<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_28_1351220</id>
	<title>The Open Source Design Conundrum</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1246199820000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://cnet.com/openroad" rel="nofollow">Matt Asay</a> writes <i>"Walk the halls of any open-source conference and you'll see a large percentage of attendees with ironically non-open-source Apple laptops and iPhones. One reason for this seeming contradiction can be found in reading Matthew Thomas' classic '<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20030201183139/mpt.phrasewise.com/discuss/msgReader$173">Why free software usability tends to suck</a>.'  Open-source advocates like good design as much as anyone, but the open-source development process is often not the best way to achieve it.  Open-source projects have tended to be great commoditizers, but not necessarily the best innovators. Hence, Red Hat CEO Jim Whitehurst recently stated that Red Hat is "<a href="http://seekingalpha.com/article/145199-red-hat-inc-f1q10-qtr-end-05-31-09-earnings-call-transcript?page=-1">focused on commoditizing important layers in the stack</a>."  This is fine, but for those that want open source to push the envelope on innovation, it <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505\_3-10274039-16.html">may be unavoidable to introduce a bit more cathedral into the bazaar</a>.  Without an IBM, Red Hat, or Mozilla bringing cash and discipline to an open-source project, including paying people to do the 'dirt work' that no one would otherwise do, can open source hope to thrive?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Matt Asay writes " Walk the halls of any open-source conference and you 'll see a large percentage of attendees with ironically non-open-source Apple laptops and iPhones .
One reason for this seeming contradiction can be found in reading Matthew Thomas ' classic 'Why free software usability tends to suck .
' Open-source advocates like good design as much as anyone , but the open-source development process is often not the best way to achieve it .
Open-source projects have tended to be great commoditizers , but not necessarily the best innovators .
Hence , Red Hat CEO Jim Whitehurst recently stated that Red Hat is " focused on commoditizing important layers in the stack .
" This is fine , but for those that want open source to push the envelope on innovation , it may be unavoidable to introduce a bit more cathedral into the bazaar .
Without an IBM , Red Hat , or Mozilla bringing cash and discipline to an open-source project , including paying people to do the 'dirt work ' that no one would otherwise do , can open source hope to thrive ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Matt Asay writes "Walk the halls of any open-source conference and you'll see a large percentage of attendees with ironically non-open-source Apple laptops and iPhones.
One reason for this seeming contradiction can be found in reading Matthew Thomas' classic 'Why free software usability tends to suck.
'  Open-source advocates like good design as much as anyone, but the open-source development process is often not the best way to achieve it.
Open-source projects have tended to be great commoditizers, but not necessarily the best innovators.
Hence, Red Hat CEO Jim Whitehurst recently stated that Red Hat is "focused on commoditizing important layers in the stack.
"  This is fine, but for those that want open source to push the envelope on innovation, it may be unavoidable to introduce a bit more cathedral into the bazaar.
Without an IBM, Red Hat, or Mozilla bringing cash and discipline to an open-source project, including paying people to do the 'dirt work' that no one would otherwise do, can open source hope to thrive?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28510039</id>
	<title>Re:Free software sucks because.</title>
	<author>yourassOA</author>
	<datestamp>1246212180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey slashdot crowd look how many people don't think programmers need paychecks. Why is modding anonymous? They are MS secret agents I tell you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey slashdot crowd look how many people do n't think programmers need paychecks .
Why is modding anonymous ?
They are MS secret agents I tell you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey slashdot crowd look how many people don't think programmers need paychecks.
Why is modding anonymous?
They are MS secret agents I tell you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28506229</id>
	<title>Polish != Innovation</title>
	<author>liam193</author>
	<datestamp>1246220580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article has a crucial flaw.  It merges the concepts of innovation and polish.</p><p>Much of the FOSS software is lacking in polish.  The interface may not be pretty or there is a single feature that is a bit hard to set or whatever; however, that has nothing to do with innovation.  Innovation is the moving forward into new features and capabilities.  In that realm, FOSS is frequently the leader.  Why?  Because in many cases the proprietary systems look at what the majority of users will want and ignore the minority groups.  When you do this, you end up with the worst of all worlds from a feature standpoint.  It is a challenge to support the beginning user and the advanced user at the same time.  It's a challenge to allow the business user to utilize the same product as the technical users or even home users.  The place were FOSS most shines is in the fact that the products are open so that a developer can step in and say, "This product would be better for group X if we added this functionality so I'll add it."  In some cases that developer is in group X.  </p><p>I am an owner of an Ipod Touch.  I absolutely love the thing.  I can do about 80\% of what I want on it.  Why only 80\%?  Not because the capabilities I want are complicated or costly to employ.  Because the manufacturer feels that my use of the device is a minority use so they never developed the features.  For example:  I heavily use my Ipod Touch as what it is (an Ipod<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... read the term pod as in podcasting).  I listen to multiple podcasts daily.  I can now download podcasts directly over wifi; however, the feature is crippled by the fact that the Ipod Touch will not keep a list of your podcasts.  The only way to keep a list of the podcasts you listen too on the device is to keep around an episode of the podcast.  That combined with the fact that the device allows no feature for "download all new episodes of my podcasts" (which it couldn't do without the list or you would have to keep around old episodes for it to know what podcasts you listen too) make the device a pain to work with.  As an alternative, it would be great to sync over wifi with my computer, but that's not possible either.  So, a device that is meant to listen to podcasts on the go and has wifi support and the ability to download over the air makes it painful to do so without a frequently cabling.  This is the exact place where a FOSS approach would shine.  A developer would be able to add one or more of these features without having to get the original developers to "come around".</p><p>So, I can see that FOSS sometimes fails on the polish side and may not always produce the best interface, but the idea that it lacks in innovation simply put does not make any sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article has a crucial flaw .
It merges the concepts of innovation and polish.Much of the FOSS software is lacking in polish .
The interface may not be pretty or there is a single feature that is a bit hard to set or whatever ; however , that has nothing to do with innovation .
Innovation is the moving forward into new features and capabilities .
In that realm , FOSS is frequently the leader .
Why ? Because in many cases the proprietary systems look at what the majority of users will want and ignore the minority groups .
When you do this , you end up with the worst of all worlds from a feature standpoint .
It is a challenge to support the beginning user and the advanced user at the same time .
It 's a challenge to allow the business user to utilize the same product as the technical users or even home users .
The place were FOSS most shines is in the fact that the products are open so that a developer can step in and say , " This product would be better for group X if we added this functionality so I 'll add it .
" In some cases that developer is in group X. I am an owner of an Ipod Touch .
I absolutely love the thing .
I can do about 80 \ % of what I want on it .
Why only 80 \ % ?
Not because the capabilities I want are complicated or costly to employ .
Because the manufacturer feels that my use of the device is a minority use so they never developed the features .
For example : I heavily use my Ipod Touch as what it is ( an Ipod ... read the term pod as in podcasting ) .
I listen to multiple podcasts daily .
I can now download podcasts directly over wifi ; however , the feature is crippled by the fact that the Ipod Touch will not keep a list of your podcasts .
The only way to keep a list of the podcasts you listen too on the device is to keep around an episode of the podcast .
That combined with the fact that the device allows no feature for " download all new episodes of my podcasts " ( which it could n't do without the list or you would have to keep around old episodes for it to know what podcasts you listen too ) make the device a pain to work with .
As an alternative , it would be great to sync over wifi with my computer , but that 's not possible either .
So , a device that is meant to listen to podcasts on the go and has wifi support and the ability to download over the air makes it painful to do so without a frequently cabling .
This is the exact place where a FOSS approach would shine .
A developer would be able to add one or more of these features without having to get the original developers to " come around " .So , I can see that FOSS sometimes fails on the polish side and may not always produce the best interface , but the idea that it lacks in innovation simply put does not make any sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article has a crucial flaw.
It merges the concepts of innovation and polish.Much of the FOSS software is lacking in polish.
The interface may not be pretty or there is a single feature that is a bit hard to set or whatever; however, that has nothing to do with innovation.
Innovation is the moving forward into new features and capabilities.
In that realm, FOSS is frequently the leader.
Why?  Because in many cases the proprietary systems look at what the majority of users will want and ignore the minority groups.
When you do this, you end up with the worst of all worlds from a feature standpoint.
It is a challenge to support the beginning user and the advanced user at the same time.
It's a challenge to allow the business user to utilize the same product as the technical users or even home users.
The place were FOSS most shines is in the fact that the products are open so that a developer can step in and say, "This product would be better for group X if we added this functionality so I'll add it.
"  In some cases that developer is in group X.  I am an owner of an Ipod Touch.
I absolutely love the thing.
I can do about 80\% of what I want on it.
Why only 80\%?
Not because the capabilities I want are complicated or costly to employ.
Because the manufacturer feels that my use of the device is a minority use so they never developed the features.
For example:  I heavily use my Ipod Touch as what it is (an Ipod ... read the term pod as in podcasting).
I listen to multiple podcasts daily.
I can now download podcasts directly over wifi; however, the feature is crippled by the fact that the Ipod Touch will not keep a list of your podcasts.
The only way to keep a list of the podcasts you listen too on the device is to keep around an episode of the podcast.
That combined with the fact that the device allows no feature for "download all new episodes of my podcasts" (which it couldn't do without the list or you would have to keep around old episodes for it to know what podcasts you listen too) make the device a pain to work with.
As an alternative, it would be great to sync over wifi with my computer, but that's not possible either.
So, a device that is meant to listen to podcasts on the go and has wifi support and the ability to download over the air makes it painful to do so without a frequently cabling.
This is the exact place where a FOSS approach would shine.
A developer would be able to add one or more of these features without having to get the original developers to "come around".So, I can see that FOSS sometimes fails on the polish side and may not always produce the best interface, but the idea that it lacks in innovation simply put does not make any sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28506101</id>
	<title>Re:KDE is very usable</title>
	<author>argiedot</author>
	<datestamp>1246219560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My laptop has Vista and Ubuntu (GNOME-version) installed and I prefer using Gnome (and I use it most of the time). The best part is that the UI is much more consistent and I like that. In addition, I absolutely \_love\_ Scale and Expo and the idea of workspaces in general. Then again, I'm one of those people who still has the brown-orange theme that everyone rails about. I just like it, it's nice and comforting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My laptop has Vista and Ubuntu ( GNOME-version ) installed and I prefer using Gnome ( and I use it most of the time ) .
The best part is that the UI is much more consistent and I like that .
In addition , I absolutely \ _love \ _ Scale and Expo and the idea of workspaces in general .
Then again , I 'm one of those people who still has the brown-orange theme that everyone rails about .
I just like it , it 's nice and comforting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My laptop has Vista and Ubuntu (GNOME-version) installed and I prefer using Gnome (and I use it most of the time).
The best part is that the UI is much more consistent and I like that.
In addition, I absolutely \_love\_ Scale and Expo and the idea of workspaces in general.
Then again, I'm one of those people who still has the brown-orange theme that everyone rails about.
I just like it, it's nice and comforting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28512337</id>
	<title>Bullocks!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246279320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The comments in that article are utter bullshit.</p><p>Opensource is in many fields way ahead op the pack in both features and innovation.</p><p>Just because graphicaly and user level experience wize its not doesn't mean that 99\% of the rest that makes up an OS and applications aren't.</p><p>The true problem is that developers in open source generaly do not have "computer illiterate" people above them like CEO's, Directors, Managers and Graphics designers and with that don't have a clue what general users need or want from their app other then the feature wize.</p><p>A developer can work with most if any application and doesn't know that a normal user is to stupid to work with the frontends to the apps he develops.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The comments in that article are utter bullshit.Opensource is in many fields way ahead op the pack in both features and innovation.Just because graphicaly and user level experience wize its not does n't mean that 99 \ % of the rest that makes up an OS and applications are n't.The true problem is that developers in open source generaly do not have " computer illiterate " people above them like CEO 's , Directors , Managers and Graphics designers and with that do n't have a clue what general users need or want from their app other then the feature wize.A developer can work with most if any application and does n't know that a normal user is to stupid to work with the frontends to the apps he develops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The comments in that article are utter bullshit.Opensource is in many fields way ahead op the pack in both features and innovation.Just because graphicaly and user level experience wize its not doesn't mean that 99\% of the rest that makes up an OS and applications aren't.The true problem is that developers in open source generaly do not have "computer illiterate" people above them like CEO's, Directors, Managers and Graphics designers and with that don't have a clue what general users need or want from their app other then the feature wize.A developer can work with most if any application and doesn't know that a normal user is to stupid to work with the frontends to the apps he develops.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28509085</id>
	<title>apple does not make good hardwar</title>
	<author>cinnamon colbert</author>
	<datestamp>1246202880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i've never understood why people mistake cool for good.<br>apple makes stuff that has a definite look - if you like it great, if you don't not so great. But their hardware is not "good" - it is full of flaws - just look at the gen one ipod battery disaster; my wife had a very $$ laptop where the rubber keys stuck to the screen, and the power cord plug did nothave any strain relief.</p><p>I could go on quite a while; the point is, if any other vendor shipped stuff with these problems, the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. crowd would jeer with dersion. why does apple get some sort of free pass on this ?<br>Apple doesn't make good hardware - they make good user interface systems; if you look at apple, everything they do revolves around some system and the user interface.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i 've never understood why people mistake cool for good.apple makes stuff that has a definite look - if you like it great , if you do n't not so great .
But their hardware is not " good " - it is full of flaws - just look at the gen one ipod battery disaster ; my wife had a very $ $ laptop where the rubber keys stuck to the screen , and the power cord plug did nothave any strain relief.I could go on quite a while ; the point is , if any other vendor shipped stuff with these problems , the / .
crowd would jeer with dersion .
why does apple get some sort of free pass on this ? Apple does n't make good hardware - they make good user interface systems ; if you look at apple , everything they do revolves around some system and the user interface .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i've never understood why people mistake cool for good.apple makes stuff that has a definite look - if you like it great, if you don't not so great.
But their hardware is not "good" - it is full of flaws - just look at the gen one ipod battery disaster; my wife had a very $$ laptop where the rubber keys stuck to the screen, and the power cord plug did nothave any strain relief.I could go on quite a while; the point is, if any other vendor shipped stuff with these problems, the /.
crowd would jeer with dersion.
why does apple get some sort of free pass on this ?Apple doesn't make good hardware - they make good user interface systems; if you look at apple, everything they do revolves around some system and the user interface.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505033</id>
	<title>Suck?</title>
	<author>WillKemp</author>
	<datestamp>1246212720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Free software usability <em>doesn't</em> tend to suck. Software usability in general tends to suck - but free software doesn't suck any worse than any other sort.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Free software usability does n't tend to suck .
Software usability in general tends to suck - but free software does n't suck any worse than any other sort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free software usability doesn't tend to suck.
Software usability in general tends to suck - but free software doesn't suck any worse than any other sort.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503753</id>
	<title>chiefs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246204020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What does 'too many chiefs' have to do with anything? Soulskill, are you likening the F/OSS world to Native Americans of yore?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What does 'too many chiefs ' have to do with anything ?
Soulskill , are you likening the F/OSS world to Native Americans of yore ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does 'too many chiefs' have to do with anything?
Soulskill, are you likening the F/OSS world to Native Americans of yore?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504827</id>
	<title>I thought so, too...</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1246211340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bought a Powerbook, for that reason. I figured, I'd never run Windows on it, so may as well put Linux on the best laptop ever, right?</p><p>Didn't work too well. I never quite got it working, and just ended up using OS X.</p><p>In fact, from personal experience, the reason people choose Macs seems to have less to do with the overall UI, and more to do with specific things Just Working that Just Don't on Linux. Example: Maybe it's gotten better, and there's a nice GUI for this somewhere, but when I plug in a second monitor to my laptop, I restart my X server -- I could never quite get Xinerama or the nvidia stuff to cooperate without a restart.</p><p>Contrast this to a Macbook -- just plug it in, and it works. Open System Settings if you want it to behave other than as a clone.</p><p>So, I still use Linux, and I really don't get the people who would be into open source and use an iPhone, but I can certainly see why people would choose a Mac. Everything just works, just about all the commercial software you want, and a decent (not great, but decent) Unix under the hood for development.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bought a Powerbook , for that reason .
I figured , I 'd never run Windows on it , so may as well put Linux on the best laptop ever , right ? Did n't work too well .
I never quite got it working , and just ended up using OS X.In fact , from personal experience , the reason people choose Macs seems to have less to do with the overall UI , and more to do with specific things Just Working that Just Do n't on Linux .
Example : Maybe it 's gotten better , and there 's a nice GUI for this somewhere , but when I plug in a second monitor to my laptop , I restart my X server -- I could never quite get Xinerama or the nvidia stuff to cooperate without a restart.Contrast this to a Macbook -- just plug it in , and it works .
Open System Settings if you want it to behave other than as a clone.So , I still use Linux , and I really do n't get the people who would be into open source and use an iPhone , but I can certainly see why people would choose a Mac .
Everything just works , just about all the commercial software you want , and a decent ( not great , but decent ) Unix under the hood for development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bought a Powerbook, for that reason.
I figured, I'd never run Windows on it, so may as well put Linux on the best laptop ever, right?Didn't work too well.
I never quite got it working, and just ended up using OS X.In fact, from personal experience, the reason people choose Macs seems to have less to do with the overall UI, and more to do with specific things Just Working that Just Don't on Linux.
Example: Maybe it's gotten better, and there's a nice GUI for this somewhere, but when I plug in a second monitor to my laptop, I restart my X server -- I could never quite get Xinerama or the nvidia stuff to cooperate without a restart.Contrast this to a Macbook -- just plug it in, and it works.
Open System Settings if you want it to behave other than as a clone.So, I still use Linux, and I really don't get the people who would be into open source and use an iPhone, but I can certainly see why people would choose a Mac.
Everything just works, just about all the commercial software you want, and a decent (not great, but decent) Unix under the hood for development.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505239</id>
	<title>Stop worrying about it</title>
	<author>SpinyNorman</author>
	<datestamp>1246214040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Without an IBM, Red Hat, or Mozilla bringing cash and discipline to an open-source project, including paying people to do the 'dirt work' that no one would otherwise do, can open source hope to thrive?"</i></p><p>Maybe not to the degree it has... Linux has certainly greatly benefited from the commercial distros and supporters (e.g. IBM) that have committed cash to adding polish and filling gaps. Unfortunately of course there's only so much they can do - they can commit manpower and technology to individual projects of strategic interest to themselves, but the overall degree of polish of a distro is necessarily heavily reliant on the individual pieces. Each appication/subsystem may be a gem on it's own, but without sufficient standards to guide them (or even desire to adhere to someone else's standards when it's your hobby project done on your time), the resulting pile of gems may be an incoherent and inconsistent mess.</p><p>But OTOH, open source thriving and the success of Linux on the desktop (which is the area where the inconsistency and lack of polish hits) are two different things. Linux is already thriving in other areas such as servers and embedded use, and many open source projects such as GNU are used on many platforms other than Linux.</p><p>Linux on the desktop is already, and has been for a while, plently good enough (much better than Windows, as is the nature of Unix) for developers who want to use it as a development environment, and seeing as these are the people who created it, that's good enough. If Linux on the desktop never becomes polished enough for a commercial distro to make big bucks off the back of open source developers, then why should we care?</p><p>Ben</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without an IBM , Red Hat , or Mozilla bringing cash and discipline to an open-source project , including paying people to do the 'dirt work ' that no one would otherwise do , can open source hope to thrive ?
" Maybe not to the degree it has... Linux has certainly greatly benefited from the commercial distros and supporters ( e.g .
IBM ) that have committed cash to adding polish and filling gaps .
Unfortunately of course there 's only so much they can do - they can commit manpower and technology to individual projects of strategic interest to themselves , but the overall degree of polish of a distro is necessarily heavily reliant on the individual pieces .
Each appication/subsystem may be a gem on it 's own , but without sufficient standards to guide them ( or even desire to adhere to someone else 's standards when it 's your hobby project done on your time ) , the resulting pile of gems may be an incoherent and inconsistent mess.But OTOH , open source thriving and the success of Linux on the desktop ( which is the area where the inconsistency and lack of polish hits ) are two different things .
Linux is already thriving in other areas such as servers and embedded use , and many open source projects such as GNU are used on many platforms other than Linux.Linux on the desktop is already , and has been for a while , plently good enough ( much better than Windows , as is the nature of Unix ) for developers who want to use it as a development environment , and seeing as these are the people who created it , that 's good enough .
If Linux on the desktop never becomes polished enough for a commercial distro to make big bucks off the back of open source developers , then why should we care ? Ben</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without an IBM, Red Hat, or Mozilla bringing cash and discipline to an open-source project, including paying people to do the 'dirt work' that no one would otherwise do, can open source hope to thrive?
"Maybe not to the degree it has... Linux has certainly greatly benefited from the commercial distros and supporters (e.g.
IBM) that have committed cash to adding polish and filling gaps.
Unfortunately of course there's only so much they can do - they can commit manpower and technology to individual projects of strategic interest to themselves, but the overall degree of polish of a distro is necessarily heavily reliant on the individual pieces.
Each appication/subsystem may be a gem on it's own, but without sufficient standards to guide them (or even desire to adhere to someone else's standards when it's your hobby project done on your time), the resulting pile of gems may be an incoherent and inconsistent mess.But OTOH, open source thriving and the success of Linux on the desktop (which is the area where the inconsistency and lack of polish hits) are two different things.
Linux is already thriving in other areas such as servers and embedded use, and many open source projects such as GNU are used on many platforms other than Linux.Linux on the desktop is already, and has been for a while, plently good enough (much better than Windows, as is the nature of Unix) for developers who want to use it as a development environment, and seeing as these are the people who created it, that's good enough.
If Linux on the desktop never becomes polished enough for a commercial distro to make big bucks off the back of open source developers, then why should we care?Ben</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505275</id>
	<title>Installing Mandrake</title>
	<author>Mr\_Silver</author>
	<datestamp>1246214220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many many many years ago I installed Mandrake on a desktop PC with two CD drives (one was a reader and one was a reader/writer). I was installing it from the reader because it was a lot faster.</p><p>During the install process, it asked for the second CD. Helpfully it also ejected the CD drive, except that it ejected the reader/writer - the one I wasn't using. So I put CD 2 in there, closed it and it reported that there was a problem with my CD and it couldn't install the operating system and applications.</p><p>So I go back to Windows, re-download CD 2, re-burn it and try again. Same problem.</p><p>So I re-download from a different mirror, burn and try once more. Same problem.</p><p>I'm about to assume that my CD's are all duff when I suddenly have a brainwave. I close the opened CD drive, open my original one and replace the CD. Lo and behold, it worked.</p><p>From that day, I could never get over the fact that when asking for the second CD, the installer ejected the tray on the wrong CD-ROM. Not only that, but when it saw that the CD hadn't changed, it reported an error rather than pointing this out and giving me the option to try again.</p><p>It took a while before I could look back and laugh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many many many years ago I installed Mandrake on a desktop PC with two CD drives ( one was a reader and one was a reader/writer ) .
I was installing it from the reader because it was a lot faster.During the install process , it asked for the second CD .
Helpfully it also ejected the CD drive , except that it ejected the reader/writer - the one I was n't using .
So I put CD 2 in there , closed it and it reported that there was a problem with my CD and it could n't install the operating system and applications.So I go back to Windows , re-download CD 2 , re-burn it and try again .
Same problem.So I re-download from a different mirror , burn and try once more .
Same problem.I 'm about to assume that my CD 's are all duff when I suddenly have a brainwave .
I close the opened CD drive , open my original one and replace the CD .
Lo and behold , it worked.From that day , I could never get over the fact that when asking for the second CD , the installer ejected the tray on the wrong CD-ROM .
Not only that , but when it saw that the CD had n't changed , it reported an error rather than pointing this out and giving me the option to try again.It took a while before I could look back and laugh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many many many years ago I installed Mandrake on a desktop PC with two CD drives (one was a reader and one was a reader/writer).
I was installing it from the reader because it was a lot faster.During the install process, it asked for the second CD.
Helpfully it also ejected the CD drive, except that it ejected the reader/writer - the one I wasn't using.
So I put CD 2 in there, closed it and it reported that there was a problem with my CD and it couldn't install the operating system and applications.So I go back to Windows, re-download CD 2, re-burn it and try again.
Same problem.So I re-download from a different mirror, burn and try once more.
Same problem.I'm about to assume that my CD's are all duff when I suddenly have a brainwave.
I close the opened CD drive, open my original one and replace the CD.
Lo and behold, it worked.From that day, I could never get over the fact that when asking for the second CD, the installer ejected the tray on the wrong CD-ROM.
Not only that, but when it saw that the CD hadn't changed, it reported an error rather than pointing this out and giving me the option to try again.It took a while before I could look back and laugh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504359</id>
	<title>Re:Most of the Apple distribution is Free</title>
	<author>fast turtle</author>
	<datestamp>1246208580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The bulk of the software on any Apple Mac is GPL.</p></div><p> Wrong!! The bulk of the Software on OSX is either closed source or under the BSD license not the GPL, which Apple avoids as though it is infected with the Plague. Yes I do know that Apple has contributed to GPL projects, things like webkit but the only time I've seen any contributions to a GPL project is when it benefits Apple by improving Interoperability with Windows, otherwise they prefer the BSD license model as it means they can keep things close to their vest or even stay completely proprietary and not share it at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The bulk of the software on any Apple Mac is GPL .
Wrong ! ! The bulk of the Software on OSX is either closed source or under the BSD license not the GPL , which Apple avoids as though it is infected with the Plague .
Yes I do know that Apple has contributed to GPL projects , things like webkit but the only time I 've seen any contributions to a GPL project is when it benefits Apple by improving Interoperability with Windows , otherwise they prefer the BSD license model as it means they can keep things close to their vest or even stay completely proprietary and not share it at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bulk of the software on any Apple Mac is GPL.
Wrong!! The bulk of the Software on OSX is either closed source or under the BSD license not the GPL, which Apple avoids as though it is infected with the Plague.
Yes I do know that Apple has contributed to GPL projects, things like webkit but the only time I've seen any contributions to a GPL project is when it benefits Apple by improving Interoperability with Windows, otherwise they prefer the BSD license model as it means they can keep things close to their vest or even stay completely proprietary and not share it at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28506149</id>
	<title>Re:Apple makes good hardware</title>
	<author>kent\_eh</author>
	<datestamp>1246219920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even if they don't install a different OS, it's still BSD behind OSX shininess.
<br> <br>
While not fully OSS,  it's closer than anything running Windows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if they do n't install a different OS , it 's still BSD behind OSX shininess .
While not fully OSS , it 's closer than anything running Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if they don't install a different OS, it's still BSD behind OSX shininess.
While not fully OSS,  it's closer than anything running Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504975</id>
	<title>Re:Apple makes good hardware</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1246212360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Thing is apple laptops are usually pretty good in design, so even OSS people will buy one and then put distro of choice on it, problem? not really. Good hardware is good hardware.</i></p><p>I agree that Apple makes good hardware, and software.  However I've been researching on how to install Ubuntu on my MacBook Pro and it's not so simple.  Some people have trouble with their keyboards, specific keys such as function keys, or backlighting.  Others, with their WiFi, and still others with their net connection.</p><p>And the thing is is I wanted to install Ubuntu because I want to use, or try to use, <a href="http://www.cinepaint.org/" title="cinepaint.org">CinePaint</a> [cinepaint.org].  However it was dropped from Ubuntu.  While there's a version for OS X I wasn't able to get it working and wasn't able to find out how to googling.  Eventually I found out <a href="http://ubuntustudio.org/" title="ubuntustudio.org">Ubuntu Studio</a> [ubuntustudio.org] includes CinePaint.</p><p>Which brings up a problem many people have with some open source projects.  While GIMP is good for average usage or web work.  It lacks things pro photographers, which I hope to become, need for print.  Such as at least 16 bit colour depths.  GIMP has been promising that for more than 10 years.  All those years ago the developer of CinePaint, which can work in 32 bits per colour channel, offered his 16 bit work to the GIMP project.  But they turned him down so he started his FilmGIMP, now CinePaint, project.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thing is apple laptops are usually pretty good in design , so even OSS people will buy one and then put distro of choice on it , problem ?
not really .
Good hardware is good hardware.I agree that Apple makes good hardware , and software .
However I 've been researching on how to install Ubuntu on my MacBook Pro and it 's not so simple .
Some people have trouble with their keyboards , specific keys such as function keys , or backlighting .
Others , with their WiFi , and still others with their net connection.And the thing is is I wanted to install Ubuntu because I want to use , or try to use , CinePaint [ cinepaint.org ] .
However it was dropped from Ubuntu .
While there 's a version for OS X I was n't able to get it working and was n't able to find out how to googling .
Eventually I found out Ubuntu Studio [ ubuntustudio.org ] includes CinePaint.Which brings up a problem many people have with some open source projects .
While GIMP is good for average usage or web work .
It lacks things pro photographers , which I hope to become , need for print .
Such as at least 16 bit colour depths .
GIMP has been promising that for more than 10 years .
All those years ago the developer of CinePaint , which can work in 32 bits per colour channel , offered his 16 bit work to the GIMP project .
But they turned him down so he started his FilmGIMP , now CinePaint , project .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thing is apple laptops are usually pretty good in design, so even OSS people will buy one and then put distro of choice on it, problem?
not really.
Good hardware is good hardware.I agree that Apple makes good hardware, and software.
However I've been researching on how to install Ubuntu on my MacBook Pro and it's not so simple.
Some people have trouble with their keyboards, specific keys such as function keys, or backlighting.
Others, with their WiFi, and still others with their net connection.And the thing is is I wanted to install Ubuntu because I want to use, or try to use, CinePaint [cinepaint.org].
However it was dropped from Ubuntu.
While there's a version for OS X I wasn't able to get it working and wasn't able to find out how to googling.
Eventually I found out Ubuntu Studio [ubuntustudio.org] includes CinePaint.Which brings up a problem many people have with some open source projects.
While GIMP is good for average usage or web work.
It lacks things pro photographers, which I hope to become, need for print.
Such as at least 16 bit colour depths.
GIMP has been promising that for more than 10 years.
All those years ago the developer of CinePaint, which can work in 32 bits per colour channel, offered his 16 bit work to the GIMP project.
But they turned him down so he started his FilmGIMP, now CinePaint, project.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28507315</id>
	<title>Apple hardware prices</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1246186680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>For hardware, Apple's can be of higher quality because it is higher priced.</i></p><p>2009 calling.  Apple hardware prices have been comparable to Windows PCS for years.  At least comparing specs for Mac Pros.  The problem is that you will not find a low cost tower or other expandable Mac.  I've also heard here and elsewhere that the Mac Mini is under powered.  However yesterday I came across some threads on <a href="http://photo.net/search/?cx=000753226439295166877\%3A0gyn0h9z85o&amp;cof=FORID\%3A11&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;q=\%22Mac+mini\%22+inurl\%3A\%2Fdigital-darkroom-forum\%2F&amp;qx=\%22Mac+mini\%22&amp;sa=Search+This+Forum#1242" title="photo.net">Photo.net</a> [photo.net] asking whether the Mini is any good for photography, which is demanding in specs, and repliers have said it is in fact good for it.  I was surprised by this as I thought the Mini was underpowered too.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For hardware , Apple 's can be of higher quality because it is higher priced.2009 calling .
Apple hardware prices have been comparable to Windows PCS for years .
At least comparing specs for Mac Pros .
The problem is that you will not find a low cost tower or other expandable Mac .
I 've also heard here and elsewhere that the Mac Mini is under powered .
However yesterday I came across some threads on Photo.net [ photo.net ] asking whether the Mini is any good for photography , which is demanding in specs , and repliers have said it is in fact good for it .
I was surprised by this as I thought the Mini was underpowered too .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For hardware, Apple's can be of higher quality because it is higher priced.2009 calling.
Apple hardware prices have been comparable to Windows PCS for years.
At least comparing specs for Mac Pros.
The problem is that you will not find a low cost tower or other expandable Mac.
I've also heard here and elsewhere that the Mac Mini is under powered.
However yesterday I came across some threads on Photo.net [photo.net] asking whether the Mini is any good for photography, which is demanding in specs, and repliers have said it is in fact good for it.
I was surprised by this as I thought the Mini was underpowered too.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505953</id>
	<title>Re:Apple makes good hardware</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246218480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"...so the interface design ends up too complicated for most people to use."</p></div><p>Written by someone who's never used Gnome, I see.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...so the interface design ends up too complicated for most people to use .
" Written by someone who 's never used Gnome , I see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...so the interface design ends up too complicated for most people to use.
"Written by someone who's never used Gnome, I see.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28507479</id>
	<title>Re:Already handled</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1246187700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Many of the most successful FOSS projects have corporate contributors, so this "design conundrum" doesn't really exist.</p></div><p>The second half of that sentence doesn't necessarily follow from the first.  FOSS projects often have corporate contributors, and so they aren't entirely lacking in funding.  On the other hand, what are those corporate contributors prioritizing?  Server software or desktop software?  New features or bug fixes?  Making things to keep experts happy or trying to make things easier for those who aren't experts?
</p><p>I could give a long list of outstanding problems in Linux, that either aren't being addressed or aren't making very quick progress.  But then I could say the same about Windows and OSX.  It would take tremendous resources to fix everything, so in each case it's a question of which priorities the developers are choosing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many of the most successful FOSS projects have corporate contributors , so this " design conundrum " does n't really exist.The second half of that sentence does n't necessarily follow from the first .
FOSS projects often have corporate contributors , and so they are n't entirely lacking in funding .
On the other hand , what are those corporate contributors prioritizing ?
Server software or desktop software ?
New features or bug fixes ?
Making things to keep experts happy or trying to make things easier for those who are n't experts ?
I could give a long list of outstanding problems in Linux , that either are n't being addressed or are n't making very quick progress .
But then I could say the same about Windows and OSX .
It would take tremendous resources to fix everything , so in each case it 's a question of which priorities the developers are choosing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many of the most successful FOSS projects have corporate contributors, so this "design conundrum" doesn't really exist.The second half of that sentence doesn't necessarily follow from the first.
FOSS projects often have corporate contributors, and so they aren't entirely lacking in funding.
On the other hand, what are those corporate contributors prioritizing?
Server software or desktop software?
New features or bug fixes?
Making things to keep experts happy or trying to make things easier for those who aren't experts?
I could give a long list of outstanding problems in Linux, that either aren't being addressed or aren't making very quick progress.
But then I could say the same about Windows and OSX.
It would take tremendous resources to fix everything, so in each case it's a question of which priorities the developers are choosing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504213</id>
	<title>Re:KDE is very usable</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1246207680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, i take it you haven't "upgraded" to KDE 4.x yet.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , i take it you have n't " upgraded " to KDE 4.x yet .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, i take it you haven't "upgraded" to KDE 4.x yet.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504675</id>
	<title>Re:Most of the Apple distribution is Free</title>
	<author>nxtw</author>
	<datestamp>1246210500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It is only a small part of the Apple Mac software that is non-Free and you could even run Darwin which is Free. The bulk of the software on any Apple Mac is GPL.</p></div></blockquote><p>Darwin without the closed soruce bits is just another Unixlike (or UNIX) operating system, and not a particularly good/useful one.  Without the closed-source window server and applications, there's really no reason to use Darwin.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is only a small part of the Apple Mac software that is non-Free and you could even run Darwin which is Free .
The bulk of the software on any Apple Mac is GPL.Darwin without the closed soruce bits is just another Unixlike ( or UNIX ) operating system , and not a particularly good/useful one .
Without the closed-source window server and applications , there 's really no reason to use Darwin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is only a small part of the Apple Mac software that is non-Free and you could even run Darwin which is Free.
The bulk of the software on any Apple Mac is GPL.Darwin without the closed soruce bits is just another Unixlike (or UNIX) operating system, and not a particularly good/useful one.
Without the closed-source window server and applications, there's really no reason to use Darwin.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504295</id>
	<title>That's strange.</title>
	<author>TCM</author>
	<datestamp>1246208040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most attempts to make software easier to use fail because the developers try to wrap their minds around the "stupid" users instead of concentrating on the damn code and doing things properly.</p><p>If a system is so well designed that I can jump right into the middle of a startup script and instantly understand it without tracing obscure dependencies, then it's user-friendly for me. And I speculate that the cleaner the basis is, the easier it is to put a GUI on top of it without obscuring things.</p><p>See sig.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most attempts to make software easier to use fail because the developers try to wrap their minds around the " stupid " users instead of concentrating on the damn code and doing things properly.If a system is so well designed that I can jump right into the middle of a startup script and instantly understand it without tracing obscure dependencies , then it 's user-friendly for me .
And I speculate that the cleaner the basis is , the easier it is to put a GUI on top of it without obscuring things.See sig .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most attempts to make software easier to use fail because the developers try to wrap their minds around the "stupid" users instead of concentrating on the damn code and doing things properly.If a system is so well designed that I can jump right into the middle of a startup script and instantly understand it without tracing obscure dependencies, then it's user-friendly for me.
And I speculate that the cleaner the basis is, the easier it is to put a GUI on top of it without obscuring things.See sig.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505529</id>
	<title>Re:KDE is very usable</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1246215720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So they have click-to-focus between windows and sloppy focus between subwindows.</i></p><p>When was the last time you used a Mac?  I think sloppy focus between windows was introduced in Leopard, a couple of years ago.  There are a few older third party apps that somehow manage to ignore it, but almost all work fine, and all the Apple stuff does.</p><p>Admittedly, it was a bit of an oversight to let it go so long, but it's been fixed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So they have click-to-focus between windows and sloppy focus between subwindows.When was the last time you used a Mac ?
I think sloppy focus between windows was introduced in Leopard , a couple of years ago .
There are a few older third party apps that somehow manage to ignore it , but almost all work fine , and all the Apple stuff does.Admittedly , it was a bit of an oversight to let it go so long , but it 's been fixed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they have click-to-focus between windows and sloppy focus between subwindows.When was the last time you used a Mac?
I think sloppy focus between windows was introduced in Leopard, a couple of years ago.
There are a few older third party apps that somehow manage to ignore it, but almost all work fine, and all the Apple stuff does.Admittedly, it was a bit of an oversight to let it go so long, but it's been fixed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28506483</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't handle, it's Being handled, as a Weapon</title>
	<author>smaddox</author>
	<datestamp>1246222560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what if corporations are just using FOSS to get what they want? Isn't that what we wanted in the first place when FOSS was invented? It doesn't matter how it is used, just so long as everyone has access to the source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what if corporations are just using FOSS to get what they want ?
Is n't that what we wanted in the first place when FOSS was invented ?
It does n't matter how it is used , just so long as everyone has access to the source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what if corporations are just using FOSS to get what they want?
Isn't that what we wanted in the first place when FOSS was invented?
It doesn't matter how it is used, just so long as everyone has access to the source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504651</id>
	<title>Re:Window managers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246210380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fully agree, and add to it:<br><br>And there is much more, like the middle button select pasting (you laugh once you realise how ineffective copy/pase is).<br><br>I also love the (non default) functions of compiz, like workspace and window overview zoom and application switcher (basically Alt-Tab) mapped to a click on one of the corners of the screen.<br><br>Workplace switcher mapped to a click on the edges of the screen.<br><br>And so on. Seriously, every time I have to sit in front of a Windows machine, my basic productivity drops 95\% as everything is so cumbersome, slow and ineffective. Not to mention that it lacks a basic tool-set.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fully agree , and add to it : And there is much more , like the middle button select pasting ( you laugh once you realise how ineffective copy/pase is ) .I also love the ( non default ) functions of compiz , like workspace and window overview zoom and application switcher ( basically Alt-Tab ) mapped to a click on one of the corners of the screen.Workplace switcher mapped to a click on the edges of the screen.And so on .
Seriously , every time I have to sit in front of a Windows machine , my basic productivity drops 95 \ % as everything is so cumbersome , slow and ineffective .
Not to mention that it lacks a basic tool-set .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fully agree, and add to it:And there is much more, like the middle button select pasting (you laugh once you realise how ineffective copy/pase is).I also love the (non default) functions of compiz, like workspace and window overview zoom and application switcher (basically Alt-Tab) mapped to a click on one of the corners of the screen.Workplace switcher mapped to a click on the edges of the screen.And so on.
Seriously, every time I have to sit in front of a Windows machine, my basic productivity drops 95\% as everything is so cumbersome, slow and ineffective.
Not to mention that it lacks a basic tool-set.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504115</id>
	<title>Re:KDE is very usable</title>
	<author>z4ckpete</author>
	<datestamp>1246206660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hated that in Windows. There's an app called katmouse that fixes the problem. I install it with every new windows installation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hated that in Windows .
There 's an app called katmouse that fixes the problem .
I install it with every new windows installation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hated that in Windows.
There's an app called katmouse that fixes the problem.
I install it with every new windows installation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505377</id>
	<title>On the other hand....</title>
	<author>kawabago</author>
	<datestamp>1246214880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Proprietary interfaces tend to look good but the underlying code sucks even more, creating vulnerabilities and making systems unstable. I far prefer less pretty but dependable applications over pretty but useless ones.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Proprietary interfaces tend to look good but the underlying code sucks even more , creating vulnerabilities and making systems unstable .
I far prefer less pretty but dependable applications over pretty but useless ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Proprietary interfaces tend to look good but the underlying code sucks even more, creating vulnerabilities and making systems unstable.
I far prefer less pretty but dependable applications over pretty but useless ones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504051</id>
	<title>Re:Most of the Apple distribution is Free</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246206240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The funniest thing about the parent is that it's likely that the poster actually believes it, rather than going for laughs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The funniest thing about the parent is that it 's likely that the poster actually believes it , rather than going for laughs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The funniest thing about the parent is that it's likely that the poster actually believes it, rather than going for laughs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28506059</id>
	<title>Re:Apple makes good hardware</title>
	<author>RWerp</author>
	<datestamp>1246219380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Except that Apple laptops are junk. None of them have nipples"<br><br>As a true geek you probably were unaware of this fact, but most nipples are found on women.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Except that Apple laptops are junk .
None of them have nipples " As a true geek you probably were unaware of this fact , but most nipples are found on women .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Except that Apple laptops are junk.
None of them have nipples"As a true geek you probably were unaware of this fact, but most nipples are found on women.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28513315</id>
	<title>UK Higher Education and OSS development</title>
	<author>thewarewolf</author>
	<datestamp>1246286580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The UK JISC are a funding body. My open source project received 6 months funding and I'm half way through. We have worked carefully to ensure that sustainability is high on the agenda. We have contingency for tackling the more mundane tasks; good communications, collaborative processes and quality development tools. Design has been a fundamental part of the process. I strongly believe open development methodology only needs a small amount of quality guidance. <a href="http://www.jisc.ac.uk/" title="jisc.ac.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.jisc.ac.uk/</a> [jisc.ac.uk] <a href="http://www.diaser.org.uk/" title="diaser.org.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.diaser.org.uk/</a> [diaser.org.uk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The UK JISC are a funding body .
My open source project received 6 months funding and I 'm half way through .
We have worked carefully to ensure that sustainability is high on the agenda .
We have contingency for tackling the more mundane tasks ; good communications , collaborative processes and quality development tools .
Design has been a fundamental part of the process .
I strongly believe open development methodology only needs a small amount of quality guidance .
http : //www.jisc.ac.uk/ [ jisc.ac.uk ] http : //www.diaser.org.uk/ [ diaser.org.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The UK JISC are a funding body.
My open source project received 6 months funding and I'm half way through.
We have worked carefully to ensure that sustainability is high on the agenda.
We have contingency for tackling the more mundane tasks; good communications, collaborative processes and quality development tools.
Design has been a fundamental part of the process.
I strongly believe open development methodology only needs a small amount of quality guidance.
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/ [jisc.ac.uk] http://www.diaser.org.uk/ [diaser.org.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505107</id>
	<title>Developers are not regular users</title>
	<author>greg1104</author>
	<datestamp>1246213260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The whole premise that better usability will come out of getting usability designers involved in the free software development process is fundamentally misguided.  It's really easy to get such feedback for most open source software.  Just look at the forums and mailing list of people using the software, and it's trivial to find out exactly what are the confusing parts and what really needs to be improved.  As for motivating improvements, most developers working on open-source software want their software to be better.   But what does "better" mean?</p><p>The problem is that the developers working on the software don't use it the way everybody else does, which means there will always be a clash between their priorities and tastes and what regular users want.  This means the people capable of fixing the usability problem believe many requests are misguided, and therefore don't do anything about them.  I see this all the time, in projects big and small.  On the open source project I contribute the most to, PostgreSQL, some of this disconnect is warranted.  For example, users want the software to be super easy to use out of the box, while developers want it to be secure out of the box; that's a very hard split to reconcile.  Sometimes instead you'll see features requested by DBAs that make perfect sense to other DBAs, but are shouted down as a bad idea too.  This is because many of the most influential developers are not DBAs of large databases, which you'd expect almost by definition.  They don't have the right context to fully appreciate some usability decisions.  If the development community is healthy, when enough such requests come in eventually some concessions will get made, even if some of the developers don't quite get the motivating reason fully.  Enough people complain about something, you just accept that's what everybody wants and bow to community pressure.</p><p>But there are plenty of communities where this doesn't seem to happen, and usually it's due to arrogance on the part of the developer rather than them not having design feedback.  A classic example was last year's <a href="http://developer.pidgin.im/ticket/4986" title="pidgin.im">Pidgin UI disaster</a> [pidgin.im].  Look at that ticket--the entirety of the user community was lined up against the developers, and the lack of response to that feedback even forced a <a href="http://funpidgin.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net">fork</a> [sourceforge.net] whose tagline was "we work for you" as a noteworthy difference from the original project.  Completely ridiculous.</p><p>I'm suffering from a similar bit of developer arrogance right now, with the standard GNOME terminal app.  A change was made recently, first showing up on a lot of people's desktops via Ubuntu Jaunty, which reduces the ability to overload common function keys (like control-C) to either execute terminal functions (like "copy") and still work as terminal input if no text to copy has been selected.  There's been a <a href="https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-terminal/+bug/317948" title="launchpad.net">stack of</a> [launchpad.net] <a href="http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=579022" title="gnome.org">bug reporters</a> [gnome.org], and it turns out the only reason for the change was the developer <a href="http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=559728" title="gnome.org">thought it was a bug</a> [gnome.org]--there were no user complaints driving the change.  The only right response in this situation, which is strictly a UI decision, is to man up, admit the change was wrong and you were wrong for thinking it, and thank your community for pointing it out.  As you can see, that's certainly not happening here.  (Yes, I can fix it myself.  Not, that doesn't matter, because the thing I'm annoyed about is that it's a step backwards on the most popular default terminal people new to Linux use, which hurts the OS as a whole.)</p><p>You can collect usability data all day, that's easy.  Doesn't take a designer, it just takes listening to your users.  From where I'm sitting it looks like the hard problem is getting open-source developers to pay attention to what they're saying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole premise that better usability will come out of getting usability designers involved in the free software development process is fundamentally misguided .
It 's really easy to get such feedback for most open source software .
Just look at the forums and mailing list of people using the software , and it 's trivial to find out exactly what are the confusing parts and what really needs to be improved .
As for motivating improvements , most developers working on open-source software want their software to be better .
But what does " better " mean ? The problem is that the developers working on the software do n't use it the way everybody else does , which means there will always be a clash between their priorities and tastes and what regular users want .
This means the people capable of fixing the usability problem believe many requests are misguided , and therefore do n't do anything about them .
I see this all the time , in projects big and small .
On the open source project I contribute the most to , PostgreSQL , some of this disconnect is warranted .
For example , users want the software to be super easy to use out of the box , while developers want it to be secure out of the box ; that 's a very hard split to reconcile .
Sometimes instead you 'll see features requested by DBAs that make perfect sense to other DBAs , but are shouted down as a bad idea too .
This is because many of the most influential developers are not DBAs of large databases , which you 'd expect almost by definition .
They do n't have the right context to fully appreciate some usability decisions .
If the development community is healthy , when enough such requests come in eventually some concessions will get made , even if some of the developers do n't quite get the motivating reason fully .
Enough people complain about something , you just accept that 's what everybody wants and bow to community pressure.But there are plenty of communities where this does n't seem to happen , and usually it 's due to arrogance on the part of the developer rather than them not having design feedback .
A classic example was last year 's Pidgin UI disaster [ pidgin.im ] .
Look at that ticket--the entirety of the user community was lined up against the developers , and the lack of response to that feedback even forced a fork [ sourceforge.net ] whose tagline was " we work for you " as a noteworthy difference from the original project .
Completely ridiculous.I 'm suffering from a similar bit of developer arrogance right now , with the standard GNOME terminal app .
A change was made recently , first showing up on a lot of people 's desktops via Ubuntu Jaunty , which reduces the ability to overload common function keys ( like control-C ) to either execute terminal functions ( like " copy " ) and still work as terminal input if no text to copy has been selected .
There 's been a stack of [ launchpad.net ] bug reporters [ gnome.org ] , and it turns out the only reason for the change was the developer thought it was a bug [ gnome.org ] --there were no user complaints driving the change .
The only right response in this situation , which is strictly a UI decision , is to man up , admit the change was wrong and you were wrong for thinking it , and thank your community for pointing it out .
As you can see , that 's certainly not happening here .
( Yes , I can fix it myself .
Not , that does n't matter , because the thing I 'm annoyed about is that it 's a step backwards on the most popular default terminal people new to Linux use , which hurts the OS as a whole .
) You can collect usability data all day , that 's easy .
Does n't take a designer , it just takes listening to your users .
From where I 'm sitting it looks like the hard problem is getting open-source developers to pay attention to what they 're saying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole premise that better usability will come out of getting usability designers involved in the free software development process is fundamentally misguided.
It's really easy to get such feedback for most open source software.
Just look at the forums and mailing list of people using the software, and it's trivial to find out exactly what are the confusing parts and what really needs to be improved.
As for motivating improvements, most developers working on open-source software want their software to be better.
But what does "better" mean?The problem is that the developers working on the software don't use it the way everybody else does, which means there will always be a clash between their priorities and tastes and what regular users want.
This means the people capable of fixing the usability problem believe many requests are misguided, and therefore don't do anything about them.
I see this all the time, in projects big and small.
On the open source project I contribute the most to, PostgreSQL, some of this disconnect is warranted.
For example, users want the software to be super easy to use out of the box, while developers want it to be secure out of the box; that's a very hard split to reconcile.
Sometimes instead you'll see features requested by DBAs that make perfect sense to other DBAs, but are shouted down as a bad idea too.
This is because many of the most influential developers are not DBAs of large databases, which you'd expect almost by definition.
They don't have the right context to fully appreciate some usability decisions.
If the development community is healthy, when enough such requests come in eventually some concessions will get made, even if some of the developers don't quite get the motivating reason fully.
Enough people complain about something, you just accept that's what everybody wants and bow to community pressure.But there are plenty of communities where this doesn't seem to happen, and usually it's due to arrogance on the part of the developer rather than them not having design feedback.
A classic example was last year's Pidgin UI disaster [pidgin.im].
Look at that ticket--the entirety of the user community was lined up against the developers, and the lack of response to that feedback even forced a fork [sourceforge.net] whose tagline was "we work for you" as a noteworthy difference from the original project.
Completely ridiculous.I'm suffering from a similar bit of developer arrogance right now, with the standard GNOME terminal app.
A change was made recently, first showing up on a lot of people's desktops via Ubuntu Jaunty, which reduces the ability to overload common function keys (like control-C) to either execute terminal functions (like "copy") and still work as terminal input if no text to copy has been selected.
There's been a stack of [launchpad.net] bug reporters [gnome.org], and it turns out the only reason for the change was the developer thought it was a bug [gnome.org]--there were no user complaints driving the change.
The only right response in this situation, which is strictly a UI decision, is to man up, admit the change was wrong and you were wrong for thinking it, and thank your community for pointing it out.
As you can see, that's certainly not happening here.
(Yes, I can fix it myself.
Not, that doesn't matter, because the thing I'm annoyed about is that it's a step backwards on the most popular default terminal people new to Linux use, which hurts the OS as a whole.
)You can collect usability data all day, that's easy.
Doesn't take a designer, it just takes listening to your users.
From where I'm sitting it looks like the hard problem is getting open-source developers to pay attention to what they're saying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504903</id>
	<title>Re:UI Design and custonmer support are the dirt wo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246211880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And it follow then that OSS generally only will thrive as long as there's a commercial flavor to commoditize.  If OSS were to start killing off commercial software, that could prove to be the great stifler of innovation, not MS in the 90s.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it follow then that OSS generally only will thrive as long as there 's a commercial flavor to commoditize .
If OSS were to start killing off commercial software , that could prove to be the great stifler of innovation , not MS in the 90s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it follow then that OSS generally only will thrive as long as there's a commercial flavor to commoditize.
If OSS were to start killing off commercial software, that could prove to be the great stifler of innovation, not MS in the 90s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503803</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503879</id>
	<title>M O N E Y !!!</title>
	<author>redelm</author>
	<datestamp>1246204920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The reason proprietary projects can be "more innovative" (really more risky) is there is greater [monetary] reward to compensate the risk.  Most new products fail, and FOSS doesn't have much margin (compensation is sponsored and time-based).<p>
That said, the entire Internet was built by FOSS and FOSS-like processes.  From ftp and telnet through WWW/mosaic, it was all someone who had an idea and wanted to see if others liked it too.</p><p>
For hardware, Apple's can be of higher quality because it is higher priced.  It can be higher priced because it is perceived good value -- mostly the interfaces are less botched than their competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason proprietary projects can be " more innovative " ( really more risky ) is there is greater [ monetary ] reward to compensate the risk .
Most new products fail , and FOSS does n't have much margin ( compensation is sponsored and time-based ) .
That said , the entire Internet was built by FOSS and FOSS-like processes .
From ftp and telnet through WWW/mosaic , it was all someone who had an idea and wanted to see if others liked it too .
For hardware , Apple 's can be of higher quality because it is higher priced .
It can be higher priced because it is perceived good value -- mostly the interfaces are less botched than their competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason proprietary projects can be "more innovative" (really more risky) is there is greater [monetary] reward to compensate the risk.
Most new products fail, and FOSS doesn't have much margin (compensation is sponsored and time-based).
That said, the entire Internet was built by FOSS and FOSS-like processes.
From ftp and telnet through WWW/mosaic, it was all someone who had an idea and wanted to see if others liked it too.
For hardware, Apple's can be of higher quality because it is higher priced.
It can be higher priced because it is perceived good value -- mostly the interfaces are less botched than their competition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28572947</id>
	<title>Re:Apple makes good hardware</title>
	<author>True Grit</author>
	<datestamp>1246643580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They are also built on a rock-solid UNIX foundation. Tell me why you need Linux for Open Source.</p></div><p>Because I already *have* hardware?  And its *my* hardware, of *my* choosing, and therefore better than Apple's hardware for those subsystems that matter to me?</p><p>Seriously, whats the point of your response, really?  It would only make sense if you could get Apple's "rock-solid" software for <b>non-Apple hardware</b>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are also built on a rock-solid UNIX foundation .
Tell me why you need Linux for Open Source.Because I already * have * hardware ?
And its * my * hardware , of * my * choosing , and therefore better than Apple 's hardware for those subsystems that matter to me ? Seriously , whats the point of your response , really ?
It would only make sense if you could get Apple 's " rock-solid " software for non-Apple hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are also built on a rock-solid UNIX foundation.
Tell me why you need Linux for Open Source.Because I already *have* hardware?
And its *my* hardware, of *my* choosing, and therefore better than Apple's hardware for those subsystems that matter to me?Seriously, whats the point of your response, really?
It would only make sense if you could get Apple's "rock-solid" software for non-Apple hardware.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28510725</id>
	<title>I've had the opposite experience</title>
	<author>Phil Urich</author>
	<datestamp>1246218300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Example: Maybe it's gotten better, and there's a nice GUI for this somewhere, but when I plug in a second monitor to my laptop, I restart my X server -- I could never quite get Xinerama or the nvidia stuff to cooperate without a restart.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I don't even think that it's "gotten better", I think you just have terrible luck.  I've never had an issue with plugging extra monitors in with Linux (from adding new ones to my main PC back in 2003 when I first started using Linux, out to when I bought myself a new projector and on-the-fly set up a dual-monitor display with FreeDOOM from my Acer Aspire One to test it out....pixels as big as my hand!).  Windows is another story, mainly having to do with crashes and absurdly irritating bugs; dual-monitor support and how it gets handled is one of the main reasons I switched over to Linux full time back while I was living in University Residence.  <br> <br>As for Macs, my success rate with plugging them into secondary displays is hit and miss, about 25\% complete success, 25\% failure, and 50\% took a bit of effort and fiddling.  That's not counting the times I tried to help people hook their Macbooks up to classroom projectors or such and then realized that they <i>didn't</i> realize they needed a proprietary adapter cable to do so, at which point I laughed at their $1200 new 15" Macbooks and smugly offered them the usage of my $200 13" shitty laptop that I installed Kubuntu on.  Yeah, I'm the kind of person who can't stop from helping people but also can't stop from being a bit of a dick about it.
<br> <br>Also, what's the fear of Ctrl+Alt+Backspace?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)  Maybe that's just me, though; I've always got a kick out of the visceral feel of hitting that key combination and watching everything blink out of existence and then back in.
<br> <br>I'm not saying I entirely disagree with you, to be clear.  Luck of the draw has a lot to do with user experience, for one (nvidia-settings has rarely let me down, but I'm not going to pretend you're lying about having issues with nvidia and on-the-fly adding displays), and secondly I've recommended Macs to people before, convinced them to go over to that platform in fact.  It's just that in my experience Macs seem to suffer when they go out of their comfort zone; they may often Just Work when Linux doesn't, but there's also times Linux Just Works when Macs don't, it's just that those scenarios tend to skew more towards power user stuff.
<br> <br>P.S. I notice that you said "Powerbook", so I'm guessing when you say "nvidia stuff" you were running Linux on a PowerPC computer.  That's probably where our experiences diverge so harshly; Nvidia has never had an official, fully-supported Linux driver for PowerPC, right?  AFAIK to a large degree it's a port of, or at least shares development with their Windows driver (on one occasion I ran into a big issue on my Linux install which was <i>identical</i> to the problem a friend had in Windows...unfortunately for him the trivially simple Linux fix had no Windows analogue), so it was fated to never come out for PowerPC.  I actually have a friend who owns and loves a small old Powerbook that he dual-boots, and he mainly uses OSX because with Linux+NVIDIA on PowerPC you're stuck with the feature-incomplete drivers.  Alas!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Example : Maybe it 's gotten better , and there 's a nice GUI for this somewhere , but when I plug in a second monitor to my laptop , I restart my X server -- I could never quite get Xinerama or the nvidia stuff to cooperate without a restart .
I do n't even think that it 's " gotten better " , I think you just have terrible luck .
I 've never had an issue with plugging extra monitors in with Linux ( from adding new ones to my main PC back in 2003 when I first started using Linux , out to when I bought myself a new projector and on-the-fly set up a dual-monitor display with FreeDOOM from my Acer Aspire One to test it out....pixels as big as my hand ! ) .
Windows is another story , mainly having to do with crashes and absurdly irritating bugs ; dual-monitor support and how it gets handled is one of the main reasons I switched over to Linux full time back while I was living in University Residence .
As for Macs , my success rate with plugging them into secondary displays is hit and miss , about 25 \ % complete success , 25 \ % failure , and 50 \ % took a bit of effort and fiddling .
That 's not counting the times I tried to help people hook their Macbooks up to classroom projectors or such and then realized that they did n't realize they needed a proprietary adapter cable to do so , at which point I laughed at their $ 1200 new 15 " Macbooks and smugly offered them the usage of my $ 200 13 " shitty laptop that I installed Kubuntu on .
Yeah , I 'm the kind of person who ca n't stop from helping people but also ca n't stop from being a bit of a dick about it .
Also , what 's the fear of Ctrl + Alt + Backspace ?
; ) Maybe that 's just me , though ; I 've always got a kick out of the visceral feel of hitting that key combination and watching everything blink out of existence and then back in .
I 'm not saying I entirely disagree with you , to be clear .
Luck of the draw has a lot to do with user experience , for one ( nvidia-settings has rarely let me down , but I 'm not going to pretend you 're lying about having issues with nvidia and on-the-fly adding displays ) , and secondly I 've recommended Macs to people before , convinced them to go over to that platform in fact .
It 's just that in my experience Macs seem to suffer when they go out of their comfort zone ; they may often Just Work when Linux does n't , but there 's also times Linux Just Works when Macs do n't , it 's just that those scenarios tend to skew more towards power user stuff .
P.S. I notice that you said " Powerbook " , so I 'm guessing when you say " nvidia stuff " you were running Linux on a PowerPC computer .
That 's probably where our experiences diverge so harshly ; Nvidia has never had an official , fully-supported Linux driver for PowerPC , right ?
AFAIK to a large degree it 's a port of , or at least shares development with their Windows driver ( on one occasion I ran into a big issue on my Linux install which was identical to the problem a friend had in Windows...unfortunately for him the trivially simple Linux fix had no Windows analogue ) , so it was fated to never come out for PowerPC .
I actually have a friend who owns and loves a small old Powerbook that he dual-boots , and he mainly uses OSX because with Linux + NVIDIA on PowerPC you 're stuck with the feature-incomplete drivers .
Alas !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Example: Maybe it's gotten better, and there's a nice GUI for this somewhere, but when I plug in a second monitor to my laptop, I restart my X server -- I could never quite get Xinerama or the nvidia stuff to cooperate without a restart.
I don't even think that it's "gotten better", I think you just have terrible luck.
I've never had an issue with plugging extra monitors in with Linux (from adding new ones to my main PC back in 2003 when I first started using Linux, out to when I bought myself a new projector and on-the-fly set up a dual-monitor display with FreeDOOM from my Acer Aspire One to test it out....pixels as big as my hand!).
Windows is another story, mainly having to do with crashes and absurdly irritating bugs; dual-monitor support and how it gets handled is one of the main reasons I switched over to Linux full time back while I was living in University Residence.
As for Macs, my success rate with plugging them into secondary displays is hit and miss, about 25\% complete success, 25\% failure, and 50\% took a bit of effort and fiddling.
That's not counting the times I tried to help people hook their Macbooks up to classroom projectors or such and then realized that they didn't realize they needed a proprietary adapter cable to do so, at which point I laughed at their $1200 new 15" Macbooks and smugly offered them the usage of my $200 13" shitty laptop that I installed Kubuntu on.
Yeah, I'm the kind of person who can't stop from helping people but also can't stop from being a bit of a dick about it.
Also, what's the fear of Ctrl+Alt+Backspace?
;)  Maybe that's just me, though; I've always got a kick out of the visceral feel of hitting that key combination and watching everything blink out of existence and then back in.
I'm not saying I entirely disagree with you, to be clear.
Luck of the draw has a lot to do with user experience, for one (nvidia-settings has rarely let me down, but I'm not going to pretend you're lying about having issues with nvidia and on-the-fly adding displays), and secondly I've recommended Macs to people before, convinced them to go over to that platform in fact.
It's just that in my experience Macs seem to suffer when they go out of their comfort zone; they may often Just Work when Linux doesn't, but there's also times Linux Just Works when Macs don't, it's just that those scenarios tend to skew more towards power user stuff.
P.S. I notice that you said "Powerbook", so I'm guessing when you say "nvidia stuff" you were running Linux on a PowerPC computer.
That's probably where our experiences diverge so harshly; Nvidia has never had an official, fully-supported Linux driver for PowerPC, right?
AFAIK to a large degree it's a port of, or at least shares development with their Windows driver (on one occasion I ran into a big issue on my Linux install which was identical to the problem a friend had in Windows...unfortunately for him the trivially simple Linux fix had no Windows analogue), so it was fated to never come out for PowerPC.
I actually have a friend who owns and loves a small old Powerbook that he dual-boots, and he mainly uses OSX because with Linux+NVIDIA on PowerPC you're stuck with the feature-incomplete drivers.
Alas!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504827</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504505</id>
	<title>Re:Apple makes good hardware</title>
	<author>Mad Merlin</author>
	<datestamp>1246209480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Thing is apple laptops are usually pretty good in design, so even OSS people will buy one and then put distro of choice on it, problem? not really. Good hardware is good hardware.</p></div><p>Except that Apple laptops are junk. None of them have nipples, they only have a single mouse button and they're all shortscreen. Mind you, most laptops are shortscreen now, but that doesn't make it any better.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thing is apple laptops are usually pretty good in design , so even OSS people will buy one and then put distro of choice on it , problem ?
not really .
Good hardware is good hardware.Except that Apple laptops are junk .
None of them have nipples , they only have a single mouse button and they 're all shortscreen .
Mind you , most laptops are shortscreen now , but that does n't make it any better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thing is apple laptops are usually pretty good in design, so even OSS people will buy one and then put distro of choice on it, problem?
not really.
Good hardware is good hardware.Except that Apple laptops are junk.
None of them have nipples, they only have a single mouse button and they're all shortscreen.
Mind you, most laptops are shortscreen now, but that doesn't make it any better.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28507347</id>
	<title>Re:Apple makes good hardware</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1246186800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Define "most people". Does that apply to ME ? If not, why should I care ? (or even more relevant, why should I pay more ?)<br> <br>Apple have designed a system for the masses, ok so they aimed for the elite of those masses (through  the mechanism of elitist price), but they are still the masses not the real computer users. If they were so ferkin good why did they adopt BSD as a base ? Go on , why ???</htmltext>
<tokenext>Define " most people " .
Does that apply to ME ?
If not , why should I care ?
( or even more relevant , why should I pay more ?
) Apple have designed a system for the masses , ok so they aimed for the elite of those masses ( through the mechanism of elitist price ) , but they are still the masses not the real computer users .
If they were so ferkin good why did they adopt BSD as a base ?
Go on , why ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Define "most people".
Does that apply to ME ?
If not, why should I care ?
(or even more relevant, why should I pay more ?
) Apple have designed a system for the masses, ok so they aimed for the elite of those masses (through  the mechanism of elitist price), but they are still the masses not the real computer users.
If they were so ferkin good why did they adopt BSD as a base ?
Go on , why ??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28510839</id>
	<title>Re:Apple makes good hardware</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246306020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I received a Thunderbird update notice recently from a Mozilla developer. His mailer was Apple Mail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I received a Thunderbird update notice recently from a Mozilla developer .
His mailer was Apple Mail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I received a Thunderbird update notice recently from a Mozilla developer.
His mailer was Apple Mail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28517401</id>
	<title>Re:I thought so, too...</title>
	<author>spitzak</author>
	<datestamp>1246304100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Nvidia drivers do not work correctly with R&amp;R and have to be restareted.</p><p>I discovered this by accident when I set the driver to nv, suddenly you could plug a monitor in and it worked!</p><p>However OpenGL was crap without the official drivers so I put it back. I certianly don't change the screens much.</p><p>Anybody looking for an argument can find many for all kinds of positions here: the nvidia drivers are closed and that can be blamed (but are you really certain that if open somebody would have fixed them to work with R&amp;R)? Conversely perhaps xord R&amp;R is so fiendishly complicated of an API that Nvidia just can't get it right. Who knows...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Nvidia drivers do not work correctly with R&amp;R and have to be restareted.I discovered this by accident when I set the driver to nv , suddenly you could plug a monitor in and it worked ! However OpenGL was crap without the official drivers so I put it back .
I certianly do n't change the screens much.Anybody looking for an argument can find many for all kinds of positions here : the nvidia drivers are closed and that can be blamed ( but are you really certain that if open somebody would have fixed them to work with R&amp;R ) ?
Conversely perhaps xord R&amp;R is so fiendishly complicated of an API that Nvidia just ca n't get it right .
Who knows.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Nvidia drivers do not work correctly with R&amp;R and have to be restareted.I discovered this by accident when I set the driver to nv, suddenly you could plug a monitor in and it worked!However OpenGL was crap without the official drivers so I put it back.
I certianly don't change the screens much.Anybody looking for an argument can find many for all kinds of positions here: the nvidia drivers are closed and that can be blamed (but are you really certain that if open somebody would have fixed them to work with R&amp;R)?
Conversely perhaps xord R&amp;R is so fiendishly complicated of an API that Nvidia just can't get it right.
Who knows...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504827</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28512115</id>
	<title>Usability? Glaring Gaps? Crap Design?</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1246277160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure I know what the fuss is about - I have been on Linux only for 10 years or so, and I don't think there is anything I feel is missing. In fact, I think there is lot of functionality I'd rather not have, which gets installed by default, but fortunately, this being Linux, I can just remove it again.</p><p>I think FOSS is more or less where it should be, now. We have the functionality that matters, and while thre are still things that could be improved, I don't see much of a problem. The only nuisance I have come across in the last several years is the fact that there is still no way of ensuring that all desktop programs use the same file dialog, but that really is a small issue.</p><p>And what is wrong with the design of open source? All software and open source more so, gets used or not depending on whether the users like it - the design is part of that, and probably often a major part, so in the end the designs that are still in there are the one that were good enough to survive. Pure evolution at work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure I know what the fuss is about - I have been on Linux only for 10 years or so , and I do n't think there is anything I feel is missing .
In fact , I think there is lot of functionality I 'd rather not have , which gets installed by default , but fortunately , this being Linux , I can just remove it again.I think FOSS is more or less where it should be , now .
We have the functionality that matters , and while thre are still things that could be improved , I do n't see much of a problem .
The only nuisance I have come across in the last several years is the fact that there is still no way of ensuring that all desktop programs use the same file dialog , but that really is a small issue.And what is wrong with the design of open source ?
All software and open source more so , gets used or not depending on whether the users like it - the design is part of that , and probably often a major part , so in the end the designs that are still in there are the one that were good enough to survive .
Pure evolution at work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure I know what the fuss is about - I have been on Linux only for 10 years or so, and I don't think there is anything I feel is missing.
In fact, I think there is lot of functionality I'd rather not have, which gets installed by default, but fortunately, this being Linux, I can just remove it again.I think FOSS is more or less where it should be, now.
We have the functionality that matters, and while thre are still things that could be improved, I don't see much of a problem.
The only nuisance I have come across in the last several years is the fact that there is still no way of ensuring that all desktop programs use the same file dialog, but that really is a small issue.And what is wrong with the design of open source?
All software and open source more so, gets used or not depending on whether the users like it - the design is part of that, and probably often a major part, so in the end the designs that are still in there are the one that were good enough to survive.
Pure evolution at work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505993</id>
	<title>Re:Window managers</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1246218780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Once you're addicted to tiling windows managers, there's no going back. Awesome and Ratpoison, for example. Far, far beyond the usual, normal window managing paradigm, but boy is it good stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once you 're addicted to tiling windows managers , there 's no going back .
Awesome and Ratpoison , for example .
Far , far beyond the usual , normal window managing paradigm , but boy is it good stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once you're addicted to tiling windows managers, there's no going back.
Awesome and Ratpoison, for example.
Far, far beyond the usual, normal window managing paradigm, but boy is it good stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28507181</id>
	<title>Cathedral is not necessary</title>
	<author>prefec2</author>
	<datestamp>1246185480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OSS can be innovative. To do so, people have to discuss these innovations on conferences IRL and online. For example, there are several interesting ideas available for the next GNOME environment which are very innovative [http://live.gnome.org/BrianMuhumuza/ToPaZ]. No other system provides them. Of course these ideas can only become reality when more people are starting to support them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OSS can be innovative .
To do so , people have to discuss these innovations on conferences IRL and online .
For example , there are several interesting ideas available for the next GNOME environment which are very innovative [ http : //live.gnome.org/BrianMuhumuza/ToPaZ ] .
No other system provides them .
Of course these ideas can only become reality when more people are starting to support them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OSS can be innovative.
To do so, people have to discuss these innovations on conferences IRL and online.
For example, there are several interesting ideas available for the next GNOME environment which are very innovative [http://live.gnome.org/BrianMuhumuza/ToPaZ].
No other system provides them.
Of course these ideas can only become reality when more people are starting to support them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504875</id>
	<title>Re:KDE is very usable</title>
	<author>PeterBrett</author>
	<datestamp>1246211640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, i take it you haven't "upgraded" to KDE 4.x yet.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div><p>I take it that you haven't upgraded to KDE 4 either, or you'd know that the functionality described by the GP works just fine in KDE 4.</p><p>Oh, wait, that would mean that you couldn't make a snarky comment about KDE 4. Never mind, then.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , i take it you have n't " upgraded " to KDE 4.x yet .
: ) I take it that you have n't upgraded to KDE 4 either , or you 'd know that the functionality described by the GP works just fine in KDE 4.Oh , wait , that would mean that you could n't make a snarky comment about KDE 4 .
Never mind , then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, i take it you haven't "upgraded" to KDE 4.x yet.
:)I take it that you haven't upgraded to KDE 4 either, or you'd know that the functionality described by the GP works just fine in KDE 4.Oh, wait, that would mean that you couldn't make a snarky comment about KDE 4.
Never mind, then.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504213</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503817</id>
	<title>Window managers</title>
	<author>buchner.johannes</author>
	<datestamp>1246204560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While this might be true for apps -- they change too much to settle on a thought-through UI concept, and new ones are constantly created for the same task by not so experienced UI designers -- I'd like to add that IMHO Linux has the best window managers out there. That is one of the reasons I don't use Windows and would put a Linux distribution on a Mac. Because I need to move and resize windows without finding the borders (e.g. Alt-click or Alt-doubleclick and drag). And I need sane virtual desktops for more screen space and for grouping my windows.<br>These are UI features lacking in non-open-source. Granted, it is not something the novice user will miss.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While this might be true for apps -- they change too much to settle on a thought-through UI concept , and new ones are constantly created for the same task by not so experienced UI designers -- I 'd like to add that IMHO Linux has the best window managers out there .
That is one of the reasons I do n't use Windows and would put a Linux distribution on a Mac .
Because I need to move and resize windows without finding the borders ( e.g .
Alt-click or Alt-doubleclick and drag ) .
And I need sane virtual desktops for more screen space and for grouping my windows.These are UI features lacking in non-open-source .
Granted , it is not something the novice user will miss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While this might be true for apps -- they change too much to settle on a thought-through UI concept, and new ones are constantly created for the same task by not so experienced UI designers -- I'd like to add that IMHO Linux has the best window managers out there.
That is one of the reasons I don't use Windows and would put a Linux distribution on a Mac.
Because I need to move and resize windows without finding the borders (e.g.
Alt-click or Alt-doubleclick and drag).
And I need sane virtual desktops for more screen space and for grouping my windows.These are UI features lacking in non-open-source.
Granted, it is not something the novice user will miss.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505327</id>
	<title>I agree</title>
	<author>mnemonic\_</author>
	<datestamp>1246214580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ubuntu, Apple products and the Python programming language have all stood out with their exceptional usability because of their "benevolent dictators."  When everything's decided by committee (even loose ones like in FOSS), every drastic but beneficial change will be pecked down by the naysayers.  Something like Python 3's intentional backwards incompatibility, done for the sake of a vastly cleaner language syntax would never had made it without Guido's spearheading of the effort.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ubuntu , Apple products and the Python programming language have all stood out with their exceptional usability because of their " benevolent dictators .
" When everything 's decided by committee ( even loose ones like in FOSS ) , every drastic but beneficial change will be pecked down by the naysayers .
Something like Python 3 's intentional backwards incompatibility , done for the sake of a vastly cleaner language syntax would never had made it without Guido 's spearheading of the effort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ubuntu, Apple products and the Python programming language have all stood out with their exceptional usability because of their "benevolent dictators.
"  When everything's decided by committee (even loose ones like in FOSS), every drastic but beneficial change will be pecked down by the naysayers.
Something like Python 3's intentional backwards incompatibility, done for the sake of a vastly cleaner language syntax would never had made it without Guido's spearheading of the effort.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28506535</id>
	<title>Re:KDE is very usable</title>
	<author>ToasterMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1246179720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm also quite unclear on why mac has this reputation for good usability/interface because in the few times I have used it I have encountered interface inconsistencies even within the base applications such as network settings. (e.g. radio buttons for "on"/"off" in one interface(dhcp) and a drop down box for "enable"/"disable" for another(static))</p></div><p>I have a drop down to select DHCP, DHCP with manual address, bootp, and manual.<br>In fact, I don't see radio buttons anywhere in "Network" system preferences.<br><a href="http://www.rit.edu/its/services/desktop\_support/mac/releaserenewipaddress.html" title="rit.edu">http://www.rit.edu/its/services/desktop\_support/mac/releaserenewipaddress.html</a> [rit.edu]<br>Those are old screenshots, and I'm using Leopard..  Still no idea where you are coming from.</p><p>Not that there aren't inconsistencies somewhere, but I've got over a decade of experience with Windows from 95 to XP, nearly as much with GTK/GNOME, and a couple years with OS X.  It is clear as day why OS X has a good usability reputation.  Again, I can find flaws, but how one could not even guess how they earned the reputation, yet understand what usability means is beyond me.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And, of course, inconsistencies between applications, too. Mail settings have cancel/save/apply buttons, but to save network config changes you have to close the window(hit the red x) and then get presented with an option to apply changes.</p></div><p>Where the hell did you find a cancel/save/apply menu on OS X??  Sorry for the language, but you must have got that mixed up with something else.  Windows maybe?<br>I can find no apply buttons in Mail. This is consistent with nearly all OS X applications, in that settings are changed, and remembered instantly.<br>In the Network panel, there is something similar to what you describe.  There are "Apply" and "Revert" options.  You NEED this for network configuration, and many other system wide configuration tasks.  Someone should be hung by their balls if fiddling with network settings happened live in a UI.   If you don't apply changes and click the red X, you get a prompt: "Don't Apply", "Cancel", "Apply".  In case it is not immediately obvious, Apply makes settings take effect, Revert clears changes you haven't applied (clean slate), Don't Apply exits without applying, Cancel closes the dialog without exiting, the dialog's Apply does so and exits.  This is the only panel I can find in System Preferences that works like this.  The others work like other applications where your change is immediate.  Network settings is an appropriate place to skip this consistency.</p><p>This is actually a great example of Apple's attention to usability...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Hitting a red x to apply your changes is almost as silly as hitting the start button in windows to stop your pc.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div><p>You missed the Apply button in Network preferences, or was it not obvious your changes were applied in real time elsewhere?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>in the few times I have used it</p></div><p>Between you and me, you need to spend a LITTLE more time with it to talk usability.  Put up screenshots at least, maybe you have an older version, and might have had some valid points.  Hey, if that was the case, try a newer version and see what was corrected.  That would probably be the best demonstration of how Apple earned it's reputation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm also quite unclear on why mac has this reputation for good usability/interface because in the few times I have used it I have encountered interface inconsistencies even within the base applications such as network settings .
( e.g. radio buttons for " on " / " off " in one interface ( dhcp ) and a drop down box for " enable " / " disable " for another ( static ) ) I have a drop down to select DHCP , DHCP with manual address , bootp , and manual.In fact , I do n't see radio buttons anywhere in " Network " system preferences.http : //www.rit.edu/its/services/desktop \ _support/mac/releaserenewipaddress.html [ rit.edu ] Those are old screenshots , and I 'm using Leopard.. Still no idea where you are coming from.Not that there are n't inconsistencies somewhere , but I 've got over a decade of experience with Windows from 95 to XP , nearly as much with GTK/GNOME , and a couple years with OS X. It is clear as day why OS X has a good usability reputation .
Again , I can find flaws , but how one could not even guess how they earned the reputation , yet understand what usability means is beyond me.And , of course , inconsistencies between applications , too .
Mail settings have cancel/save/apply buttons , but to save network config changes you have to close the window ( hit the red x ) and then get presented with an option to apply changes.Where the hell did you find a cancel/save/apply menu on OS X ? ?
Sorry for the language , but you must have got that mixed up with something else .
Windows maybe ? I can find no apply buttons in Mail .
This is consistent with nearly all OS X applications , in that settings are changed , and remembered instantly.In the Network panel , there is something similar to what you describe .
There are " Apply " and " Revert " options .
You NEED this for network configuration , and many other system wide configuration tasks .
Someone should be hung by their balls if fiddling with network settings happened live in a UI .
If you do n't apply changes and click the red X , you get a prompt : " Do n't Apply " , " Cancel " , " Apply " .
In case it is not immediately obvious , Apply makes settings take effect , Revert clears changes you have n't applied ( clean slate ) , Do n't Apply exits without applying , Cancel closes the dialog without exiting , the dialog 's Apply does so and exits .
This is the only panel I can find in System Preferences that works like this .
The others work like other applications where your change is immediate .
Network settings is an appropriate place to skip this consistency.This is actually a great example of Apple 's attention to usability...Hitting a red x to apply your changes is almost as silly as hitting the start button in windows to stop your pc .
: ) You missed the Apply button in Network preferences , or was it not obvious your changes were applied in real time elsewhere ? in the few times I have used itBetween you and me , you need to spend a LITTLE more time with it to talk usability .
Put up screenshots at least , maybe you have an older version , and might have had some valid points .
Hey , if that was the case , try a newer version and see what was corrected .
That would probably be the best demonstration of how Apple earned it 's reputation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm also quite unclear on why mac has this reputation for good usability/interface because in the few times I have used it I have encountered interface inconsistencies even within the base applications such as network settings.
(e.g. radio buttons for "on"/"off" in one interface(dhcp) and a drop down box for "enable"/"disable" for another(static))I have a drop down to select DHCP, DHCP with manual address, bootp, and manual.In fact, I don't see radio buttons anywhere in "Network" system preferences.http://www.rit.edu/its/services/desktop\_support/mac/releaserenewipaddress.html [rit.edu]Those are old screenshots, and I'm using Leopard..  Still no idea where you are coming from.Not that there aren't inconsistencies somewhere, but I've got over a decade of experience with Windows from 95 to XP, nearly as much with GTK/GNOME, and a couple years with OS X.  It is clear as day why OS X has a good usability reputation.
Again, I can find flaws, but how one could not even guess how they earned the reputation, yet understand what usability means is beyond me.And, of course, inconsistencies between applications, too.
Mail settings have cancel/save/apply buttons, but to save network config changes you have to close the window(hit the red x) and then get presented with an option to apply changes.Where the hell did you find a cancel/save/apply menu on OS X??
Sorry for the language, but you must have got that mixed up with something else.
Windows maybe?I can find no apply buttons in Mail.
This is consistent with nearly all OS X applications, in that settings are changed, and remembered instantly.In the Network panel, there is something similar to what you describe.
There are "Apply" and "Revert" options.
You NEED this for network configuration, and many other system wide configuration tasks.
Someone should be hung by their balls if fiddling with network settings happened live in a UI.
If you don't apply changes and click the red X, you get a prompt: "Don't Apply", "Cancel", "Apply".
In case it is not immediately obvious, Apply makes settings take effect, Revert clears changes you haven't applied (clean slate), Don't Apply exits without applying, Cancel closes the dialog without exiting, the dialog's Apply does so and exits.
This is the only panel I can find in System Preferences that works like this.
The others work like other applications where your change is immediate.
Network settings is an appropriate place to skip this consistency.This is actually a great example of Apple's attention to usability...Hitting a red x to apply your changes is almost as silly as hitting the start button in windows to stop your pc.
:)You missed the Apply button in Network preferences, or was it not obvious your changes were applied in real time elsewhere?in the few times I have used itBetween you and me, you need to spend a LITTLE more time with it to talk usability.
Put up screenshots at least, maybe you have an older version, and might have had some valid points.
Hey, if that was the case, try a newer version and see what was corrected.
That would probably be the best demonstration of how Apple earned it's reputation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28563941</id>
	<title>Re:Apple makes good hardware</title>
	<author>MrResistor</author>
	<datestamp>1246527480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amen, brother! Go tell it on the mountain!</p><p>Seriously, I've been trying to figure out how to voice my reaction to that for the last hour, but you've said it perfectly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen , brother !
Go tell it on the mountain ! Seriously , I 've been trying to figure out how to voice my reaction to that for the last hour , but you 've said it perfectly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen, brother!
Go tell it on the mountain!Seriously, I've been trying to figure out how to voice my reaction to that for the last hour, but you've said it perfectly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28506885</id>
	<title>Memories of long ago...</title>
	<author>jackjansen</author>
	<datestamp>1246182900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I gave an impromptu talk at an EuroFOO conference 5 years ago about exactly this problem: <a href="http://homepages.cwi.nl/~jack/presentations/OpenSource-EuroFoo.pdf" title="homepages.cwi.nl" rel="nofollow">http://homepages.cwi.nl/~jack/presentations/OpenSource-EuroFoo.pdf</a> [homepages.cwi.nl].
<br> <br>
My feeling is that the basic problem is that, in open source, at most 5\% of the people involved are non-programmers (read: non-geeks). And for most projects the number is probably exactly 0\% of the people involved. for shareware projects it's close to 50\% (half of the developer:-). For commercial projects it's somewhere in the range of 20\% (small vendors) to 99\% (Microsoft, big software houses).
<br> <br>
The input of the non-geeks, while usually dismissed by us geeks as fluff, can be really, really important. Because their interested in such technical trivialities as documentation, ease of use, learning curves, market acceptance (and, yes, financial bottom line too). Those trivialities are important even to hardcore geeks when the software in question is just a tool you need to get the job done (as opposed to the labour of love you've been spending years of your life on).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I gave an impromptu talk at an EuroFOO conference 5 years ago about exactly this problem : http : //homepages.cwi.nl/ ~ jack/presentations/OpenSource-EuroFoo.pdf [ homepages.cwi.nl ] .
My feeling is that the basic problem is that , in open source , at most 5 \ % of the people involved are non-programmers ( read : non-geeks ) .
And for most projects the number is probably exactly 0 \ % of the people involved .
for shareware projects it 's close to 50 \ % ( half of the developer : - ) .
For commercial projects it 's somewhere in the range of 20 \ % ( small vendors ) to 99 \ % ( Microsoft , big software houses ) .
The input of the non-geeks , while usually dismissed by us geeks as fluff , can be really , really important .
Because their interested in such technical trivialities as documentation , ease of use , learning curves , market acceptance ( and , yes , financial bottom line too ) .
Those trivialities are important even to hardcore geeks when the software in question is just a tool you need to get the job done ( as opposed to the labour of love you 've been spending years of your life on ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I gave an impromptu talk at an EuroFOO conference 5 years ago about exactly this problem: http://homepages.cwi.nl/~jack/presentations/OpenSource-EuroFoo.pdf [homepages.cwi.nl].
My feeling is that the basic problem is that, in open source, at most 5\% of the people involved are non-programmers (read: non-geeks).
And for most projects the number is probably exactly 0\% of the people involved.
for shareware projects it's close to 50\% (half of the developer:-).
For commercial projects it's somewhere in the range of 20\% (small vendors) to 99\% (Microsoft, big software houses).
The input of the non-geeks, while usually dismissed by us geeks as fluff, can be really, really important.
Because their interested in such technical trivialities as documentation, ease of use, learning curves, market acceptance (and, yes, financial bottom line too).
Those trivialities are important even to hardcore geeks when the software in question is just a tool you need to get the job done (as opposed to the labour of love you've been spending years of your life on).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504211</id>
	<title>Re:Free software sucks because.</title>
	<author>yourassOA</author>
	<datestamp>1246207620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So the asshole who modded me down doesn't think programmers need to get paid. Your such an ass. You should try working for free for the next two weeks and then see if you want to make a carer of it. And for the car analogy if everyone making all the pieces for a car didn't have the same plans would the motor fit the transmission? Would the transmission fit in the car. Shing t is the car front of rear wheel drive? You are the asshole that has no problem paying MS for crappy software but figure linux programmers should work for free. You suck. Ever thought of replying to my post and saying why you disagree? No of course not because you have no argument your just a silly person with mod points.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the asshole who modded me down does n't think programmers need to get paid .
Your such an ass .
You should try working for free for the next two weeks and then see if you want to make a carer of it .
And for the car analogy if everyone making all the pieces for a car did n't have the same plans would the motor fit the transmission ?
Would the transmission fit in the car .
Shing t is the car front of rear wheel drive ?
You are the asshole that has no problem paying MS for crappy software but figure linux programmers should work for free .
You suck .
Ever thought of replying to my post and saying why you disagree ?
No of course not because you have no argument your just a silly person with mod points .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the asshole who modded me down doesn't think programmers need to get paid.
Your such an ass.
You should try working for free for the next two weeks and then see if you want to make a carer of it.
And for the car analogy if everyone making all the pieces for a car didn't have the same plans would the motor fit the transmission?
Would the transmission fit in the car.
Shing t is the car front of rear wheel drive?
You are the asshole that has no problem paying MS for crappy software but figure linux programmers should work for free.
You suck.
Ever thought of replying to my post and saying why you disagree?
No of course not because you have no argument your just a silly person with mod points.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504771</id>
	<title>Re:KDE is very usable</title>
	<author>GreatBunzinni</author>
	<datestamp>1246211040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I run KDE, both the 3.5.* version and the current 4.3.* version. The non-focus scrolling feature was always available on KDE, even in the far gone years of 4.1.*. The KDE migration from 3.5 to 4.0 may have had left a lot of features behind but scrolling focus was never one of them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I run KDE , both the 3.5 .
* version and the current 4.3 .
* version .
The non-focus scrolling feature was always available on KDE , even in the far gone years of 4.1. * .
The KDE migration from 3.5 to 4.0 may have had left a lot of features behind but scrolling focus was never one of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run KDE, both the 3.5.
* version and the current 4.3.
* version.
The non-focus scrolling feature was always available on KDE, even in the far gone years of 4.1.*.
The KDE migration from 3.5 to 4.0 may have had left a lot of features behind but scrolling focus was never one of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504213</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28517793</id>
	<title>Re:Window managers</title>
	<author>spitzak</author>
	<datestamp>1246305780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Middle-mouse pasting is actually a better form of drag&amp;drop, the problem is that people don't seem to be able to grasp that fact and thus fail to see how good it is.</p><p>Selecting anything starts a "drag", while middle-mouse click is a "drop". Big advantages over conventional drag &amp; drop is that you can rearrange windows and even start/kill programs during a "drag", and that it is intuitively obvious how to abort a "drag" in the middle, and you can cut &amp; paste at the same time.</p><p>The problem is lots of people (including Linux developers) think of it as some variation of cut &amp; paste. They make it interfere with cut &amp; paste sometimes (less often nowadays), and conversely they don't make it do the exact same thing as drag &amp; drop of the same data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Middle-mouse pasting is actually a better form of drag&amp;drop , the problem is that people do n't seem to be able to grasp that fact and thus fail to see how good it is.Selecting anything starts a " drag " , while middle-mouse click is a " drop " .
Big advantages over conventional drag &amp; drop is that you can rearrange windows and even start/kill programs during a " drag " , and that it is intuitively obvious how to abort a " drag " in the middle , and you can cut &amp; paste at the same time.The problem is lots of people ( including Linux developers ) think of it as some variation of cut &amp; paste .
They make it interfere with cut &amp; paste sometimes ( less often nowadays ) , and conversely they do n't make it do the exact same thing as drag &amp; drop of the same data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Middle-mouse pasting is actually a better form of drag&amp;drop, the problem is that people don't seem to be able to grasp that fact and thus fail to see how good it is.Selecting anything starts a "drag", while middle-mouse click is a "drop".
Big advantages over conventional drag &amp; drop is that you can rearrange windows and even start/kill programs during a "drag", and that it is intuitively obvious how to abort a "drag" in the middle, and you can cut &amp; paste at the same time.The problem is lots of people (including Linux developers) think of it as some variation of cut &amp; paste.
They make it interfere with cut &amp; paste sometimes (less often nowadays), and conversely they don't make it do the exact same thing as drag &amp; drop of the same data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504901</id>
	<title>Re:Already handled</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1246211820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Many of the most successful FOSS projects have corporate contributors, so this "design conundrum" doesn't really exist.</i> </p><p>For "many," I would be strongly tempted to substitute "all."</p><p>Especially for apps which <b>must</b> find anchorage in the needs and values of the non-technical end user.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many of the most successful FOSS projects have corporate contributors , so this " design conundrum " does n't really exist .
For " many , " I would be strongly tempted to substitute " all .
" Especially for apps which must find anchorage in the needs and values of the non-technical end user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many of the most successful FOSS projects have corporate contributors, so this "design conundrum" doesn't really exist.
For "many," I would be strongly tempted to substitute "all.
"Especially for apps which must find anchorage in the needs and values of the non-technical end user.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503877</id>
	<title>KDE is very usable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246204920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree with the premise that FOSS usability is always bad. I'm not a developer, I can't write code, but I use *nix exclusively for my home computers, running KDE. And they are WAY more usable than my windows computers at work. Small things make such a huge difference--with windows, when you move the mouse wheel, the active window scrolls, even if you have 2 open side by side. You have to click on the one you want to scroll. With KDE, the window that your mouse cursor is hovering over scrolls. This is so intuitive it took me a month or so to even notice. I've found all kinds of other small usability tweaks.</p><p>My KDE desktop at home is so much more usable and intuitive than my windows xp box at work that I often work at home just for the pleasure of using KDE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree with the premise that FOSS usability is always bad .
I 'm not a developer , I ca n't write code , but I use * nix exclusively for my home computers , running KDE .
And they are WAY more usable than my windows computers at work .
Small things make such a huge difference--with windows , when you move the mouse wheel , the active window scrolls , even if you have 2 open side by side .
You have to click on the one you want to scroll .
With KDE , the window that your mouse cursor is hovering over scrolls .
This is so intuitive it took me a month or so to even notice .
I 've found all kinds of other small usability tweaks.My KDE desktop at home is so much more usable and intuitive than my windows xp box at work that I often work at home just for the pleasure of using KDE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree with the premise that FOSS usability is always bad.
I'm not a developer, I can't write code, but I use *nix exclusively for my home computers, running KDE.
And they are WAY more usable than my windows computers at work.
Small things make such a huge difference--with windows, when you move the mouse wheel, the active window scrolls, even if you have 2 open side by side.
You have to click on the one you want to scroll.
With KDE, the window that your mouse cursor is hovering over scrolls.
This is so intuitive it took me a month or so to even notice.
I've found all kinds of other small usability tweaks.My KDE desktop at home is so much more usable and intuitive than my windows xp box at work that I often work at home just for the pleasure of using KDE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28506609</id>
	<title>My favorite Mac applications</title>
	<author>Lulu of the Lotus-Ea</author>
	<datestamp>1246180260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I run mostly Apple machines myself.  I have installed Linux distributions on them, but I wind up running OSX in the end.  It does indeed "just work" better when it comes to peripherals and hardware features (sound, external video, power modes, etc).</p><p>Here are my favorite applications for the Mac (as measured by frequency of usage):</p><p>* Firefox<br>* bash (and all those lovely utilities one uses in bash: ls, grep, cut, head, vim, cat, find, wget, etc)<br>* Python (often iPython)<br>* jEdit<br>* OpenOffice.org (or NeoOffice)</p><p>Notice anything they have in common? They are all Free Software</p><p>There are a few proprietary applications I also keep in my Dock:</p><p>* Safari<br>* Mail.app<br>* GraphicConverter<br>* Preview<br>* iCal<br>* iTunes</p><p>These have something in common too.  They are proprietary, but they are applications whose whole purpose is to manipulate or utilize files in non-proprietary data formats (HTML, mbox, PDF, png, jpg, CAL, mp3, etc... OK, I know mp3 is a little bit proprietary).  If I were to need to give up any of these, nothing would stand in the way of manipulating the data files I had created using other tools.</p><p>There are a few other applications I use that are less clear, and that I don't feel quite so good about:</p><p>* Dictionary.app<br>* VirtualBox<br>* Acquisition<br>* Skype<br>* Finder</p><p>Well, the dictionary is handy, and the way the data is stored is probably not very open.  But if I didn't have it, I'd use some other dictionary; there's not any bad lock-in there.  VirtualBox is free-of-cost, but proprietary format; I'm not so happy about that, but it does let me run Linux in a VM.  Acquisition is a nice (shareware/nagware) fileshare program that I paid for... well, I use to download non-proprietary data files.  I could use something else if I wanted to to get the same data.  Finder is... well, I could use a different file manager if I wanted.  I don't love it, but it's there and is basically fine.  The only really locked-in program on my list is Skype.  It's hard to get around that... but it's the same story on my Linux machines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I run mostly Apple machines myself .
I have installed Linux distributions on them , but I wind up running OSX in the end .
It does indeed " just work " better when it comes to peripherals and hardware features ( sound , external video , power modes , etc ) .Here are my favorite applications for the Mac ( as measured by frequency of usage ) : * Firefox * bash ( and all those lovely utilities one uses in bash : ls , grep , cut , head , vim , cat , find , wget , etc ) * Python ( often iPython ) * jEdit * OpenOffice.org ( or NeoOffice ) Notice anything they have in common ?
They are all Free SoftwareThere are a few proprietary applications I also keep in my Dock : * Safari * Mail.app * GraphicConverter * Preview * iCal * iTunesThese have something in common too .
They are proprietary , but they are applications whose whole purpose is to manipulate or utilize files in non-proprietary data formats ( HTML , mbox , PDF , png , jpg , CAL , mp3 , etc... OK , I know mp3 is a little bit proprietary ) .
If I were to need to give up any of these , nothing would stand in the way of manipulating the data files I had created using other tools.There are a few other applications I use that are less clear , and that I do n't feel quite so good about : * Dictionary.app * VirtualBox * Acquisition * Skype * FinderWell , the dictionary is handy , and the way the data is stored is probably not very open .
But if I did n't have it , I 'd use some other dictionary ; there 's not any bad lock-in there .
VirtualBox is free-of-cost , but proprietary format ; I 'm not so happy about that , but it does let me run Linux in a VM .
Acquisition is a nice ( shareware/nagware ) fileshare program that I paid for... well , I use to download non-proprietary data files .
I could use something else if I wanted to to get the same data .
Finder is... well , I could use a different file manager if I wanted .
I do n't love it , but it 's there and is basically fine .
The only really locked-in program on my list is Skype .
It 's hard to get around that... but it 's the same story on my Linux machines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run mostly Apple machines myself.
I have installed Linux distributions on them, but I wind up running OSX in the end.
It does indeed "just work" better when it comes to peripherals and hardware features (sound, external video, power modes, etc).Here are my favorite applications for the Mac (as measured by frequency of usage):* Firefox* bash (and all those lovely utilities one uses in bash: ls, grep, cut, head, vim, cat, find, wget, etc)* Python (often iPython)* jEdit* OpenOffice.org (or NeoOffice)Notice anything they have in common?
They are all Free SoftwareThere are a few proprietary applications I also keep in my Dock:* Safari* Mail.app* GraphicConverter* Preview* iCal* iTunesThese have something in common too.
They are proprietary, but they are applications whose whole purpose is to manipulate or utilize files in non-proprietary data formats (HTML, mbox, PDF, png, jpg, CAL, mp3, etc... OK, I know mp3 is a little bit proprietary).
If I were to need to give up any of these, nothing would stand in the way of manipulating the data files I had created using other tools.There are a few other applications I use that are less clear, and that I don't feel quite so good about:* Dictionary.app* VirtualBox* Acquisition* Skype* FinderWell, the dictionary is handy, and the way the data is stored is probably not very open.
But if I didn't have it, I'd use some other dictionary; there's not any bad lock-in there.
VirtualBox is free-of-cost, but proprietary format; I'm not so happy about that, but it does let me run Linux in a VM.
Acquisition is a nice (shareware/nagware) fileshare program that I paid for... well, I use to download non-proprietary data files.
I could use something else if I wanted to to get the same data.
Finder is... well, I could use a different file manager if I wanted.
I don't love it, but it's there and is basically fine.
The only really locked-in program on my list is Skype.
It's hard to get around that... but it's the same story on my Linux machines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28509835</id>
	<title>Re:UI Design and custonmer support are the dirt wo</title>
	<author>jawahar</author>
	<datestamp>1246210320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>UI Design and customer support are the dirt work</p></div></blockquote><p>
Isn't it desirable to <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;ct=res&amp;cd=2&amp;url=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fwww.microsoft.com\%2Fservices\%2FMicrosoftservices\%2Ftechconsulting.mspx&amp;ei=fENISuH5C4TY7APH7IUj&amp;usg=AFQjCNF\_KKw2hIvxx5XIK6xPRZXwUnaoqQ&amp;sig2=hRZ6-1eIE3wC2f05GW6e-w" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">outsource</a> [google.com] FOSS UI Design to Proprietary Software Vendors?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>UI Design and customer support are the dirt work Is n't it desirable to outsource [ google.com ] FOSS UI Design to Proprietary Software Vendors ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>UI Design and customer support are the dirt work
Isn't it desirable to outsource [google.com] FOSS UI Design to Proprietary Software Vendors?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503803</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28509193</id>
	<title>Re:Already handled</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246204260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stop confusing the discussion with facts.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>Microsoft said the FOSS plan is fundamentally flawed, years ago.  The original post is just confirmation of their long held PR.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop confusing the discussion with facts .
; - ) Microsoft said the FOSS plan is fundamentally flawed , years ago .
The original post is just confirmation of their long held PR .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop confusing the discussion with facts.
;-)Microsoft said the FOSS plan is fundamentally flawed, years ago.
The original post is just confirmation of their long held PR.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28506363</id>
	<title>It's the Cult-of-UNIX mentality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246221540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason that open source sucks is that it is tied to Linux, which is a derivative of UNIX. Devotees of the Cult-of-UNIX believe that gui interfaces are positively evil, because users should have to EARN the right to use software by memorizing an arcane and poorly documented command line syntax.</p><p>This is what has kept all versions of UNIX, including Linux, in the murky shadows of the IT world for decades...</p><p>The open source world needs a mental high-colonic. They need to purge the computer-science major arrogance out of their mindset and realize that ease of use trumps all other concerns in software design.</p><p>Following the proverb - "He who would be first amongst you must be the servant of all", open source developers need to finally admit that only software that makes features accessible to their grandmother *MATTERS*.</p><p>Everything else is just- well - j@rking off...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason that open source sucks is that it is tied to Linux , which is a derivative of UNIX .
Devotees of the Cult-of-UNIX believe that gui interfaces are positively evil , because users should have to EARN the right to use software by memorizing an arcane and poorly documented command line syntax.This is what has kept all versions of UNIX , including Linux , in the murky shadows of the IT world for decades...The open source world needs a mental high-colonic .
They need to purge the computer-science major arrogance out of their mindset and realize that ease of use trumps all other concerns in software design.Following the proverb - " He who would be first amongst you must be the servant of all " , open source developers need to finally admit that only software that makes features accessible to their grandmother * MATTERS * .Everything else is just- well - j @ rking off.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason that open source sucks is that it is tied to Linux, which is a derivative of UNIX.
Devotees of the Cult-of-UNIX believe that gui interfaces are positively evil, because users should have to EARN the right to use software by memorizing an arcane and poorly documented command line syntax.This is what has kept all versions of UNIX, including Linux, in the murky shadows of the IT world for decades...The open source world needs a mental high-colonic.
They need to purge the computer-science major arrogance out of their mindset and realize that ease of use trumps all other concerns in software design.Following the proverb - "He who would be first amongst you must be the servant of all", open source developers need to finally admit that only software that makes features accessible to their grandmother *MATTERS*.Everything else is just- well - j@rking off...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28513997</id>
	<title>two reasons</title>
	<author>mzs</author>
	<datestamp>1246290240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The two simple reasons for this are/have been:</p><p>Close the lid, open the lid, and sleep and resume actually worked.<br>The battery life was better in OS X than linux.</p><p>That is really all that there was to it, that and X11 plus gcc with the stuff in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/bin was good enough. It has nothing to do with UI, cause there were a whole lot of people that used fvwm+xterm+vim or whatever they are accustomed to in full screen X11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The two simple reasons for this are/have been : Close the lid , open the lid , and sleep and resume actually worked.The battery life was better in OS X than linux.That is really all that there was to it , that and X11 plus gcc with the stuff in /usr/bin was good enough .
It has nothing to do with UI , cause there were a whole lot of people that used fvwm + xterm + vim or whatever they are accustomed to in full screen X11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The two simple reasons for this are/have been:Close the lid, open the lid, and sleep and resume actually worked.The battery life was better in OS X than linux.That is really all that there was to it, that and X11 plus gcc with the stuff in /usr/bin was good enough.
It has nothing to do with UI, cause there were a whole lot of people that used fvwm+xterm+vim or whatever they are accustomed to in full screen X11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503805</id>
	<title>Most of the Apple distribution is Free</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246204440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is only a small part of the Apple Mac software that is non-Free and you could even run Darwin which is Free.  The bulk of the software on any Apple Mac is GPL.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is only a small part of the Apple Mac software that is non-Free and you could even run Darwin which is Free .
The bulk of the software on any Apple Mac is GPL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is only a small part of the Apple Mac software that is non-Free and you could even run Darwin which is Free.
The bulk of the software on any Apple Mac is GPL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504715</id>
	<title>Flawed logic</title>
	<author>br33d</author>
	<datestamp>1246210680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>first off, the fact that an IBMer was involved in the discussion does a lot to discredit the whole article. they have really bad UIs! they, IBM, also fall into the traps he is talking about: designers are frequently not listened to, UIs are designed by the core engineers and influenced by marketing, they need to rush out the next release, the engineer needs some checkbox in place so that he can claim an accomplishment to justify his paycheck.</p><p>to be honest, my employer only issues Mac or Windows laptops. i started with a Mac and really tried hard a whole summer to use it, but in the end i dumped it for a Windows laptop over which i installed kubuntu. the help system in Mac OS is super crappy. the package management system is non existent. (the assertion that you just add and remove stuff from applications directory is naive. there is other stuff happening that leaves things broken if you ever update or remove packages.) as a developer it's just too hard to get a good development evironment setup (not just the IDE, but all the tools as well). getting network printers and storage setup on Mac OSX is a crap shoot: sometimes it is easy, but other times it is impossible!</p><p>to be honest KDE 4.0 was pretty lame, but i'm loving 4.2!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>first off , the fact that an IBMer was involved in the discussion does a lot to discredit the whole article .
they have really bad UIs !
they , IBM , also fall into the traps he is talking about : designers are frequently not listened to , UIs are designed by the core engineers and influenced by marketing , they need to rush out the next release , the engineer needs some checkbox in place so that he can claim an accomplishment to justify his paycheck.to be honest , my employer only issues Mac or Windows laptops .
i started with a Mac and really tried hard a whole summer to use it , but in the end i dumped it for a Windows laptop over which i installed kubuntu .
the help system in Mac OS is super crappy .
the package management system is non existent .
( the assertion that you just add and remove stuff from applications directory is naive .
there is other stuff happening that leaves things broken if you ever update or remove packages .
) as a developer it 's just too hard to get a good development evironment setup ( not just the IDE , but all the tools as well ) .
getting network printers and storage setup on Mac OSX is a crap shoot : sometimes it is easy , but other times it is impossible ! to be honest KDE 4.0 was pretty lame , but i 'm loving 4.2 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>first off, the fact that an IBMer was involved in the discussion does a lot to discredit the whole article.
they have really bad UIs!
they, IBM, also fall into the traps he is talking about: designers are frequently not listened to, UIs are designed by the core engineers and influenced by marketing, they need to rush out the next release, the engineer needs some checkbox in place so that he can claim an accomplishment to justify his paycheck.to be honest, my employer only issues Mac or Windows laptops.
i started with a Mac and really tried hard a whole summer to use it, but in the end i dumped it for a Windows laptop over which i installed kubuntu.
the help system in Mac OS is super crappy.
the package management system is non existent.
(the assertion that you just add and remove stuff from applications directory is naive.
there is other stuff happening that leaves things broken if you ever update or remove packages.
) as a developer it's just too hard to get a good development evironment setup (not just the IDE, but all the tools as well).
getting network printers and storage setup on Mac OSX is a crap shoot: sometimes it is easy, but other times it is impossible!to be honest KDE 4.0 was pretty lame, but i'm loving 4.2!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504193</id>
	<title>Doesn't handle, it's Being handled, as a Weapon</title>
	<author>StCredZero</author>
	<datestamp>1246207440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is already being done. Many of the most successful FOSS projects have corporate contributors, so this "design conundrum" doesn't really exist.</p></div><p>That's not how I read it.  FOSS projects have corporate contributors as a weapon used to commoditize their rival's products.  (IBM versus Sun, to make it impossible to monetize Java)  FOSS projects are also funded in order to create commodity complements to company's products.  Sell servers?  Commoditize software that runs on servers!</p><p><a href="http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html" title="joelonsoftware.com">http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html</a> [joelonsoftware.com]</p><p>There's a problem with this.  It reduces FOSS to ammunition.  A tactical move.  If FOSS can't produce really slick interfaces, then FOSS will always be a lackey of the corporations in order to achieve first-rate success.  If the corporations don't like you or can't use you, then you're left out in the bush leagues, the farm teams.  Just look at the software out there.  Almost every piece of software that gets widespread corporate or consumer traction is being used as a weapon or market driver.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In fact Apple, like it or not, is a pretty good example of how to monetize FOSS. Can't say I'm thrilled with the methods they employ to achieve that, but it's still a fact that they do achieve it.</p></div><p>The problem is that it makes FOSS critically dependent on the corporate masters if a particular project wants to be "first-rate."  It's as if FOSS is like indy music/film, and the corporations are the music industry, and <i>everyone is trying to get signed</i>.  Maybe that's how things should be.  But it would be better if we never had to admit, "can't say I'm thrilled," about how our funders are treating our ideals.  FOSS needs its equivalent of bittorrent, Pirate Bay, and independent musicians who can give the finger to the big music distributors, yet <b>still turn out first-rate product</b>.  Where's our Protools for interfaces?  (Actually, the problem is likely cultural and not technological.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is already being done .
Many of the most successful FOSS projects have corporate contributors , so this " design conundrum " does n't really exist.That 's not how I read it .
FOSS projects have corporate contributors as a weapon used to commoditize their rival 's products .
( IBM versus Sun , to make it impossible to monetize Java ) FOSS projects are also funded in order to create commodity complements to company 's products .
Sell servers ?
Commoditize software that runs on servers ! http : //www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html [ joelonsoftware.com ] There 's a problem with this .
It reduces FOSS to ammunition .
A tactical move .
If FOSS ca n't produce really slick interfaces , then FOSS will always be a lackey of the corporations in order to achieve first-rate success .
If the corporations do n't like you or ca n't use you , then you 're left out in the bush leagues , the farm teams .
Just look at the software out there .
Almost every piece of software that gets widespread corporate or consumer traction is being used as a weapon or market driver.In fact Apple , like it or not , is a pretty good example of how to monetize FOSS .
Ca n't say I 'm thrilled with the methods they employ to achieve that , but it 's still a fact that they do achieve it.The problem is that it makes FOSS critically dependent on the corporate masters if a particular project wants to be " first-rate .
" It 's as if FOSS is like indy music/film , and the corporations are the music industry , and everyone is trying to get signed .
Maybe that 's how things should be .
But it would be better if we never had to admit , " ca n't say I 'm thrilled , " about how our funders are treating our ideals .
FOSS needs its equivalent of bittorrent , Pirate Bay , and independent musicians who can give the finger to the big music distributors , yet still turn out first-rate product .
Where 's our Protools for interfaces ?
( Actually , the problem is likely cultural and not technological .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is already being done.
Many of the most successful FOSS projects have corporate contributors, so this "design conundrum" doesn't really exist.That's not how I read it.
FOSS projects have corporate contributors as a weapon used to commoditize their rival's products.
(IBM versus Sun, to make it impossible to monetize Java)  FOSS projects are also funded in order to create commodity complements to company's products.
Sell servers?
Commoditize software that runs on servers!http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html [joelonsoftware.com]There's a problem with this.
It reduces FOSS to ammunition.
A tactical move.
If FOSS can't produce really slick interfaces, then FOSS will always be a lackey of the corporations in order to achieve first-rate success.
If the corporations don't like you or can't use you, then you're left out in the bush leagues, the farm teams.
Just look at the software out there.
Almost every piece of software that gets widespread corporate or consumer traction is being used as a weapon or market driver.In fact Apple, like it or not, is a pretty good example of how to monetize FOSS.
Can't say I'm thrilled with the methods they employ to achieve that, but it's still a fact that they do achieve it.The problem is that it makes FOSS critically dependent on the corporate masters if a particular project wants to be "first-rate.
"  It's as if FOSS is like indy music/film, and the corporations are the music industry, and everyone is trying to get signed.
Maybe that's how things should be.
But it would be better if we never had to admit, "can't say I'm thrilled," about how our funders are treating our ideals.
FOSS needs its equivalent of bittorrent, Pirate Bay, and independent musicians who can give the finger to the big music distributors, yet still turn out first-rate product.
Where's our Protools for interfaces?
(Actually, the problem is likely cultural and not technological.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503953</id>
	<title>Re:Already handled</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246205520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, essentially the corporate contributor has a short position on that particular kind of software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , essentially the corporate contributor has a short position on that particular kind of software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, essentially the corporate contributor has a short position on that particular kind of software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503899</id>
	<title>Freedom with or without the control</title>
	<author>zhilla2</author>
	<datestamp>1246205100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is the basic philosophical dilemma - freedom with or without the control? Imho, both have valid arguments, but Linux ecosystem is modular enough to allow both. But standards and common sense above all! For the specific topic of UI design, things got MUCH better over the last couple of years in OSS world ("Why Free Software usability tends to suck" document was published in 2002!). That being said, open source community should probably publish a document / wiki with reference basic, simple guidelines for designing user interface for OSS programs. And improve document gradually over time, so that it becomes bible / manifesto of making a consistent user interface.
Also, make simple tests for programs - if program conforms to it, it can get certificate such as "This program has a sane user interface as determined by OSF".</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is the basic philosophical dilemma - freedom with or without the control ?
Imho , both have valid arguments , but Linux ecosystem is modular enough to allow both .
But standards and common sense above all !
For the specific topic of UI design , things got MUCH better over the last couple of years in OSS world ( " Why Free Software usability tends to suck " document was published in 2002 ! ) .
That being said , open source community should probably publish a document / wiki with reference basic , simple guidelines for designing user interface for OSS programs .
And improve document gradually over time , so that it becomes bible / manifesto of making a consistent user interface .
Also , make simple tests for programs - if program conforms to it , it can get certificate such as " This program has a sane user interface as determined by OSF " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is the basic philosophical dilemma - freedom with or without the control?
Imho, both have valid arguments, but Linux ecosystem is modular enough to allow both.
But standards and common sense above all!
For the specific topic of UI design, things got MUCH better over the last couple of years in OSS world ("Why Free Software usability tends to suck" document was published in 2002!).
That being said, open source community should probably publish a document / wiki with reference basic, simple guidelines for designing user interface for OSS programs.
And improve document gradually over time, so that it becomes bible / manifesto of making a consistent user interface.
Also, make simple tests for programs - if program conforms to it, it can get certificate such as "This program has a sane user interface as determined by OSF".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505945</id>
	<title>Re:Apple makes good hardware</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246218420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Thing is apple laptops are usually pretty good in design, so even OSS people will buy one and then put distro of choice on it, problem? not really. Good hardware is good hardware.</p></div><p>Except that Apple laptops are junk. None of them have nipples, they only have a single mouse button and they're all shortscreen. Mind you, most laptops are shortscreen now, but that doesn't make it any better.</p></div><p>Why do people keep going on about one mouse button that obviously don't use Macs</p><p>Yes there is one physical button, but you can get the context menu (right click) by either holding OPTION and clicking, or on a laptop clicking with two fingers on the mouse pad.</p><p>It's a much more elegant solution and so much easier. Macs have also supported two/three button mice for years now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thing is apple laptops are usually pretty good in design , so even OSS people will buy one and then put distro of choice on it , problem ?
not really .
Good hardware is good hardware.Except that Apple laptops are junk .
None of them have nipples , they only have a single mouse button and they 're all shortscreen .
Mind you , most laptops are shortscreen now , but that does n't make it any better.Why do people keep going on about one mouse button that obviously do n't use MacsYes there is one physical button , but you can get the context menu ( right click ) by either holding OPTION and clicking , or on a laptop clicking with two fingers on the mouse pad.It 's a much more elegant solution and so much easier .
Macs have also supported two/three button mice for years now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thing is apple laptops are usually pretty good in design, so even OSS people will buy one and then put distro of choice on it, problem?
not really.
Good hardware is good hardware.Except that Apple laptops are junk.
None of them have nipples, they only have a single mouse button and they're all shortscreen.
Mind you, most laptops are shortscreen now, but that doesn't make it any better.Why do people keep going on about one mouse button that obviously don't use MacsYes there is one physical button, but you can get the context menu (right click) by either holding OPTION and clicking, or on a laptop clicking with two fingers on the mouse pad.It's a much more elegant solution and so much easier.
Macs have also supported two/three button mice for years now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28513355</id>
	<title>Re:chiefs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246286760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>STFU, retard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>STFU , retard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>STFU, retard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504067</id>
	<title>Re:Free software sucks because.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246206360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>--Their is no one overseeing the whole thing.<br>Yes, alot of the time, yes there is.</p><p>--There is no common goal.<br>Again, depending on the developer(s), most good free software does have a common goal set to work towards.</p><p>--There are more useless that useful programs.<br>So? Don't download those.</p><p>--Stupid little things never get fixed.<br>I used to believe this, contact the developer and actually tell him about it. All good FOSS developers listen to their userbase.</p><p>--There are too many distro's.<br>Again, depends on the app. For some, true.</p><p>--Someone needs to get paid for the work they do.<br>Why? If they wanted to get paid, they wouldn't work for free. Have you ever chatted with a FOSS developer? They almost always have another job and develop free apps for fun.</p><p>--Someone need to get the praise and encouragement they deserve for working so hard.<br>Your assuming they don't get it.</p><p>--Do something, go to your favorite distro's website buy something. No one wants to work and have to survive on cup-a-noodle its gets real gross after awhile.<br>What? No. There is such a thing as good free software. I use free software where I can, if there are no free alternatives I'll go buy an app, thank you very much.</p><p>--Give the people who make your free software something so they don't feel neglected, an unhappy programmer will code what he needs for himself then give it away for free because of his principals. Make it worth his while and he might make something you need.<br>People donate to the devs, people thank the devs, people even give credit where it wasn't needed. I don't understand why you assume that this is not so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>--Their is no one overseeing the whole thing.Yes , alot of the time , yes there is.--There is no common goal.Again , depending on the developer ( s ) , most good free software does have a common goal set to work towards.--There are more useless that useful programs.So ?
Do n't download those.--Stupid little things never get fixed.I used to believe this , contact the developer and actually tell him about it .
All good FOSS developers listen to their userbase.--There are too many distro 's.Again , depends on the app .
For some , true.--Someone needs to get paid for the work they do.Why ?
If they wanted to get paid , they would n't work for free .
Have you ever chatted with a FOSS developer ?
They almost always have another job and develop free apps for fun.--Someone need to get the praise and encouragement they deserve for working so hard.Your assuming they do n't get it.--Do something , go to your favorite distro 's website buy something .
No one wants to work and have to survive on cup-a-noodle its gets real gross after awhile.What ?
No. There is such a thing as good free software .
I use free software where I can , if there are no free alternatives I 'll go buy an app , thank you very much.--Give the people who make your free software something so they do n't feel neglected , an unhappy programmer will code what he needs for himself then give it away for free because of his principals .
Make it worth his while and he might make something you need.People donate to the devs , people thank the devs , people even give credit where it was n't needed .
I do n't understand why you assume that this is not so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>--Their is no one overseeing the whole thing.Yes, alot of the time, yes there is.--There is no common goal.Again, depending on the developer(s), most good free software does have a common goal set to work towards.--There are more useless that useful programs.So?
Don't download those.--Stupid little things never get fixed.I used to believe this, contact the developer and actually tell him about it.
All good FOSS developers listen to their userbase.--There are too many distro's.Again, depends on the app.
For some, true.--Someone needs to get paid for the work they do.Why?
If they wanted to get paid, they wouldn't work for free.
Have you ever chatted with a FOSS developer?
They almost always have another job and develop free apps for fun.--Someone need to get the praise and encouragement they deserve for working so hard.Your assuming they don't get it.--Do something, go to your favorite distro's website buy something.
No one wants to work and have to survive on cup-a-noodle its gets real gross after awhile.What?
No. There is such a thing as good free software.
I use free software where I can, if there are no free alternatives I'll go buy an app, thank you very much.--Give the people who make your free software something so they don't feel neglected, an unhappy programmer will code what he needs for himself then give it away for free because of his principals.
Make it worth his while and he might make something you need.People donate to the devs, people thank the devs, people even give credit where it wasn't needed.
I don't understand why you assume that this is not so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504409</id>
	<title>Re:KDE is very usable</title>
	<author>dna\_(c)(tm)(r)</author>
	<datestamp>1246208820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, either it's carefully crafted FUD or a Windows weeny that just loves every proprietary UI he's accustomed to like <a href="http://www.softpedia.com/progScreenshots/TOAD-for-Oracle-Freeware-Screenshot-28146.html" title="softpedia.com">TOAD</a> [softpedia.com] and <a href="http://www.buigallery.com/2008/04/remedial-menuing.html#links" title="buigallery.com">some</a> [buigallery.com] <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/bradster/iarchitect/clarity.htm#CLARITY7" title="mac.com">others</a> [mac.com].</p><p>On the other hand I've known quite a few persons that went for the "OMG Ponies" kind of "usability":  <i>Look my iPhone's screen tilts when I turn it!</i> and<i> Wohow, MS Surface rocks</i>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , either it 's carefully crafted FUD or a Windows weeny that just loves every proprietary UI he 's accustomed to like TOAD [ softpedia.com ] and some [ buigallery.com ] others [ mac.com ] .On the other hand I 've known quite a few persons that went for the " OMG Ponies " kind of " usability " : Look my iPhone 's screen tilts when I turn it !
and Wohow , MS Surface rocks.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, either it's carefully crafted FUD or a Windows weeny that just loves every proprietary UI he's accustomed to like TOAD [softpedia.com] and some [buigallery.com] others [mac.com].On the other hand I've known quite a few persons that went for the "OMG Ponies" kind of "usability":  Look my iPhone's screen tilts when I turn it!
and Wohow, MS Surface rocks...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504553</id>
	<title>Mac No - iPhone Yes</title>
	<author>calc</author>
	<datestamp>1246209780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would never buy a Mac especially not with all the reliability problems they have and mis-features like locking the SATA port to SATA 1 speed, disabling 802.11n on the older ones and requiring people pay to get the feature, etc. On top of that I would never run MacOS X, as I am a Linux developer, so why pay more (the Apple tax) for less hardware. I personally own a ThinkPad X200 which is much better and cheaper than anything I have seen from Apple.<br><br>As far as open phones go, there is really not much choice on that front. There is Openmoko which doesn't even have Edge/3G support or the T-Mobile G1 Android phone. It also looks like openmoko is dying off and they have canceled their phones planned to have Edge/3G support. Android looks promising but the phone still needs a lot more work and/or there needs to be more than one of them available. More Android phones should be available later this summer so perhaps it will gain more marketshare. So I am not surprised at all that currently people at open-source conferences are using iPhones. I recently bought one for myself after sitting on the fence about whether to continue to wait until a nicer Android phone became available. Hopefully in 2 years once my at&amp;t contract finally runs out there will be much better Android phones available. With respect to at&amp;t they are planning on releasing an Android phone as well but with crippled resolution only 320x240.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would never buy a Mac especially not with all the reliability problems they have and mis-features like locking the SATA port to SATA 1 speed , disabling 802.11n on the older ones and requiring people pay to get the feature , etc .
On top of that I would never run MacOS X , as I am a Linux developer , so why pay more ( the Apple tax ) for less hardware .
I personally own a ThinkPad X200 which is much better and cheaper than anything I have seen from Apple.As far as open phones go , there is really not much choice on that front .
There is Openmoko which does n't even have Edge/3G support or the T-Mobile G1 Android phone .
It also looks like openmoko is dying off and they have canceled their phones planned to have Edge/3G support .
Android looks promising but the phone still needs a lot more work and/or there needs to be more than one of them available .
More Android phones should be available later this summer so perhaps it will gain more marketshare .
So I am not surprised at all that currently people at open-source conferences are using iPhones .
I recently bought one for myself after sitting on the fence about whether to continue to wait until a nicer Android phone became available .
Hopefully in 2 years once my at&amp;t contract finally runs out there will be much better Android phones available .
With respect to at&amp;t they are planning on releasing an Android phone as well but with crippled resolution only 320x240 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would never buy a Mac especially not with all the reliability problems they have and mis-features like locking the SATA port to SATA 1 speed, disabling 802.11n on the older ones and requiring people pay to get the feature, etc.
On top of that I would never run MacOS X, as I am a Linux developer, so why pay more (the Apple tax) for less hardware.
I personally own a ThinkPad X200 which is much better and cheaper than anything I have seen from Apple.As far as open phones go, there is really not much choice on that front.
There is Openmoko which doesn't even have Edge/3G support or the T-Mobile G1 Android phone.
It also looks like openmoko is dying off and they have canceled their phones planned to have Edge/3G support.
Android looks promising but the phone still needs a lot more work and/or there needs to be more than one of them available.
More Android phones should be available later this summer so perhaps it will gain more marketshare.
So I am not surprised at all that currently people at open-source conferences are using iPhones.
I recently bought one for myself after sitting on the fence about whether to continue to wait until a nicer Android phone became available.
Hopefully in 2 years once my at&amp;t contract finally runs out there will be much better Android phones available.
With respect to at&amp;t they are planning on releasing an Android phone as well but with crippled resolution only 320x240.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28506465</id>
	<title>This is true if you still live in the 90's</title>
	<author>botik32</author>
	<datestamp>1246222320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This used to be true in the 90's. Now that more people are aware of open source, more designers are involved in open source projects.</p><p>Check this out:<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsZvwyxJ9vk&amp;feature=player\_embedded" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsZvwyxJ9vk&amp;feature=player\_embedded</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This used to be true in the 90 's .
Now that more people are aware of open source , more designers are involved in open source projects.Check this out : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = lsZvwyxJ9vk&amp;feature = player \ _embedded [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This used to be true in the 90's.
Now that more people are aware of open source, more designers are involved in open source projects.Check this out:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsZvwyxJ9vk&amp;feature=player\_embedded [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504737</id>
	<title>Hmmm...</title>
	<author>coryking</author>
	<datestamp>1246210860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm not familiar enough with the history of OSS projects but are there examples of projects that started with a design process?</p></div></blockquote><p>If you broaden the scope beyond "end-user software" and dive into things like protocols you might find some things.  Usability doesn't just apply to the GUI--it helps when you have a well designed protocol or file format.  Is EXT3 well designed?  What about the FreeBSD ports tree--did that start with code or with design?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not familiar enough with the history of OSS projects but are there examples of projects that started with a design process ? If you broaden the scope beyond " end-user software " and dive into things like protocols you might find some things .
Usability does n't just apply to the GUI--it helps when you have a well designed protocol or file format .
Is EXT3 well designed ?
What about the FreeBSD ports tree--did that start with code or with design ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not familiar enough with the history of OSS projects but are there examples of projects that started with a design process?If you broaden the scope beyond "end-user software" and dive into things like protocols you might find some things.
Usability doesn't just apply to the GUI--it helps when you have a well designed protocol or file format.
Is EXT3 well designed?
What about the FreeBSD ports tree--did that start with code or with design?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503925</id>
	<title>You can run anything on a Mac</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246205340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Macs can run Windows, Linux and Mac OS X (duh). The machines themselves are crafted with attention to detail. Versatility in a neat package. What is not to like?</p><p>Bert</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Macs can run Windows , Linux and Mac OS X ( duh ) .
The machines themselves are crafted with attention to detail .
Versatility in a neat package .
What is not to like ? Bert</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Macs can run Windows, Linux and Mac OS X (duh).
The machines themselves are crafted with attention to detail.
Versatility in a neat package.
What is not to like?Bert</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503803</id>
	<title>UI Design and custonmer support are the dirt work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246204380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That many developers feel it is beneath them and gets in the way of them developing. In the commercial space, developers rarely interact with customers in a support role or in UI design. Many would quit before performing this role, but developers in some cases are the only ones who can properly address this.</p><p>In one company I worked for, developers had to eat their own shit in that they were forced into part-time customer support of their code. When your interaction with code begins and ends with the source code control system, you have one view. When you actually are forced to see where the rubber meets the road in your customer, you think much more about the interfaces, the update processes, and the support code and scripts that get working code into working systems.</p><p>In the commercial space much effort and resources is applied in these critically important areas. With the journeyman programmers, this rarely if ever happens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That many developers feel it is beneath them and gets in the way of them developing .
In the commercial space , developers rarely interact with customers in a support role or in UI design .
Many would quit before performing this role , but developers in some cases are the only ones who can properly address this.In one company I worked for , developers had to eat their own shit in that they were forced into part-time customer support of their code .
When your interaction with code begins and ends with the source code control system , you have one view .
When you actually are forced to see where the rubber meets the road in your customer , you think much more about the interfaces , the update processes , and the support code and scripts that get working code into working systems.In the commercial space much effort and resources is applied in these critically important areas .
With the journeyman programmers , this rarely if ever happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That many developers feel it is beneath them and gets in the way of them developing.
In the commercial space, developers rarely interact with customers in a support role or in UI design.
Many would quit before performing this role, but developers in some cases are the only ones who can properly address this.In one company I worked for, developers had to eat their own shit in that they were forced into part-time customer support of their code.
When your interaction with code begins and ends with the source code control system, you have one view.
When you actually are forced to see where the rubber meets the road in your customer, you think much more about the interfaces, the update processes, and the support code and scripts that get working code into working systems.In the commercial space much effort and resources is applied in these critically important areas.
With the journeyman programmers, this rarely if ever happens.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28510069</id>
	<title>Sorry, Linux/Gnome/KDE more usable (+ innovative)</title>
	<author>tuxidriver</author>
	<datestamp>1246212420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, but based on my experience, I disagree with the point of this article.</p><p>I find both Gnome and KDE far more usable than the commercial offerings that are available.  Specifically, I find the following features really useful:</p><ul>
<li>Multiple desktops (with the ability to switch quickly), why limit yourself to 1 view into your system when you can have 4, 8 or more views.  More effective screeen real-estate means less time spent moving windows around.</li><li>Always on top (great when used with calculator applications and the like)</li><li>The ability to roll a window up (sometimes called shading).  Allows you to see what's under a window with less mouse movement.  Also useful in conjunction with always on top to dock a window in a convenient location and still be able to get to it with less mouse movement.</li></ul><p>These are features that I have yet to see on a widely used commercial offering out of the box and features that I find really boost my productivity.  Yes, there are commercial add-ons (such as StarDock), but they're buggy as all get out and generally suck compared to what I can get on a standard Linux install.  One feature that generally makes me tend towards KDE over Gnome is the ability to place the taskbar on the side of the screen instead of the bottom and still have something that is very usable.   When you write lots of code, you want more height, not width.  Wide screens are great for multimedia but are generally poor for code development.   For coders, placing the taskbar on the bottom makes less efficient use of the screen.</p><p>Relating to innovation, the FOSS movement has certainly been the source for lots of innovation.  This "lack of innovation" seems to be a recent mantra being thrown out against the FOSS movement.  Consider:</p><ul>
<li>Beowulf</li><li>GL desktop effects a.k.a. Compiz or Beryl (and largely imitated by Aero and OSX).</li><li>All the many, many, innovations behind Perl, Python, and Ruby languages.</li><li>JavaScript, started with the Mozilla browser.  JavaScript is largely what underpins "web 2.0".</li><li>All the other innovations introduced by Mozilla, such as tabbed browsing</li><li>Apache -- I would argue to IIS and the like are still playing catch-up with Apache and are really just me-too products that are trying to be a better Apache.</li><li>Ruby and Rails and similar model-view-controller style web interfaces.</li><li>Konqueror, the idea that a single tool using plug-ins can be a generic viewer of all types of media, including websites.</li><li>I see many small user interface paradigms that were introduced originally in early versions of Gnome or KDE and later copied by Microsoft in releases of XP and Vista.</li><li>ODF -- More specifically the idea of a universal, editable, document format.</li><li>Quake style terminals for general use of a shell, I have yet to see this on a commercial desktop for anything other than games.</li><li>Jabber</li><li>BLAS -- Underpins most commercial and FOSS mathematics packages</li><li>...</li></ul><p>Sorry to burst the article's bubble, but FOSS has been the source for a huge amount of innovation.  What I see coming from the commercial offerings has been, to a large extent, an apeing or imitation of ideas started by the FOSS movement with some incremental improvement on the original idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but based on my experience , I disagree with the point of this article.I find both Gnome and KDE far more usable than the commercial offerings that are available .
Specifically , I find the following features really useful : Multiple desktops ( with the ability to switch quickly ) , why limit yourself to 1 view into your system when you can have 4 , 8 or more views .
More effective screeen real-estate means less time spent moving windows around.Always on top ( great when used with calculator applications and the like ) The ability to roll a window up ( sometimes called shading ) .
Allows you to see what 's under a window with less mouse movement .
Also useful in conjunction with always on top to dock a window in a convenient location and still be able to get to it with less mouse movement.These are features that I have yet to see on a widely used commercial offering out of the box and features that I find really boost my productivity .
Yes , there are commercial add-ons ( such as StarDock ) , but they 're buggy as all get out and generally suck compared to what I can get on a standard Linux install .
One feature that generally makes me tend towards KDE over Gnome is the ability to place the taskbar on the side of the screen instead of the bottom and still have something that is very usable .
When you write lots of code , you want more height , not width .
Wide screens are great for multimedia but are generally poor for code development .
For coders , placing the taskbar on the bottom makes less efficient use of the screen.Relating to innovation , the FOSS movement has certainly been the source for lots of innovation .
This " lack of innovation " seems to be a recent mantra being thrown out against the FOSS movement .
Consider : BeowulfGL desktop effects a.k.a .
Compiz or Beryl ( and largely imitated by Aero and OSX ) .All the many , many , innovations behind Perl , Python , and Ruby languages.JavaScript , started with the Mozilla browser .
JavaScript is largely what underpins " web 2.0 " .All the other innovations introduced by Mozilla , such as tabbed browsingApache -- I would argue to IIS and the like are still playing catch-up with Apache and are really just me-too products that are trying to be a better Apache.Ruby and Rails and similar model-view-controller style web interfaces.Konqueror , the idea that a single tool using plug-ins can be a generic viewer of all types of media , including websites.I see many small user interface paradigms that were introduced originally in early versions of Gnome or KDE and later copied by Microsoft in releases of XP and Vista.ODF -- More specifically the idea of a universal , editable , document format.Quake style terminals for general use of a shell , I have yet to see this on a commercial desktop for anything other than games.JabberBLAS -- Underpins most commercial and FOSS mathematics packages...Sorry to burst the article 's bubble , but FOSS has been the source for a huge amount of innovation .
What I see coming from the commercial offerings has been , to a large extent , an apeing or imitation of ideas started by the FOSS movement with some incremental improvement on the original idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but based on my experience, I disagree with the point of this article.I find both Gnome and KDE far more usable than the commercial offerings that are available.
Specifically, I find the following features really useful:
Multiple desktops (with the ability to switch quickly), why limit yourself to 1 view into your system when you can have 4, 8 or more views.
More effective screeen real-estate means less time spent moving windows around.Always on top (great when used with calculator applications and the like)The ability to roll a window up (sometimes called shading).
Allows you to see what's under a window with less mouse movement.
Also useful in conjunction with always on top to dock a window in a convenient location and still be able to get to it with less mouse movement.These are features that I have yet to see on a widely used commercial offering out of the box and features that I find really boost my productivity.
Yes, there are commercial add-ons (such as StarDock), but they're buggy as all get out and generally suck compared to what I can get on a standard Linux install.
One feature that generally makes me tend towards KDE over Gnome is the ability to place the taskbar on the side of the screen instead of the bottom and still have something that is very usable.
When you write lots of code, you want more height, not width.
Wide screens are great for multimedia but are generally poor for code development.
For coders, placing the taskbar on the bottom makes less efficient use of the screen.Relating to innovation, the FOSS movement has certainly been the source for lots of innovation.
This "lack of innovation" seems to be a recent mantra being thrown out against the FOSS movement.
Consider:
BeowulfGL desktop effects a.k.a.
Compiz or Beryl (and largely imitated by Aero and OSX).All the many, many, innovations behind Perl, Python, and Ruby languages.JavaScript, started with the Mozilla browser.
JavaScript is largely what underpins "web 2.0".All the other innovations introduced by Mozilla, such as tabbed browsingApache -- I would argue to IIS and the like are still playing catch-up with Apache and are really just me-too products that are trying to be a better Apache.Ruby and Rails and similar model-view-controller style web interfaces.Konqueror, the idea that a single tool using plug-ins can be a generic viewer of all types of media, including websites.I see many small user interface paradigms that were introduced originally in early versions of Gnome or KDE and later copied by Microsoft in releases of XP and Vista.ODF -- More specifically the idea of a universal, editable, document format.Quake style terminals for general use of a shell, I have yet to see this on a commercial desktop for anything other than games.JabberBLAS -- Underpins most commercial and FOSS mathematics packages...Sorry to burst the article's bubble, but FOSS has been the source for a huge amount of innovation.
What I see coming from the commercial offerings has been, to a large extent, an apeing or imitation of ideas started by the FOSS movement with some incremental improvement on the original idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505737</id>
	<title>Thunderbird</title>
	<author>Mr\_Silver</author>
	<datestamp>1246217040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Thunderbird is a good example of this. There are plenty of places where the UI is unpolished and poorly presented (the default button layout, the displaying of the message details when editing an email and when managing your contacts are three good examples).</p><p>I'm hoping that some of the Firefox UI team eventually get around to Thunderbird as it could do with some TLC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Thunderbird is a good example of this .
There are plenty of places where the UI is unpolished and poorly presented ( the default button layout , the displaying of the message details when editing an email and when managing your contacts are three good examples ) .I 'm hoping that some of the Firefox UI team eventually get around to Thunderbird as it could do with some TLC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Thunderbird is a good example of this.
There are plenty of places where the UI is unpolished and poorly presented (the default button layout, the displaying of the message details when editing an email and when managing your contacts are three good examples).I'm hoping that some of the Firefox UI team eventually get around to Thunderbird as it could do with some TLC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503975</id>
	<title>Not easy to copy hardware</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246205640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's fairly trivial for someone to reverse engineer and copy the way software works, but the proverbial "kid in a basement" can't just reverse engineer and fab their own chips. Hardware designs are also afforded more intellectual property protection than software designs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's fairly trivial for someone to reverse engineer and copy the way software works , but the proverbial " kid in a basement " ca n't just reverse engineer and fab their own chips .
Hardware designs are also afforded more intellectual property protection than software designs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's fairly trivial for someone to reverse engineer and copy the way software works, but the proverbial "kid in a basement" can't just reverse engineer and fab their own chips.
Hardware designs are also afforded more intellectual property protection than software designs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28507921</id>
	<title>My thoughts</title>
	<author>KingAlanI</author>
	<datestamp>1246191720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While some open-source development is definitely paid, most of it has got to be being done by volunteer programmers.</p><p>A volunteer (on any project, software or not) is going to be working on what he or she wants, and I'm speculating that that's the crux of the problem - here, the techies in question either isn't good at userfriendly interfaces or doesn't care about newbie-friendly interfaces, plain and simple.<br>The "RTFM n00b" types likely aren't going to work on interfaces for said n00bs.</p><p>Sure, there are some 'good people' out there on this issue (think of the pushing behind *ubuntu, for instance), but an awful lot are not.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While some open-source development is definitely paid , most of it has got to be being done by volunteer programmers.A volunteer ( on any project , software or not ) is going to be working on what he or she wants , and I 'm speculating that that 's the crux of the problem - here , the techies in question either is n't good at userfriendly interfaces or does n't care about newbie-friendly interfaces , plain and simple.The " RTFM n00b " types likely are n't going to work on interfaces for said n00bs.Sure , there are some 'good people ' out there on this issue ( think of the pushing behind * ubuntu , for instance ) , but an awful lot are not .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While some open-source development is definitely paid, most of it has got to be being done by volunteer programmers.A volunteer (on any project, software or not) is going to be working on what he or she wants, and I'm speculating that that's the crux of the problem - here, the techies in question either isn't good at userfriendly interfaces or doesn't care about newbie-friendly interfaces, plain and simple.The "RTFM n00b" types likely aren't going to work on interfaces for said n00bs.Sure, there are some 'good people' out there on this issue (think of the pushing behind *ubuntu, for instance), but an awful lot are not.
:(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28506071</id>
	<title>I'm sorry?</title>
	<author>crhylove</author>
	<datestamp>1246219440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, but it doesn't suck.  Sumatra PDF tools Adobe Acrobat.  Firefox tools every other browser.  The GIMP uses way less resources than photoshop and for everything *I* need is a drop in replacement.</p><p>7zip absolutely schools every compression program ever written.</p><p>I even like Open Office Writer more than Word, though I'd forgive dissenting opinions on this one.</p><p>The ONLY non FOSS I use is Nero.  I use a portable version I got on bitjunkie.</p><p>Oh yeah, and Grand Theft Auto San Andreas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but it does n't suck .
Sumatra PDF tools Adobe Acrobat .
Firefox tools every other browser .
The GIMP uses way less resources than photoshop and for everything * I * need is a drop in replacement.7zip absolutely schools every compression program ever written.I even like Open Office Writer more than Word , though I 'd forgive dissenting opinions on this one.The ONLY non FOSS I use is Nero .
I use a portable version I got on bitjunkie.Oh yeah , and Grand Theft Auto San Andreas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but it doesn't suck.
Sumatra PDF tools Adobe Acrobat.
Firefox tools every other browser.
The GIMP uses way less resources than photoshop and for everything *I* need is a drop in replacement.7zip absolutely schools every compression program ever written.I even like Open Office Writer more than Word, though I'd forgive dissenting opinions on this one.The ONLY non FOSS I use is Nero.
I use a portable version I got on bitjunkie.Oh yeah, and Grand Theft Auto San Andreas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503951</id>
	<title>Some good points in there</title>
	<author>mjeffers</author>
	<datestamp>1246205520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>First corollary: Every contributor to the project tries to take part in the interface design, regardless of how little they know about the subject. And once you have more than one designer, you get inconsistency, both in vision and in detail. The quality of an interface design is inversely proportional to the number of designers.</p></div></blockquote><p>This isn't necessarily true. It's true that great design is typically the result of a unified vision but design focused companies solve this problem by having a lead designer establish guidelines and standards that are then used by the team to create all the bits and pieces. You don't need one person, but you need one person in charge. For an Ubuntu, RedHat or OpenOffice where you have a corporate structure behind you, this level of design quality is achievable and I think they have it now. For a project of volunteers or a team that's widely distributed this has to be much more difficult.</p><blockquote><div><p>Second corollary: Even when dedicated interface designers are present, they are not heeded as much as they would be in professional projects, precisely because they're dedicated designers and don't have patches to implement their suggestions.</p></div></blockquote><p>Without the ability to write code, designers depend on an organizational structure that recognizes and values good design and will work to make sure that the end result meets the design goals you initially set out. This can fail in a non-OSS project and could succeed in an OSS project but a hobbyist project will probably never have a structure that allows a designer to do great work.</p><p>Another issue that I think isn't addressed here is that OSS projects are typically (necessarily?) started by people who can code. Once you have something running it takes a huge amount of effort to redesign away some of those early design decisions. You'll also forever be in a mindset that views design as window-dressing that gets applied to APIs. I'm not familiar enough with the history of OSS projects but are there examples of projects that started with a design process?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First corollary : Every contributor to the project tries to take part in the interface design , regardless of how little they know about the subject .
And once you have more than one designer , you get inconsistency , both in vision and in detail .
The quality of an interface design is inversely proportional to the number of designers.This is n't necessarily true .
It 's true that great design is typically the result of a unified vision but design focused companies solve this problem by having a lead designer establish guidelines and standards that are then used by the team to create all the bits and pieces .
You do n't need one person , but you need one person in charge .
For an Ubuntu , RedHat or OpenOffice where you have a corporate structure behind you , this level of design quality is achievable and I think they have it now .
For a project of volunteers or a team that 's widely distributed this has to be much more difficult.Second corollary : Even when dedicated interface designers are present , they are not heeded as much as they would be in professional projects , precisely because they 're dedicated designers and do n't have patches to implement their suggestions.Without the ability to write code , designers depend on an organizational structure that recognizes and values good design and will work to make sure that the end result meets the design goals you initially set out .
This can fail in a non-OSS project and could succeed in an OSS project but a hobbyist project will probably never have a structure that allows a designer to do great work.Another issue that I think is n't addressed here is that OSS projects are typically ( necessarily ?
) started by people who can code .
Once you have something running it takes a huge amount of effort to redesign away some of those early design decisions .
You 'll also forever be in a mindset that views design as window-dressing that gets applied to APIs .
I 'm not familiar enough with the history of OSS projects but are there examples of projects that started with a design process ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First corollary: Every contributor to the project tries to take part in the interface design, regardless of how little they know about the subject.
And once you have more than one designer, you get inconsistency, both in vision and in detail.
The quality of an interface design is inversely proportional to the number of designers.This isn't necessarily true.
It's true that great design is typically the result of a unified vision but design focused companies solve this problem by having a lead designer establish guidelines and standards that are then used by the team to create all the bits and pieces.
You don't need one person, but you need one person in charge.
For an Ubuntu, RedHat or OpenOffice where you have a corporate structure behind you, this level of design quality is achievable and I think they have it now.
For a project of volunteers or a team that's widely distributed this has to be much more difficult.Second corollary: Even when dedicated interface designers are present, they are not heeded as much as they would be in professional projects, precisely because they're dedicated designers and don't have patches to implement their suggestions.Without the ability to write code, designers depend on an organizational structure that recognizes and values good design and will work to make sure that the end result meets the design goals you initially set out.
This can fail in a non-OSS project and could succeed in an OSS project but a hobbyist project will probably never have a structure that allows a designer to do great work.Another issue that I think isn't addressed here is that OSS projects are typically (necessarily?
) started by people who can code.
Once you have something running it takes a huge amount of effort to redesign away some of those early design decisions.
You'll also forever be in a mindset that views design as window-dressing that gets applied to APIs.
I'm not familiar enough with the history of OSS projects but are there examples of projects that started with a design process?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505863</id>
	<title>LiverTransplant- Apple-NeXT-BSD</title>
	<author>ElitistWhiner</author>
	<datestamp>1246217820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Without free BSD unix Steve Jobs would not have a second act, Apple wouldn't be enjoying its 2nd success and without free liver Steve Jobs wouldn't have a second Life.</p><p>Its not about closed Apple software.  Apple can't support an open system and deliver insanely great products.  Great products are about what is missing i.e. chaos, cults, diversions, forks, etc...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without free BSD unix Steve Jobs would not have a second act , Apple would n't be enjoying its 2nd success and without free liver Steve Jobs would n't have a second Life.Its not about closed Apple software .
Apple ca n't support an open system and deliver insanely great products .
Great products are about what is missing i.e .
chaos , cults , diversions , forks , etc.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without free BSD unix Steve Jobs would not have a second act, Apple wouldn't be enjoying its 2nd success and without free liver Steve Jobs wouldn't have a second Life.Its not about closed Apple software.
Apple can't support an open system and deliver insanely great products.
Great products are about what is missing i.e.
chaos, cults, diversions, forks, etc...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28514179</id>
	<title>Re:KDE is very usable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246291080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Built into Mac as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Built into Mac as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Built into Mac as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504227</id>
	<title>Re:Window managers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246207740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For Windows try Taekwindow - Alt moving/resizing ftw.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) http://taekwindow.sourceforge.net/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For Windows try Taekwindow - Alt moving/resizing ftw .
: - ) http : //taekwindow.sourceforge.net/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For Windows try Taekwindow - Alt moving/resizing ftw.
:-) http://taekwindow.sourceforge.net/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505443</id>
	<title>Re:Apple makes good hardware</title>
	<author>Stinking Pig</author>
	<datestamp>1246215300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really?</p><p>I mean, really?</p><p>Can you look yourself in the mirror while you say those words?</p><p>To each his own, I suppose, but it is my considered opinion that Apple's laptops are what you'd get if Sony had the same level of control over driver software and OS. Flashy ideas marred by poor execution and a complete disregard for usability, maintainability, and consistency.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ? I mean , really ? Can you look yourself in the mirror while you say those words ? To each his own , I suppose , but it is my considered opinion that Apple 's laptops are what you 'd get if Sony had the same level of control over driver software and OS .
Flashy ideas marred by poor execution and a complete disregard for usability , maintainability , and consistency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?I mean, really?Can you look yourself in the mirror while you say those words?To each his own, I suppose, but it is my considered opinion that Apple's laptops are what you'd get if Sony had the same level of control over driver software and OS.
Flashy ideas marred by poor execution and a complete disregard for usability, maintainability, and consistency.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504089</id>
	<title>companies could fund polishing teams</title>
	<author>drDugan</author>
	<datestamp>1246206480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>many companies, large and small benefit directly from open source.</p><p>Those companies making significant profits could be asked to contribute to a central pool, a non profit or mutual benefit co. - that hires small teams to make useful open source tools more polished, secure, and user friendly.</p><p>everyone wins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>many companies , large and small benefit directly from open source.Those companies making significant profits could be asked to contribute to a central pool , a non profit or mutual benefit co. - that hires small teams to make useful open source tools more polished , secure , and user friendly.everyone wins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>many companies, large and small benefit directly from open source.Those companies making significant profits could be asked to contribute to a central pool, a non profit or mutual benefit co. - that hires small teams to make useful open source tools more polished, secure, and user friendly.everyone wins.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503887</id>
	<title>Innovation is not lacking in OSS</title>
	<author>OriginalSolver</author>
	<datestamp>1246204980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I might agree about the UI &amp; usability problems in OSS I can't agree about innovation.  OSS licencing is being used by a very large number of IT research projects.   Look at the work being done in areas like "single system image" (SSI).  The serious work is all being done on Open source OSes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I might agree about the UI &amp; usability problems in OSS I ca n't agree about innovation .
OSS licencing is being used by a very large number of IT research projects .
Look at the work being done in areas like " single system image " ( SSI ) .
The serious work is all being done on Open source OSes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I might agree about the UI &amp; usability problems in OSS I can't agree about innovation.
OSS licencing is being used by a very large number of IT research projects.
Look at the work being done in areas like "single system image" (SSI).
The serious work is all being done on Open source OSes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504857</id>
	<title>Re:Apple makes good hardware</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1246211460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Thing is apple laptops are usually pretty good in design</i> </p><p>They are also built on a rock-solid UNIX foundation. Tell me why you need Linux for Open Source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thing is apple laptops are usually pretty good in design They are also built on a rock-solid UNIX foundation .
Tell me why you need Linux for Open Source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thing is apple laptops are usually pretty good in design They are also built on a rock-solid UNIX foundation.
Tell me why you need Linux for Open Source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503731</id>
	<title>Apple makes good hardware</title>
	<author>walshy007</author>
	<datestamp>1246203780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thing is apple laptops are usually pretty good in design, so even OSS people will buy one and then put distro of choice on it, problem? not really. Good hardware is good hardware.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thing is apple laptops are usually pretty good in design , so even OSS people will buy one and then put distro of choice on it , problem ?
not really .
Good hardware is good hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thing is apple laptops are usually pretty good in design, so even OSS people will buy one and then put distro of choice on it, problem?
not really.
Good hardware is good hardware.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504217</id>
	<title>free advice sucks when it's logically inconsistent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246207680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <em>"There are too many distro's.
<br>...<br>
Do something, go to your favorite distro's website buy something."</em></p></div> </blockquote><p>

You flunked the Sesame Street test.  You meant to say:
<br> <br>
Everybody vote for a favorite distro, <i> <b>then</b> </i> everybody go download that distro and live on it, and contribute to it, and buy a t-shirt from the same web site, supporting the same project and for Kernighan and Ritchie's sakes do not fork it under any circumstances, make it better.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" There are too many distro 's .
.. . Do something , go to your favorite distro 's website buy something .
" You flunked the Sesame Street test .
You meant to say : Everybody vote for a favorite distro , then everybody go download that distro and live on it , and contribute to it , and buy a t-shirt from the same web site , supporting the same project and for Kernighan and Ritchie 's sakes do not fork it under any circumstances , make it better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "There are too many distro's.
...
Do something, go to your favorite distro's website buy something.
" 

You flunked the Sesame Street test.
You meant to say:
 
Everybody vote for a favorite distro,  then  everybody go download that distro and live on it, and contribute to it, and buy a t-shirt from the same web site, supporting the same project and for Kernighan and Ritchie's sakes do not fork it under any circumstances, make it better.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28507915</id>
	<title>Typical open source suckage.</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1246191660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Here's a typical bit of Open Source design suckage.
</p><p>
I just installed the latest version of Blender, over an existing installation.  The installer can't find the exact version of Python it wants (which, incidentally, is not a currently supported version.)  The program itself can, it's just the installer that's broken.  Typical.
</p><p>
Now I want to draw a spiral spring.  Naturally, that's not built-in; I'll need a third-party plug-in.
So I find the <a href="http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~mein/blender/plugins/" title="umn.edu">Blender Plug-In Repository</a> [umn.edu] using Google.  That says "The main page for Blender python scripts is now:
<a href="http://www.blender3d.org/cms/Python\_Scripts.3.0.html" title="blender3d.org">here.</a> [blender3d.org] That gets "If you are not redirected within 5 seconds, click here", which then redirects to a dead link.
</p><p>
OK, let's try Blender's main site and search for "plugins".  That leads to <a href="http://www.blender.org/documentation/htmlI/c11327.html" title="blender.org">documentation on how to code a plugin.</a> [blender.org] <a href="http://www.blender.org/documentation/htmlI/x11070.html" title="blender.org">Another search result</a> [blender.org] returns "Plugin functionalities varies so much that it is not possible to describe them here. Differently than Texture Plugins Sequence Plugins do not have a Buttons in any Button Window, but their parameters are usually accessed via NKEY." Really.
</p><p>
OK, let's just try "blender spiral" in Google.  This gets a <a href="http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?t=87553" title="blenderartists.org">script for drawing spirals.</a> [blenderartists.org]
That's nice.  But it's a ".rar" file.  That's not something Blender-specific. It's a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAR" title="wikipedia.org">proprietary Russian archiving format.</a> [wikipedia.org] The <a href="http://www.rarlab.com/" title="rarlab.com">RAR site</a> [rarlab.com] promotes something called "RegistryBooster", which is a strong indication of involvement with hostile code. So I probably don't want to buy the WinRAR product so I can decompress something which is a few lines of Python. This
</p><p>
Typical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a typical bit of Open Source design suckage .
I just installed the latest version of Blender , over an existing installation .
The installer ca n't find the exact version of Python it wants ( which , incidentally , is not a currently supported version .
) The program itself can , it 's just the installer that 's broken .
Typical . Now I want to draw a spiral spring .
Naturally , that 's not built-in ; I 'll need a third-party plug-in .
So I find the Blender Plug-In Repository [ umn.edu ] using Google .
That says " The main page for Blender python scripts is now : here .
[ blender3d.org ] That gets " If you are not redirected within 5 seconds , click here " , which then redirects to a dead link .
OK , let 's try Blender 's main site and search for " plugins " .
That leads to documentation on how to code a plugin .
[ blender.org ] Another search result [ blender.org ] returns " Plugin functionalities varies so much that it is not possible to describe them here .
Differently than Texture Plugins Sequence Plugins do not have a Buttons in any Button Window , but their parameters are usually accessed via NKEY .
" Really .
OK , let 's just try " blender spiral " in Google .
This gets a script for drawing spirals .
[ blenderartists.org ] That 's nice .
But it 's a " .rar " file .
That 's not something Blender-specific .
It 's a proprietary Russian archiving format .
[ wikipedia.org ] The RAR site [ rarlab.com ] promotes something called " RegistryBooster " , which is a strong indication of involvement with hostile code .
So I probably do n't want to buy the WinRAR product so I can decompress something which is a few lines of Python .
This Typical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Here's a typical bit of Open Source design suckage.
I just installed the latest version of Blender, over an existing installation.
The installer can't find the exact version of Python it wants (which, incidentally, is not a currently supported version.
)  The program itself can, it's just the installer that's broken.
Typical.

Now I want to draw a spiral spring.
Naturally, that's not built-in; I'll need a third-party plug-in.
So I find the Blender Plug-In Repository [umn.edu] using Google.
That says "The main page for Blender python scripts is now:
here.
[blender3d.org] That gets "If you are not redirected within 5 seconds, click here", which then redirects to a dead link.
OK, let's try Blender's main site and search for "plugins".
That leads to documentation on how to code a plugin.
[blender.org] Another search result [blender.org] returns "Plugin functionalities varies so much that it is not possible to describe them here.
Differently than Texture Plugins Sequence Plugins do not have a Buttons in any Button Window, but their parameters are usually accessed via NKEY.
" Really.
OK, let's just try "blender spiral" in Google.
This gets a script for drawing spirals.
[blenderartists.org]
That's nice.
But it's a ".rar" file.
That's not something Blender-specific.
It's a proprietary Russian archiving format.
[wikipedia.org] The RAR site [rarlab.com] promotes something called "RegistryBooster", which is a strong indication of involvement with hostile code.
So I probably don't want to buy the WinRAR product so I can decompress something which is a few lines of Python.
This

Typical.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504299</id>
	<title>Re:You can run anything on a Mac</title>
	<author>Duradin</author>
	<datestamp>1246208100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, apparently, Apple is just "bad" and "evil". Otherwise we should have seen Microsoft mentioned in the blurb as well as other cell phone makers that don't allow people to run whatever the hell they want to.</p><p>Soon we'll be replacing Redmond with Cupertino in all the old Mordor jokes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , apparently , Apple is just " bad " and " evil " .
Otherwise we should have seen Microsoft mentioned in the blurb as well as other cell phone makers that do n't allow people to run whatever the hell they want to.Soon we 'll be replacing Redmond with Cupertino in all the old Mordor jokes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, apparently, Apple is just "bad" and "evil".
Otherwise we should have seen Microsoft mentioned in the blurb as well as other cell phone makers that don't allow people to run whatever the hell they want to.Soon we'll be replacing Redmond with Cupertino in all the old Mordor jokes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28507303</id>
	<title>A Self-serving Article with Culled Comments</title>
	<author>m6ack</author>
	<datestamp>1246186560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the article is more of the same from people that haven't actually spent the time to learn about Linux, and haven't seen what it can do for them.  They're minds are trapped in a windows world, devoid of imagination.  The comments of this article also seem to be obviously culled in the author's favor.

<p>All I know is that when people come by my office, or watch me present, and have a chance at my Ubuntu install on my laptop -- every single person says "THAT'S COOL".  From wobbly windows, transparency, 3D cube... to simple things like my theme, and the invariable query, "How did you get your wallpaper to span two monitors?" -- people wish that they had it.

</p><p>Then the tech-savvy come by and see that I'm doing stuff with sed and text processing applications -- and running some windows binary-to/from-text filters with wine in the mix...  that updates are just taken care of...  that it's virus free...  that new applications are available with the click of a radio button... and that I can \_natively\_ display X business critical applications on my desktop running on a remote server...  That all the drivers for any hardware that I would want to install on my computer is likely already there and in place...  They \_all\_ would rather scrap their current setup for something like what I have.

</p><p>The chief problem though is fear.  There's fear of messing something up royally, and fear of having to learn something new, and having to rely on something as nebulous as the WWW for their support (cause Darned if IT is going to support them doing this).  There's also the fear of not being able to use a key application, interoperability, or of of finding something critical can't be done (like watching Netflix "Watch Instantly" movies).

</p><p>The other problem is \_3d\_games\_ -- and Windows has all but sewn up this market.  Open Source Linux Video Graphics drivers are still not up to snuff, and neither are the proprietary drivers really good.  If people can't get good frame rates in Linux, or they're going to have to jump through hoops to get their game of choice up and running on their (work) laptop, they're not going to want to use it.  So Linux kernel infrastructure is improving here, and some HW vendors are gradually opening to the idea of Open Source drivers, but it will be a while before the gaming industry warms to the idea of supporting Linux as a platform.

</p><p>Anyway, I've got one guy at work so far that has started to learn about his computer &amp; has installed Ubuntu on his new laptop.  My laptop is still dual-boot, but I haven't gone back to Windows for ~2 months at the very least...  I can get everything I need to do done on my Linux workstation and more, and am<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/almost/ ready to dump windows completely.

</p><p>So, from a guy that is actually using it, I am more than happy.  I think that if the tech was packaged with PC's and there was a little bit more education out, or perhaps a better "safe mode" packaged with every install, that it should really be a no-brainer for grandma and the tech-savvy to be able to use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the article is more of the same from people that have n't actually spent the time to learn about Linux , and have n't seen what it can do for them .
They 're minds are trapped in a windows world , devoid of imagination .
The comments of this article also seem to be obviously culled in the author 's favor .
All I know is that when people come by my office , or watch me present , and have a chance at my Ubuntu install on my laptop -- every single person says " THAT 'S COOL " .
From wobbly windows , transparency , 3D cube... to simple things like my theme , and the invariable query , " How did you get your wallpaper to span two monitors ?
" -- people wish that they had it .
Then the tech-savvy come by and see that I 'm doing stuff with sed and text processing applications -- and running some windows binary-to/from-text filters with wine in the mix... that updates are just taken care of... that it 's virus free... that new applications are available with the click of a radio button... and that I can \ _natively \ _ display X business critical applications on my desktop running on a remote server... That all the drivers for any hardware that I would want to install on my computer is likely already there and in place... They \ _all \ _ would rather scrap their current setup for something like what I have .
The chief problem though is fear .
There 's fear of messing something up royally , and fear of having to learn something new , and having to rely on something as nebulous as the WWW for their support ( cause Darned if IT is going to support them doing this ) .
There 's also the fear of not being able to use a key application , interoperability , or of of finding something critical ca n't be done ( like watching Netflix " Watch Instantly " movies ) .
The other problem is \ _3d \ _games \ _ -- and Windows has all but sewn up this market .
Open Source Linux Video Graphics drivers are still not up to snuff , and neither are the proprietary drivers really good .
If people ca n't get good frame rates in Linux , or they 're going to have to jump through hoops to get their game of choice up and running on their ( work ) laptop , they 're not going to want to use it .
So Linux kernel infrastructure is improving here , and some HW vendors are gradually opening to the idea of Open Source drivers , but it will be a while before the gaming industry warms to the idea of supporting Linux as a platform .
Anyway , I 've got one guy at work so far that has started to learn about his computer &amp; has installed Ubuntu on his new laptop .
My laptop is still dual-boot , but I have n't gone back to Windows for ~ 2 months at the very least... I can get everything I need to do done on my Linux workstation and more , and am /almost/ ready to dump windows completely .
So , from a guy that is actually using it , I am more than happy .
I think that if the tech was packaged with PC 's and there was a little bit more education out , or perhaps a better " safe mode " packaged with every install , that it should really be a no-brainer for grandma and the tech-savvy to be able to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the article is more of the same from people that haven't actually spent the time to learn about Linux, and haven't seen what it can do for them.
They're minds are trapped in a windows world, devoid of imagination.
The comments of this article also seem to be obviously culled in the author's favor.
All I know is that when people come by my office, or watch me present, and have a chance at my Ubuntu install on my laptop -- every single person says "THAT'S COOL".
From wobbly windows, transparency, 3D cube... to simple things like my theme, and the invariable query, "How did you get your wallpaper to span two monitors?
" -- people wish that they had it.
Then the tech-savvy come by and see that I'm doing stuff with sed and text processing applications -- and running some windows binary-to/from-text filters with wine in the mix...  that updates are just taken care of...  that it's virus free...  that new applications are available with the click of a radio button... and that I can \_natively\_ display X business critical applications on my desktop running on a remote server...  That all the drivers for any hardware that I would want to install on my computer is likely already there and in place...  They \_all\_ would rather scrap their current setup for something like what I have.
The chief problem though is fear.
There's fear of messing something up royally, and fear of having to learn something new, and having to rely on something as nebulous as the WWW for their support (cause Darned if IT is going to support them doing this).
There's also the fear of not being able to use a key application, interoperability, or of of finding something critical can't be done (like watching Netflix "Watch Instantly" movies).
The other problem is \_3d\_games\_ -- and Windows has all but sewn up this market.
Open Source Linux Video Graphics drivers are still not up to snuff, and neither are the proprietary drivers really good.
If people can't get good frame rates in Linux, or they're going to have to jump through hoops to get their game of choice up and running on their (work) laptop, they're not going to want to use it.
So Linux kernel infrastructure is improving here, and some HW vendors are gradually opening to the idea of Open Source drivers, but it will be a while before the gaming industry warms to the idea of supporting Linux as a platform.
Anyway, I've got one guy at work so far that has started to learn about his computer &amp; has installed Ubuntu on his new laptop.
My laptop is still dual-boot, but I haven't gone back to Windows for ~2 months at the very least...  I can get everything I need to do done on my Linux workstation and more, and am /almost/ ready to dump windows completely.
So, from a guy that is actually using it, I am more than happy.
I think that if the tech was packaged with PC's and there was a little bit more education out, or perhaps a better "safe mode" packaged with every install, that it should really be a no-brainer for grandma and the tech-savvy to be able to use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28509461</id>
	<title>Re:I thought so, too...</title>
	<author>BlackSmithNZ</author>
	<datestamp>1246207020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Contrast this to a Vista x64 HP notebook I am using.  Just plug in a second monitor and it also fails pretty badly. Depending on what was connected when it woke, depending on what was running (Outlook is pretty bad at remembering which monitor it is supposed to be on) it seems to be brain dead with the task of having different external monitors connected at different times.</p><p>It is going to cost me to switch to OSX on a MacBook and not sure if I can afford it, but the day to day annoyances of Vista are enough that I might just have to make the change this year.</p><p>I like Ubuntu, and I should investigate running on my machine, (perhaps when it is free from being my day-to-day machine) but all that is going to take my precious time. In the end, OSX has a reputation that it all will 'just work' smoothly, allowing me to get what I want done with minimum stress. That's what I need, not more chances to install endless variety of software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Contrast this to a Vista x64 HP notebook I am using .
Just plug in a second monitor and it also fails pretty badly .
Depending on what was connected when it woke , depending on what was running ( Outlook is pretty bad at remembering which monitor it is supposed to be on ) it seems to be brain dead with the task of having different external monitors connected at different times.It is going to cost me to switch to OSX on a MacBook and not sure if I can afford it , but the day to day annoyances of Vista are enough that I might just have to make the change this year.I like Ubuntu , and I should investigate running on my machine , ( perhaps when it is free from being my day-to-day machine ) but all that is going to take my precious time .
In the end , OSX has a reputation that it all will 'just work ' smoothly , allowing me to get what I want done with minimum stress .
That 's what I need , not more chances to install endless variety of software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Contrast this to a Vista x64 HP notebook I am using.
Just plug in a second monitor and it also fails pretty badly.
Depending on what was connected when it woke, depending on what was running (Outlook is pretty bad at remembering which monitor it is supposed to be on) it seems to be brain dead with the task of having different external monitors connected at different times.It is going to cost me to switch to OSX on a MacBook and not sure if I can afford it, but the day to day annoyances of Vista are enough that I might just have to make the change this year.I like Ubuntu, and I should investigate running on my machine, (perhaps when it is free from being my day-to-day machine) but all that is going to take my precious time.
In the end, OSX has a reputation that it all will 'just work' smoothly, allowing me to get what I want done with minimum stress.
That's what I need, not more chances to install endless variety of software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504827</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504079</id>
	<title>FLOSS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246206420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In business, you invest. That means you have a strategic goal you want to achieve with the input. That's what is missing most of the time in open source projects: goals. Most of these so called developers are actually just maintainers with no vision whatsoever. The business side also requires to build vision (or perish), yet another thing 9 out of 10 open source projects lack completely.</p><p>There is something extremely toxic to innovation in open source. One could solve the Ubuntu's #1 bug in 3 years flat if the way people worked and thought could be made to change. It's really not about resources or technology, just the fact that the progress is not being LEAD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In business , you invest .
That means you have a strategic goal you want to achieve with the input .
That 's what is missing most of the time in open source projects : goals .
Most of these so called developers are actually just maintainers with no vision whatsoever .
The business side also requires to build vision ( or perish ) , yet another thing 9 out of 10 open source projects lack completely.There is something extremely toxic to innovation in open source .
One could solve the Ubuntu 's # 1 bug in 3 years flat if the way people worked and thought could be made to change .
It 's really not about resources or technology , just the fact that the progress is not being LEAD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In business, you invest.
That means you have a strategic goal you want to achieve with the input.
That's what is missing most of the time in open source projects: goals.
Most of these so called developers are actually just maintainers with no vision whatsoever.
The business side also requires to build vision (or perish), yet another thing 9 out of 10 open source projects lack completely.There is something extremely toxic to innovation in open source.
One could solve the Ubuntu's #1 bug in 3 years flat if the way people worked and thought could be made to change.
It's really not about resources or technology, just the fact that the progress is not being LEAD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504759</id>
	<title>author is a victim of marketing</title>
	<author>speedtux</author>
	<datestamp>1246210920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Walk the halls of any open-source conference and you'll see a large percentage of attendees with ironically non-open-source Apple laptops and iPhones</i></p><p>There are many "open source" developers.  It wouldn't surprise me if Java or PHP developers use a lot of Macs.  But what does that actually show?  Just because people use or develop open source in one niche doesn't mean that they need to use open source for everything.  And their reasons are probably the usual ones: Microsoft compatibility, appeal of Mac hardware, what they are used to,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  It does not show that Macs are easier to use than modern Linux desktops.</p><p><i>Open-source projects have tended to be great commoditizers, but not necessarily the best innovators</i></p><p>Really?  Many innovations have first become available in open source form before companies like Microsoft and Apple finally managed to ship them as part of their commercial software.  And what actual innovations have Microsoft or Apple actually created?  I mean, much of Apple's platform is based on open source software.</p><p>I think the real reason it seems like Apple and Microsoft innovate so much is... because they spend billions of dollars to create that illusion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Walk the halls of any open-source conference and you 'll see a large percentage of attendees with ironically non-open-source Apple laptops and iPhonesThere are many " open source " developers .
It would n't surprise me if Java or PHP developers use a lot of Macs .
But what does that actually show ?
Just because people use or develop open source in one niche does n't mean that they need to use open source for everything .
And their reasons are probably the usual ones : Microsoft compatibility , appeal of Mac hardware , what they are used to , ... It does not show that Macs are easier to use than modern Linux desktops.Open-source projects have tended to be great commoditizers , but not necessarily the best innovatorsReally ?
Many innovations have first become available in open source form before companies like Microsoft and Apple finally managed to ship them as part of their commercial software .
And what actual innovations have Microsoft or Apple actually created ?
I mean , much of Apple 's platform is based on open source software.I think the real reason it seems like Apple and Microsoft innovate so much is... because they spend billions of dollars to create that illusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Walk the halls of any open-source conference and you'll see a large percentage of attendees with ironically non-open-source Apple laptops and iPhonesThere are many "open source" developers.
It wouldn't surprise me if Java or PHP developers use a lot of Macs.
But what does that actually show?
Just because people use or develop open source in one niche doesn't mean that they need to use open source for everything.
And their reasons are probably the usual ones: Microsoft compatibility, appeal of Mac hardware, what they are used to, ...  It does not show that Macs are easier to use than modern Linux desktops.Open-source projects have tended to be great commoditizers, but not necessarily the best innovatorsReally?
Many innovations have first become available in open source form before companies like Microsoft and Apple finally managed to ship them as part of their commercial software.
And what actual innovations have Microsoft or Apple actually created?
I mean, much of Apple's platform is based on open source software.I think the real reason it seems like Apple and Microsoft innovate so much is... because they spend billions of dollars to create that illusion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504691</id>
	<title>Way too much effort is put into ...</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1246210620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... making open source software work on closed hardware from non-cooperating manufacturers.  If the manufacturers would open their hardware interface documentation, and avoid making all those little changes every month just for the sake of change, and deliver a stable platform (new major versions every couple years, with all documentation ahead of time)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... then all software can focus more on usability instead of battling with the hardware.  And this includes YOU<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Broadcom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... making open source software work on closed hardware from non-cooperating manufacturers .
If the manufacturers would open their hardware interface documentation , and avoid making all those little changes every month just for the sake of change , and deliver a stable platform ( new major versions every couple years , with all documentation ahead of time ) ... then all software can focus more on usability instead of battling with the hardware .
And this includes YOU ... Broadcom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... making open source software work on closed hardware from non-cooperating manufacturers.
If the manufacturers would open their hardware interface documentation, and avoid making all those little changes every month just for the sake of change, and deliver a stable platform (new major versions every couple years, with all documentation ahead of time) ... then all software can focus more on usability instead of battling with the hardware.
And this includes YOU ... Broadcom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503947</id>
	<title>Application specific expertise</title>
	<author>mevets</author>
	<datestamp>1246205520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Commercial applications have long separated the appearance and behavior of the application from the implementation for good reason.   The obligatory strained car analogy, I like cars that are quick and responsive, but I don't want one made by an engine designer.   No matter how talented the engine designer is, s/he will most likely make a car suitable for engine designers.</p><p>Balancing the viewpoints of "real world users", experts, and various designers is required to do it properly.   Are all these sets well represented in the FOSS contributors?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Commercial applications have long separated the appearance and behavior of the application from the implementation for good reason .
The obligatory strained car analogy , I like cars that are quick and responsive , but I do n't want one made by an engine designer .
No matter how talented the engine designer is , s/he will most likely make a car suitable for engine designers.Balancing the viewpoints of " real world users " , experts , and various designers is required to do it properly .
Are all these sets well represented in the FOSS contributors ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Commercial applications have long separated the appearance and behavior of the application from the implementation for good reason.
The obligatory strained car analogy, I like cars that are quick and responsive, but I don't want one made by an engine designer.
No matter how talented the engine designer is, s/he will most likely make a car suitable for engine designers.Balancing the viewpoints of "real world users", experts, and various designers is required to do it properly.
Are all these sets well represented in the FOSS contributors?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504119</id>
	<title>At least use the updated version of MPT's article</title>
	<author>YokoZar</author>
	<datestamp>1246206660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why link to the outdated version of Mathew Paul Thomas' article when he wrote a much newer one here: <a href="http://mpt.net.nz/archive/2008/08/01/free-software-usability" title="mpt.net.nz" rel="nofollow">http://mpt.net.nz/archive/2008/08/01/free-software-usability</a> [mpt.net.nz]

Appropriately, it's titled: <i>Why Free Software has poor usability, and how to improve it</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why link to the outdated version of Mathew Paul Thomas ' article when he wrote a much newer one here : http : //mpt.net.nz/archive/2008/08/01/free-software-usability [ mpt.net.nz ] Appropriately , it 's titled : Why Free Software has poor usability , and how to improve it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why link to the outdated version of Mathew Paul Thomas' article when he wrote a much newer one here: http://mpt.net.nz/archive/2008/08/01/free-software-usability [mpt.net.nz]

Appropriately, it's titled: Why Free Software has poor usability, and how to improve it</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505335</id>
	<title>Slightly misleading re: creativity</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1246214640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Open-source projects have tended to be great commoditizers, but not necessarily the best innovators.</p></div></blockquote><p>We hashed this out before on slashdot, and it seemed a consensus formed that the "problem" is that commodity ideas are easier to coordinate with open-source, not that there's less creativity. If there is a reference standard, then everyone knows the goal and works toward it. With new ideas, different people will inject their own view into it and it never gets done.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Open-source projects have tended to be great commoditizers , but not necessarily the best innovators.We hashed this out before on slashdot , and it seemed a consensus formed that the " problem " is that commodity ideas are easier to coordinate with open-source , not that there 's less creativity .
If there is a reference standard , then everyone knows the goal and works toward it .
With new ideas , different people will inject their own view into it and it never gets done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open-source projects have tended to be great commoditizers, but not necessarily the best innovators.We hashed this out before on slashdot, and it seemed a consensus formed that the "problem" is that commodity ideas are easier to coordinate with open-source, not that there's less creativity.
If there is a reference standard, then everyone knows the goal and works toward it.
With new ideas, different people will inject their own view into it and it never gets done.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505439</id>
	<title>Re:Most of the Apple distribution is Free</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1246215240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey did you go through and pick all the non-free bits?  Your list certainly isn't a random sampling of software on a Mac.  It's <i>possibly</i> a random sampling of GUI software on a Mac.  Of course, things like iWork and Aperture are not part of the actual distribution.  They're applications that are sold separately.</p><p>However, even from your list, XCode is merely a GUI front end for <a href="http://gcc.gnu.org/" title="gnu.org">gcc</a> [gnu.org] and Safari is just a GUI front end for <a href="http://webkit.org/" title="webkit.org">webkit</a> [webkit.org].  Particularly in the case of Safari, you can write a Safari clone with basic functionality on top of webkit in about two minutes.</p><p>Happy source browsing!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey did you go through and pick all the non-free bits ?
Your list certainly is n't a random sampling of software on a Mac .
It 's possibly a random sampling of GUI software on a Mac .
Of course , things like iWork and Aperture are not part of the actual distribution .
They 're applications that are sold separately.However , even from your list , XCode is merely a GUI front end for gcc [ gnu.org ] and Safari is just a GUI front end for webkit [ webkit.org ] .
Particularly in the case of Safari , you can write a Safari clone with basic functionality on top of webkit in about two minutes.Happy source browsing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey did you go through and pick all the non-free bits?
Your list certainly isn't a random sampling of software on a Mac.
It's possibly a random sampling of GUI software on a Mac.
Of course, things like iWork and Aperture are not part of the actual distribution.
They're applications that are sold separately.However, even from your list, XCode is merely a GUI front end for gcc [gnu.org] and Safari is just a GUI front end for webkit [webkit.org].
Particularly in the case of Safari, you can write a Safari clone with basic functionality on top of webkit in about two minutes.Happy source browsing!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504481</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503997</id>
	<title>Netbooks also on the rise.</title>
	<author>delire</author>
	<datestamp>1246205760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I haven't seen Apple laptops comprise a great proportion of machines at the FOSS conferences I've been to here in Europe, those I have seen are often running something other than OSX (if stickers and/or a peek at their WM is anything to go by). It's not so unimaginable that someone might choose to run something other than OSX on a Macbook especially if they have little need for proprietary software and prefer an OS tailored to their needs (or just don't like the design and feel of OSX altogether - some don't).
<br> <br>
Regardless, in the last couple of years I've seen a lot of X and T series Thinkpads but moreso netbooks at hacker and FLOSS meetings in the EU. I hear from friends that the build quality of their MacBooks is a bit disappointing. Perhaps this is a reason, among others.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I have n't seen Apple laptops comprise a great proportion of machines at the FOSS conferences I 've been to here in Europe , those I have seen are often running something other than OSX ( if stickers and/or a peek at their WM is anything to go by ) .
It 's not so unimaginable that someone might choose to run something other than OSX on a Macbook especially if they have little need for proprietary software and prefer an OS tailored to their needs ( or just do n't like the design and feel of OSX altogether - some do n't ) .
Regardless , in the last couple of years I 've seen a lot of X and T series Thinkpads but moreso netbooks at hacker and FLOSS meetings in the EU .
I hear from friends that the build quality of their MacBooks is a bit disappointing .
Perhaps this is a reason , among others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I haven't seen Apple laptops comprise a great proportion of machines at the FOSS conferences I've been to here in Europe, those I have seen are often running something other than OSX (if stickers and/or a peek at their WM is anything to go by).
It's not so unimaginable that someone might choose to run something other than OSX on a Macbook especially if they have little need for proprietary software and prefer an OS tailored to their needs (or just don't like the design and feel of OSX altogether - some don't).
Regardless, in the last couple of years I've seen a lot of X and T series Thinkpads but moreso netbooks at hacker and FLOSS meetings in the EU.
I hear from friends that the build quality of their MacBooks is a bit disappointing.
Perhaps this is a reason, among others.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503779</id>
	<title>Because, maybe...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246204140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...most people don't *really* care about open-source, and it's just another trendy cause to latch on to?</p><p>Yeah, yeah, mark me down as flamebait. But think carefully about people and human nature instead of just automatically rushing to the defence of the "good guys".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...most people do n't * really * care about open-source , and it 's just another trendy cause to latch on to ? Yeah , yeah , mark me down as flamebait .
But think carefully about people and human nature instead of just automatically rushing to the defence of the " good guys " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...most people don't *really* care about open-source, and it's just another trendy cause to latch on to?Yeah, yeah, mark me down as flamebait.
But think carefully about people and human nature instead of just automatically rushing to the defence of the "good guys".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28513937</id>
	<title>Re:Most of the Apple distribution is Free</title>
	<author>dorzak</author>
	<datestamp>1246289940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>webkit is the core of Safari, and Open Source.  It is based on KHTML, when Safari first passed the Acid 2 test, and those changes uploaded to the webkit tree, the KHTML guys complained about lack of documenting each incremental change.     Heck, if you want to use Webkit as the basis for your own browser, you wouldn't be the first.  Look at Chrome for example.</p><p>The compliler Xcode uses is gcc.</p><p>Couple of good sites:<br>www.apple.com/opensource/<br><a href="http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html" title="apple.com">http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html</a> [apple.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>webkit is the core of Safari , and Open Source .
It is based on KHTML , when Safari first passed the Acid 2 test , and those changes uploaded to the webkit tree , the KHTML guys complained about lack of documenting each incremental change .
Heck , if you want to use Webkit as the basis for your own browser , you would n't be the first .
Look at Chrome for example.The compliler Xcode uses is gcc.Couple of good sites : www.apple.com/opensource/http : //developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html [ apple.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>webkit is the core of Safari, and Open Source.
It is based on KHTML, when Safari first passed the Acid 2 test, and those changes uploaded to the webkit tree, the KHTML guys complained about lack of documenting each incremental change.
Heck, if you want to use Webkit as the basis for your own browser, you wouldn't be the first.
Look at Chrome for example.The compliler Xcode uses is gcc.Couple of good sites:www.apple.com/opensource/http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html [apple.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504481</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28508225</id>
	<title>Re:Mac No - iPhone Yes</title>
	<author>thatkid\_2002</author>
	<datestamp>1246194780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I
As far as open phones go, there is really not much choice on that front. There is Openmoko which doesn't even have Edge/3G support or the T-Mobile G1 Android phone. </p></div><p>The up and coming Maemo from Nokia will have phone functionality along with a Debian based OS! I'm not sure but I think resolution restrictions can easily be dealt with on this phone.<br>
The project is more stable than OpenMoko too... Only one toolkit switch.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I As far as open phones go , there is really not much choice on that front .
There is Openmoko which does n't even have Edge/3G support or the T-Mobile G1 Android phone .
The up and coming Maemo from Nokia will have phone functionality along with a Debian based OS !
I 'm not sure but I think resolution restrictions can easily be dealt with on this phone .
The project is more stable than OpenMoko too... Only one toolkit switch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I
As far as open phones go, there is really not much choice on that front.
There is Openmoko which doesn't even have Edge/3G support or the T-Mobile G1 Android phone.
The up and coming Maemo from Nokia will have phone functionality along with a Debian based OS!
I'm not sure but I think resolution restrictions can easily be dealt with on this phone.
The project is more stable than OpenMoko too... Only one toolkit switch.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504481</id>
	<title>Re:Most of the Apple distribution is Free</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246209300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh, cool! Where's the source to iTunes, Quicktime, iPhoto, any piece of iLife, XCode, Safari, iMovie, iDVD, Aperture, and iWork? I've always wanted to see that and I'm so thrilled that since most of the software on a Mac is GPL, most of that is surely available to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , cool !
Where 's the source to iTunes , Quicktime , iPhoto , any piece of iLife , XCode , Safari , iMovie , iDVD , Aperture , and iWork ?
I 've always wanted to see that and I 'm so thrilled that since most of the software on a Mac is GPL , most of that is surely available to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, cool!
Where's the source to iTunes, Quicktime, iPhoto, any piece of iLife, XCode, Safari, iMovie, iDVD, Aperture, and iWork?
I've always wanted to see that and I'm so thrilled that since most of the software on a Mac is GPL, most of that is surely available to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503755</id>
	<title>Already handled</title>
	<author>clang\_jangle</author>
	<datestamp>1246204020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is already being done. Many of the most successful FOSS projects have corporate contributors, so this "design conundrum" doesn't really exist. As for the popularity of Apple devices among FOSS developers, well, a lot of Apple software is based upon FOSS. In fact Apple, like it or not, is a pretty good example of how to monetize FOSS. Can't say I'm thrilled with the methods they employ to achieve that, but it's still a fact that they do achieve it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is already being done .
Many of the most successful FOSS projects have corporate contributors , so this " design conundrum " does n't really exist .
As for the popularity of Apple devices among FOSS developers , well , a lot of Apple software is based upon FOSS .
In fact Apple , like it or not , is a pretty good example of how to monetize FOSS .
Ca n't say I 'm thrilled with the methods they employ to achieve that , but it 's still a fact that they do achieve it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is already being done.
Many of the most successful FOSS projects have corporate contributors, so this "design conundrum" doesn't really exist.
As for the popularity of Apple devices among FOSS developers, well, a lot of Apple software is based upon FOSS.
In fact Apple, like it or not, is a pretty good example of how to monetize FOSS.
Can't say I'm thrilled with the methods they employ to achieve that, but it's still a fact that they do achieve it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28508201</id>
	<title>Re:KDE is very usable</title>
	<author>thatkid\_2002</author>
	<datestamp>1246194480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I fully agree with the parent - and I think that 4.2 is very usable (still has bugs I admit) as I use it full time and have no desire to change to anything else. I have moved away from Gnome but I think that even the usability of Gnome far outstrips Windows.

I think the majority of the whining seems to come from the minority of users. If you want Mac go get a Mac, and leave the rest of us to peacefully do things the KDE/Gnome/Fluxbox/X way. The vocal minority also can't seem to grasp the concept that KDE 4.0 was a development release. You can't go from 0 to hero in one jump!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I fully agree with the parent - and I think that 4.2 is very usable ( still has bugs I admit ) as I use it full time and have no desire to change to anything else .
I have moved away from Gnome but I think that even the usability of Gnome far outstrips Windows .
I think the majority of the whining seems to come from the minority of users .
If you want Mac go get a Mac , and leave the rest of us to peacefully do things the KDE/Gnome/Fluxbox/X way .
The vocal minority also ca n't seem to grasp the concept that KDE 4.0 was a development release .
You ca n't go from 0 to hero in one jump !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fully agree with the parent - and I think that 4.2 is very usable (still has bugs I admit) as I use it full time and have no desire to change to anything else.
I have moved away from Gnome but I think that even the usability of Gnome far outstrips Windows.
I think the majority of the whining seems to come from the minority of users.
If you want Mac go get a Mac, and leave the rest of us to peacefully do things the KDE/Gnome/Fluxbox/X way.
The vocal minority also can't seem to grasp the concept that KDE 4.0 was a development release.
You can't go from 0 to hero in one jump!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505797</id>
	<title>All usability tends to suck</title>
	<author>rlseaman</author>
	<datestamp>1246217460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>"Why free software usability tends to suck"</i>?</p><p>Rather all usability tends toward suckishness.  It's called entropy.</p><p>MPT's later essay <i>"Why Free Software has poor usability, and how to improve it"</i>, immediately rejects its own premise and points out that the real issue is coherent management for volunteer projects.  This is surprising?</p><p>F/OSS projects are not always staffed by volunteers.  And volunteer projects - in software or elsewhere - are not always amateurishly managed.  The defining characteristic of Free or Open Source software models is paradoxically a restriction on how work products can be used - that is, it is a restriction on the output of the project.  It may also be true that such a project may choose itself to use restricted inputs - perhaps including its own output recursively.  It is only by comparison with proprietary software that F/OSS can be called open or free, as the case may be.</p><p>Usability may be a strong requirement on a project.  Usability itself has many dimensions.  Many here appear to think usability is synonymous with GUI technology.  Far from it.  But even if GUIs are given specific attention, the discussion is rather naive.  Pointer focus is not always better than click-to-focus.  Otherwise desirable features often interact - should the window with focus automatically move to the front while your mouse traverses 8 intervening windows?</p><p>But usability is never the only requirement.  Requirements must be interpreted in some context.  A project without a coherent context is going to produce poor requirements.  Whatever software process is followed, failing to capture solid requirements will result in a weak differentiation between proposed solutions.  Unless there is a self-consistent solution, the usability of that solution never even becomes a realistic point of discussion.</p><p>A project addresses a single problem - whether that problem is well described or not.  Any problem has several good solutions - and many, many, many bad solutions.  Design is an exercise in rejecting bad solutions and retaining good solutions, that is - survival of the fittest.  A project can pursue design faster than natural selection or slower than natural selection.  Ultimately it will be the selection pressure arising from a community of users (whether skilled or naive doesn't really matter) that will drive convergence to an acceptable solution.  Some users will always find solutions acceptable to the community to be bad solutions from their own point of view.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Why free software usability tends to suck " ? Rather all usability tends toward suckishness .
It 's called entropy.MPT 's later essay " Why Free Software has poor usability , and how to improve it " , immediately rejects its own premise and points out that the real issue is coherent management for volunteer projects .
This is surprising ? F/OSS projects are not always staffed by volunteers .
And volunteer projects - in software or elsewhere - are not always amateurishly managed .
The defining characteristic of Free or Open Source software models is paradoxically a restriction on how work products can be used - that is , it is a restriction on the output of the project .
It may also be true that such a project may choose itself to use restricted inputs - perhaps including its own output recursively .
It is only by comparison with proprietary software that F/OSS can be called open or free , as the case may be.Usability may be a strong requirement on a project .
Usability itself has many dimensions .
Many here appear to think usability is synonymous with GUI technology .
Far from it .
But even if GUIs are given specific attention , the discussion is rather naive .
Pointer focus is not always better than click-to-focus .
Otherwise desirable features often interact - should the window with focus automatically move to the front while your mouse traverses 8 intervening windows ? But usability is never the only requirement .
Requirements must be interpreted in some context .
A project without a coherent context is going to produce poor requirements .
Whatever software process is followed , failing to capture solid requirements will result in a weak differentiation between proposed solutions .
Unless there is a self-consistent solution , the usability of that solution never even becomes a realistic point of discussion.A project addresses a single problem - whether that problem is well described or not .
Any problem has several good solutions - and many , many , many bad solutions .
Design is an exercise in rejecting bad solutions and retaining good solutions , that is - survival of the fittest .
A project can pursue design faster than natural selection or slower than natural selection .
Ultimately it will be the selection pressure arising from a community of users ( whether skilled or naive does n't really matter ) that will drive convergence to an acceptable solution .
Some users will always find solutions acceptable to the community to be bad solutions from their own point of view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "Why free software usability tends to suck"?Rather all usability tends toward suckishness.
It's called entropy.MPT's later essay "Why Free Software has poor usability, and how to improve it", immediately rejects its own premise and points out that the real issue is coherent management for volunteer projects.
This is surprising?F/OSS projects are not always staffed by volunteers.
And volunteer projects - in software or elsewhere - are not always amateurishly managed.
The defining characteristic of Free or Open Source software models is paradoxically a restriction on how work products can be used - that is, it is a restriction on the output of the project.
It may also be true that such a project may choose itself to use restricted inputs - perhaps including its own output recursively.
It is only by comparison with proprietary software that F/OSS can be called open or free, as the case may be.Usability may be a strong requirement on a project.
Usability itself has many dimensions.
Many here appear to think usability is synonymous with GUI technology.
Far from it.
But even if GUIs are given specific attention, the discussion is rather naive.
Pointer focus is not always better than click-to-focus.
Otherwise desirable features often interact - should the window with focus automatically move to the front while your mouse traverses 8 intervening windows?But usability is never the only requirement.
Requirements must be interpreted in some context.
A project without a coherent context is going to produce poor requirements.
Whatever software process is followed, failing to capture solid requirements will result in a weak differentiation between proposed solutions.
Unless there is a self-consistent solution, the usability of that solution never even becomes a realistic point of discussion.A project addresses a single problem - whether that problem is well described or not.
Any problem has several good solutions - and many, many, many bad solutions.
Design is an exercise in rejecting bad solutions and retaining good solutions, that is - survival of the fittest.
A project can pursue design faster than natural selection or slower than natural selection.
Ultimately it will be the selection pressure arising from a community of users (whether skilled or naive doesn't really matter) that will drive convergence to an acceptable solution.
Some users will always find solutions acceptable to the community to be bad solutions from their own point of view.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28507185</id>
	<title>Re:Window managers</title>
	<author>dave420</author>
	<datestamp>1246185600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess it's what you're used to.  On Windows I'm far more productive than on Linux or OS X.  I guess my anecdotal evidence cancels yours out<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess it 's what you 're used to .
On Windows I 'm far more productive than on Linux or OS X. I guess my anecdotal evidence cancels yours out : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess it's what you're used to.
On Windows I'm far more productive than on Linux or OS X.  I guess my anecdotal evidence cancels yours out :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504201</id>
	<title>Re:Apple makes good hardware</title>
	<author>Geoffrey.landis</author>
	<datestamp>1246207560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Thing is apple laptops are usually pretty good in design, so even OSS people will buy one and then put distro of choice on it, problem? not really. Good hardware is good hardware.</p></div><p>The hardware's fine, but I'll agree with the original <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20030201183139/mpt.phrasewise.com/discuss/msgReader$173" title="archive.org">Thomas article</a> [archive.org], the user interface is the key.  As Thomas said, "once you have more than one designer, you get inconsistency, both in vision and in detail."  Not to mention his comment that OS developers, "because they are hackers, they are power users, so the interface design ends up too complicated for most people to use."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thing is apple laptops are usually pretty good in design , so even OSS people will buy one and then put distro of choice on it , problem ?
not really .
Good hardware is good hardware.The hardware 's fine , but I 'll agree with the original Thomas article [ archive.org ] , the user interface is the key .
As Thomas said , " once you have more than one designer , you get inconsistency , both in vision and in detail .
" Not to mention his comment that OS developers , " because they are hackers , they are power users , so the interface design ends up too complicated for most people to use .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thing is apple laptops are usually pretty good in design, so even OSS people will buy one and then put distro of choice on it, problem?
not really.
Good hardware is good hardware.The hardware's fine, but I'll agree with the original Thomas article [archive.org], the user interface is the key.
As Thomas said, "once you have more than one designer, you get inconsistency, both in vision and in detail.
"  Not to mention his comment that OS developers, "because they are hackers, they are power users, so the interface design ends up too complicated for most people to use.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28519359</id>
	<title>Re:Window managers</title>
	<author>buchner.johannes</author>
	<datestamp>1246268460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh come on, the middle click is just a left over feature from old X that has never been streamlined into window managers. If you want multiple copy-paste storages, do it right. Also, it does not work completely across qt, gnome and tk. You bug-user, you! hehe<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh come on , the middle click is just a left over feature from old X that has never been streamlined into window managers .
If you want multiple copy-paste storages , do it right .
Also , it does not work completely across qt , gnome and tk .
You bug-user , you !
hehe : -P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh come on, the middle click is just a left over feature from old X that has never been streamlined into window managers.
If you want multiple copy-paste storages, do it right.
Also, it does not work completely across qt, gnome and tk.
You bug-user, you!
hehe :-P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505409</id>
	<title>Re:Apple makes good hardware</title>
	<author>edalytical</author>
	<datestamp>1246215120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Damn it, I'll bite.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Except that Apple laptops are junk.</p></div><p>You use the word "junk", but your post says nothing about the quality of the laptop. You're complaining mostly about the laptop's not having pre-laptop era design decisions -- that hardly makes them junk.</p><p>On the other hand, I've owned a few Apple laptops over the years and have had nothing but problems with them. I returned 3 MacBook Pro's before I got one that worked. I also replaced the hard drive 3 times and the RAM twice (not Apple's fault with the RAM), but the Seagate drive it came with must of had a high failure rate.</p><p>And still I wouldn't call them junk. In fact the keyboard and the trackpad have changed the way I work for the better. Plus the laptops come with all the good design choices and extras that make them worth every penny. MagSafe anyone? How about the battery indicator? Optical audio? Etc..</p><p><div class="quote"><p>None of them have nipples</p></div><p>The glass trackpad makes a nipple pointless. Seriously the only reason anyone would use a nipple is because the trackpad would make their finger tips hurt after extended use, but guess what? That's right, the glass trackpad doesn't make your finger hurt.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>they only have a single mouse button</p></div><p>Really? No seriously, really? This argument? Are you out of your goddamn mind? For one, the new laptops have ZERO buttons! You may have heard of this new thing called gestures that is far superior  to buttons. What's that, your HP only has one scroll area? Lame. And you have to do what to zoom in? How quaint.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>and they're all shortscreen. Mind you, most laptops are shortscreen now, but that doesn't make it any better.</p></div><p>&lt;sarcasm&gt;OMG it's not square! I can't think of any reason I'd want a wide screen laptop. Why would any one want two documents open side by side?&lt;/sarcasm&gt;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn it , I 'll bite.Except that Apple laptops are junk.You use the word " junk " , but your post says nothing about the quality of the laptop .
You 're complaining mostly about the laptop 's not having pre-laptop era design decisions -- that hardly makes them junk.On the other hand , I 've owned a few Apple laptops over the years and have had nothing but problems with them .
I returned 3 MacBook Pro 's before I got one that worked .
I also replaced the hard drive 3 times and the RAM twice ( not Apple 's fault with the RAM ) , but the Seagate drive it came with must of had a high failure rate.And still I would n't call them junk .
In fact the keyboard and the trackpad have changed the way I work for the better .
Plus the laptops come with all the good design choices and extras that make them worth every penny .
MagSafe anyone ?
How about the battery indicator ?
Optical audio ?
Etc..None of them have nipplesThe glass trackpad makes a nipple pointless .
Seriously the only reason anyone would use a nipple is because the trackpad would make their finger tips hurt after extended use , but guess what ?
That 's right , the glass trackpad does n't make your finger hurt.they only have a single mouse buttonReally ?
No seriously , really ?
This argument ?
Are you out of your goddamn mind ?
For one , the new laptops have ZERO buttons !
You may have heard of this new thing called gestures that is far superior to buttons .
What 's that , your HP only has one scroll area ?
Lame. And you have to do what to zoom in ?
How quaint.and they 're all shortscreen .
Mind you , most laptops are shortscreen now , but that does n't make it any better.OMG it 's not square !
I ca n't think of any reason I 'd want a wide screen laptop .
Why would any one want two documents open side by side ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn it, I'll bite.Except that Apple laptops are junk.You use the word "junk", but your post says nothing about the quality of the laptop.
You're complaining mostly about the laptop's not having pre-laptop era design decisions -- that hardly makes them junk.On the other hand, I've owned a few Apple laptops over the years and have had nothing but problems with them.
I returned 3 MacBook Pro's before I got one that worked.
I also replaced the hard drive 3 times and the RAM twice (not Apple's fault with the RAM), but the Seagate drive it came with must of had a high failure rate.And still I wouldn't call them junk.
In fact the keyboard and the trackpad have changed the way I work for the better.
Plus the laptops come with all the good design choices and extras that make them worth every penny.
MagSafe anyone?
How about the battery indicator?
Optical audio?
Etc..None of them have nipplesThe glass trackpad makes a nipple pointless.
Seriously the only reason anyone would use a nipple is because the trackpad would make their finger tips hurt after extended use, but guess what?
That's right, the glass trackpad doesn't make your finger hurt.they only have a single mouse buttonReally?
No seriously, really?
This argument?
Are you out of your goddamn mind?
For one, the new laptops have ZERO buttons!
You may have heard of this new thing called gestures that is far superior  to buttons.
What's that, your HP only has one scroll area?
Lame. And you have to do what to zoom in?
How quaint.and they're all shortscreen.
Mind you, most laptops are shortscreen now, but that doesn't make it any better.OMG it's not square!
I can't think of any reason I'd want a wide screen laptop.
Why would any one want two documents open side by side?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504573</id>
	<title>textual reasoning vs. diagrammatic reasoning</title>
	<author>gtall</author>
	<datestamp>1246209900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One axis I've not seen discussed is that most developers are using textual languages. Most mathematics is essentially text based, not diagram based. One uses diagrams for intuition, but when the formal derivation or program must be done, it is done in text.</p><p>The problem then becomes that the concepts expressed in the software are most easily explained in terms of text, not diagrams. Guis are diagrams. Consider, just for a mental exercise, any of the unix shells and their languages. Most developers have no problems. Most users would rather gnaw off their right arm than go through learning a shell language and then relearn in it 6 months  when they must use it again.</p><p>So, let's see what it takes to produce a gui for it. Apple used to have a system called MPW. You could hilite a command and call up its Commando interface. The commands themselves were rather textual and unixy, but the interface allowed you to click radio buttons, use pulldown menus, etc. to construct a command. The command constructed as text and shown in an editable window at the bottom of the dialog box for the Commando interface of the command. You could run the command right there or copy the text and run it in another window. That sounds about the right level.</p><p>Now we must think about piping. There was a language called Prograph, but now called Marten. It is an object orientied data flow language. It is a diagrammatic language and one draws lines to 'pipe' objects from one command to another, with some special lines for control ordering. There are mechanisms for recursion and the usual range of program construction artifacts.</p><p>One could combine the two, Marten and Command and successfully guitate unix shell languages (I'm sure there are other concepts that would need to gui equivalents for those languages). Now think about the amount of work necessary to do this. The point is that guis take an extraordinary amount of time and effort, and most of the skills are not the headless (non-gui) development most developers are familiar with and it is a paradigm directly at odds with their programming languages.</p><p>I see no entity within the FOSS community that could do such kinds of design and get it stick so that it becomes the faces of the OS or the applications for casual users who might wear an occasional python boot (think Frank Zappa). OpenOffice isn't an example, it is the usual retarded word processor editor that Microsoft pushes with the usual result that people would rather use Office since OpenOffice isn't buying them anything in which they are interested.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One axis I 've not seen discussed is that most developers are using textual languages .
Most mathematics is essentially text based , not diagram based .
One uses diagrams for intuition , but when the formal derivation or program must be done , it is done in text.The problem then becomes that the concepts expressed in the software are most easily explained in terms of text , not diagrams .
Guis are diagrams .
Consider , just for a mental exercise , any of the unix shells and their languages .
Most developers have no problems .
Most users would rather gnaw off their right arm than go through learning a shell language and then relearn in it 6 months when they must use it again.So , let 's see what it takes to produce a gui for it .
Apple used to have a system called MPW .
You could hilite a command and call up its Commando interface .
The commands themselves were rather textual and unixy , but the interface allowed you to click radio buttons , use pulldown menus , etc .
to construct a command .
The command constructed as text and shown in an editable window at the bottom of the dialog box for the Commando interface of the command .
You could run the command right there or copy the text and run it in another window .
That sounds about the right level.Now we must think about piping .
There was a language called Prograph , but now called Marten .
It is an object orientied data flow language .
It is a diagrammatic language and one draws lines to 'pipe ' objects from one command to another , with some special lines for control ordering .
There are mechanisms for recursion and the usual range of program construction artifacts.One could combine the two , Marten and Command and successfully guitate unix shell languages ( I 'm sure there are other concepts that would need to gui equivalents for those languages ) .
Now think about the amount of work necessary to do this .
The point is that guis take an extraordinary amount of time and effort , and most of the skills are not the headless ( non-gui ) development most developers are familiar with and it is a paradigm directly at odds with their programming languages.I see no entity within the FOSS community that could do such kinds of design and get it stick so that it becomes the faces of the OS or the applications for casual users who might wear an occasional python boot ( think Frank Zappa ) .
OpenOffice is n't an example , it is the usual retarded word processor editor that Microsoft pushes with the usual result that people would rather use Office since OpenOffice is n't buying them anything in which they are interested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One axis I've not seen discussed is that most developers are using textual languages.
Most mathematics is essentially text based, not diagram based.
One uses diagrams for intuition, but when the formal derivation or program must be done, it is done in text.The problem then becomes that the concepts expressed in the software are most easily explained in terms of text, not diagrams.
Guis are diagrams.
Consider, just for a mental exercise, any of the unix shells and their languages.
Most developers have no problems.
Most users would rather gnaw off their right arm than go through learning a shell language and then relearn in it 6 months  when they must use it again.So, let's see what it takes to produce a gui for it.
Apple used to have a system called MPW.
You could hilite a command and call up its Commando interface.
The commands themselves were rather textual and unixy, but the interface allowed you to click radio buttons, use pulldown menus, etc.
to construct a command.
The command constructed as text and shown in an editable window at the bottom of the dialog box for the Commando interface of the command.
You could run the command right there or copy the text and run it in another window.
That sounds about the right level.Now we must think about piping.
There was a language called Prograph, but now called Marten.
It is an object orientied data flow language.
It is a diagrammatic language and one draws lines to 'pipe' objects from one command to another, with some special lines for control ordering.
There are mechanisms for recursion and the usual range of program construction artifacts.One could combine the two, Marten and Command and successfully guitate unix shell languages (I'm sure there are other concepts that would need to gui equivalents for those languages).
Now think about the amount of work necessary to do this.
The point is that guis take an extraordinary amount of time and effort, and most of the skills are not the headless (non-gui) development most developers are familiar with and it is a paradigm directly at odds with their programming languages.I see no entity within the FOSS community that could do such kinds of design and get it stick so that it becomes the faces of the OS or the applications for casual users who might wear an occasional python boot (think Frank Zappa).
OpenOffice isn't an example, it is the usual retarded word processor editor that Microsoft pushes with the usual result that people would rather use Office since OpenOffice isn't buying them anything in which they are interested.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504297</id>
	<title>Thoughts on useablilty</title>
	<author>Eravnrekaree</author>
	<datestamp>1246208040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The useability problems with Linux comes from several areas. One is the lack of hardware support which results from the lack of a stable binary driver ABI between versions. This is basically a great disincentive for hardware manufacturers to not support linux and providing a driver. The open source drivers are often late, becoming avialable months of years after the hardware was released, buggy and does not support many hardware features. Vendors tend to carry out a lot of testing on the drivers which they produce and are better able to write driver to fully exploit the features. All hardware vendors will never release driver source, thats not realistic and a pipe dream, and shows the arrogance and niave nature of some Linux developers. The only people that refusing to provide a stable ABI ends up hurting is users who cant use their hardware. Users dont want to wait months for the release of some crappy open source driver, they just want the hardware to work.</p><p>This support for backwards compatability does not necessarily need to go into the main kernel but could be provided by a compatability layer or module.</p><p>For any platform, backwards compatability is essential for useability and to get support for software and hardware companies. These companies are not going to want to support 15 different versions of software for each od the kernel/distro combinations that exist.</p><p>On linux, the package systems and program installation is also a mess. Linux developers make an arrogant and naive assumption that all programs that a user wants to run will be open source, and that they will be installed with the native package system. An effective OS realises that the program installers will vary and will not always be in the form of a native package, and makes sure that these can work, and also protects itself.</p><p>One solution to these problems is to utilise a filesystem overlay. If an installation program attempts to overwrite an existing library, for instance, instead of being overwritten, the old version of the library will remain visible to other programs that use it but from the perspective of new program, it will see the new version of the library. This prevents the DLL hell nightmare. Each version of a file and program would be tagged to environment overlays. This would also allow, every file in the system to be traced back to the program which installed it and all files the installer put in the system to be completely removed without even affecting other programs.<br>
 This would be secondary and used mainly with foreign installers, programs of the native package system instead linking to a shared version of the library that they need and with different versions of the library being stored with the version number in the file name.</p><p>Linux can and should be both user and expert friendly. There does have to be a focus on both providing a high level user interface and as well transparency of the underlying systems so that they can be better understood and services. Everything should be able to be done both at the command line, programming and GUI level.</p><p>THe key to designing useable software is not making software dumbed down or removing features. Doing this makes the software so inflexible that only an idiot can use it. Instead, the software needs to be configurable and flexible as possible, but useability is in the layout, more commonly used features are placed up front and less commonly ones placed in expert screens and so on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p><p>Sometimes, people who know little or nothing about Linux or software development make badly informed opinions on software development. I have heard people both advocate actions that would cripple linux software by damaging backwards compatability or remove essential features and functionality making the software too rigid and inflexible. These badly informed decisions cause a significant degree of the useability headaches with Linux. One example of people who dont know what they are talking about is people who think X needs a built in widget set, or who complain</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The useability problems with Linux comes from several areas .
One is the lack of hardware support which results from the lack of a stable binary driver ABI between versions .
This is basically a great disincentive for hardware manufacturers to not support linux and providing a driver .
The open source drivers are often late , becoming avialable months of years after the hardware was released , buggy and does not support many hardware features .
Vendors tend to carry out a lot of testing on the drivers which they produce and are better able to write driver to fully exploit the features .
All hardware vendors will never release driver source , thats not realistic and a pipe dream , and shows the arrogance and niave nature of some Linux developers .
The only people that refusing to provide a stable ABI ends up hurting is users who cant use their hardware .
Users dont want to wait months for the release of some crappy open source driver , they just want the hardware to work.This support for backwards compatability does not necessarily need to go into the main kernel but could be provided by a compatability layer or module.For any platform , backwards compatability is essential for useability and to get support for software and hardware companies .
These companies are not going to want to support 15 different versions of software for each od the kernel/distro combinations that exist.On linux , the package systems and program installation is also a mess .
Linux developers make an arrogant and naive assumption that all programs that a user wants to run will be open source , and that they will be installed with the native package system .
An effective OS realises that the program installers will vary and will not always be in the form of a native package , and makes sure that these can work , and also protects itself.One solution to these problems is to utilise a filesystem overlay .
If an installation program attempts to overwrite an existing library , for instance , instead of being overwritten , the old version of the library will remain visible to other programs that use it but from the perspective of new program , it will see the new version of the library .
This prevents the DLL hell nightmare .
Each version of a file and program would be tagged to environment overlays .
This would also allow , every file in the system to be traced back to the program which installed it and all files the installer put in the system to be completely removed without even affecting other programs .
This would be secondary and used mainly with foreign installers , programs of the native package system instead linking to a shared version of the library that they need and with different versions of the library being stored with the version number in the file name.Linux can and should be both user and expert friendly .
There does have to be a focus on both providing a high level user interface and as well transparency of the underlying systems so that they can be better understood and services .
Everything should be able to be done both at the command line , programming and GUI level.THe key to designing useable software is not making software dumbed down or removing features .
Doing this makes the software so inflexible that only an idiot can use it .
Instead , the software needs to be configurable and flexible as possible , but useability is in the layout , more commonly used features are placed up front and less commonly ones placed in expert screens and so on .Sometimes , people who know little or nothing about Linux or software development make badly informed opinions on software development .
I have heard people both advocate actions that would cripple linux software by damaging backwards compatability or remove essential features and functionality making the software too rigid and inflexible .
These badly informed decisions cause a significant degree of the useability headaches with Linux .
One example of people who dont know what they are talking about is people who think X needs a built in widget set , or who complain</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The useability problems with Linux comes from several areas.
One is the lack of hardware support which results from the lack of a stable binary driver ABI between versions.
This is basically a great disincentive for hardware manufacturers to not support linux and providing a driver.
The open source drivers are often late, becoming avialable months of years after the hardware was released, buggy and does not support many hardware features.
Vendors tend to carry out a lot of testing on the drivers which they produce and are better able to write driver to fully exploit the features.
All hardware vendors will never release driver source, thats not realistic and a pipe dream, and shows the arrogance and niave nature of some Linux developers.
The only people that refusing to provide a stable ABI ends up hurting is users who cant use their hardware.
Users dont want to wait months for the release of some crappy open source driver, they just want the hardware to work.This support for backwards compatability does not necessarily need to go into the main kernel but could be provided by a compatability layer or module.For any platform, backwards compatability is essential for useability and to get support for software and hardware companies.
These companies are not going to want to support 15 different versions of software for each od the kernel/distro combinations that exist.On linux, the package systems and program installation is also a mess.
Linux developers make an arrogant and naive assumption that all programs that a user wants to run will be open source, and that they will be installed with the native package system.
An effective OS realises that the program installers will vary and will not always be in the form of a native package, and makes sure that these can work, and also protects itself.One solution to these problems is to utilise a filesystem overlay.
If an installation program attempts to overwrite an existing library, for instance, instead of being overwritten, the old version of the library will remain visible to other programs that use it but from the perspective of new program, it will see the new version of the library.
This prevents the DLL hell nightmare.
Each version of a file and program would be tagged to environment overlays.
This would also allow, every file in the system to be traced back to the program which installed it and all files the installer put in the system to be completely removed without even affecting other programs.
This would be secondary and used mainly with foreign installers, programs of the native package system instead linking to a shared version of the library that they need and with different versions of the library being stored with the version number in the file name.Linux can and should be both user and expert friendly.
There does have to be a focus on both providing a high level user interface and as well transparency of the underlying systems so that they can be better understood and services.
Everything should be able to be done both at the command line, programming and GUI level.THe key to designing useable software is not making software dumbed down or removing features.
Doing this makes the software so inflexible that only an idiot can use it.
Instead, the software needs to be configurable and flexible as possible, but useability is in the layout, more commonly used features are placed up front and less commonly ones placed in expert screens and so on .Sometimes, people who know little or nothing about Linux or software development make badly informed opinions on software development.
I have heard people both advocate actions that would cripple linux software by damaging backwards compatability or remove essential features and functionality making the software too rigid and inflexible.
These badly informed decisions cause a significant degree of the useability headaches with Linux.
One example of people who dont know what they are talking about is people who think X needs a built in widget set, or who complain</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503833</id>
	<title>That's strange...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246204680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see some Apples, but more often I'm seeing netbooks. It depends on the venue and demographic of the conference; student-heavy get-togethers only have Apples if the students can afford it, and despite Apple's best attempts to offer student discounts, their little white books are still too fuckin' expensive for most of us.</p><p>Of course, I should disclose that I boycott Apple for other reasons.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:3</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see some Apples , but more often I 'm seeing netbooks .
It depends on the venue and demographic of the conference ; student-heavy get-togethers only have Apples if the students can afford it , and despite Apple 's best attempts to offer student discounts , their little white books are still too fuckin ' expensive for most of us.Of course , I should disclose that I boycott Apple for other reasons .
: 3</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see some Apples, but more often I'm seeing netbooks.
It depends on the venue and demographic of the conference; student-heavy get-togethers only have Apples if the students can afford it, and despite Apple's best attempts to offer student discounts, their little white books are still too fuckin' expensive for most of us.Of course, I should disclose that I boycott Apple for other reasons.
:3</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505059</id>
	<title>Re:Apple makes good hardware</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1246212960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Except that Apple laptops are junk. None of them have nipples, they only have a single mouse button</i></p><p>Having switched from Windows PCs I love my MacBook Pro.  As do many others.  Nipples?  The only ones I want are on breasts.  Single mouse button?  I have three.  Just as I was able to alt-click or ctrl-click in Windows I can do the same on my Mac.  Or I can use a 2 or 3 button mouse with it.  I don't though, instead I prefer to use my 3 button trackball.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that Apple laptops are junk .
None of them have nipples , they only have a single mouse buttonHaving switched from Windows PCs I love my MacBook Pro .
As do many others .
Nipples ? The only ones I want are on breasts .
Single mouse button ?
I have three .
Just as I was able to alt-click or ctrl-click in Windows I can do the same on my Mac .
Or I can use a 2 or 3 button mouse with it .
I do n't though , instead I prefer to use my 3 button trackball .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that Apple laptops are junk.
None of them have nipples, they only have a single mouse buttonHaving switched from Windows PCs I love my MacBook Pro.
As do many others.
Nipples?  The only ones I want are on breasts.
Single mouse button?
I have three.
Just as I was able to alt-click or ctrl-click in Windows I can do the same on my Mac.
Or I can use a 2 or 3 button mouse with it.
I don't though, instead I prefer to use my 3 button trackball.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505931</id>
	<title>Re: GUI design</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246218360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"interface design ends up too complicated for most people to use"</p></div><p>The Gnome menus and Applications seem easier to use than Windows versions, I've used both. Openoffice seems more consistent (as far as menus go) than MS Office but first you have to turn off "Hide Menus" in MS Office to compare.</p><p>KDE guys speak up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" interface design ends up too complicated for most people to use " The Gnome menus and Applications seem easier to use than Windows versions , I 've used both .
Openoffice seems more consistent ( as far as menus go ) than MS Office but first you have to turn off " Hide Menus " in MS Office to compare.KDE guys speak up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"interface design ends up too complicated for most people to use"The Gnome menus and Applications seem easier to use than Windows versions, I've used both.
Openoffice seems more consistent (as far as menus go) than MS Office but first you have to turn off "Hide Menus" in MS Office to compare.KDE guys speak up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505977</id>
	<title>On the user type and user feedback loop in FOSS</title>
	<author>1 a bee</author>
	<datestamp>1246218660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I think most would agree that to say "FOSS usability sucks" is an over-generalization. A lot of free software is not targeted at an end-user audience anyway. In my experience, FOSS usability shines in that non-end-user space. So if we broke down the user space like this..

</p><ol>
<li>Programmers</li><li>System admininstrators</li><li>End users</li></ol><p>

I think, FOSS usability is good, if not often superior to commercial software, for the first two categories of users.
</p><p>
So (again, an over-generalization) why does FOSS suck for end-users? I don't imagine it's because the end-users aren't geeky enough. It's not like only uber-geeks post to user mailing lists of successful FOSS projects: you'll find a big mix of expertise (programmers <em>and</em> non-programmers) in users posting to the Apache mailing lists, for example. Rather, I guess, the reason why end-user-facing FOSS projects often fall short on usability is that the user-feedback loop is somehow broken.
</p><p>
Here are some ideas off the top of my head on how to improve the situation:
</p><ol>
<li>Educate the user on how the FOSS process works. This could be done, hopefully discretely, in a GUI's startup splash screen, for example.</li><li>Provide an easy-to-use interface to the product's user mailing list.</li><li>Communicate bug and feature-request status information effectively to end-users.
</li><li>Allow end users to escalate issues and somehow recognize them as contributors.
</li><li>
Maybe come up with usability standards on how end-users communicate with a FOSS projects.
</li><li>
Any other way to involve the end user.</li>
</ol><p>
If those are good/ok suggestions, then the good news is that much of the infrastructure for this feedback mechanism already exists in off-the-shelf FOSS components.
</p><p>
* *
</p><p>
On a tangential note, I don't quite buy in to the argument that FOSS usability suffers because it's boring. First, it's not boring to everyone, and second, depending on the perspective, there are <em>lots</em> of boring tasks involved in maintaining a FOSS project, and third, most UI projects <em>want</em> to be as user-friendly as possible--so there is no lack of motivation.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think most would agree that to say " FOSS usability sucks " is an over-generalization .
A lot of free software is not targeted at an end-user audience anyway .
In my experience , FOSS usability shines in that non-end-user space .
So if we broke down the user space like this. . ProgrammersSystem admininstratorsEnd users I think , FOSS usability is good , if not often superior to commercial software , for the first two categories of users .
So ( again , an over-generalization ) why does FOSS suck for end-users ?
I do n't imagine it 's because the end-users are n't geeky enough .
It 's not like only uber-geeks post to user mailing lists of successful FOSS projects : you 'll find a big mix of expertise ( programmers and non-programmers ) in users posting to the Apache mailing lists , for example .
Rather , I guess , the reason why end-user-facing FOSS projects often fall short on usability is that the user-feedback loop is somehow broken .
Here are some ideas off the top of my head on how to improve the situation : Educate the user on how the FOSS process works .
This could be done , hopefully discretely , in a GUI 's startup splash screen , for example.Provide an easy-to-use interface to the product 's user mailing list.Communicate bug and feature-request status information effectively to end-users .
Allow end users to escalate issues and somehow recognize them as contributors .
Maybe come up with usability standards on how end-users communicate with a FOSS projects .
Any other way to involve the end user .
If those are good/ok suggestions , then the good news is that much of the infrastructure for this feedback mechanism already exists in off-the-shelf FOSS components .
* * On a tangential note , I do n't quite buy in to the argument that FOSS usability suffers because it 's boring .
First , it 's not boring to everyone , and second , depending on the perspective , there are lots of boring tasks involved in maintaining a FOSS project , and third , most UI projects want to be as user-friendly as possible--so there is no lack of motivation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I think most would agree that to say "FOSS usability sucks" is an over-generalization.
A lot of free software is not targeted at an end-user audience anyway.
In my experience, FOSS usability shines in that non-end-user space.
So if we broke down the user space like this..


ProgrammersSystem admininstratorsEnd users

I think, FOSS usability is good, if not often superior to commercial software, for the first two categories of users.
So (again, an over-generalization) why does FOSS suck for end-users?
I don't imagine it's because the end-users aren't geeky enough.
It's not like only uber-geeks post to user mailing lists of successful FOSS projects: you'll find a big mix of expertise (programmers and non-programmers) in users posting to the Apache mailing lists, for example.
Rather, I guess, the reason why end-user-facing FOSS projects often fall short on usability is that the user-feedback loop is somehow broken.
Here are some ideas off the top of my head on how to improve the situation:

Educate the user on how the FOSS process works.
This could be done, hopefully discretely, in a GUI's startup splash screen, for example.Provide an easy-to-use interface to the product's user mailing list.Communicate bug and feature-request status information effectively to end-users.
Allow end users to escalate issues and somehow recognize them as contributors.
Maybe come up with usability standards on how end-users communicate with a FOSS projects.
Any other way to involve the end user.
If those are good/ok suggestions, then the good news is that much of the infrastructure for this feedback mechanism already exists in off-the-shelf FOSS components.
* *

On a tangential note, I don't quite buy in to the argument that FOSS usability suffers because it's boring.
First, it's not boring to everyone, and second, depending on the perspective, there are lots of boring tasks involved in maintaining a FOSS project, and third, most UI projects want to be as user-friendly as possible--so there is no lack of motivation.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28507457</id>
	<title>Re:Apple makes good hardware</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246187580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are talking about the looks, and the top layer of the UI, I agree.</p><p>But if you are talking about quality hardware and artful programming: Are you freaking kidding?<br>Maybe you have used too much Dell trash, to know what really nice quality is. But Apple? Their mice are a joke. Their screens are poor in color, sometimes even only 18 bit, their inner electronics are just off-the-shelf stuff. And the iPod is (repeat this after me) <em>just another MP3 player</em>, just as the iPhone is <em>just another phone</em> (and a pretty crappy one, when compared to what Nokia or some Japanese/Korean company offers) with one innovation, you guessed it, in the UI area.</p><p>And I really give credit here, for their ability to brush things up, so that people like it, and even form a cult around it. But at the end of the day, when the shine is gone, and daily life kicks in, this is pretty irrelevant. Of course, then you are already caught, and now defend your action, so you don't have to think what an idiot you were. Aka the Steve Jobs reality distortion field.</p><p>Wait for the Apple fanbois to partially read this, and mod it to hell. And have mercy for their poor twisted minds, for tomorrow, you could be one of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are talking about the looks , and the top layer of the UI , I agree.But if you are talking about quality hardware and artful programming : Are you freaking kidding ? Maybe you have used too much Dell trash , to know what really nice quality is .
But Apple ?
Their mice are a joke .
Their screens are poor in color , sometimes even only 18 bit , their inner electronics are just off-the-shelf stuff .
And the iPod is ( repeat this after me ) just another MP3 player , just as the iPhone is just another phone ( and a pretty crappy one , when compared to what Nokia or some Japanese/Korean company offers ) with one innovation , you guessed it , in the UI area.And I really give credit here , for their ability to brush things up , so that people like it , and even form a cult around it .
But at the end of the day , when the shine is gone , and daily life kicks in , this is pretty irrelevant .
Of course , then you are already caught , and now defend your action , so you do n't have to think what an idiot you were .
Aka the Steve Jobs reality distortion field.Wait for the Apple fanbois to partially read this , and mod it to hell .
And have mercy for their poor twisted minds , for tomorrow , you could be one of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are talking about the looks, and the top layer of the UI, I agree.But if you are talking about quality hardware and artful programming: Are you freaking kidding?Maybe you have used too much Dell trash, to know what really nice quality is.
But Apple?
Their mice are a joke.
Their screens are poor in color, sometimes even only 18 bit, their inner electronics are just off-the-shelf stuff.
And the iPod is (repeat this after me) just another MP3 player, just as the iPhone is just another phone (and a pretty crappy one, when compared to what Nokia or some Japanese/Korean company offers) with one innovation, you guessed it, in the UI area.And I really give credit here, for their ability to brush things up, so that people like it, and even form a cult around it.
But at the end of the day, when the shine is gone, and daily life kicks in, this is pretty irrelevant.
Of course, then you are already caught, and now defend your action, so you don't have to think what an idiot you were.
Aka the Steve Jobs reality distortion field.Wait for the Apple fanbois to partially read this, and mod it to hell.
And have mercy for their poor twisted minds, for tomorrow, you could be one of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28508043</id>
	<title>Re:Mac No - iPhone Yes</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1246192680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I would never buy a Mac especially not with all the reliability problems they have</i></p><p>I say the same about PCs.  I am typing this on my first new Mac and I've owned it about 22 months.  The first, and only, hardware problem I have had with it I had repaired about 5 months ago.  And I have only had to reinstall the OS twice, one of those when I replaced the original harddisk drive with a bigger one.  On the other hand I bought 4 new PCs 3 of which I had to have the motherboard  and 2 of which of which I had to have the harddisk drive replaced in the first year.  Of the 4 new PCs only one did not have to be repaired in the first year.  Two of the 3 I also had to reinstall the OS at least once the first year and repeatedly afterwards.</p><p>Now I said above this was my first new Mac, but I also have bought 2 used Macs.  The first one was a Mac SE30 I bought in 1992, 4 years after it was released.  It lasted without hardware problems until 2000.  A few months after it died I bought a Powermac 7300/200 made in 1997.  It lasted until 2006 without hardware problems.  And I did not have to reinstall any software on either one.</p><p>Quite simply Macs tend to last longer than Windows PCs.</p><p><i>why pay more (the Apple tax) for less hardware</i></p><p>Before buying my MacBook Pro I compared it's price to various Windows OEM laptops, and it's price was comparable to them.  Some were cheaper but others were more expensive.  A similarly configured Dell was $200 more.</p><p><i>So I am not surprised at all that currently people at open-source conferences are using iPhones. I recently bought one for myself</i></p><p>I'd replace my MBP with a new one and would buy a Mac Pro for a desktop workstation/server and maybe an Apple Cinema Display, that's all the Apple hardware I'm interested in buying.  I have no interest in an iPod or any other mpg player.  And for now my 3 year old cellphone works fine for me.  I'd only replace it with with a cellphone I could tether my laptop to for broadband access, which the iPhone does not do.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would never buy a Mac especially not with all the reliability problems they haveI say the same about PCs .
I am typing this on my first new Mac and I 've owned it about 22 months .
The first , and only , hardware problem I have had with it I had repaired about 5 months ago .
And I have only had to reinstall the OS twice , one of those when I replaced the original harddisk drive with a bigger one .
On the other hand I bought 4 new PCs 3 of which I had to have the motherboard and 2 of which of which I had to have the harddisk drive replaced in the first year .
Of the 4 new PCs only one did not have to be repaired in the first year .
Two of the 3 I also had to reinstall the OS at least once the first year and repeatedly afterwards.Now I said above this was my first new Mac , but I also have bought 2 used Macs .
The first one was a Mac SE30 I bought in 1992 , 4 years after it was released .
It lasted without hardware problems until 2000 .
A few months after it died I bought a Powermac 7300/200 made in 1997 .
It lasted until 2006 without hardware problems .
And I did not have to reinstall any software on either one.Quite simply Macs tend to last longer than Windows PCs.why pay more ( the Apple tax ) for less hardwareBefore buying my MacBook Pro I compared it 's price to various Windows OEM laptops , and it 's price was comparable to them .
Some were cheaper but others were more expensive .
A similarly configured Dell was $ 200 more.So I am not surprised at all that currently people at open-source conferences are using iPhones .
I recently bought one for myselfI 'd replace my MBP with a new one and would buy a Mac Pro for a desktop workstation/server and maybe an Apple Cinema Display , that 's all the Apple hardware I 'm interested in buying .
I have no interest in an iPod or any other mpg player .
And for now my 3 year old cellphone works fine for me .
I 'd only replace it with with a cellphone I could tether my laptop to for broadband access , which the iPhone does not do .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would never buy a Mac especially not with all the reliability problems they haveI say the same about PCs.
I am typing this on my first new Mac and I've owned it about 22 months.
The first, and only, hardware problem I have had with it I had repaired about 5 months ago.
And I have only had to reinstall the OS twice, one of those when I replaced the original harddisk drive with a bigger one.
On the other hand I bought 4 new PCs 3 of which I had to have the motherboard  and 2 of which of which I had to have the harddisk drive replaced in the first year.
Of the 4 new PCs only one did not have to be repaired in the first year.
Two of the 3 I also had to reinstall the OS at least once the first year and repeatedly afterwards.Now I said above this was my first new Mac, but I also have bought 2 used Macs.
The first one was a Mac SE30 I bought in 1992, 4 years after it was released.
It lasted without hardware problems until 2000.
A few months after it died I bought a Powermac 7300/200 made in 1997.
It lasted until 2006 without hardware problems.
And I did not have to reinstall any software on either one.Quite simply Macs tend to last longer than Windows PCs.why pay more (the Apple tax) for less hardwareBefore buying my MacBook Pro I compared it's price to various Windows OEM laptops, and it's price was comparable to them.
Some were cheaper but others were more expensive.
A similarly configured Dell was $200 more.So I am not surprised at all that currently people at open-source conferences are using iPhones.
I recently bought one for myselfI'd replace my MBP with a new one and would buy a Mac Pro for a desktop workstation/server and maybe an Apple Cinema Display, that's all the Apple hardware I'm interested in buying.
I have no interest in an iPod or any other mpg player.
And for now my 3 year old cellphone works fine for me.
I'd only replace it with with a cellphone I could tether my laptop to for broadband access, which the iPhone does not do.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503847</id>
	<title>Free software sucks because.</title>
	<author>yourassOA</author>
	<datestamp>1246204740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Their is no one overseeing the whole thing. <br>There is no common goal.<br> There are more useless that useful programs. <br>Stupid little things never get fixed. <br>There are too many distro's.<br> Someone needs to get paid for the work they do. <br> Someone need to get
the praise and encouragement they deserve for working so hard.<br> Do something, go to your favorite distro's website buy something. No one wants to work and have to survive on cup-a-noodle its gets real gross after awhile.<br>Give the people who make your free software something so they don't feel neglected, an unhappy programmer will code what he needs for himself then give it away for free because of his principals. Make it worth his while and he might make something you need.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Their is no one overseeing the whole thing .
There is no common goal .
There are more useless that useful programs .
Stupid little things never get fixed .
There are too many distro 's .
Someone needs to get paid for the work they do .
Someone need to get the praise and encouragement they deserve for working so hard .
Do something , go to your favorite distro 's website buy something .
No one wants to work and have to survive on cup-a-noodle its gets real gross after awhile.Give the people who make your free software something so they do n't feel neglected , an unhappy programmer will code what he needs for himself then give it away for free because of his principals .
Make it worth his while and he might make something you need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their is no one overseeing the whole thing.
There is no common goal.
There are more useless that useful programs.
Stupid little things never get fixed.
There are too many distro's.
Someone needs to get paid for the work they do.
Someone need to get
the praise and encouragement they deserve for working so hard.
Do something, go to your favorite distro's website buy something.
No one wants to work and have to survive on cup-a-noodle its gets real gross after awhile.Give the people who make your free software something so they don't feel neglected, an unhappy programmer will code what he needs for himself then give it away for free because of his principals.
Make it worth his while and he might make something you need.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503787</id>
	<title>ENOS,  good/complete software costs money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246204200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ENOS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ENOS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ENOS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28506929</id>
	<title>Re:Apple makes good hardware</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246183200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Except that Apple laptops are junk. None of them have nipples,...</p></div></blockquote><p>Maybe you should try the other kind of <a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=apples" title="urbandictionary.com" rel="nofollow">apples</a> [urbandictionary.com] (definition 2)?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that Apple laptops are junk .
None of them have nipples,...Maybe you should try the other kind of apples [ urbandictionary.com ] ( definition 2 ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that Apple laptops are junk.
None of them have nipples,...Maybe you should try the other kind of apples [urbandictionary.com] (definition 2)?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504117</id>
	<title>Re:KDE is very usable</title>
	<author>Danny Rathjens</author>
	<datestamp>1246206660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's even worse than that due to inconsistency.  In mac/windows, in a program such as a mail client like outlook, the list of mail subjects will scroll when the mouse cursor is in that subwindow and the body of the mail will scroll when the mouse cursor is in that subwindow.  So they have click-to-focus between windows and sloppy focus between subwindows.  I had a difficult time explaining this to my grandfather.<br> <br>

I'm also quite unclear on why mac has this reputation for good usability/interface because in the few times I have used it I have encountered interface inconsistencies even within the base applications such as network settings.  (e.g. radio buttons for "on"/"off" in one interface(dhcp) and a drop down box for "enable"/"disable" for another(static))  And, of course, inconsistencies between applications, too.  Mail settings have cancel/save/apply buttons, but to save network config changes you have to close the window(hit the red x) and then get presented with an option to apply changes.  Hitting a red x to apply your changes is almost as silly as hitting the start button in windows to stop your pc.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's even worse than that due to inconsistency .
In mac/windows , in a program such as a mail client like outlook , the list of mail subjects will scroll when the mouse cursor is in that subwindow and the body of the mail will scroll when the mouse cursor is in that subwindow .
So they have click-to-focus between windows and sloppy focus between subwindows .
I had a difficult time explaining this to my grandfather .
I 'm also quite unclear on why mac has this reputation for good usability/interface because in the few times I have used it I have encountered interface inconsistencies even within the base applications such as network settings .
( e.g. radio buttons for " on " / " off " in one interface ( dhcp ) and a drop down box for " enable " / " disable " for another ( static ) ) And , of course , inconsistencies between applications , too .
Mail settings have cancel/save/apply buttons , but to save network config changes you have to close the window ( hit the red x ) and then get presented with an option to apply changes .
Hitting a red x to apply your changes is almost as silly as hitting the start button in windows to stop your pc .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's even worse than that due to inconsistency.
In mac/windows, in a program such as a mail client like outlook, the list of mail subjects will scroll when the mouse cursor is in that subwindow and the body of the mail will scroll when the mouse cursor is in that subwindow.
So they have click-to-focus between windows and sloppy focus between subwindows.
I had a difficult time explaining this to my grandfather.
I'm also quite unclear on why mac has this reputation for good usability/interface because in the few times I have used it I have encountered interface inconsistencies even within the base applications such as network settings.
(e.g. radio buttons for "on"/"off" in one interface(dhcp) and a drop down box for "enable"/"disable" for another(static))  And, of course, inconsistencies between applications, too.
Mail settings have cancel/save/apply buttons, but to save network config changes you have to close the window(hit the red x) and then get presented with an option to apply changes.
Hitting a red x to apply your changes is almost as silly as hitting the start button in windows to stop your pc.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503877</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504115
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28517401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28513937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28507479
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28507185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504359
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28509085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28509461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28519359
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28507457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28506929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28510725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28508201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28506149
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28509193
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505993
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28508043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28507315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28506535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28506483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504875
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28508225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28572947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28506059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28517793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28506101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28509835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28510039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28507347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28563941
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28510839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28514179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1351220_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28513355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1351220.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504299
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1351220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504651
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28517793
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28507185
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28519359
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505993
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1351220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504211
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28510039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504067
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1351220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505335
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1351220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503899
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1351220.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503833
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1351220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28507315
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1351220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28513355
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1351220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504089
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1351220.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505033
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1351220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505443
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28563941
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504857
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28572947
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504201
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505953
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505931
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28507347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504505
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28506059
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505059
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505409
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505945
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28506929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28507457
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28510839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504975
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28509085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504827
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28517401
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28509461
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28510725
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28506149
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1351220.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28506363
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1351220.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504193
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28506483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28509193
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28507479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503953
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1351220.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28508225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28508043
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1351220.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504297
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1351220.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504481
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28513937
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504675
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504359
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504051
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1351220.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28514179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504117
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28506535
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28505529
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504115
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28506101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28508201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504213
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504875
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504771
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1351220.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504691
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1351220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503779
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1351220.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503803
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28509835
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1351220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28503951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1351220.28504737
</commentlist>
</conversation>
