which are not ECMA spec .
How many of those are you interested in developing or using that could n't be done just as well in another language ?
.NET is a trap , and only an idiot thinks otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mono implements WinForms, for one, which is not ECMA spec.
The ECMA spec is mostly static and the .NET platform and its languages, like C#, have kept evolving.
You cannot implement a GUI application without using APIs which are not ECMA spec.
How many of those are you interested in developing or using that couldn't be done just as well in another language?
.NET is a trap, and only an idiot thinks otherwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496305</id>
	<title>Yup</title>
	<author>MightyMartian</author>
	<datestamp>1246131360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tend to think of Stallman as a bit of a nut, but I pretty much hold the same view of Mono.  It's a trojan horse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tend to think of Stallman as a bit of a nut , but I pretty much hold the same view of Mono .
It 's a trojan horse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tend to think of Stallman as a bit of a nut, but I pretty much hold the same view of Mono.
It's a trojan horse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496451</id>
	<title>Pot calling the kettle black</title>
	<author>Vahokif</author>
	<datestamp>1246132440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>GNU and GCC are just as much open source implementations of proprietary technology from convicted monopolists as Mono is.

<a href="http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/rants/124/" title="apebox.org" rel="nofollow">QFT</a> [apebox.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>GNU and GCC are just as much open source implementations of proprietary technology from convicted monopolists as Mono is .
QFT [ apebox.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GNU and GCC are just as much open source implementations of proprietary technology from convicted monopolists as Mono is.
QFT [apebox.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496385</id>
	<title>fatwa issued against Mono</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246131960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Check.  We'll see what the other FOSS clerics say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Check .
We 'll see what the other FOSS clerics say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check.
We'll see what the other FOSS clerics say.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498383</id>
	<title>I won't use Mono either, but for different reasons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246102140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I won't use Mono either, and it has nothing to do with Microsoft.  I'm a big fan of C# and would love to see it available everywhere.

I won't use Mono because Miguel deIcaza supports terrorism and terrorists, and is active with the group "The Electronic Intifada" which supports blowing up innocent women and children. Our company won't purchase any Novell products either, because of this.

SAY NO TO TERRORISM and SAY NO TO MONO</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wo n't use Mono either , and it has nothing to do with Microsoft .
I 'm a big fan of C # and would love to see it available everywhere .
I wo n't use Mono because Miguel deIcaza supports terrorism and terrorists , and is active with the group " The Electronic Intifada " which supports blowing up innocent women and children .
Our company wo n't purchase any Novell products either , because of this .
SAY NO TO TERRORISM and SAY NO TO MONO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I won't use Mono either, and it has nothing to do with Microsoft.
I'm a big fan of C# and would love to see it available everywhere.
I won't use Mono because Miguel deIcaza supports terrorism and terrorists, and is active with the group "The Electronic Intifada" which supports blowing up innocent women and children.
Our company won't purchase any Novell products either, because of this.
SAY NO TO TERRORISM and SAY NO TO MONO</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497175</id>
	<title>Re:"M$"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246093860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're the one talking like a naive four year-old.  The real world is much more complex than "just use microsoft".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're the one talking like a naive four year-old .
The real world is much more complex than " just use microsoft " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're the one talking like a naive four year-old.
The real world is much more complex than "just use microsoft".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497863</id>
	<title>Re:Confused</title>
	<author>Matthew Weigel</author>
	<datestamp>1246098000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This from the guy who says in his signature: "Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts."</p><p>You haven't invested the time in this issue to understand it, never mind make pronouncements on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This from the guy who says in his signature : " Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license : one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts .
" You have n't invested the time in this issue to understand it , never mind make pronouncements on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This from the guy who says in his signature: "Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts.
"You haven't invested the time in this issue to understand it, never mind make pronouncements on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497071</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this antithetical to GNU in general?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246136340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RMS wasn't violating software patents at the time when he started the GNU project. Software patents only started being valid when IBM set a precedent by successfully being granted a software patent.</p><p>If you had actually read the essay, you would read this:</p><blockquote><div><p>This is not to say that implementing C# is a bad thing. Free C# implementations permit users to run their C# programs on free platforms, which is good. (The GNU Project has an implementation of C# also, called Portable.NET.) Ideally we want to provide free implementations for all languages that programmers have used.</p><p>The problem is not in the C# implementations, but rather in Tomboy and other applications written in C#. If we lose the use of C#, we will lose them too. That doesn't make them unethical, but it means that writing them and using them is taking a gratuitous risk.</p></div></blockquote><p>The risk here is that Microsoft would probably start patent infringement lawsuits against anybody that aren't licensed to implement C# related technologies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>RMS was n't violating software patents at the time when he started the GNU project .
Software patents only started being valid when IBM set a precedent by successfully being granted a software patent.If you had actually read the essay , you would read this : This is not to say that implementing C # is a bad thing .
Free C # implementations permit users to run their C # programs on free platforms , which is good .
( The GNU Project has an implementation of C # also , called Portable.NET .
) Ideally we want to provide free implementations for all languages that programmers have used.The problem is not in the C # implementations , but rather in Tomboy and other applications written in C # .
If we lose the use of C # , we will lose them too .
That does n't make them unethical , but it means that writing them and using them is taking a gratuitous risk.The risk here is that Microsoft would probably start patent infringement lawsuits against anybody that are n't licensed to implement C # related technologies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RMS wasn't violating software patents at the time when he started the GNU project.
Software patents only started being valid when IBM set a precedent by successfully being granted a software patent.If you had actually read the essay, you would read this:This is not to say that implementing C# is a bad thing.
Free C# implementations permit users to run their C# programs on free platforms, which is good.
(The GNU Project has an implementation of C# also, called Portable.NET.
) Ideally we want to provide free implementations for all languages that programmers have used.The problem is not in the C# implementations, but rather in Tomboy and other applications written in C#.
If we lose the use of C#, we will lose them too.
That doesn't make them unethical, but it means that writing them and using them is taking a gratuitous risk.The risk here is that Microsoft would probably start patent infringement lawsuits against anybody that aren't licensed to implement C# related technologies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497481</id>
	<title>Re:Pot calling the kettle black</title>
	<author>jmorris42</author>
	<datestamp>1246095780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; GNU and GCC are just as much open source implementations of proprietary technology...</p><p>A couple of important differences.</p><p>1.  The patents have long since expired on the core ideas in UNIX.  we are rapidly approaching the point where Linux has existed longer than a US patent is allowed to exist and BSD embodies almost all of the user visible APIs and goes back even longer.</p><p>2.  C is an ANSI Standard that again is older than any patent could threaten from.  C++ is more recent but was developed by real standards bodies vs ECMA, thus any IP issues would be out in the open.</p><p>3.  C#, the CLR and the rest of Mono/.Net/etc are the sole creation of Microsoft Corp.  Any changes can only originate from them, the tech is new enough to have patents pretty much anywhere and by their sole control of the language the can introduce whatever they want and we get to chase their tail lights because they won't have to disclose any of the new bits until they ship production code.</p><p>So yes, had the GNU Project been operating in the toxic software patent environment we now have it is doubtful they would have been able to release GCC when they did, instead being forced to wait out the patents, but history is what it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; GNU and GCC are just as much open source implementations of proprietary technology...A couple of important differences.1 .
The patents have long since expired on the core ideas in UNIX .
we are rapidly approaching the point where Linux has existed longer than a US patent is allowed to exist and BSD embodies almost all of the user visible APIs and goes back even longer.2 .
C is an ANSI Standard that again is older than any patent could threaten from .
C + + is more recent but was developed by real standards bodies vs ECMA , thus any IP issues would be out in the open.3 .
C # , the CLR and the rest of Mono/.Net/etc are the sole creation of Microsoft Corp. Any changes can only originate from them , the tech is new enough to have patents pretty much anywhere and by their sole control of the language the can introduce whatever they want and we get to chase their tail lights because they wo n't have to disclose any of the new bits until they ship production code.So yes , had the GNU Project been operating in the toxic software patent environment we now have it is doubtful they would have been able to release GCC when they did , instead being forced to wait out the patents , but history is what it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; GNU and GCC are just as much open source implementations of proprietary technology...A couple of important differences.1.
The patents have long since expired on the core ideas in UNIX.
we are rapidly approaching the point where Linux has existed longer than a US patent is allowed to exist and BSD embodies almost all of the user visible APIs and goes back even longer.2.
C is an ANSI Standard that again is older than any patent could threaten from.
C++ is more recent but was developed by real standards bodies vs ECMA, thus any IP issues would be out in the open.3.
C#, the CLR and the rest of Mono/.Net/etc are the sole creation of Microsoft Corp.  Any changes can only originate from them, the tech is new enough to have patents pretty much anywhere and by their sole control of the language the can introduce whatever they want and we get to chase their tail lights because they won't have to disclose any of the new bits until they ship production code.So yes, had the GNU Project been operating in the toxic software patent environment we now have it is doubtful they would have been able to release GCC when they did, instead being forced to wait out the patents, but history is what it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496813</id>
	<title>It must suck to be RMS.</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1246134720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everything is bad and evil going on.  Does he ever turn off his soap box and see the good things in the world.  He had his time and used to be relevant in the past, now his rants are getting old and tired.  This is bad that is bad... Chill man!</p><p>There is a difference between Vigilance and Paranoia.  You don't cross the line between good and bad by walking towards that line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everything is bad and evil going on .
Does he ever turn off his soap box and see the good things in the world .
He had his time and used to be relevant in the past , now his rants are getting old and tired .
This is bad that is bad... Chill man ! There is a difference between Vigilance and Paranoia .
You do n't cross the line between good and bad by walking towards that line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everything is bad and evil going on.
Does he ever turn off his soap box and see the good things in the world.
He had his time and used to be relevant in the past, now his rants are getting old and tired.
This is bad that is bad... Chill man!There is a difference between Vigilance and Paranoia.
You don't cross the line between good and bad by walking towards that line.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497253</id>
	<title>People forgot what GNU/Linux is</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1246094280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems the excellent look, ease of use/install and several binary stuff (not evil) like Nvidia drivers, Adobe Flash made people forget what GNU/Linux is and the philosophy behind it.</p><p>Novell is a company who was going all GM way before MS deal. The guy behind Mono is at a very high position at Novell and also happens to be behind Silverlight clone, Moonlight. Half of his blog includes Microsoft, Redmond. His fame comes from Gnome when it was created because of non technical, political reason of Trolltech Qt not being really GPL (which is all fixed now), he applied for a job at MS before open source and got rejected, there isn't a single reason to code Tom Tom in that language, there are dozens of ways to code it, it doesn't even get mentioned in windows scene...</p><p>Should I be reminding these as a OS X user? RMS, being founder of GNU has all the right to bitch about Debian GNU/Linux including a patent death trap. That trojan developer really knows what means to be included in Debian distro, it is some sort of unofficial proof that Mono is a credible open source framework, not a trojan half ass clone.</p><p>Debian guys must be fools to allow their credibility and respect earned for years to be abused like that. At least Novell got saved from Chapter 11 and Icaza has a job, what does Debian earn except the loss of respect?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems the excellent look , ease of use/install and several binary stuff ( not evil ) like Nvidia drivers , Adobe Flash made people forget what GNU/Linux is and the philosophy behind it.Novell is a company who was going all GM way before MS deal .
The guy behind Mono is at a very high position at Novell and also happens to be behind Silverlight clone , Moonlight .
Half of his blog includes Microsoft , Redmond .
His fame comes from Gnome when it was created because of non technical , political reason of Trolltech Qt not being really GPL ( which is all fixed now ) , he applied for a job at MS before open source and got rejected , there is n't a single reason to code Tom Tom in that language , there are dozens of ways to code it , it does n't even get mentioned in windows scene...Should I be reminding these as a OS X user ?
RMS , being founder of GNU has all the right to bitch about Debian GNU/Linux including a patent death trap .
That trojan developer really knows what means to be included in Debian distro , it is some sort of unofficial proof that Mono is a credible open source framework , not a trojan half ass clone.Debian guys must be fools to allow their credibility and respect earned for years to be abused like that .
At least Novell got saved from Chapter 11 and Icaza has a job , what does Debian earn except the loss of respect ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems the excellent look, ease of use/install and several binary stuff (not evil) like Nvidia drivers, Adobe Flash made people forget what GNU/Linux is and the philosophy behind it.Novell is a company who was going all GM way before MS deal.
The guy behind Mono is at a very high position at Novell and also happens to be behind Silverlight clone, Moonlight.
Half of his blog includes Microsoft, Redmond.
His fame comes from Gnome when it was created because of non technical, political reason of Trolltech Qt not being really GPL (which is all fixed now), he applied for a job at MS before open source and got rejected, there isn't a single reason to code Tom Tom in that language, there are dozens of ways to code it, it doesn't even get mentioned in windows scene...Should I be reminding these as a OS X user?
RMS, being founder of GNU has all the right to bitch about Debian GNU/Linux including a patent death trap.
That trojan developer really knows what means to be included in Debian distro, it is some sort of unofficial proof that Mono is a credible open source framework, not a trojan half ass clone.Debian guys must be fools to allow their credibility and respect earned for years to be abused like that.
At least Novell got saved from Chapter 11 and Icaza has a job, what does Debian earn except the loss of respect?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496883</id>
	<title>paint-mono</title>
	<author>cong06</author>
	<datestamp>1246135080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aw...<br>
And I was just trying to find a way to install paint-mono since Gimp sucks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Aw.. . And I was just trying to find a way to install paint-mono since Gimp sucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aw...
And I was just trying to find a way to install paint-mono since Gimp sucks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28500069</id>
	<title>Re:Yup</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1246116000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The more interesting question is why Sun put so much effort into killing Java on the Windows desktop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The more interesting question is why Sun put so much effort into killing Java on the Windows desktop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The more interesting question is why Sun put so much effort into killing Java on the Windows desktop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497815</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246097700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Funny, we've been a customer of Microsoft's for 20 years and have yet to experience this "raping" you speak of.</p></div><p>How many times have you been forced to purchased another Windows license when you already had at least 1 that wasn't being used?</p><p>I have 4 WinXP Pro licenses, but never used more than 1 at a time. I have 1 Vista license that I never wanted. It was forced on me.  I feel raped.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , we 've been a customer of Microsoft 's for 20 years and have yet to experience this " raping " you speak of.How many times have you been forced to purchased another Windows license when you already had at least 1 that was n't being used ? I have 4 WinXP Pro licenses , but never used more than 1 at a time .
I have 1 Vista license that I never wanted .
It was forced on me .
I feel raped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, we've been a customer of Microsoft's for 20 years and have yet to experience this "raping" you speak of.How many times have you been forced to purchased another Windows license when you already had at least 1 that wasn't being used?I have 4 WinXP Pro licenses, but never used more than 1 at a time.
I have 1 Vista license that I never wanted.
It was forced on me.
I feel raped.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496391</id>
	<title>Java?</title>
	<author>lsdi</author>
	<datestamp>1246131960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, but what about Java? It's just a matter of time before it licensing model changes. What are we going to do? I don't think I will start coding ERP applications using C,CPP, PERL, etc. I would pretty much install Windows or something that would get the job done faster.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , but what about Java ?
It 's just a matter of time before it licensing model changes .
What are we going to do ?
I do n't think I will start coding ERP applications using C,CPP , PERL , etc .
I would pretty much install Windows or something that would get the job done faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, but what about Java?
It's just a matter of time before it licensing model changes.
What are we going to do?
I don't think I will start coding ERP applications using C,CPP, PERL, etc.
I would pretty much install Windows or something that would get the job done faster.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497795</id>
	<title>Re:MS is smart enough not to do this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246097580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft suing the mono project <b>now</b> would be an enormous shot to the foot.  Right now, it works to their benefit.  Over time, more software may be built atop it, making it a more attractive target.   At the same time, mono and Portable.NET will have figured out ways around a lot of their incompatibilities, making it less valuable to them to keep it around.  The calculus is very different at that point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft suing the mono project now would be an enormous shot to the foot .
Right now , it works to their benefit .
Over time , more software may be built atop it , making it a more attractive target .
At the same time , mono and Portable.NET will have figured out ways around a lot of their incompatibilities , making it less valuable to them to keep it around .
The calculus is very different at that point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft suing the mono project now would be an enormous shot to the foot.
Right now, it works to their benefit.
Over time, more software may be built atop it, making it a more attractive target.
At the same time, mono and Portable.NET will have figured out ways around a lot of their incompatibilities, making it less valuable to them to keep it around.
The calculus is very different at that point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496999</id>
	<title>Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246135740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why do you assume that because it's free, it must be in the public domain? Who the fuck are you to dictate what I do with software I write? Don't like it? Write your own fucking software, or better yet, pay for it!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you assume that because it 's free , it must be in the public domain ?
Who the fuck are you to dictate what I do with software I write ?
Do n't like it ?
Write your own fucking software , or better yet , pay for it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you assume that because it's free, it must be in the public domain?
Who the fuck are you to dictate what I do with software I write?
Don't like it?
Write your own fucking software, or better yet, pay for it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497725</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry RMS: Linux != GNU...</title>
	<author>bmo</author>
	<datestamp>1246097100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the goals of a useful system is not to build within it a method of self-sabotage.</p><p>Miguel and Novell have<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/never/ come clean as to whether Mono (and now Moonlight) infringe upon Microsoft patents.  They have skated around and doubletalked. Steve Ballmer has said that Linux infringes upon 135 (or so) patents. Novell and Miguel<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/expect/ us to take their word for it that Mono is somehow "safe"?  With no evidence?  I guess it's supposedly safe to Novell because Novell signed a non-aggression pact with Microsoft (peace in our time, eh?).</p><p>But what about everyone else?  Nobody else is "protected" by that contract.  It is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dangerous/ for the mainstream Linux distributions to incorporate Mono as a core technology, because some day Microsoft can come along later and point out "Hey, you infringe on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/these/ patents.  Now Pay Us $699 per user."</p><p>No.  No quarter shall be given to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/any/ of that bullshit.  Microsoft has considered itself above the law ever since the Doublespace debacle and has no intentions, as far as I can tell, of changing its behavior.</p><p>Miguel de Icaza is "setting up us the bomb" with his Mono project whether he realizes it or not.</p><p>Hanlon's Razor can be turned and combined with a Clarke quote to say that "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the goals of a useful system is not to build within it a method of self-sabotage.Miguel and Novell have /never/ come clean as to whether Mono ( and now Moonlight ) infringe upon Microsoft patents .
They have skated around and doubletalked .
Steve Ballmer has said that Linux infringes upon 135 ( or so ) patents .
Novell and Miguel /expect/ us to take their word for it that Mono is somehow " safe " ?
With no evidence ?
I guess it 's supposedly safe to Novell because Novell signed a non-aggression pact with Microsoft ( peace in our time , eh ?
) .But what about everyone else ?
Nobody else is " protected " by that contract .
It is /dangerous/ for the mainstream Linux distributions to incorporate Mono as a core technology , because some day Microsoft can come along later and point out " Hey , you infringe on /these/ patents .
Now Pay Us $ 699 per user. " No .
No quarter shall be given to /any/ of that bullshit .
Microsoft has considered itself above the law ever since the Doublespace debacle and has no intentions , as far as I can tell , of changing its behavior.Miguel de Icaza is " setting up us the bomb " with his Mono project whether he realizes it or not.Hanlon 's Razor can be turned and combined with a Clarke quote to say that " Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the goals of a useful system is not to build within it a method of self-sabotage.Miguel and Novell have /never/ come clean as to whether Mono (and now Moonlight) infringe upon Microsoft patents.
They have skated around and doubletalked.
Steve Ballmer has said that Linux infringes upon 135 (or so) patents.
Novell and Miguel /expect/ us to take their word for it that Mono is somehow "safe"?
With no evidence?
I guess it's supposedly safe to Novell because Novell signed a non-aggression pact with Microsoft (peace in our time, eh?
).But what about everyone else?
Nobody else is "protected" by that contract.
It is /dangerous/ for the mainstream Linux distributions to incorporate Mono as a core technology, because some day Microsoft can come along later and point out "Hey, you infringe on /these/ patents.
Now Pay Us $699 per user."No.
No quarter shall be given to /any/ of that bullshit.
Microsoft has considered itself above the law ever since the Doublespace debacle and has no intentions, as far as I can tell, of changing its behavior.Miguel de Icaza is "setting up us the bomb" with his Mono project whether he realizes it or not.Hanlon's Razor can be turned and combined with a Clarke quote to say that "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497263</id>
	<title>RMS == bonkers!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246094400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What an idiotic statement by RMS!</p><p>&gt;&gt;It is dangerous to depend on C#, so we need to discourage its use.</p><p>Why should it be a danger? If there are any software patent issues, they are certainly not on C# which is an open standard, but on the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET library (BCL). If RMS is worried about that, GNU should strive to provide an open and different alternative to the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET library. But the BCL has got nothing to do with C# since it is used by all<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net languages (VB.NET, J#, IronPython, IronRuby...)</p><p>"The Microsoft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Framework is the predominant implementation of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET technologies. Other implementations for parts of the framework exist. Since the runtime engine is described by an ECMA/ISO specification, other implementations of it are unencumbered by patent issues. It is more difficult to develop alternatives to the base class library (BCL), which is not described by an open standard and may be subject to copyright restrictions." -- <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET\_Framework#Alternative\_implementations" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET\_Framework#Alternative\_implementations</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>&gt;&gt;any free implementation of C# would raise the same issue.</p><p>Again, nonsense</p><p>&gt;&gt;This is not to say that implementing C# is a bad thing. Free C# implementations permit users to run their C# programs on free platforms, which is good. (The GNU Project has an implementation of C# also, called Portable.NET.) Ideally we want to provide free implementations for all languages that programmers have used.</p><p>Talk about being coherent. If C# is bad, then why is GNU implementing it? You can't say one thing and the opposite two sentences later...</p><p>&gt;&gt;The problem is not in the C# implementations, but rather in Tomboy and other applications written in C#.</p><p>Ok, so now the problem is Tomboy? And again, what's the problem with C#? It's... an... open... standard...<br>Oh, and by the way, Microsoft has a "shared source" implementation as well (free for non commercial use), called Rotor: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared\_Source\_Common\_Language\_Infrastructure" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared\_Source\_Common\_Language\_Infrastructure</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>I am a big, big fan of Open Source. I actually maintain an open source project, and it so happens that is written in C#. RMS is actually harming many F/OSS projects with these stupid comments. What a letdown.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What an idiotic statement by RMS ! &gt; &gt; It is dangerous to depend on C # , so we need to discourage its use.Why should it be a danger ?
If there are any software patent issues , they are certainly not on C # which is an open standard , but on the .NET library ( BCL ) .
If RMS is worried about that , GNU should strive to provide an open and different alternative to the .NET library .
But the BCL has got nothing to do with C # since it is used by all .net languages ( VB.NET , J # , IronPython , IronRuby... ) " The Microsoft .NET Framework is the predominant implementation of .NET technologies .
Other implementations for parts of the framework exist .
Since the runtime engine is described by an ECMA/ISO specification , other implementations of it are unencumbered by patent issues .
It is more difficult to develop alternatives to the base class library ( BCL ) , which is not described by an open standard and may be subject to copyright restrictions .
" -- http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET \ _Framework # Alternative \ _implementations [ wikipedia.org ] &gt; &gt; any free implementation of C # would raise the same issue.Again , nonsense &gt; &gt; This is not to say that implementing C # is a bad thing .
Free C # implementations permit users to run their C # programs on free platforms , which is good .
( The GNU Project has an implementation of C # also , called Portable.NET .
) Ideally we want to provide free implementations for all languages that programmers have used.Talk about being coherent .
If C # is bad , then why is GNU implementing it ?
You ca n't say one thing and the opposite two sentences later... &gt; &gt; The problem is not in the C # implementations , but rather in Tomboy and other applications written in C # .Ok , so now the problem is Tomboy ?
And again , what 's the problem with C # ?
It 's... an... open... standard...Oh , and by the way , Microsoft has a " shared source " implementation as well ( free for non commercial use ) , called Rotor : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared \ _Source \ _Common \ _Language \ _Infrastructure [ wikipedia.org ] I am a big , big fan of Open Source .
I actually maintain an open source project , and it so happens that is written in C # .
RMS is actually harming many F/OSS projects with these stupid comments .
What a letdown .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What an idiotic statement by RMS!&gt;&gt;It is dangerous to depend on C#, so we need to discourage its use.Why should it be a danger?
If there are any software patent issues, they are certainly not on C# which is an open standard, but on the .NET library (BCL).
If RMS is worried about that, GNU should strive to provide an open and different alternative to the .NET library.
But the BCL has got nothing to do with C# since it is used by all .net languages (VB.NET, J#, IronPython, IronRuby...)"The Microsoft .NET Framework is the predominant implementation of .NET technologies.
Other implementations for parts of the framework exist.
Since the runtime engine is described by an ECMA/ISO specification, other implementations of it are unencumbered by patent issues.
It is more difficult to develop alternatives to the base class library (BCL), which is not described by an open standard and may be subject to copyright restrictions.
" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET\_Framework#Alternative\_implementations [wikipedia.org]&gt;&gt;any free implementation of C# would raise the same issue.Again, nonsense&gt;&gt;This is not to say that implementing C# is a bad thing.
Free C# implementations permit users to run their C# programs on free platforms, which is good.
(The GNU Project has an implementation of C# also, called Portable.NET.
) Ideally we want to provide free implementations for all languages that programmers have used.Talk about being coherent.
If C# is bad, then why is GNU implementing it?
You can't say one thing and the opposite two sentences later...&gt;&gt;The problem is not in the C# implementations, but rather in Tomboy and other applications written in C#.Ok, so now the problem is Tomboy?
And again, what's the problem with C#?
It's... an... open... standard...Oh, and by the way, Microsoft has a "shared source" implementation as well (free for non commercial use), called Rotor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared\_Source\_Common\_Language\_Infrastructure [wikipedia.org]I am a big, big fan of Open Source.
I actually maintain an open source project, and it so happens that is written in C#.
RMS is actually harming many F/OSS projects with these stupid comments.
What a letdown.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496915</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this antithetical to GNU in general?</title>
	<author>Sique</author>
	<datestamp>1246135200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, Richard Stallman was always very concerned with NOT violating patents. For instance gzip was developed especially to avoid a patent clash over compress, the commercial compression utility shipped with UNIX.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , Richard Stallman was always very concerned with NOT violating patents .
For instance gzip was developed especially to avoid a patent clash over compress , the commercial compression utility shipped with UNIX .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, Richard Stallman was always very concerned with NOT violating patents.
For instance gzip was developed especially to avoid a patent clash over compress, the commercial compression utility shipped with UNIX.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498425</id>
	<title>Hey Miguel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246102440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm calling you out.  Right now.</p><p>We know you're on Slashdot, so don't be a coward.</p><p>Tell us how you know that Mono doesn't infringe on Microsoft's patents.  Tell us how Moonlight doesn't infringe on Microsoft patents.  Clear this stuff up.</p><p>Unless you and Novell answer this, <b>without weasel words</b> Mono and Moonlight <b> <i>and everything else</i> you contribute to GNU/Linux based on Microsoft tech</b> will be suspect.</p><p>Thanks.</p><p>--<br>BMO</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm calling you out .
Right now.We know you 're on Slashdot , so do n't be a coward.Tell us how you know that Mono does n't infringe on Microsoft 's patents .
Tell us how Moonlight does n't infringe on Microsoft patents .
Clear this stuff up.Unless you and Novell answer this , without weasel words Mono and Moonlight and everything else you contribute to GNU/Linux based on Microsoft tech will be suspect.Thanks.--BMO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm calling you out.
Right now.We know you're on Slashdot, so don't be a coward.Tell us how you know that Mono doesn't infringe on Microsoft's patents.
Tell us how Moonlight doesn't infringe on Microsoft patents.
Clear this stuff up.Unless you and Novell answer this, without weasel words Mono and Moonlight  and everything else you contribute to GNU/Linux based on Microsoft tech will be suspect.Thanks.--BMO</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28500553</id>
	<title>Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things?</title>
	<author>itsybitsy</author>
	<datestamp>1246120200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[META CONVERSATION BEGINS]</p><p>Not a troll nor a flamebaiter but a DISSENTER! A DISSIDENT!</p><p>The person who labeled the parent comment a "troll" (earlier) or a "flamebait" is the one who is flamebaiting.</p><p>It's a very strange CULTure that you folks have that stifles dissent by labeling it "troll" or "flamebait" or which "moderates it down". Very strange indeed.</p><p>Slashdot staff please eliminate these categories and the ability to moderate downward. Thanks for supporting dissent in free speech rather than "agreement reality imposed order" as the current system implements.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ META CONVERSATION BEGINS ] Not a troll nor a flamebaiter but a DISSENTER !
A DISSIDENT ! The person who labeled the parent comment a " troll " ( earlier ) or a " flamebait " is the one who is flamebaiting.It 's a very strange CULTure that you folks have that stifles dissent by labeling it " troll " or " flamebait " or which " moderates it down " .
Very strange indeed.Slashdot staff please eliminate these categories and the ability to moderate downward .
Thanks for supporting dissent in free speech rather than " agreement reality imposed order " as the current system implements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[META CONVERSATION BEGINS]Not a troll nor a flamebaiter but a DISSENTER!
A DISSIDENT!The person who labeled the parent comment a "troll" (earlier) or a "flamebait" is the one who is flamebaiting.It's a very strange CULTure that you folks have that stifles dissent by labeling it "troll" or "flamebait" or which "moderates it down".
Very strange indeed.Slashdot staff please eliminate these categories and the ability to moderate downward.
Thanks for supporting dissent in free speech rather than "agreement reality imposed order" as the current system implements.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498823</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this antithetical to GNU in general?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246105620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>It's not wrong that MONO exists, it's just a dumb idea to actually depend on it.&nbsp; Nine times out of ten you can't simply rebuild on unix with mono and expect your<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET app to work.<br><br>Also, AT&amp;T wasn't intentionally distributing technologies with the intent of fucking users over, which MS has a long, long history of.<br><br>Or perhaps you're under 30 and don't understand these things?</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not wrong that MONO exists , it 's just a dumb idea to actually depend on it.   Nine times out of ten you ca n't simply rebuild on unix with mono and expect your .NET app to work.Also , AT&amp;T was n't intentionally distributing technologies with the intent of fucking users over , which MS has a long , long history of.Or perhaps you 're under 30 and do n't understand these things ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not wrong that MONO exists, it's just a dumb idea to actually depend on it.  Nine times out of ten you can't simply rebuild on unix with mono and expect your .NET app to work.Also, AT&amp;T wasn't intentionally distributing technologies with the intent of fucking users over, which MS has a long, long history of.Or perhaps you're under 30 and don't understand these things?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498345</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246101840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>-murdering Gary Kildall, so CP/M wouldn't take off</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>-murdering Gary Kildall , so CP/M would n't take off</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-murdering Gary Kildall, so CP/M wouldn't take off</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498901</id>
	<title>Re:Pot calling the kettle black</title>
	<author>10101001 10101001</author>
	<datestamp>1246106700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>GNU and GCC are just as much open source implementations of proprietary technology from convicted monopolists as Mono is.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, but at the time GNU and GCC were created, neither work being cloned were under any considerable control of said monopolist.  Further, AT&amp;T didn't seem patently aware of what a goldmine Unix could be (almost probably because of their focus on Multics), so that even when there final was a lawsuit brought upon anyone (BSD), sufficient modifications had been made and reintegrated into the main branch that AT&amp;T couldn't subsume ownership/control over the whole work.  Now, perhaps the same circumstance will happen with Microsoft and Mono.  And perhaps Mono itself is sufficient to override nearly any legal claim by Microsoft to patents, trade secrets, etc, but people are reasonably uneasy about circumstances as they exist today.

</p><p>This, btw, was true with BSD as well, which is one main reason GNU/GCC were created and prospered as well as they did since every degree of seperation, either in time or implementation, tends to offer further protection against lawsuits.  So, a significant fork of Mono or a reimplementation of Mono would likely be sufficient to cement Mono as a safe platform--not that Mono isn't necessarily safe anyways.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>GNU and GCC are just as much open source implementations of proprietary technology from convicted monopolists as Mono is.Yes , but at the time GNU and GCC were created , neither work being cloned were under any considerable control of said monopolist .
Further , AT&amp;T did n't seem patently aware of what a goldmine Unix could be ( almost probably because of their focus on Multics ) , so that even when there final was a lawsuit brought upon anyone ( BSD ) , sufficient modifications had been made and reintegrated into the main branch that AT&amp;T could n't subsume ownership/control over the whole work .
Now , perhaps the same circumstance will happen with Microsoft and Mono .
And perhaps Mono itself is sufficient to override nearly any legal claim by Microsoft to patents , trade secrets , etc , but people are reasonably uneasy about circumstances as they exist today .
This , btw , was true with BSD as well , which is one main reason GNU/GCC were created and prospered as well as they did since every degree of seperation , either in time or implementation , tends to offer further protection against lawsuits .
So , a significant fork of Mono or a reimplementation of Mono would likely be sufficient to cement Mono as a safe platform--not that Mono is n't necessarily safe anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GNU and GCC are just as much open source implementations of proprietary technology from convicted monopolists as Mono is.Yes, but at the time GNU and GCC were created, neither work being cloned were under any considerable control of said monopolist.
Further, AT&amp;T didn't seem patently aware of what a goldmine Unix could be (almost probably because of their focus on Multics), so that even when there final was a lawsuit brought upon anyone (BSD), sufficient modifications had been made and reintegrated into the main branch that AT&amp;T couldn't subsume ownership/control over the whole work.
Now, perhaps the same circumstance will happen with Microsoft and Mono.
And perhaps Mono itself is sufficient to override nearly any legal claim by Microsoft to patents, trade secrets, etc, but people are reasonably uneasy about circumstances as they exist today.
This, btw, was true with BSD as well, which is one main reason GNU/GCC were created and prospered as well as they did since every degree of seperation, either in time or implementation, tends to offer further protection against lawsuits.
So, a significant fork of Mono or a reimplementation of Mono would likely be sufficient to cement Mono as a safe platform--not that Mono isn't necessarily safe anyways.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498971</id>
	<title>DinoRMS</title>
	<author>cremat</author>
	<datestamp>1246107360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RMS had his moment in time/history. Unfortunately for him, he's become a dinousaur, and we all know what happened to dinosaurs...</p><p>Nevertheless, we must be thankful for his work, and the work of other programmers as well, on the GNU software which is a very very important part of any Linux distro. However, if people would have blindly followed all his recommendations, ou favorite OS would not have support for binary/proprietary dirvers such as nvidia's and we would be nuts trying to use the GNU/Hurd microkernel. Who would use anything else but Windows in today's modern computers?</p><p>Fortunately, there's more to GNU/Linux than the GNU software plus the Linux kernel.</p><p>All fanatisms suck big time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RMS had his moment in time/history .
Unfortunately for him , he 's become a dinousaur , and we all know what happened to dinosaurs...Nevertheless , we must be thankful for his work , and the work of other programmers as well , on the GNU software which is a very very important part of any Linux distro .
However , if people would have blindly followed all his recommendations , ou favorite OS would not have support for binary/proprietary dirvers such as nvidia 's and we would be nuts trying to use the GNU/Hurd microkernel .
Who would use anything else but Windows in today 's modern computers ? Fortunately , there 's more to GNU/Linux than the GNU software plus the Linux kernel.All fanatisms suck big time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RMS had his moment in time/history.
Unfortunately for him, he's become a dinousaur, and we all know what happened to dinosaurs...Nevertheless, we must be thankful for his work, and the work of other programmers as well, on the GNU software which is a very very important part of any Linux distro.
However, if people would have blindly followed all his recommendations, ou favorite OS would not have support for binary/proprietary dirvers such as nvidia's and we would be nuts trying to use the GNU/Hurd microkernel.
Who would use anything else but Windows in today's modern computers?Fortunately, there's more to GNU/Linux than the GNU software plus the Linux kernel.All fanatisms suck big time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28501631</id>
	<title>It's very rare for me to agree with Stallman...</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1246132200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but I do in this instance.</p><p>Linux IMHO should not be incorporating Microsoft's standards in any form.  Doing so could lead to litigation, and eventually the death of the system.</p><p>Ballmer would probably love to see Linux implementations of a few bits of Microsoft's stuff, purely so that he would have the grounds to sue someone later.  Integrating such material is therefore very dangerous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but I do in this instance.Linux IMHO should not be incorporating Microsoft 's standards in any form .
Doing so could lead to litigation , and eventually the death of the system.Ballmer would probably love to see Linux implementations of a few bits of Microsoft 's stuff , purely so that he would have the grounds to sue someone later .
Integrating such material is therefore very dangerous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but I do in this instance.Linux IMHO should not be incorporating Microsoft's standards in any form.
Doing so could lead to litigation, and eventually the death of the system.Ballmer would probably love to see Linux implementations of a few bits of Microsoft's stuff, purely so that he would have the grounds to sue someone later.
Integrating such material is therefore very dangerous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28502965</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>SpooForBrains</author>
	<datestamp>1246196760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>- changing file formats with every release for no reason other than to force companies to upgrade Office</p></div><p>1. The<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xls,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ppt file formats have remained (broadly) the same from Office 97 through to Office 2003 inclusive. That's four major (as in major version number) iterations of the suite.<br>2. The new OOXML file formats introduced with Office 2007 are actually better. Sorry, but they are. They are considerably smaller, and offer new features not possible in the old formats (for example,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xlsx allows significantly more rows that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xls).</p><p>Hell, they even produced a free converter to allow Office 2003 to open the new file formats.</p><p>I'm not a Microsoft lover by any means. They could have made these file formats completely open and unencumbered to allow other office suites on other platforms to interact effectively with them, sure in the knowledge that Microsoft Office can compete with its rivals on its own merits (which I honestly believe it can). But, of course, they didn't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>- changing file formats with every release for no reason other than to force companies to upgrade Office1 .
The .doc , .xls , .ppt file formats have remained ( broadly ) the same from Office 97 through to Office 2003 inclusive .
That 's four major ( as in major version number ) iterations of the suite.2 .
The new OOXML file formats introduced with Office 2007 are actually better .
Sorry , but they are .
They are considerably smaller , and offer new features not possible in the old formats ( for example , .xlsx allows significantly more rows that .xls ) .Hell , they even produced a free converter to allow Office 2003 to open the new file formats.I 'm not a Microsoft lover by any means .
They could have made these file formats completely open and unencumbered to allow other office suites on other platforms to interact effectively with them , sure in the knowledge that Microsoft Office can compete with its rivals on its own merits ( which I honestly believe it can ) .
But , of course , they did n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- changing file formats with every release for no reason other than to force companies to upgrade Office1.
The .doc, .xls, .ppt file formats have remained (broadly) the same from Office 97 through to Office 2003 inclusive.
That's four major (as in major version number) iterations of the suite.2.
The new OOXML file formats introduced with Office 2007 are actually better.
Sorry, but they are.
They are considerably smaller, and offer new features not possible in the old formats (for example, .xlsx allows significantly more rows that .xls).Hell, they even produced a free converter to allow Office 2003 to open the new file formats.I'm not a Microsoft lover by any means.
They could have made these file formats completely open and unencumbered to allow other office suites on other platforms to interact effectively with them, sure in the knowledge that Microsoft Office can compete with its rivals on its own merits (which I honestly believe it can).
But, of course, they didn't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498925</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>Mr2001</author>
	<datestamp>1246106880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Windows developers are at 3.5 SP! level, beta people are already checking version 4. What is Mono at? 2? Without very important windows forms right?</p></div><p> <a href="http://mono-project.com/WinForms" title="mono-project.com">Wrong</a> [mono-project.com]: "Support for Windows Forms 2.0 is complete. At this point, we are largely just fixing bugs and polishing our code."</p><p>I've written WinForms apps in Visual Studio that ran on Mono with no changes, and that was over a year ago. This month I've been doing command-line apps, and of course they work just fine on Mono as well.</p><p>Mono also supports many individual features of C# 3 and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET 3.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows developers are at 3.5 SP !
level , beta people are already checking version 4 .
What is Mono at ?
2 ? Without very important windows forms right ?
Wrong [ mono-project.com ] : " Support for Windows Forms 2.0 is complete .
At this point , we are largely just fixing bugs and polishing our code .
" I 've written WinForms apps in Visual Studio that ran on Mono with no changes , and that was over a year ago .
This month I 've been doing command-line apps , and of course they work just fine on Mono as well.Mono also supports many individual features of C # 3 and .NET 3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows developers are at 3.5 SP!
level, beta people are already checking version 4.
What is Mono at?
2? Without very important windows forms right?
Wrong [mono-project.com]: "Support for Windows Forms 2.0 is complete.
At this point, we are largely just fixing bugs and polishing our code.
"I've written WinForms apps in Visual Studio that ran on Mono with no changes, and that was over a year ago.
This month I've been doing command-line apps, and of course they work just fine on Mono as well.Mono also supports many individual features of C# 3 and .NET 3.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497055</id>
	<title>Why Evil?</title>
	<author>dandart</author>
	<datestamp>1246136220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stop whining, if it's all our code, it doesn't matter. For all everyone knows, our implementation is better because it's way more portable.

It's NOT impure, it's NOT bad, it's just a recoding of commercial software.

If we get in trouble for this, then's the time to worry! If not, then bloody hell, use it if you have to!

But it's quite slow though. Why not use Vala?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop whining , if it 's all our code , it does n't matter .
For all everyone knows , our implementation is better because it 's way more portable .
It 's NOT impure , it 's NOT bad , it 's just a recoding of commercial software .
If we get in trouble for this , then 's the time to worry !
If not , then bloody hell , use it if you have to !
But it 's quite slow though .
Why not use Vala ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop whining, if it's all our code, it doesn't matter.
For all everyone knows, our implementation is better because it's way more portable.
It's NOT impure, it's NOT bad, it's just a recoding of commercial software.
If we get in trouble for this, then's the time to worry!
If not, then bloody hell, use it if you have to!
But it's quite slow though.
Why not use Vala?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496581</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>weav</author>
	<datestamp>1246133280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ask Spyglass, the company from which MS "licensed" what became MSIE, whether they felt raped when MS started giving away MSIE thus rendering the royalties to Spyglass $0.00 (plus the minumum quarterly fee)...</p><p>Maybe as a customer you  haven't had anything to rape you for aside from license fees for products.  If you were a developer / business partner, I suspect you would say differently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ask Spyglass , the company from which MS " licensed " what became MSIE , whether they felt raped when MS started giving away MSIE thus rendering the royalties to Spyglass $ 0.00 ( plus the minumum quarterly fee ) ...Maybe as a customer you have n't had anything to rape you for aside from license fees for products .
If you were a developer / business partner , I suspect you would say differently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ask Spyglass, the company from which MS "licensed" what became MSIE, whether they felt raped when MS started giving away MSIE thus rendering the royalties to Spyglass $0.00 (plus the minumum quarterly fee)...Maybe as a customer you  haven't had anything to rape you for aside from license fees for products.
If you were a developer / business partner, I suspect you would say differently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499507</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>aztracker1</author>
	<datestamp>1246111500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it is GPL/LGPL software... Does Debian have Samba/CIFS or FAT/FAT32 support?  These are far bigger threats to MS, just as patent ecumbered, and have already seen lawsuits regarding them.  Mono is a platform for applications.  MS doesn't care because if mono didn't exist said applications still would.</htmltext>
<tokenext>it is GPL/LGPL software... Does Debian have Samba/CIFS or FAT/FAT32 support ?
These are far bigger threats to MS , just as patent ecumbered , and have already seen lawsuits regarding them .
Mono is a platform for applications .
MS does n't care because if mono did n't exist said applications still would .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it is GPL/LGPL software... Does Debian have Samba/CIFS or FAT/FAT32 support?
These are far bigger threats to MS, just as patent ecumbered, and have already seen lawsuits regarding them.
Mono is a platform for applications.
MS doesn't care because if mono didn't exist said applications still would.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498625</id>
	<title>Doesn't matter if it doesn't suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246104000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrong Question - the question is if C# and mono are a patent trap. Currently, they are a patent trap. Program in C#/mono all you wish, just don't bitch when somebody else owns your work. And they want to charge your users a fee for using C#/mono.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong Question - the question is if C # and mono are a patent trap .
Currently , they are a patent trap .
Program in C # /mono all you wish , just do n't bitch when somebody else owns your work .
And they want to charge your users a fee for using C # /mono .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong Question - the question is if C# and mono are a patent trap.
Currently, they are a patent trap.
Program in C#/mono all you wish, just don't bitch when somebody else owns your work.
And they want to charge your users a fee for using C#/mono.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28500987</id>
	<title>Re:"M$"</title>
	<author>patiodragon</author>
	<datestamp>1246123980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"No. I am not "four years old". Are you?"</p><p>So... your comeback to "Are you 4 years old?" is "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I?"</p><p>Sweet!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" No .
I am not " four years old " .
Are you ? " So.. .
your comeback to " Are you 4 years old ?
" is " I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I ?
" Sweet !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"No.
I am not "four years old".
Are you?"So...
your comeback to "Are you 4 years old?
" is "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I?
"Sweet!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28502813</id>
	<title>Microsoft won't sue. They want you to use it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246195080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stallman is right.</p><p>Microsoft would prefer open source and Linux not to exist, but if they can't have that, then second best will be to have open source and Linux reliant on Microsoft technologies. That way there will always be a market for Microsoft products. Which organisation will do mono best? That's what the large corporations will ask themselves and the answer won't be Linux.</p><p>That is why Miguel and his team introduced Mono into Gnome (and Debain) some time back, and why Debian (and Ubuntu) are increasingly now reliant on Mono based applications. It is not just Tomboy. It is F-Spot the photo manager and others too.</p><p>I have been using Gnome for some time now and I have increasingly noticed error messages informing me about Win32 errors. Each time it happens, I do a double take. I can at last see the day coming when I will be shifting to KDE.</p><p>What has happened at Debian? Who is pushing these decisions? Something decidedly nasty is happening there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stallman is right.Microsoft would prefer open source and Linux not to exist , but if they ca n't have that , then second best will be to have open source and Linux reliant on Microsoft technologies .
That way there will always be a market for Microsoft products .
Which organisation will do mono best ?
That 's what the large corporations will ask themselves and the answer wo n't be Linux.That is why Miguel and his team introduced Mono into Gnome ( and Debain ) some time back , and why Debian ( and Ubuntu ) are increasingly now reliant on Mono based applications .
It is not just Tomboy .
It is F-Spot the photo manager and others too.I have been using Gnome for some time now and I have increasingly noticed error messages informing me about Win32 errors .
Each time it happens , I do a double take .
I can at last see the day coming when I will be shifting to KDE.What has happened at Debian ?
Who is pushing these decisions ?
Something decidedly nasty is happening there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stallman is right.Microsoft would prefer open source and Linux not to exist, but if they can't have that, then second best will be to have open source and Linux reliant on Microsoft technologies.
That way there will always be a market for Microsoft products.
Which organisation will do mono best?
That's what the large corporations will ask themselves and the answer won't be Linux.That is why Miguel and his team introduced Mono into Gnome (and Debain) some time back, and why Debian (and Ubuntu) are increasingly now reliant on Mono based applications.
It is not just Tomboy.
It is F-Spot the photo manager and others too.I have been using Gnome for some time now and I have increasingly noticed error messages informing me about Win32 errors.
Each time it happens, I do a double take.
I can at last see the day coming when I will be shifting to KDE.What has happened at Debian?
Who is pushing these decisions?
Something decidedly nasty is happening there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496865</id>
	<title>Re:Summary for those who didn't read it</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1246135020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does he like C# or not? If he doesn't, why does the FSF have their own<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET implementation? What makes theirs so special?</p></div><p>The FSF provides a C# compiler for people who already fucked up and wrote their code in C#, but they do not encourage people to do so from the start.<br>As he wrote in TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem is not in the C# implementations, but rather in Tomboy and other applications written in C#. If we lose the use of C#, we will lose them too. That doesn't make them unethical, but it means that writing them and using them is taking a gratuitous risk.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does he like C # or not ?
If he does n't , why does the FSF have their own .NET implementation ?
What makes theirs so special ? The FSF provides a C # compiler for people who already fucked up and wrote their code in C # , but they do not encourage people to do so from the start.As he wrote in TFA : The problem is not in the C # implementations , but rather in Tomboy and other applications written in C # .
If we lose the use of C # , we will lose them too .
That does n't make them unethical , but it means that writing them and using them is taking a gratuitous risk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does he like C# or not?
If he doesn't, why does the FSF have their own .NET implementation?
What makes theirs so special?The FSF provides a C# compiler for people who already fucked up and wrote their code in C#, but they do not encourage people to do so from the start.As he wrote in TFA:The problem is not in the C# implementations, but rather in Tomboy and other applications written in C#.
If we lose the use of C#, we will lose them too.
That doesn't make them unethical, but it means that writing them and using them is taking a gratuitous risk.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499189</id>
	<title>haricut?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246109220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RMS says no to most basic personal grooming habits as well. Does using a comb every now and then put free software in a precarious situation?</p><p>Saying Debian is including Mono by default just for Tomboy is a bogus statement made over and over again by members of the church of free software. So it is no surprise that the high priest has now been quoted saying it too. When the guy who made Gnote also puts together a coding framework that the zillions of C# coders in the world can easily port their stuff to Linux thereby making it easier for them to transition away from Windows then I think we should seriously look at getting Mono out of Debian.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RMS says no to most basic personal grooming habits as well .
Does using a comb every now and then put free software in a precarious situation ? Saying Debian is including Mono by default just for Tomboy is a bogus statement made over and over again by members of the church of free software .
So it is no surprise that the high priest has now been quoted saying it too .
When the guy who made Gnote also puts together a coding framework that the zillions of C # coders in the world can easily port their stuff to Linux thereby making it easier for them to transition away from Windows then I think we should seriously look at getting Mono out of Debian .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RMS says no to most basic personal grooming habits as well.
Does using a comb every now and then put free software in a precarious situation?Saying Debian is including Mono by default just for Tomboy is a bogus statement made over and over again by members of the church of free software.
So it is no surprise that the high priest has now been quoted saying it too.
When the guy who made Gnote also puts together a coding framework that the zillions of C# coders in the world can easily port their stuff to Linux thereby making it easier for them to transition away from Windows then I think we should seriously look at getting Mono out of Debian.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498023</id>
	<title>Re:RMS == bonkers!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246099320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What an idiotic statement by RMS! Why should it be a danger? If there are any software patent issues, they are certainly not on C# which is an open standard</p></div></blockquote><blockquote><div><p>But Microsoft (and our co-sponsors, Intel and Hewlett-Packard) went<br>further and have agreed that our patents essential to implementing C#<br>and CLI will be available on a "royalty-free and otherwise RAND" basis<br>for this purpose.</p></div></blockquote><p><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20030424174805/http://mailserver.di.unipi.it/pipermail/dotnet-sscli/msg00218.html" title="archive.org">http://web.archive.org/web/20030424174805/http://mailserver.di.unipi.it/pipermail/dotnet-sscli/msg00218.html</a> [archive.org] </p><blockquote><div><p>RMS == bonkers!?</p></div></blockquote><p>No - just well-informed and cautious. Some people seem to trust that patent holders won't in future want to leverage patents covering tech. that could, invitingly, become deeply embedded in competing products. Others are more cynical / have read the patent strategy manuals and think that that sort of trust is na&#239;vely optimistic.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><blockquote><div><p>RMS is actually harming many F/OSS projects with these stupid comments. What a letdown.</p></div></blockquote><p>Quite the reverse.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What an idiotic statement by RMS !
Why should it be a danger ?
If there are any software patent issues , they are certainly not on C # which is an open standardBut Microsoft ( and our co-sponsors , Intel and Hewlett-Packard ) wentfurther and have agreed that our patents essential to implementing C # and CLI will be available on a " royalty-free and otherwise RAND " basisfor this purpose.http : //web.archive.org/web/20030424174805/http : //mailserver.di.unipi.it/pipermail/dotnet-sscli/msg00218.html [ archive.org ] RMS = = bonkers !
? No - just well-informed and cautious .
Some people seem to trust that patent holders wo n't in future want to leverage patents covering tech .
that could , invitingly , become deeply embedded in competing products .
Others are more cynical / have read the patent strategy manuals and think that that sort of trust is na   vely optimistic .
: ) RMS is actually harming many F/OSS projects with these stupid comments .
What a letdown.Quite the reverse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What an idiotic statement by RMS!
Why should it be a danger?
If there are any software patent issues, they are certainly not on C# which is an open standardBut Microsoft (and our co-sponsors, Intel and Hewlett-Packard) wentfurther and have agreed that our patents essential to implementing C#and CLI will be available on a "royalty-free and otherwise RAND" basisfor this purpose.http://web.archive.org/web/20030424174805/http://mailserver.di.unipi.it/pipermail/dotnet-sscli/msg00218.html [archive.org] RMS == bonkers!
?No - just well-informed and cautious.
Some people seem to trust that patent holders won't in future want to leverage patents covering tech.
that could, invitingly, become deeply embedded in competing products.
Others are more cynical / have read the patent strategy manuals and think that that sort of trust is naïvely optimistic.
:)RMS is actually harming many F/OSS projects with these stupid comments.
What a letdown.Quite the reverse.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496243</id>
	<title>Mono post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246131060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please don't use me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please do n't use me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please don't use me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498183</id>
	<title>Re:"M$"</title>
	<author>Jugalator</author>
	<datestamp>1246100460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it is just about using Microsoft. And hopefully being able to make your point regardless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it is just about using Microsoft .
And hopefully being able to make your point regardless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it is just about using Microsoft.
And hopefully being able to make your point regardless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497329</id>
	<title>Re:Pot calling the kettle black</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246094700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The inventors of the C programming language and the Unix system are not likely to sue anybody for writing new software with relations to C or Unix.</p><p>Microsoft is a different case. If you are not licensed by Microsoft, you run the risk of being litigated by Microsoft for unlicensed use of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net technologies (the non-standardized namespaces).</p><p>The situation with C# and Mono might be acceptable if it were other companies that held the key<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net patents, but this is Microsoft we are talking about here. This is the same Microsoft that have been shown to "compete agressively" and "maliciously destroy the competition". This is the same Microsoft that considers Linux to infringe on mysterious Microsoft held patents. This is the same Microsoft that kicks puppies and eats babies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The inventors of the C programming language and the Unix system are not likely to sue anybody for writing new software with relations to C or Unix.Microsoft is a different case .
If you are not licensed by Microsoft , you run the risk of being litigated by Microsoft for unlicensed use of .Net technologies ( the non-standardized namespaces ) .The situation with C # and Mono might be acceptable if it were other companies that held the key .Net patents , but this is Microsoft we are talking about here .
This is the same Microsoft that have been shown to " compete agressively " and " maliciously destroy the competition " .
This is the same Microsoft that considers Linux to infringe on mysterious Microsoft held patents .
This is the same Microsoft that kicks puppies and eats babies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The inventors of the C programming language and the Unix system are not likely to sue anybody for writing new software with relations to C or Unix.Microsoft is a different case.
If you are not licensed by Microsoft, you run the risk of being litigated by Microsoft for unlicensed use of .Net technologies (the non-standardized namespaces).The situation with C# and Mono might be acceptable if it were other companies that held the key .Net patents, but this is Microsoft we are talking about here.
This is the same Microsoft that have been shown to "compete agressively" and "maliciously destroy the competition".
This is the same Microsoft that considers Linux to infringe on mysterious Microsoft held patents.
This is the same Microsoft that kicks puppies and eats babies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496351</id>
	<title>So? Why is he still trying to influence things?</title>
	<author>itsybitsy</author>
	<datestamp>1246131720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't get why Stallman keeps trying to influence what others choose to do with the software? Why does he feel the need to keep pushing his socialist-community-commune-communistic-leftist software agenda when it's one of the most successful models out there? I just don't get it. He's not the only voice and if they choose to add the "evil" mono to their distribution of Linix that's their choice not his. I just don't get why he keeps meddling in the affairs of others. Doesn't he have his own GNU/Linux/Hurd distribution anyway? Oh, right it's not that popular... oh well... I guess he just needs the attention or something.</p><p>I see a spectrum of various forms of open software from the locked up tight GPL crowd on through the truly free *BSD crowd to the awesomely free public domain crowd. There is room for everyone's choices just don't try to force them on everyone else.</p><p>When I used to use Bulletin Board systems to download software most of it was in the public domain. Now evil software licenses like GPL have ruined the public domain. It's quite sad to impose so many restrictions on free software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get why Stallman keeps trying to influence what others choose to do with the software ?
Why does he feel the need to keep pushing his socialist-community-commune-communistic-leftist software agenda when it 's one of the most successful models out there ?
I just do n't get it .
He 's not the only voice and if they choose to add the " evil " mono to their distribution of Linix that 's their choice not his .
I just do n't get why he keeps meddling in the affairs of others .
Does n't he have his own GNU/Linux/Hurd distribution anyway ?
Oh , right it 's not that popular... oh well... I guess he just needs the attention or something.I see a spectrum of various forms of open software from the locked up tight GPL crowd on through the truly free * BSD crowd to the awesomely free public domain crowd .
There is room for everyone 's choices just do n't try to force them on everyone else.When I used to use Bulletin Board systems to download software most of it was in the public domain .
Now evil software licenses like GPL have ruined the public domain .
It 's quite sad to impose so many restrictions on free software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get why Stallman keeps trying to influence what others choose to do with the software?
Why does he feel the need to keep pushing his socialist-community-commune-communistic-leftist software agenda when it's one of the most successful models out there?
I just don't get it.
He's not the only voice and if they choose to add the "evil" mono to their distribution of Linix that's their choice not his.
I just don't get why he keeps meddling in the affairs of others.
Doesn't he have his own GNU/Linux/Hurd distribution anyway?
Oh, right it's not that popular... oh well... I guess he just needs the attention or something.I see a spectrum of various forms of open software from the locked up tight GPL crowd on through the truly free *BSD crowd to the awesomely free public domain crowd.
There is room for everyone's choices just don't try to force them on everyone else.When I used to use Bulletin Board systems to download software most of it was in the public domain.
Now evil software licenses like GPL have ruined the public domain.
It's quite sad to impose so many restrictions on free software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497315</id>
	<title>Re:"M$"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246094640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I'm curious as to what the big issue is. Whenever someone uses the derogatory "M$", we get someone complaining about it and the mods needed to bring it to attention. Why? What is so distracting about this behavior? Why is it such a motivator that we must have not only the original complain but a chain of posts that follow it?</p><p>Does the derogatory term distract from the discussion? Does it rile up the Microsoft fans? Does it bring out the shills? What is the motivation?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I 'm curious as to what the big issue is .
Whenever someone uses the derogatory " M $ " , we get someone complaining about it and the mods needed to bring it to attention .
Why ? What is so distracting about this behavior ?
Why is it such a motivator that we must have not only the original complain but a chain of posts that follow it ? Does the derogatory term distract from the discussion ?
Does it rile up the Microsoft fans ?
Does it bring out the shills ?
What is the motivation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I'm curious as to what the big issue is.
Whenever someone uses the derogatory "M$", we get someone complaining about it and the mods needed to bring it to attention.
Why? What is so distracting about this behavior?
Why is it such a motivator that we must have not only the original complain but a chain of posts that follow it?Does the derogatory term distract from the discussion?
Does it rile up the Microsoft fans?
Does it bring out the shills?
What is the motivation?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498139</id>
	<title>Theft is probably more apt than rape.</title>
	<author>weston</author>
	<datestamp>1246100100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Funny, we've been a customer of Microsoft's for 20 years and have yet to experience this "raping" you speak of. I know it's all sorts of fun and games to bash MS on slashdot</i></p><p>Funny, I don't even buy their software frequently. And I've *still* been a victim of a bunch of their practices over almost two decades, from having to work around ridiculous problems with DOS to having to having to work around ridiculous problems in their web browser. Given their level of success and the unprecedented resources they have to bring to bear on a given problem -- particularly in the case of IE6  where they basically gave the idea of advancing the web as a platform (and every web developer who built on it) a giant silent middle finger for five years *after* they conspired to "cut off the air supply" of a viable competitor -- pushing these issues onto the backs of everyday devs is a pretty crappy thing to do. Maybe it's only kindof miserable, rather than "rape." But given the number of man hours lost to these flaws, "theft" is nearly an apt metaphor.</p><p>So, perhaps rape is over the top. Perhaps it's merely theft or abuse, perhaps both are metaphors or even hyperbole. In any case, I'm glad it's worked out for YOU as a customer, and hey, feel free to keep buying from them if that's your choice. But it's been pretty far from a picnic for a lot of people building on top of their platform (to say nothing of competitors coming up against their market manipulation).</p><p>I'd say chances are that it isn't so much that you *haven't* been negatively impacted by Microsoft software and their business practices, it's that you haven't really considered how their development and business practices have impacted the industry and by extension your options and costs as a customer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , we 've been a customer of Microsoft 's for 20 years and have yet to experience this " raping " you speak of .
I know it 's all sorts of fun and games to bash MS on slashdotFunny , I do n't even buy their software frequently .
And I 've * still * been a victim of a bunch of their practices over almost two decades , from having to work around ridiculous problems with DOS to having to having to work around ridiculous problems in their web browser .
Given their level of success and the unprecedented resources they have to bring to bear on a given problem -- particularly in the case of IE6 where they basically gave the idea of advancing the web as a platform ( and every web developer who built on it ) a giant silent middle finger for five years * after * they conspired to " cut off the air supply " of a viable competitor -- pushing these issues onto the backs of everyday devs is a pretty crappy thing to do .
Maybe it 's only kindof miserable , rather than " rape .
" But given the number of man hours lost to these flaws , " theft " is nearly an apt metaphor.So , perhaps rape is over the top .
Perhaps it 's merely theft or abuse , perhaps both are metaphors or even hyperbole .
In any case , I 'm glad it 's worked out for YOU as a customer , and hey , feel free to keep buying from them if that 's your choice .
But it 's been pretty far from a picnic for a lot of people building on top of their platform ( to say nothing of competitors coming up against their market manipulation ) .I 'd say chances are that it is n't so much that you * have n't * been negatively impacted by Microsoft software and their business practices , it 's that you have n't really considered how their development and business practices have impacted the industry and by extension your options and costs as a customer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, we've been a customer of Microsoft's for 20 years and have yet to experience this "raping" you speak of.
I know it's all sorts of fun and games to bash MS on slashdotFunny, I don't even buy their software frequently.
And I've *still* been a victim of a bunch of their practices over almost two decades, from having to work around ridiculous problems with DOS to having to having to work around ridiculous problems in their web browser.
Given their level of success and the unprecedented resources they have to bring to bear on a given problem -- particularly in the case of IE6  where they basically gave the idea of advancing the web as a platform (and every web developer who built on it) a giant silent middle finger for five years *after* they conspired to "cut off the air supply" of a viable competitor -- pushing these issues onto the backs of everyday devs is a pretty crappy thing to do.
Maybe it's only kindof miserable, rather than "rape.
" But given the number of man hours lost to these flaws, "theft" is nearly an apt metaphor.So, perhaps rape is over the top.
Perhaps it's merely theft or abuse, perhaps both are metaphors or even hyperbole.
In any case, I'm glad it's worked out for YOU as a customer, and hey, feel free to keep buying from them if that's your choice.
But it's been pretty far from a picnic for a lot of people building on top of their platform (to say nothing of competitors coming up against their market manipulation).I'd say chances are that it isn't so much that you *haven't* been negatively impacted by Microsoft software and their business practices, it's that you haven't really considered how their development and business practices have impacted the industry and by extension your options and costs as a customer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498047</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>kestasjk</author>
	<datestamp>1246099560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You just raped the GP.. Rapist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You just raped the GP.. Rapist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just raped the GP.. Rapist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28503455</id>
	<title>Re:Pot calling the kettle black</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246201320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if I understood you, AT&amp;T is Morgoth and Microsoft is Sauron. This leaves Stallman as... the hobbit that makes a living selling fake One Rings to tourists?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if I understood you , AT&amp;T is Morgoth and Microsoft is Sauron .
This leaves Stallman as... the hobbit that makes a living selling fake One Rings to tourists ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if I understood you, AT&amp;T is Morgoth and Microsoft is Sauron.
This leaves Stallman as... the hobbit that makes a living selling fake One Rings to tourists?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498211</id>
	<title>Should be included in Ubuntu by default?</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1246100700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Listen Mono developer. Ubuntu is ''owned'' by a very successful billionaire and last time I checked, even makes money. It has a huge community which are there because they love the product, not like they are paid to be there.</p><p>Don't confuse Ubuntu with that bailed out by Microsoft failed server company named Novell and your once famous now sold out false prophet.</p><p>If I had the smallest clue how you guys tricked Debian into this...</p><p>The community isn't stupid, they figure the entire thing from basic users to legendary, pragma shifting developers. Please use your MS coupons whatever for Visual Studio 2008 and real<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET and leave Linux alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Listen Mono developer .
Ubuntu is ''owned' ' by a very successful billionaire and last time I checked , even makes money .
It has a huge community which are there because they love the product , not like they are paid to be there.Do n't confuse Ubuntu with that bailed out by Microsoft failed server company named Novell and your once famous now sold out false prophet.If I had the smallest clue how you guys tricked Debian into this...The community is n't stupid , they figure the entire thing from basic users to legendary , pragma shifting developers .
Please use your MS coupons whatever for Visual Studio 2008 and real .NET and leave Linux alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Listen Mono developer.
Ubuntu is ''owned'' by a very successful billionaire and last time I checked, even makes money.
It has a huge community which are there because they love the product, not like they are paid to be there.Don't confuse Ubuntu with that bailed out by Microsoft failed server company named Novell and your once famous now sold out false prophet.If I had the smallest clue how you guys tricked Debian into this...The community isn't stupid, they figure the entire thing from basic users to legendary, pragma shifting developers.
Please use your MS coupons whatever for Visual Studio 2008 and real .NET and leave Linux alone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28503017</id>
	<title>These are the developers behind the push</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246197420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't get angry, get even.</p><p>Here's the home page of the Debian Mono project with links to the various projects and the names of the <a href="http://pkg-mono.alioth.debian.org/" title="debian.org" rel="nofollow">dirty dozen</a> [debian.org] (Ok, there's more than a dozen but artistic license and all that...) who are responsible for the push to get Microsoft technologies into Debian.</p><p>The current developers are:<br>Mirco Bauer (meebey)<br>Sebastian Dr&#195;ge (slomo)<br>Jo Shields (directhex)<br>David Paleino (hanska)</p><p>Let them know what you think. Let the Debain project as a whole know too. Maybe consider joining the project to have a say in the decisions. I'm sure Microsoft has already done that. Why not you too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't get angry , get even.Here 's the home page of the Debian Mono project with links to the various projects and the names of the dirty dozen [ debian.org ] ( Ok , there 's more than a dozen but artistic license and all that... ) who are responsible for the push to get Microsoft technologies into Debian.The current developers are : Mirco Bauer ( meebey ) Sebastian Dr   ge ( slomo ) Jo Shields ( directhex ) David Paleino ( hanska ) Let them know what you think .
Let the Debain project as a whole know too .
Maybe consider joining the project to have a say in the decisions .
I 'm sure Microsoft has already done that .
Why not you too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't get angry, get even.Here's the home page of the Debian Mono project with links to the various projects and the names of the dirty dozen [debian.org] (Ok, there's more than a dozen but artistic license and all that...) who are responsible for the push to get Microsoft technologies into Debian.The current developers are:Mirco Bauer (meebey)Sebastian DrÃge (slomo)Jo Shields (directhex)David Paleino (hanska)Let them know what you think.
Let the Debain project as a whole know too.
Maybe consider joining the project to have a say in the decisions.
I'm sure Microsoft has already done that.
Why not you too?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496645</id>
	<title>Not true.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246133580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; "Debian's decision to include Mono in the default installation..."</p><p>Mono is not included in the Debian "default installation".  It is merely pulled in by one of the several "tasks" that the user may (or may not) choose to select.  The Debian "default installation" -- all pacakges of "standard" or higher priority -- does not even include X.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; " Debian 's decision to include Mono in the default installation... " Mono is not included in the Debian " default installation " .
It is merely pulled in by one of the several " tasks " that the user may ( or may not ) choose to select .
The Debian " default installation " -- all pacakges of " standard " or higher priority -- does not even include X .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; "Debian's decision to include Mono in the default installation..."Mono is not included in the Debian "default installation".
It is merely pulled in by one of the several "tasks" that the user may (or may not) choose to select.
The Debian "default installation" -- all pacakges of "standard" or higher priority -- does not even include X.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497717</id>
	<title>Don't listen to the elders at your peril.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1246097040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you are advocating is to ignore the long term game for the sake of  immediacy.</p><p>Hackers that have a tunnel visions strictly concentrated on hacking should be considered incapable technicians.</p><p>Hackers should understand the context in which their applications work and how they will affect and be affected by the society in which they will be run.</p><p>When I studied Engineering (Computing Engineering), we attended the same lectures as Civil or Industrial Engineers regarding ethics and how your work happens in a context.</p><p>What you are advocating is to ignore the social context in which applications are deployed and carry on coding with blinders firmly worn. Such attitude is short sighted, fortunately people like Stallman point to the perils ahead, wise hackers should pause, take notice, and then reach their own conclusions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you are advocating is to ignore the long term game for the sake of immediacy.Hackers that have a tunnel visions strictly concentrated on hacking should be considered incapable technicians.Hackers should understand the context in which their applications work and how they will affect and be affected by the society in which they will be run.When I studied Engineering ( Computing Engineering ) , we attended the same lectures as Civil or Industrial Engineers regarding ethics and how your work happens in a context.What you are advocating is to ignore the social context in which applications are deployed and carry on coding with blinders firmly worn .
Such attitude is short sighted , fortunately people like Stallman point to the perils ahead , wise hackers should pause , take notice , and then reach their own conclusions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you are advocating is to ignore the long term game for the sake of  immediacy.Hackers that have a tunnel visions strictly concentrated on hacking should be considered incapable technicians.Hackers should understand the context in which their applications work and how they will affect and be affected by the society in which they will be run.When I studied Engineering (Computing Engineering), we attended the same lectures as Civil or Industrial Engineers regarding ethics and how your work happens in a context.What you are advocating is to ignore the social context in which applications are deployed and carry on coding with blinders firmly worn.
Such attitude is short sighted, fortunately people like Stallman point to the perils ahead, wise hackers should pause, take notice, and then reach their own conclusions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496399</id>
	<title>Isn't this antithetical to GNU in general?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246132020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mono is a free (GPL) reimplementation of commercial software.  Isn't that how GNU got started in the first place?  Didn't Stallman and friends reimplement the commercial Unix libraries as free (GPL) software?  Wasn't he potentially violating patents?  Why was it okay then when it's Unix, but not okay now when the technology came from Microsoft?  Do the commercial Unix vendors holding those patents behave any differently than Microsoft (ahem SCO)?  Mono is 2 generations behind Microsoft, yet has a pretty good stable offering and makes a very nice easy path for the majority of all developers in the world (WINDOWS Developers) to make the transition to Linux and GNU...this isn't something Stallman should be against, IMHO.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mono is a free ( GPL ) reimplementation of commercial software .
Is n't that how GNU got started in the first place ?
Did n't Stallman and friends reimplement the commercial Unix libraries as free ( GPL ) software ?
Was n't he potentially violating patents ?
Why was it okay then when it 's Unix , but not okay now when the technology came from Microsoft ?
Do the commercial Unix vendors holding those patents behave any differently than Microsoft ( ahem SCO ) ?
Mono is 2 generations behind Microsoft , yet has a pretty good stable offering and makes a very nice easy path for the majority of all developers in the world ( WINDOWS Developers ) to make the transition to Linux and GNU...this is n't something Stallman should be against , IMHO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mono is a free (GPL) reimplementation of commercial software.
Isn't that how GNU got started in the first place?
Didn't Stallman and friends reimplement the commercial Unix libraries as free (GPL) software?
Wasn't he potentially violating patents?
Why was it okay then when it's Unix, but not okay now when the technology came from Microsoft?
Do the commercial Unix vendors holding those patents behave any differently than Microsoft (ahem SCO)?
Mono is 2 generations behind Microsoft, yet has a pretty good stable offering and makes a very nice easy path for the majority of all developers in the world (WINDOWS Developers) to make the transition to Linux and GNU...this isn't something Stallman should be against, IMHO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28501285</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246126980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If it was any other distro, it wouldn't bother people that much...</p></div><p>I've noticed that my distro's using an increasing amount of Mono crap with each successive release (this is probably related to the fact they've started doing all kinds of little tricks to "persuade" users to switch from KDE to Gnome, but that's neither here nor there), and it bothers the hell out of me. Thanks to the numbskulls at Debian, I can no longer point to Debian and tell the knotheads at OpenSUSE, "Gee, these guys don't seem to feel any need to include this crap, why should you?" Thanks for giving me one less reason to switch to Debian or Ubuntu.</p><p>Anyone who can't look at Mono and figure out within 5 seconds or so that it's nothing but a timesuck intended to divert development resources from real open platforms whilst allowing M$ to slip a finger under your waistband needs to be doing something that doesn't involve computers for a living.</p><p>And yes, I said "M$": Microsoft has *always* been about lots of money and buying lots of control with it. Producing software has always run a distant third to the those two, and producing *good* software isn't even on the M$ map.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it was any other distro , it would n't bother people that much...I 've noticed that my distro 's using an increasing amount of Mono crap with each successive release ( this is probably related to the fact they 've started doing all kinds of little tricks to " persuade " users to switch from KDE to Gnome , but that 's neither here nor there ) , and it bothers the hell out of me .
Thanks to the numbskulls at Debian , I can no longer point to Debian and tell the knotheads at OpenSUSE , " Gee , these guys do n't seem to feel any need to include this crap , why should you ?
" Thanks for giving me one less reason to switch to Debian or Ubuntu.Anyone who ca n't look at Mono and figure out within 5 seconds or so that it 's nothing but a timesuck intended to divert development resources from real open platforms whilst allowing M $ to slip a finger under your waistband needs to be doing something that does n't involve computers for a living.And yes , I said " M $ " : Microsoft has * always * been about lots of money and buying lots of control with it .
Producing software has always run a distant third to the those two , and producing * good * software is n't even on the M $ map .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it was any other distro, it wouldn't bother people that much...I've noticed that my distro's using an increasing amount of Mono crap with each successive release (this is probably related to the fact they've started doing all kinds of little tricks to "persuade" users to switch from KDE to Gnome, but that's neither here nor there), and it bothers the hell out of me.
Thanks to the numbskulls at Debian, I can no longer point to Debian and tell the knotheads at OpenSUSE, "Gee, these guys don't seem to feel any need to include this crap, why should you?
" Thanks for giving me one less reason to switch to Debian or Ubuntu.Anyone who can't look at Mono and figure out within 5 seconds or so that it's nothing but a timesuck intended to divert development resources from real open platforms whilst allowing M$ to slip a finger under your waistband needs to be doing something that doesn't involve computers for a living.And yes, I said "M$": Microsoft has *always* been about lots of money and buying lots of control with it.
Producing software has always run a distant third to the those two, and producing *good* software isn't even on the M$ map.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496669</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry RMS: Linux != GNU...</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1246133820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As much as Stallman would like to say otherwise, Linux is not GNU/Linux, and GNU is not all free software. And lets face it, Debian has a choice.</p></div><p>True, but then Stallman has every right to voice his opinion about that choice.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Either not include a useful application for the sake of "purity", or include a useful runtime and applications which use it.</p></div><p>"Purity". You make it sound like the Aryan Brotherhood or something. I'm about the furthest thing from an OSS purist. I've developed closed source software that combines with open source software I developed on an open source platform and sold the hardware at, well, more companies than I care to remember. I'm running Mac OS X to type this, a very useful blending of closed and open source. So when I say I understand and agree with Stallman's assessment you can't accuse me of doing so because I'm interested in "purity". It is strategy pure and simple. Sometimes it pays to take a longer view of things and learn from history. I have no problem with Mono in general or in c# or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET applications. I don't think Linux distros should be including them by default for the same reason I don't think Linux should be including a reverse engineered copy of ActiveX and applications that rely upon it. It is, quite simply, too dangerous a move to include standards that may or may not have patent issues and which are almost completely controlled by a monopolist who has many times abused that monopoly to harm others. Relying on MS to obey the law is an idiotic proposal at this point. It's like building a business model on working with the Mafia and relying on them to obey the laws in your dealings. </p><p><div class="quote"><p>IS the goal to create a useful system or a pure system?</p></div><p>The goal is to create a useful system in the long term and not encourage the adoption of one more trojan "standard" from Microsoft which can be used against us at a later date. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as Stallman would like to say otherwise , Linux is not GNU/Linux , and GNU is not all free software .
And lets face it , Debian has a choice.True , but then Stallman has every right to voice his opinion about that choice.Either not include a useful application for the sake of " purity " , or include a useful runtime and applications which use it. " Purity " .
You make it sound like the Aryan Brotherhood or something .
I 'm about the furthest thing from an OSS purist .
I 've developed closed source software that combines with open source software I developed on an open source platform and sold the hardware at , well , more companies than I care to remember .
I 'm running Mac OS X to type this , a very useful blending of closed and open source .
So when I say I understand and agree with Stallman 's assessment you ca n't accuse me of doing so because I 'm interested in " purity " .
It is strategy pure and simple .
Sometimes it pays to take a longer view of things and learn from history .
I have no problem with Mono in general or in c # or .NET applications .
I do n't think Linux distros should be including them by default for the same reason I do n't think Linux should be including a reverse engineered copy of ActiveX and applications that rely upon it .
It is , quite simply , too dangerous a move to include standards that may or may not have patent issues and which are almost completely controlled by a monopolist who has many times abused that monopoly to harm others .
Relying on MS to obey the law is an idiotic proposal at this point .
It 's like building a business model on working with the Mafia and relying on them to obey the laws in your dealings .
IS the goal to create a useful system or a pure system ? The goal is to create a useful system in the long term and not encourage the adoption of one more trojan " standard " from Microsoft which can be used against us at a later date .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as Stallman would like to say otherwise, Linux is not GNU/Linux, and GNU is not all free software.
And lets face it, Debian has a choice.True, but then Stallman has every right to voice his opinion about that choice.Either not include a useful application for the sake of "purity", or include a useful runtime and applications which use it."Purity".
You make it sound like the Aryan Brotherhood or something.
I'm about the furthest thing from an OSS purist.
I've developed closed source software that combines with open source software I developed on an open source platform and sold the hardware at, well, more companies than I care to remember.
I'm running Mac OS X to type this, a very useful blending of closed and open source.
So when I say I understand and agree with Stallman's assessment you can't accuse me of doing so because I'm interested in "purity".
It is strategy pure and simple.
Sometimes it pays to take a longer view of things and learn from history.
I have no problem with Mono in general or in c# or .NET applications.
I don't think Linux distros should be including them by default for the same reason I don't think Linux should be including a reverse engineered copy of ActiveX and applications that rely upon it.
It is, quite simply, too dangerous a move to include standards that may or may not have patent issues and which are almost completely controlled by a monopolist who has many times abused that monopoly to harm others.
Relying on MS to obey the law is an idiotic proposal at this point.
It's like building a business model on working with the Mafia and relying on them to obey the laws in your dealings.
IS the goal to create a useful system or a pure system?The goal is to create a useful system in the long term and not encourage the adoption of one more trojan "standard" from Microsoft which can be used against us at a later date. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498829</id>
	<title>The dotGNU strategy</title>
	<author>extrasolar</author>
	<datestamp>1246105740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For those of you saying that RMS is being hypocritical with the Portable.Net project, you should read this first:</p><p><a href="http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/danger.html" title="gnu.org">Don't get caught in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET</a> [gnu.org]</p><p>With all the RMS-bashing that slashdot has turned into lately, you'd wonder what the point is in providing arguments for your position.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For those of you saying that RMS is being hypocritical with the Portable.Net project , you should read this first : Do n't get caught in .NET [ gnu.org ] With all the RMS-bashing that slashdot has turned into lately , you 'd wonder what the point is in providing arguments for your position .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those of you saying that RMS is being hypocritical with the Portable.Net project, you should read this first:Don't get caught in .NET [gnu.org]With all the RMS-bashing that slashdot has turned into lately, you'd wonder what the point is in providing arguments for your position.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315</id>
	<title>Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>eyepeepackets</author>
	<datestamp>1246131420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's absurd that Stallman has to actually issue this warning considering Microsoft's history of behavior not only with competition but with their business associates as well. Anyone who has been both alive and conscious these past twenty-five years knows forming any sort of relationship with Microsoft, either directly or indirectly, customer or partner, is just asking for a raping.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's absurd that Stallman has to actually issue this warning considering Microsoft 's history of behavior not only with competition but with their business associates as well .
Anyone who has been both alive and conscious these past twenty-five years knows forming any sort of relationship with Microsoft , either directly or indirectly , customer or partner , is just asking for a raping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's absurd that Stallman has to actually issue this warning considering Microsoft's history of behavior not only with competition but with their business associates as well.
Anyone who has been both alive and conscious these past twenty-five years knows forming any sort of relationship with Microsoft, either directly or indirectly, customer or partner, is just asking for a raping.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498815</id>
	<title>Mono is good</title>
	<author>NeoStrider\_BZK</author>
	<datestamp>1246105560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mono is great! Faster than Java and more skinnable, but harder to code.
While I do fear non-native code, Im totally fine with it as long as you have the option to write native apps, unlike , say, Android.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mono is great !
Faster than Java and more skinnable , but harder to code .
While I do fear non-native code , Im totally fine with it as long as you have the option to write native apps , unlike , say , Android .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mono is great!
Faster than Java and more skinnable, but harder to code.
While I do fear non-native code, Im totally fine with it as long as you have the option to write native apps, unlike , say, Android.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496395</id>
	<title>M$</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246132020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who cares about linux anyway? Its like 2\% of the market.. If it had been any good it should have went past Mac by now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares about linux anyway ?
Its like 2 \ % of the market.. If it had been any good it should have went past Mac by now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares about linux anyway?
Its like 2\% of the market.. If it had been any good it should have went past Mac by now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499367</id>
	<title>Jo Shields' article...</title>
	<author>QuietLagoon</author>
	<datestamp>1246110540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... is specious at best, damaging to Open Source at worst.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... is specious at best , damaging to Open Source at worst .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... is specious at best, damaging to Open Source at worst.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496301</id>
	<title>Re:"M$"</title>
	<author>ColdWetDog</author>
	<datestamp>1246131360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, it <i>is</i> from Twitter.  So you're close.  Hi twit!  Glad to see you back with you're insightful erudite expositions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it is from Twitter .
So you 're close .
Hi twit !
Glad to see you back with you 're insightful erudite expositions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it is from Twitter.
So you're close.
Hi twit!
Glad to see you back with you're insightful erudite expositions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497503</id>
	<title>Re:another reason:it doesn't play to Linux's stren</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1246095900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And another gripe with C# and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.java is that they don't seem to me to ever be the best tool for a job. They're horribly inefficient to develop in (python's much better), mediocre OO languages (ruby's better), bad at doing low level stuff (C's better), etc. I'd say that Python + C extensions is a better solution for almost any problem C# can be used for except for interacting with Windows internals.</p></div><p>From your listing of languages, it sounds like you're a fan of dynamically typed programming languages in general. If so, then there might not be any point in discussing this, since you are inherently biased against any statically typed language such as Java or C#... but I'll try.</p><p>C# <em>the language</em> does not "interact nicely with Windows objects". It doesn't even know anything about them. It's just a language, pretty much like Java, but with a few additions that make it somewhat more convenient to code in.</p><p>It also has a bunch of stuff in it that makes it easier to interop with OS APIs, and C libraries in general - not just on Windows, but anywhere. For example, it supports raw pointers and pointer arithmetic, packed structs, and unions. It also lets you access functions from C libraries far easier than, say, Python - because C# type system overlaps with C, you can just import functions directly from shared libraries with a single declaration.</p><p>I'm not sure what you mean by "mediocre OO language", and how Ruby is better there. It seems that most stories about how superior Ruby is are centered about blocks &amp; lambdas - but these  <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb397687.aspx" title="microsoft.com">are present in C#</a> [microsoft.com] as well, and let you <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb534803.aspx" title="microsoft.com">do</a> [microsoft.com] similar <a href="http://www.lovethedot.net/2009/02/parallelfor-deeper-dive-parallel.html" title="lovethedot.net">things</a> [lovethedot.net] (even if the syntax is not quite as neat).</p><p>So, can you be more specific about your dislike of C# as a language?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And another gripe with C # and .java is that they do n't seem to me to ever be the best tool for a job .
They 're horribly inefficient to develop in ( python 's much better ) , mediocre OO languages ( ruby 's better ) , bad at doing low level stuff ( C 's better ) , etc .
I 'd say that Python + C extensions is a better solution for almost any problem C # can be used for except for interacting with Windows internals.From your listing of languages , it sounds like you 're a fan of dynamically typed programming languages in general .
If so , then there might not be any point in discussing this , since you are inherently biased against any statically typed language such as Java or C # ... but I 'll try.C # the language does not " interact nicely with Windows objects " .
It does n't even know anything about them .
It 's just a language , pretty much like Java , but with a few additions that make it somewhat more convenient to code in.It also has a bunch of stuff in it that makes it easier to interop with OS APIs , and C libraries in general - not just on Windows , but anywhere .
For example , it supports raw pointers and pointer arithmetic , packed structs , and unions .
It also lets you access functions from C libraries far easier than , say , Python - because C # type system overlaps with C , you can just import functions directly from shared libraries with a single declaration.I 'm not sure what you mean by " mediocre OO language " , and how Ruby is better there .
It seems that most stories about how superior Ruby is are centered about blocks &amp; lambdas - but these are present in C # [ microsoft.com ] as well , and let you do [ microsoft.com ] similar things [ lovethedot.net ] ( even if the syntax is not quite as neat ) .So , can you be more specific about your dislike of C # as a language ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And another gripe with C# and .java is that they don't seem to me to ever be the best tool for a job.
They're horribly inefficient to develop in (python's much better), mediocre OO languages (ruby's better), bad at doing low level stuff (C's better), etc.
I'd say that Python + C extensions is a better solution for almost any problem C# can be used for except for interacting with Windows internals.From your listing of languages, it sounds like you're a fan of dynamically typed programming languages in general.
If so, then there might not be any point in discussing this, since you are inherently biased against any statically typed language such as Java or C#... but I'll try.C# the language does not "interact nicely with Windows objects".
It doesn't even know anything about them.
It's just a language, pretty much like Java, but with a few additions that make it somewhat more convenient to code in.It also has a bunch of stuff in it that makes it easier to interop with OS APIs, and C libraries in general - not just on Windows, but anywhere.
For example, it supports raw pointers and pointer arithmetic, packed structs, and unions.
It also lets you access functions from C libraries far easier than, say, Python - because C# type system overlaps with C, you can just import functions directly from shared libraries with a single declaration.I'm not sure what you mean by "mediocre OO language", and how Ruby is better there.
It seems that most stories about how superior Ruby is are centered about blocks &amp; lambdas - but these  are present in C# [microsoft.com] as well, and let you do [microsoft.com] similar things [lovethedot.net] (even if the syntax is not quite as neat).So, can you be more specific about your dislike of C# as a language?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497449</id>
	<title>Bilski case is near</title>
	<author>BountyX</author>
	<datestamp>1246095540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Bilski case is right around the corner and will give us better picture of how software patents will be implemented in the future. Who knows, might even make this Stallman issue moot? I find it strange that stallman even cares about patents. Software patents are pretty much a joke nowadays.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Bilski case is right around the corner and will give us better picture of how software patents will be implemented in the future .
Who knows , might even make this Stallman issue moot ?
I find it strange that stallman even cares about patents .
Software patents are pretty much a joke nowadays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Bilski case is right around the corner and will give us better picture of how software patents will be implemented in the future.
Who knows, might even make this Stallman issue moot?
I find it strange that stallman even cares about patents.
Software patents are pretty much a joke nowadays.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496679</id>
	<title>Re:"M$"</title>
	<author>hackus</author>
	<datestamp>1246133880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are YOU four years old that you cannot see that M$ has become synonymous with Microsoft's insistence we replace XP with Vista because THEY SAY SO, not because it fixes a business problem?</p><p>M$ is a symbol for:</p><p>1) Microsoft software.<br>2) Business expenses related with implementing Microsoft solutions which are never ever cheap or cost effective.<br>3) Finally, the reasons why are related to the fact our government is basically a large corporation (racketeering) organization that allows collusion and monopolies.   Which, #2 is the direct result of.</p><p>Hence M$ has become an abbreviation for all three.</p><p>-Hack</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are YOU four years old that you can not see that M $ has become synonymous with Microsoft 's insistence we replace XP with Vista because THEY SAY SO , not because it fixes a business problem ? M $ is a symbol for : 1 ) Microsoft software.2 ) Business expenses related with implementing Microsoft solutions which are never ever cheap or cost effective.3 ) Finally , the reasons why are related to the fact our government is basically a large corporation ( racketeering ) organization that allows collusion and monopolies .
Which , # 2 is the direct result of.Hence M $ has become an abbreviation for all three.-Hack</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are YOU four years old that you cannot see that M$ has become synonymous with Microsoft's insistence we replace XP with Vista because THEY SAY SO, not because it fixes a business problem?M$ is a symbol for:1) Microsoft software.2) Business expenses related with implementing Microsoft solutions which are never ever cheap or cost effective.3) Finally, the reasons why are related to the fact our government is basically a large corporation (racketeering) organization that allows collusion and monopolies.
Which, #2 is the direct result of.Hence M$ has become an abbreviation for all three.-Hack</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496895</id>
	<title>Re:"M$"</title>
	<author>diegocgteleline.es</author>
	<datestamp>1246135140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must be new here...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be new here.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be new here...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497115</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246093500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>May I ask your connection with Mono and Microsoft?</p><p>If you have anything to do, shouldn't you put a disclaimer? Your post makes no sense especially since the Sun Java is actually GPL now, with all strings removed.</p><p>Microsoft conspired Java with their ''embrace and extend'' trick, the day Sun figured it out, they sued them, when MS figured they will be in huge trouble as court will likely decide siding with Sun, they settled outside court, for millions of dollars.</p><p>It is one of the several mistakes in your post.</p><p>MS doesn't need to do anything to Mono, Mono stinks all by itself because<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET is designed for Windows. Several important parts are missing, Windows developers are at 3.5 SP! level, beta people are already checking version 4. What is Mono at? 2? Without very important windows forms right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>May I ask your connection with Mono and Microsoft ? If you have anything to do , should n't you put a disclaimer ?
Your post makes no sense especially since the Sun Java is actually GPL now , with all strings removed.Microsoft conspired Java with their ''embrace and extend' ' trick , the day Sun figured it out , they sued them , when MS figured they will be in huge trouble as court will likely decide siding with Sun , they settled outside court , for millions of dollars.It is one of the several mistakes in your post.MS does n't need to do anything to Mono , Mono stinks all by itself because .NET is designed for Windows .
Several important parts are missing , Windows developers are at 3.5 SP !
level , beta people are already checking version 4 .
What is Mono at ?
2 ? Without very important windows forms right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>May I ask your connection with Mono and Microsoft?If you have anything to do, shouldn't you put a disclaimer?
Your post makes no sense especially since the Sun Java is actually GPL now, with all strings removed.Microsoft conspired Java with their ''embrace and extend'' trick, the day Sun figured it out, they sued them, when MS figured they will be in huge trouble as court will likely decide siding with Sun, they settled outside court, for millions of dollars.It is one of the several mistakes in your post.MS doesn't need to do anything to Mono, Mono stinks all by itself because .NET is designed for Windows.
Several important parts are missing, Windows developers are at 3.5 SP!
level, beta people are already checking version 4.
What is Mono at?
2? Without very important windows forms right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28500633</id>
	<title>Re:Java?</title>
	<author>jrumney</author>
	<datestamp>1246120800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>RMS used to say the same about Java. But now Sun's reference JVM is released under a free license, so things are very different compared to C#/.NET.</htmltext>
<tokenext>RMS used to say the same about Java .
But now Sun 's reference JVM is released under a free license , so things are very different compared to C # /.NET .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RMS used to say the same about Java.
But now Sun's reference JVM is released under a free license, so things are very different compared to C#/.NET.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499521</id>
	<title>Re:Summary for those who didn't read it</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1246111560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because it's GPL and as such it'll buy you beer. Also it's paranoia compatible and fits in your average overhead bin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it 's GPL and as such it 'll buy you beer .
Also it 's paranoia compatible and fits in your average overhead bin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it's GPL and as such it'll buy you beer.
Also it's paranoia compatible and fits in your average overhead bin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497033</id>
	<title>Re:"M$"</title>
	<author>miknix</author>
	<datestamp>1246136040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I $trongly di$courage the u$e of '$' when writing Micro$oft. A$ parent $ay$, it<br>i$ a childi$h behavior which make$ look like that Micro$oft unique purpo$e i$<br>to make $. Thi$ i$ totally fal$e becau$e we all know Micro$oft want$ to build<br>a better digital world where maliciou$ $oftware doe$ not exi$t.</p><p>Plea$e $top u$ing '$',<br>thank you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I $ trongly di $ courage the u $ e of ' $ ' when writing Micro $ oft .
A $ parent $ ay $ , iti $ a childi $ h behavior which make $ look like that Micro $ oft unique purpo $ e i $ to make $ .
Thi $ i $ totally fal $ e becau $ e we all know Micro $ oft want $ to builda better digital world where maliciou $ $ oftware doe $ not exi $ t.Plea $ e $ top u $ ing ' $ ',thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I $trongly di$courage the u$e of '$' when writing Micro$oft.
A$ parent $ay$, iti$ a childi$h behavior which make$ look like that Micro$oft unique purpo$e i$to make $.
Thi$ i$ totally fal$e becau$e we all know Micro$oft want$ to builda better digital world where maliciou$ $oftware doe$ not exi$t.Plea$e $top u$ing '$',thank you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497369</id>
	<title>Today but what about tomorrow?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246095000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What happens when Java is little but a memory (woot!)  and large important parts of the non-microsoft users desktops are<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net based?</p><p>Stallman is well known and respected for his accuracy in predicting future risks. Did it occur to you that he might be thinking a bit further out than you are?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happens when Java is little but a memory ( woot !
) and large important parts of the non-microsoft users desktops are .net based ? Stallman is well known and respected for his accuracy in predicting future risks .
Did it occur to you that he might be thinking a bit further out than you are ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happens when Java is little but a memory (woot!
)  and large important parts of the non-microsoft users desktops are .net based?Stallman is well known and respected for his accuracy in predicting future risks.
Did it occur to you that he might be thinking a bit further out than you are?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496573</id>
	<title>Stallman - growing increasingly irrelavant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246133220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does anybody really care what he has to say about Mono &amp; C#?
<br>
<br>
After fighting a decade+ long losing battle about Linux vs. GNU/Linux naming, he just enjoys trying to continue controlling others and telling them what to do and not do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anybody really care what he has to say about Mono &amp; C # ?
After fighting a decade + long losing battle about Linux vs. GNU/Linux naming , he just enjoys trying to continue controlling others and telling them what to do and not do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anybody really care what he has to say about Mono &amp; C#?
After fighting a decade+ long losing battle about Linux vs. GNU/Linux naming, he just enjoys trying to continue controlling others and telling them what to do and not do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497613</id>
	<title>Re:"M$"</title>
	<author>WaywardGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1246096500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So... Microsoft having potential patent claims against your free compiler doesn't bother you?  How about even using a "portable" language defined and controlled by Microsoft?  Sure, if you only care about Windows, use C#.  But Microsoft has a long history of jerking around standards that it controls to make them impossible for competitors to adopt.  Consider Internet Explorer, and all the pain we have to go through to be compatible with that beast.  How about Microsoft's attack on Open Document Format, and it's insanely huge and complex competing standard which only Microsoft implements?  I think RMS has a valid point, and deserves consideration.  This is a good place to air such discussions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So... Microsoft having potential patent claims against your free compiler does n't bother you ?
How about even using a " portable " language defined and controlled by Microsoft ?
Sure , if you only care about Windows , use C # .
But Microsoft has a long history of jerking around standards that it controls to make them impossible for competitors to adopt .
Consider Internet Explorer , and all the pain we have to go through to be compatible with that beast .
How about Microsoft 's attack on Open Document Format , and it 's insanely huge and complex competing standard which only Microsoft implements ?
I think RMS has a valid point , and deserves consideration .
This is a good place to air such discussions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So... Microsoft having potential patent claims against your free compiler doesn't bother you?
How about even using a "portable" language defined and controlled by Microsoft?
Sure, if you only care about Windows, use C#.
But Microsoft has a long history of jerking around standards that it controls to make them impossible for competitors to adopt.
Consider Internet Explorer, and all the pain we have to go through to be compatible with that beast.
How about Microsoft's attack on Open Document Format, and it's insanely huge and complex competing standard which only Microsoft implements?
I think RMS has a valid point, and deserves consideration.
This is a good place to air such discussions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28512101</id>
	<title>Samba now safe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246277040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bring it!</p><p>If Microsoft EVER makes any threatening sounds regarding Samba, I hope the EC Competition Commissioner will come down on them like a ton of bricks: <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/09/microsoft-loses-appeal-in-europe.ars" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">link </a> [arstechnica.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bring it ! If Microsoft EVER makes any threatening sounds regarding Samba , I hope the EC Competition Commissioner will come down on them like a ton of bricks : link [ arstechnica.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bring it!If Microsoft EVER makes any threatening sounds regarding Samba, I hope the EC Competition Commissioner will come down on them like a ton of bricks: link  [arstechnica.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28501725</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft, I said NO!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246220040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Maybe as a customer you haven't had anything to rape you for aside from license fees for products.</p><p>Almost all linux users are regularly raped by microsoft when they pay the microsoft tax when buying a new pc/laptop. It's news when a linux user manages to get an MS windows refund.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Maybe as a customer you have n't had anything to rape you for aside from license fees for products.Almost all linux users are regularly raped by microsoft when they pay the microsoft tax when buying a new pc/laptop .
It 's news when a linux user manages to get an MS windows refund .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Maybe as a customer you haven't had anything to rape you for aside from license fees for products.Almost all linux users are regularly raped by microsoft when they pay the microsoft tax when buying a new pc/laptop.
It's news when a linux user manages to get an MS windows refund.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498331</id>
	<title>Not necessarily a patent trap</title>
	<author>paladin217</author>
	<datestamp>1246101660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By MS helping to implement parts of Mono, they have, at a minimum, given up their rights to sue over those portions with which it helped.  IANAL, but I have worked in the world of IP for a few years and from what I understand, MS has surrendered its rights to sue over those portions of Mono because of promissory estoppel.  That is, since Mono was being implemented with help from MS, thereby giving the project its blessing to continue, MS has essentially given the developers of Mono a promise that it is OK for them to continue on.</p><p>What remains to be seen is whether or not MS would be allowed to sue for those portions of Mono that were implemented without help from MS.  As usual, software development makes established IP law far more interesting to apply...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By MS helping to implement parts of Mono , they have , at a minimum , given up their rights to sue over those portions with which it helped .
IANAL , but I have worked in the world of IP for a few years and from what I understand , MS has surrendered its rights to sue over those portions of Mono because of promissory estoppel .
That is , since Mono was being implemented with help from MS , thereby giving the project its blessing to continue , MS has essentially given the developers of Mono a promise that it is OK for them to continue on.What remains to be seen is whether or not MS would be allowed to sue for those portions of Mono that were implemented without help from MS. As usual , software development makes established IP law far more interesting to apply.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By MS helping to implement parts of Mono, they have, at a minimum, given up their rights to sue over those portions with which it helped.
IANAL, but I have worked in the world of IP for a few years and from what I understand, MS has surrendered its rights to sue over those portions of Mono because of promissory estoppel.
That is, since Mono was being implemented with help from MS, thereby giving the project its blessing to continue, MS has essentially given the developers of Mono a promise that it is OK for them to continue on.What remains to be seen is whether or not MS would be allowed to sue for those portions of Mono that were implemented without help from MS.  As usual, software development makes established IP law far more interesting to apply...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499053</id>
	<title>Re:the dangers I see</title>
	<author>Mr2001</author>
	<datestamp>1246108200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1) Is there a licensing concern using the C# language, or any of the compiler technology? Specifically, are there any software patents that could be leveraged against the open source community for using the C# implementation that could result in a massive court action? I do not know the details of any agreements (if they exist) but knowing Microsoft's stance on OSS, there is certainly potential for future abuse. Something along the lines of "Use of C# on any non-Microsoft platform is henceforth prohibited."</p></div><p>Since C# and CLI are ECMA standards, Microsoft is obligated to offer any such patents under reasonable and non-discriminatory licenses. That would rule out banning the use of C# on non-MS platforms. They've also gone further and said that any licensing would be royalty-free.</p><p>That said... the idea that patents covering these technologies even <i>exist</i> seems to be a myth. I've never seen any actual patents referenced in any of these Mono threads, only scary hype about the possibility that they <i>might</i> exist undetected.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2) Is C# considered an open standard? Secondly, is the specification controlled by Microsoft directly? Or, is it influenced by the communities? Java is a similar monster, but it's been my observation that Sun (Oracle) is a willing participant in the Linux/Unix space so it hasn't been such a problem. An Example here would be something like, "C# compilers and applications now depend on a library that is currently available on Windows platform, any reverse engineering or decompilation or efforts to replicate this library will result in criminal penalties."</p></div><p>The C# language, the CLI (virtual machine) and core framework are ECMA standards. Microsoft could release C# 5.0 without submitting it to ECMA and impose draconian terms, but you could keep on using the older standardized version.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Is there a licensing concern using the C # language , or any of the compiler technology ?
Specifically , are there any software patents that could be leveraged against the open source community for using the C # implementation that could result in a massive court action ?
I do not know the details of any agreements ( if they exist ) but knowing Microsoft 's stance on OSS , there is certainly potential for future abuse .
Something along the lines of " Use of C # on any non-Microsoft platform is henceforth prohibited .
" Since C # and CLI are ECMA standards , Microsoft is obligated to offer any such patents under reasonable and non-discriminatory licenses .
That would rule out banning the use of C # on non-MS platforms .
They 've also gone further and said that any licensing would be royalty-free.That said... the idea that patents covering these technologies even exist seems to be a myth .
I 've never seen any actual patents referenced in any of these Mono threads , only scary hype about the possibility that they might exist undetected.2 ) Is C # considered an open standard ?
Secondly , is the specification controlled by Microsoft directly ?
Or , is it influenced by the communities ?
Java is a similar monster , but it 's been my observation that Sun ( Oracle ) is a willing participant in the Linux/Unix space so it has n't been such a problem .
An Example here would be something like , " C # compilers and applications now depend on a library that is currently available on Windows platform , any reverse engineering or decompilation or efforts to replicate this library will result in criminal penalties .
" The C # language , the CLI ( virtual machine ) and core framework are ECMA standards .
Microsoft could release C # 5.0 without submitting it to ECMA and impose draconian terms , but you could keep on using the older standardized version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Is there a licensing concern using the C# language, or any of the compiler technology?
Specifically, are there any software patents that could be leveraged against the open source community for using the C# implementation that could result in a massive court action?
I do not know the details of any agreements (if they exist) but knowing Microsoft's stance on OSS, there is certainly potential for future abuse.
Something along the lines of "Use of C# on any non-Microsoft platform is henceforth prohibited.
"Since C# and CLI are ECMA standards, Microsoft is obligated to offer any such patents under reasonable and non-discriminatory licenses.
That would rule out banning the use of C# on non-MS platforms.
They've also gone further and said that any licensing would be royalty-free.That said... the idea that patents covering these technologies even exist seems to be a myth.
I've never seen any actual patents referenced in any of these Mono threads, only scary hype about the possibility that they might exist undetected.2) Is C# considered an open standard?
Secondly, is the specification controlled by Microsoft directly?
Or, is it influenced by the communities?
Java is a similar monster, but it's been my observation that Sun (Oracle) is a willing participant in the Linux/Unix space so it hasn't been such a problem.
An Example here would be something like, "C# compilers and applications now depend on a library that is currently available on Windows platform, any reverse engineering or decompilation or efforts to replicate this library will result in criminal penalties.
"The C# language, the CLI (virtual machine) and core framework are ECMA standards.
Microsoft could release C# 5.0 without submitting it to ECMA and impose draconian terms, but you could keep on using the older standardized version.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496527</id>
	<title>Re:Pot calling the kettle black</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246132980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is this a troll?  C and UNIX were both developed by an even bigger, eviler company than MS could ever hope to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this a troll ?
C and UNIX were both developed by an even bigger , eviler company than MS could ever hope to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this a troll?
C and UNIX were both developed by an even bigger, eviler company than MS could ever hope to be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496451</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_143</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28501213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28501473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28503895
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28505553
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_151</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_129</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_127</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499571
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_161</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498135
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_135</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_146</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_156</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496895
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_132</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28502423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28500519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_159</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498047
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_145</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28502887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28500633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28511301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_153</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497331
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_140</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28512101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28506509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_150</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_134</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28501725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28503455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28500069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28508173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_137</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28502561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_148</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28512665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_158</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_131</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_142</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28502491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28507417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28501843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28502227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28513595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_152</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28509251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_128</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28585467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_160</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496923
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_147</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28500553
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28506561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_155</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_141</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28502965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28505909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_139</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28502013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498049
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28501285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28500987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497231
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498385
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_136</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496589
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28508913
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497565
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28501047
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_130</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_149</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498637
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499489
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_157</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_133</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_144</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496783
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28585505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_154</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_162</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28503029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_138</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28507141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28500795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_1759255_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496407
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496879
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499495
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497155
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496991
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498139
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496907
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496701
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496627
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497939
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498047
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497231
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497245
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496845
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497501
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496581
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28503029
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28501725
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497815
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496811
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28502965
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498345
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28506561
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498385
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499083
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497643
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497241
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496609
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496413
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497035
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499507
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28512101
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28501285
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496651
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496537
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496953
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496923
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497115
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498925
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497253
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28508913
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28502227
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28508173
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496597
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497449
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496385
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28503895
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498757
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497725
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497555
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497067
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496931
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28501631
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497263
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497803
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496433
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496527
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499571
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498161
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497509
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498505
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497471
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28511301
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28503455
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28500795
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498901
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496645
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496361
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496947
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28502423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497795
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497369
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498457
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496565
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498331
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499503
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496403
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497503
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28512665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498363
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28500553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496689
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28506509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28513595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496633
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498947
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28501213
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28502491
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498841
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499465
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496895
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497565
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28501047
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497613
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497515
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28502561
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498111
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28500987
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498397
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28501843
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496679
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496893
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497033
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28509251
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28585505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496693
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497175
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497315
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28502013
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496399
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497837
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497011
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497071
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28502887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498823
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498517
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28505553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497161
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498355
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496543
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497717
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497729
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497093
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496345
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497265
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28507141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28505909
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28501473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28585467
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496767
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497087
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499053
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498091
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496243
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496373
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28507417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28500519
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496835
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497441
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496803
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496549
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496619
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496903
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498637
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497863
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497487
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496813
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497125
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496305
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496599
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28500069
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499527
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498171
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28498701
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496391
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28500633
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28497751
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496779
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28496269
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_1759255.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_1759255.28499367
</commentlist>
</conversation>
