<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_30_1752220</id>
	<title>The Hidden Cost of Using Microsoft Software</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1246390620000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Glyn Moody</a> writes <i>"Detractors of free software like to point out it's not really 'free,' and claim that its Total Cost of Ownership is often comparable with closed-source solutions if you take everything into account. And yet, despite their enthusiasm for including all the costs, they never include a very real extra that users of Microsoft's products frequently have to pay: the <a href="http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=2316&amp;blogid=14">cost of cleaning up malware infections</a>. For example, the UK city of Manchester has <a href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1121846\_bus\_lane\_fines\_axed\_over\_bug?rss=yes">just paid out nearly $2.5 million</a> to clean up the Conficker worm, most of which was 'a &pound;1.2m [$2million] bill in the IT department, including &pound;600,000 [$1 million] getting "consultancy support" to fix the problems, which including drafting in experts from Microsoft.' To make the comparisons fair, isn't it about time these often massive costs were included in TCO calculations?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Glyn Moody writes " Detractors of free software like to point out it 's not really 'free, ' and claim that its Total Cost of Ownership is often comparable with closed-source solutions if you take everything into account .
And yet , despite their enthusiasm for including all the costs , they never include a very real extra that users of Microsoft 's products frequently have to pay : the cost of cleaning up malware infections .
For example , the UK city of Manchester has just paid out nearly $ 2.5 million to clean up the Conficker worm , most of which was 'a   1.2m [ $ 2million ] bill in the IT department , including   600,000 [ $ 1 million ] getting " consultancy support " to fix the problems , which including drafting in experts from Microsoft .
' To make the comparisons fair , is n't it about time these often massive costs were included in TCO calculations ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glyn Moody writes "Detractors of free software like to point out it's not really 'free,' and claim that its Total Cost of Ownership is often comparable with closed-source solutions if you take everything into account.
And yet, despite their enthusiasm for including all the costs, they never include a very real extra that users of Microsoft's products frequently have to pay: the cost of cleaning up malware infections.
For example, the UK city of Manchester has just paid out nearly $2.5 million to clean up the Conficker worm, most of which was 'a £1.2m [$2million] bill in the IT department, including £600,000 [$1 million] getting "consultancy support" to fix the problems, which including drafting in experts from Microsoft.
' To make the comparisons fair, isn't it about time these often massive costs were included in TCO calculations?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535815</id>
	<title>Microsoft's tech "support" costs....</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1246361940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft's tech "support" costs are truly one of the largest hidden costs of ownership. Assuming you can get a human on the phone at Microsoft, you're frequently directed to the wrong person, the wrong automated telephone system with inappropriate choices, the wrong department, the wrong planet... Spent 3 hours this weekend trying to get my temporary Vista Enterprise software (temporary 30 day solution) downgraded to Home Premium, which I legitimately own without having to reinstall everything. I was trying to be honest. After 3 hours, I just gave up, got online and hacked the registry to turn off notifications. 3 hours, 4 tech "support" personnel in India, 5 different, useless phone systems and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....nothing. Microsoft's eventual demise will be their own fault, plain and simple. Windows used to make my life easier. Those days are long gone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft 's tech " support " costs are truly one of the largest hidden costs of ownership .
Assuming you can get a human on the phone at Microsoft , you 're frequently directed to the wrong person , the wrong automated telephone system with inappropriate choices , the wrong department , the wrong planet... Spent 3 hours this weekend trying to get my temporary Vista Enterprise software ( temporary 30 day solution ) downgraded to Home Premium , which I legitimately own without having to reinstall everything .
I was trying to be honest .
After 3 hours , I just gave up , got online and hacked the registry to turn off notifications .
3 hours , 4 tech " support " personnel in India , 5 different , useless phone systems and .....nothing .
Microsoft 's eventual demise will be their own fault , plain and simple .
Windows used to make my life easier .
Those days are long gone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft's tech "support" costs are truly one of the largest hidden costs of ownership.
Assuming you can get a human on the phone at Microsoft, you're frequently directed to the wrong person, the wrong automated telephone system with inappropriate choices, the wrong department, the wrong planet... Spent 3 hours this weekend trying to get my temporary Vista Enterprise software (temporary 30 day solution) downgraded to Home Premium, which I legitimately own without having to reinstall everything.
I was trying to be honest.
After 3 hours, I just gave up, got online and hacked the registry to turn off notifications.
3 hours, 4 tech "support" personnel in India, 5 different, useless phone systems and .....nothing.
Microsoft's eventual demise will be their own fault, plain and simple.
Windows used to make my life easier.
Those days are long gone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533773</id>
	<title>Re:they must have stupid IT people</title>
	<author>sofar</author>
	<datestamp>1246395420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"we'll let this nuclear bomb just explode and make sure there's no one near it."</p><p>Nice attitude<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>how do you guarantee your data on that box to be secure if you know it's been compromised? I hope you do not work for any company that I use services from<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:o</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" we 'll let this nuclear bomb just explode and make sure there 's no one near it .
" Nice attitude : ) how do you guarantee your data on that box to be secure if you know it 's been compromised ?
I hope you do not work for any company that I use services from : o</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"we'll let this nuclear bomb just explode and make sure there's no one near it.
"Nice attitude :)how do you guarantee your data on that box to be secure if you know it's been compromised?
I hope you do not work for any company that I use services from :o</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534881</id>
	<title>All arguments here are irrelevant</title>
	<author>aarenz</author>
	<datestamp>1246356840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The real issue is when there will be full lines of software available for Linux or other operating systems. How much does it cost me to run 2 OS's in an environment because I can not find software that will run on Linux to perform my corporate functions that are industry specific. The real cost will come out when all software uses browser based interfaces. Until I can get all of my applications covered by software that can run on Linux, I would have to hire two sets of staff to support the two systems and then a whole new team to keep the interaction between the two of them stable.  If most people spent as much time planning a windows environment as is spent with a Linux environment, things would be a lot more stable. The quick and dirty installs of Windows are the problem. If you checked, you would probably find that nearly all corporte Windows installs have the common user escalated to local admin for ease of support. If all Linux users ran their browsers and other applications as root, the same world will eventually arrive, a bunch of unsupportable crap.  <br> <br>I am done ranting now, move along, no more to see here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real issue is when there will be full lines of software available for Linux or other operating systems .
How much does it cost me to run 2 OS 's in an environment because I can not find software that will run on Linux to perform my corporate functions that are industry specific .
The real cost will come out when all software uses browser based interfaces .
Until I can get all of my applications covered by software that can run on Linux , I would have to hire two sets of staff to support the two systems and then a whole new team to keep the interaction between the two of them stable .
If most people spent as much time planning a windows environment as is spent with a Linux environment , things would be a lot more stable .
The quick and dirty installs of Windows are the problem .
If you checked , you would probably find that nearly all corporte Windows installs have the common user escalated to local admin for ease of support .
If all Linux users ran their browsers and other applications as root , the same world will eventually arrive , a bunch of unsupportable crap .
I am done ranting now , move along , no more to see here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real issue is when there will be full lines of software available for Linux or other operating systems.
How much does it cost me to run 2 OS's in an environment because I can not find software that will run on Linux to perform my corporate functions that are industry specific.
The real cost will come out when all software uses browser based interfaces.
Until I can get all of my applications covered by software that can run on Linux, I would have to hire two sets of staff to support the two systems and then a whole new team to keep the interaction between the two of them stable.
If most people spent as much time planning a windows environment as is spent with a Linux environment, things would be a lot more stable.
The quick and dirty installs of Windows are the problem.
If you checked, you would probably find that nearly all corporte Windows installs have the common user escalated to local admin for ease of support.
If all Linux users ran their browsers and other applications as root, the same world will eventually arrive, a bunch of unsupportable crap.
I am done ranting now, move along, no more to see here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535093</id>
	<title>Office suites too</title>
	<author>dandart</author>
	<datestamp>1246357980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As much as OOo is now the standard, many people still use MSOffice, because it's what they're trained with. Doesn't that double the cost of the software too?

And sod you security nuts, ANYTHING is more secure than windows, except perhaps a mac.

Jeez, conficker... Antivirus being necessary, no repository, more people being ignorant and downloading dodgy software... I admit mainly PEBKAC but still they (security companies) charge you for decent extra security. But that's just good business!</htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as OOo is now the standard , many people still use MSOffice , because it 's what they 're trained with .
Does n't that double the cost of the software too ?
And sod you security nuts , ANYTHING is more secure than windows , except perhaps a mac .
Jeez , conficker... Antivirus being necessary , no repository , more people being ignorant and downloading dodgy software... I admit mainly PEBKAC but still they ( security companies ) charge you for decent extra security .
But that 's just good business !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as OOo is now the standard, many people still use MSOffice, because it's what they're trained with.
Doesn't that double the cost of the software too?
And sod you security nuts, ANYTHING is more secure than windows, except perhaps a mac.
Jeez, conficker... Antivirus being necessary, no repository, more people being ignorant and downloading dodgy software... I admit mainly PEBKAC but still they (security companies) charge you for decent extra security.
But that's just good business!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533533</id>
	<title>Only Proprietary?</title>
	<author>Nemyst</author>
	<datestamp>1246394460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't want to sound like a detractor of free software (I actually favor FLOSS as much as I can), but it's not like Linux doesn't have any malware written for it. Sure, it's to a lesser degree, but it's still there and I'm not sure the costs of removing them are systematically calculated into the TCO either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want to sound like a detractor of free software ( I actually favor FLOSS as much as I can ) , but it 's not like Linux does n't have any malware written for it .
Sure , it 's to a lesser degree , but it 's still there and I 'm not sure the costs of removing them are systematically calculated into the TCO either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want to sound like a detractor of free software (I actually favor FLOSS as much as I can), but it's not like Linux doesn't have any malware written for it.
Sure, it's to a lesser degree, but it's still there and I'm not sure the costs of removing them are systematically calculated into the TCO either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533615</id>
	<title>It's fun to dump on MSFT</title>
	<author>Trip6</author>
	<datestamp>1246394820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>An article with a clear agenda against MSFT.  See other posts debunking the extra costs and MSFT-only slant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An article with a clear agenda against MSFT .
See other posts debunking the extra costs and MSFT-only slant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An article with a clear agenda against MSFT.
See other posts debunking the extra costs and MSFT-only slant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534485</id>
	<title>Re:Other hidden costs.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246355040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's just silly.  People complained about Office 2007 for a few weeks and surprisingly they figured out most things.  And it is funny you should even bother mentioning this.  What about KDE 3.5 to 4.0, what about all the weird quirks in Gnome/Nautilus changes.</p><p>In all fairness, people will eventually give up and just not bother with things they can't do and either find a different way or stick with the old software.  This applies to both Windows and Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's just silly .
People complained about Office 2007 for a few weeks and surprisingly they figured out most things .
And it is funny you should even bother mentioning this .
What about KDE 3.5 to 4.0 , what about all the weird quirks in Gnome/Nautilus changes.In all fairness , people will eventually give up and just not bother with things they ca n't do and either find a different way or stick with the old software .
This applies to both Windows and Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's just silly.
People complained about Office 2007 for a few weeks and surprisingly they figured out most things.
And it is funny you should even bother mentioning this.
What about KDE 3.5 to 4.0, what about all the weird quirks in Gnome/Nautilus changes.In all fairness, people will eventually give up and just not bother with things they can't do and either find a different way or stick with the old software.
This applies to both Windows and Linux.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533695</id>
	<title>Another Argument for SaaS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246395060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another argument in favor of SaaS applications like http://www.hyperoffice.com. Keeping out viruses in the vendros responsibility and cost, not yours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another argument in favor of SaaS applications like http : //www.hyperoffice.com .
Keeping out viruses in the vendros responsibility and cost , not yours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another argument in favor of SaaS applications like http://www.hyperoffice.com.
Keeping out viruses in the vendros responsibility and cost, not yours.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28539379</id>
	<title>Re:Cheaper to prevent than fix</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1246479060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Instead of spending $2 million to *fix* virus issues, why not hire smarter people to *prevent* virus issues? I'm sure doing so would be much cheaper.</i> <br> <br>It most likely comes down to political will. Hiring people to make sure things run smoothly often tends to be seen as an excessive cost. If they are doing their jobs "nothing" will happen. Whereas fixing when things go badly wrong is an "emergency" where cost is not an issue.<br>Even if the result is to rebuild a "house of cards" for more than it would cost to replace it with something more substantial.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of spending $ 2 million to * fix * virus issues , why not hire smarter people to * prevent * virus issues ?
I 'm sure doing so would be much cheaper .
It most likely comes down to political will .
Hiring people to make sure things run smoothly often tends to be seen as an excessive cost .
If they are doing their jobs " nothing " will happen .
Whereas fixing when things go badly wrong is an " emergency " where cost is not an issue.Even if the result is to rebuild a " house of cards " for more than it would cost to replace it with something more substantial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of spending $2 million to *fix* virus issues, why not hire smarter people to *prevent* virus issues?
I'm sure doing so would be much cheaper.
It most likely comes down to political will.
Hiring people to make sure things run smoothly often tends to be seen as an excessive cost.
If they are doing their jobs "nothing" will happen.
Whereas fixing when things go badly wrong is an "emergency" where cost is not an issue.Even if the result is to rebuild a "house of cards" for more than it would cost to replace it with something more substantial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538547</id>
	<title>Re:What about the other costs of AV?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246382580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SUNBELT VIPRE, What is this conficker thing???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SUNBELT VIPRE , What is this conficker thing ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SUNBELT VIPRE, What is this conficker thing??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28539699</id>
	<title>Re:Can't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246440180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's the thing. If you install any modern version of Windows from XP on then out of the box the OS will have automatic updates and a firewall in place. If left in this default configuration those machines would almost certainly not have been infected by Conficker. Now, there's plenty to berate MS about and there's many good reasons to change the default firewall and automatic updates settings of Windows (I certainly do). Nevertheless, when someone does so and they do not have proper systems in place to get necessary security patches applied in a timely manner and put in place other security systems in order to compensate then the fault lies with the user/company not with MS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the thing .
If you install any modern version of Windows from XP on then out of the box the OS will have automatic updates and a firewall in place .
If left in this default configuration those machines would almost certainly not have been infected by Conficker .
Now , there 's plenty to berate MS about and there 's many good reasons to change the default firewall and automatic updates settings of Windows ( I certainly do ) .
Nevertheless , when someone does so and they do not have proper systems in place to get necessary security patches applied in a timely manner and put in place other security systems in order to compensate then the fault lies with the user/company not with MS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the thing.
If you install any modern version of Windows from XP on then out of the box the OS will have automatic updates and a firewall in place.
If left in this default configuration those machines would almost certainly not have been infected by Conficker.
Now, there's plenty to berate MS about and there's many good reasons to change the default firewall and automatic updates settings of Windows (I certainly do).
Nevertheless, when someone does so and they do not have proper systems in place to get necessary security patches applied in a timely manner and put in place other security systems in order to compensate then the fault lies with the user/company not with MS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534767</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1246356300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>     No, the primary strength of Linux is that it is not attempting to cluelessly<br>pander to the "normal user". Apple panders to this sort of user but it tries to<br>be smart about. Microsoft tries to pander to this user and f*cks it up. If Linux<br>tries to follow Microsoft's lead in some sort of stupidity, there will be enough<br>users bellyaching that it's a really bad idea. Who's there to send up the red<br>flags in Redmond?</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The Mac is a pretty good demonstration of the idea that you don't have to<br>be an idiot to accomodate "idiots".</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Much of Microsoft's trouble comes from violating principles that were beaten<br>into your head if you were computing online in the 80s.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the primary strength of Linux is that it is not attempting to cluelesslypander to the " normal user " .
Apple panders to this sort of user but it tries tobe smart about .
Microsoft tries to pander to this user and f * cks it up .
If Linuxtries to follow Microsoft 's lead in some sort of stupidity , there will be enoughusers bellyaching that it 's a really bad idea .
Who 's there to send up the redflags in Redmond ?
          The Mac is a pretty good demonstration of the idea that you do n't have tobe an idiot to accomodate " idiots " .
            Much of Microsoft 's trouble comes from violating principles that were beateninto your head if you were computing online in the 80s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>     No, the primary strength of Linux is that it is not attempting to cluelesslypander to the "normal user".
Apple panders to this sort of user but it tries tobe smart about.
Microsoft tries to pander to this user and f*cks it up.
If Linuxtries to follow Microsoft's lead in some sort of stupidity, there will be enoughusers bellyaching that it's a really bad idea.
Who's there to send up the redflags in Redmond?
          The Mac is a pretty good demonstration of the idea that you don't have tobe an idiot to accomodate "idiots".
            Much of Microsoft's trouble comes from violating principles that were beateninto your head if you were computing online in the 80s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534015</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>tixxit</author>
	<datestamp>1246353180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is no longer true. Windows Vista &amp; 7 both default to a limited user, not admin. I've been using Linux for my OS for 8 or so years, but you gotta give credit where credit is due.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is no longer true .
Windows Vista &amp; 7 both default to a limited user , not admin .
I 've been using Linux for my OS for 8 or so years , but you got ta give credit where credit is due .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is no longer true.
Windows Vista &amp; 7 both default to a limited user, not admin.
I've been using Linux for my OS for 8 or so years, but you gotta give credit where credit is due.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28542957</id>
	<title>Re:Only Proprietary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246465800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok - I'm no MS or IBM or Open Source advocate - I "swing" both ways.  However, one of the reasons business don't like to adopt Linux is that the names of these technologies just aren't sexy enough... who wants to tell their CEO that they need to FLOSS? What kind of an acromyn is that? Geeky enough? Every time I see that name I want to strap some suspenders to my pants and hike them up to my tits then tape my Polo glasses with duct tape and grow a mullet. The Open Source community should take some marketing lessons and stop naming their software after their pets or personal hygiene tools and come up with sexier names to sell their ideas to their potential pimps or customers. The one with the brains doesn't always wear the pants - or hold the wallet - and most pimps and customers are already set in their ways. Hate to break it to you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok - I 'm no MS or IBM or Open Source advocate - I " swing " both ways .
However , one of the reasons business do n't like to adopt Linux is that the names of these technologies just are n't sexy enough... who wants to tell their CEO that they need to FLOSS ?
What kind of an acromyn is that ?
Geeky enough ?
Every time I see that name I want to strap some suspenders to my pants and hike them up to my tits then tape my Polo glasses with duct tape and grow a mullet .
The Open Source community should take some marketing lessons and stop naming their software after their pets or personal hygiene tools and come up with sexier names to sell their ideas to their potential pimps or customers .
The one with the brains does n't always wear the pants - or hold the wallet - and most pimps and customers are already set in their ways .
Hate to break it to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok - I'm no MS or IBM or Open Source advocate - I "swing" both ways.
However, one of the reasons business don't like to adopt Linux is that the names of these technologies just aren't sexy enough... who wants to tell their CEO that they need to FLOSS?
What kind of an acromyn is that?
Geeky enough?
Every time I see that name I want to strap some suspenders to my pants and hike them up to my tits then tape my Polo glasses with duct tape and grow a mullet.
The Open Source community should take some marketing lessons and stop naming their software after their pets or personal hygiene tools and come up with sexier names to sell their ideas to their potential pimps or customers.
The one with the brains doesn't always wear the pants - or hold the wallet - and most pimps and customers are already set in their ways.
Hate to break it to you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28536687</id>
	<title>Re:Only Proprietary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246366500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ohhh please. People say this and I haven't seen it. Where is this malware?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ohhh please .
People say this and I have n't seen it .
Where is this malware ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ohhh please.
People say this and I haven't seen it.
Where is this malware?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28536025</id>
	<title>TCRL:  Total Cost of Ruined Lives?</title>
	<author>Requiem18th</author>
	<datestamp>1246362900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFS only mentions the cost of cleaning Windows from malware, what about the cost of the malware attack itself? Personalities stolen, bank accounts emptied, privacies destroyed, files lost in locked hard disks or simply fubared.</p><p>I'd add that to the TCO of Windows too!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFS only mentions the cost of cleaning Windows from malware , what about the cost of the malware attack itself ?
Personalities stolen , bank accounts emptied , privacies destroyed , files lost in locked hard disks or simply fubared.I 'd add that to the TCO of Windows too !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFS only mentions the cost of cleaning Windows from malware, what about the cost of the malware attack itself?
Personalities stolen, bank accounts emptied, privacies destroyed, files lost in locked hard disks or simply fubared.I'd add that to the TCO of Windows too!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28536127</id>
	<title>Re:fw;dr</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1246363440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right, we dont blame the victim here. Sure the patch came in October and Conficker spread in January. No siree, we cant blame their IT dept for slacking, its all someone else's fault.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , we dont blame the victim here .
Sure the patch came in October and Conficker spread in January .
No siree , we cant blame their IT dept for slacking , its all someone else 's fault .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, we dont blame the victim here.
Sure the patch came in October and Conficker spread in January.
No siree, we cant blame their IT dept for slacking, its all someone else's fault.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534251</id>
	<title>Don't have any Karma but...</title>
	<author>FatJuggles</author>
	<datestamp>1246354140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll say it anyway.  Man, shut the f*ck up already!</p><p>I get that this is Slahdot and bitching is a way of life here, but can we please just put this shit to rest.  People use whatever technology is good for them.  Each has costs, each has benefits, each has security issues, each has usability issues, each has moron users, each has technical users that can hack it to make it work, each is attacked by criminals to exploit, each can be used by governments where they see fit, each can be used by non-profits where it fits, and each can cost whatever the f*ckin' money it wants, each can be bought by whomever in a box, DVD, flash drive, ftp, torrent, or whatever...</p><p>I like to see lists of how your use of it has benefited you..."I use it and I like it because I can do x,y, and z which is what I needed"  This shit of, "your dick is small so we can't really talk about my man-boobs" argument is starting to annoy me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll say it anyway .
Man , shut the f * ck up already ! I get that this is Slahdot and bitching is a way of life here , but can we please just put this shit to rest .
People use whatever technology is good for them .
Each has costs , each has benefits , each has security issues , each has usability issues , each has moron users , each has technical users that can hack it to make it work , each is attacked by criminals to exploit , each can be used by governments where they see fit , each can be used by non-profits where it fits , and each can cost whatever the f * ckin ' money it wants , each can be bought by whomever in a box , DVD , flash drive , ftp , torrent , or whatever...I like to see lists of how your use of it has benefited you... " I use it and I like it because I can do x,y , and z which is what I needed " This shit of , " your dick is small so we ca n't really talk about my man-boobs " argument is starting to annoy me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll say it anyway.
Man, shut the f*ck up already!I get that this is Slahdot and bitching is a way of life here, but can we please just put this shit to rest.
People use whatever technology is good for them.
Each has costs, each has benefits, each has security issues, each has usability issues, each has moron users, each has technical users that can hack it to make it work, each is attacked by criminals to exploit, each can be used by governments where they see fit, each can be used by non-profits where it fits, and each can cost whatever the f*ckin' money it wants, each can be bought by whomever in a box, DVD, flash drive, ftp, torrent, or whatever...I like to see lists of how your use of it has benefited you..."I use it and I like it because I can do x,y, and z which is what I needed"  This shit of, "your dick is small so we can't really talk about my man-boobs" argument is starting to annoy me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534355</id>
	<title>Re:fw;dr</title>
	<author>MrLogic17</author>
	<datestamp>1246354500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Flame war indeed.</p><p>A properly configured business Microsoft network doesn't get malware infections. (Spam filter, firewall, non-work sites blocked, anti-virus, desktops running as non-admin)</p><p>An improperly configured *nix network can be hit by malware.  Nuts, even Macs with a wide-open unrestructed Internet connection are going to get into trouble.</p><p>Therefore, your TCO for malware is dependent on the ability of your friendly local admin - not the OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flame war indeed.A properly configured business Microsoft network does n't get malware infections .
( Spam filter , firewall , non-work sites blocked , anti-virus , desktops running as non-admin ) An improperly configured * nix network can be hit by malware .
Nuts , even Macs with a wide-open unrestructed Internet connection are going to get into trouble.Therefore , your TCO for malware is dependent on the ability of your friendly local admin - not the OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flame war indeed.A properly configured business Microsoft network doesn't get malware infections.
(Spam filter, firewall, non-work sites blocked, anti-virus, desktops running as non-admin)An improperly configured *nix network can be hit by malware.
Nuts, even Macs with a wide-open unrestructed Internet connection are going to get into trouble.Therefore, your TCO for malware is dependent on the ability of your friendly local admin - not the OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534609</id>
	<title>Cleaning up Conficker?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246355580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's funny. I followed the instructions at trendmicro.com which involved stopping the dnscache service via the command-line and running a web-based scanner. For an enterprise where Internet access might compromise the domain, you could have used Trend Micro's retail products.</p><p>Still, it wasn't very hard.</p><p>--Sam</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's funny .
I followed the instructions at trendmicro.com which involved stopping the dnscache service via the command-line and running a web-based scanner .
For an enterprise where Internet access might compromise the domain , you could have used Trend Micro 's retail products.Still , it was n't very hard.--Sam</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's funny.
I followed the instructions at trendmicro.com which involved stopping the dnscache service via the command-line and running a web-based scanner.
For an enterprise where Internet access might compromise the domain, you could have used Trend Micro's retail products.Still, it wasn't very hard.--Sam</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535111</id>
	<title>Re:There's hidden costs to everything</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246358100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or we can continue repeating the FUD and lock out the competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or we can continue repeating the FUD and lock out the competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or we can continue repeating the FUD and lock out the competition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535501</id>
	<title>The hidden cost of more adoption</title>
	<author>ithellion</author>
	<datestamp>1246360200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about the hidden cost of more malware written for linux as adoption increases? Haha</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the hidden cost of more malware written for linux as adoption increases ?
Haha</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the hidden cost of more malware written for linux as adoption increases?
Haha</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28540647</id>
	<title>Re:There's hidden costs to everything</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246452960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about the cost of migration from XP to Vista/7?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the cost of migration from XP to Vista/7 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the cost of migration from XP to Vista/7?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534101</id>
	<title>Re:There's hidden costs to everything</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246353480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> It's interesting in the article relating to the City of Munich, that they found the TCO (for them) to use Linux would in fact be higher than Microsoft, but the cost of vendor lock-in was considered to be a high enough TCO factor, it outweighed monetary savings.</p><p>
&nbsp; Governments and businesses mave have different priorities, but the issue and costs of vendor lock-in are important when calculating TCO also.</p><p>
&nbsp; With a move towards storing everything electronically (even Government documents like tax forms), consider a DMS full of documents in a format that is no longer supported by the vendor... and the headaches that eventuality would cause.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's interesting in the article relating to the City of Munich , that they found the TCO ( for them ) to use Linux would in fact be higher than Microsoft , but the cost of vendor lock-in was considered to be a high enough TCO factor , it outweighed monetary savings .
  Governments and businesses mave have different priorities , but the issue and costs of vendor lock-in are important when calculating TCO also .
  With a move towards storing everything electronically ( even Government documents like tax forms ) , consider a DMS full of documents in a format that is no longer supported by the vendor... and the headaches that eventuality would cause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It's interesting in the article relating to the City of Munich, that they found the TCO (for them) to use Linux would in fact be higher than Microsoft, but the cost of vendor lock-in was considered to be a high enough TCO factor, it outweighed monetary savings.
  Governments and businesses mave have different priorities, but the issue and costs of vendor lock-in are important when calculating TCO also.
  With a move towards storing everything electronically (even Government documents like tax forms), consider a DMS full of documents in a format that is no longer supported by the vendor... and the headaches that eventuality would cause.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533711</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246395180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe it's a strength that Linux is used less. That results in a lower cost of ownership overall for organizations "right now". In the far future, this could change obviously, but nothing suggests that this cost will be larger than that of Microsoft implementations, not by any margin, not any time soon.</p><p>So, as fundamentally correct as your point may be, the story "beats" you because it points out that Closed Source is misrepresenting a lower TCO by not accounting for security issues with the entire solution.</p><p>Close source solution offers "skip over" the windows virus/malware problem, Open Source has a clear answer to it now, and likely in the future. Large contracts should be made evaluating these things thoroughly, and include a real assessment of the validity of these offers, and not just take Joe I.T. Contractor's word for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's a strength that Linux is used less .
That results in a lower cost of ownership overall for organizations " right now " .
In the far future , this could change obviously , but nothing suggests that this cost will be larger than that of Microsoft implementations , not by any margin , not any time soon.So , as fundamentally correct as your point may be , the story " beats " you because it points out that Closed Source is misrepresenting a lower TCO by not accounting for security issues with the entire solution.Close source solution offers " skip over " the windows virus/malware problem , Open Source has a clear answer to it now , and likely in the future .
Large contracts should be made evaluating these things thoroughly , and include a real assessment of the validity of these offers , and not just take Joe I.T .
Contractor 's word for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's a strength that Linux is used less.
That results in a lower cost of ownership overall for organizations "right now".
In the far future, this could change obviously, but nothing suggests that this cost will be larger than that of Microsoft implementations, not by any margin, not any time soon.So, as fundamentally correct as your point may be, the story "beats" you because it points out that Closed Source is misrepresenting a lower TCO by not accounting for security issues with the entire solution.Close source solution offers "skip over" the windows virus/malware problem, Open Source has a clear answer to it now, and likely in the future.
Large contracts should be made evaluating these things thoroughly, and include a real assessment of the validity of these offers, and not just take Joe I.T.
Contractor's word for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535191</id>
	<title>Re:Cheaper to prevent than fix</title>
	<author>jimicus</author>
	<datestamp>1246358520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You would be <b>amazed</b> - and, I guarantee, disturbed at some of the total morons in this world masquerading as sysadmins.</p><p>The thing is, it's hard to spot them in the hour or so that's available in a typical interview, and a large number of IT managers don't know how to spot them once they've got the job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You would be amazed - and , I guarantee , disturbed at some of the total morons in this world masquerading as sysadmins.The thing is , it 's hard to spot them in the hour or so that 's available in a typical interview , and a large number of IT managers do n't know how to spot them once they 've got the job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You would be amazed - and, I guarantee, disturbed at some of the total morons in this world masquerading as sysadmins.The thing is, it's hard to spot them in the hour or so that's available in a typical interview, and a large number of IT managers don't know how to spot them once they've got the job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534619</id>
	<title>Malware is beside the point</title>
	<author>loudmax</author>
	<datestamp>1246355640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The cost of malware is beside the point.  MS has improved security in their product tremendously over the past several years.  It's now possible for a competent admin to run a secure Windows server.  But the social cost of a monopoly software vendor is larger and the price is more deeply hidden.  For a typical small business that wants to run an office suite that's interoperable with their customers and vendors and perhaps some piece of third party software that's relevant to their line of business, there just isn't much choice.  Their options are:</p><p>
&nbsp; * Macs (since MS supports their office suite on Mac), but they have a single hardware vendor and few options for commercial third party software.<br>
&nbsp; * Open source, which is great for those of us who understand the technology, but not everyone wants to do that for a living.  And commercial third party software options are even fewer.<br>
&nbsp; * Microsoft.</p><p>So for a small business, the choice to go with the dominant software is pretty obvious.  The thing is, the overall benefits of using MS software have little to do with technical merit.  MS is better at some things and worse at others.  By far and large, their main advantage is they control so much of the ecosystem.</p><p>The cost here is born by society.  MS software may be far better than it was a decade ago, but to think that the market is better served by a single vendor than by competitive free enterprise is to ignore centuries of economic history.  So an individual business may save money by going with the flow, but the economy overall suffers from the lack of choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The cost of malware is beside the point .
MS has improved security in their product tremendously over the past several years .
It 's now possible for a competent admin to run a secure Windows server .
But the social cost of a monopoly software vendor is larger and the price is more deeply hidden .
For a typical small business that wants to run an office suite that 's interoperable with their customers and vendors and perhaps some piece of third party software that 's relevant to their line of business , there just is n't much choice .
Their options are :   * Macs ( since MS supports their office suite on Mac ) , but they have a single hardware vendor and few options for commercial third party software .
  * Open source , which is great for those of us who understand the technology , but not everyone wants to do that for a living .
And commercial third party software options are even fewer .
  * Microsoft.So for a small business , the choice to go with the dominant software is pretty obvious .
The thing is , the overall benefits of using MS software have little to do with technical merit .
MS is better at some things and worse at others .
By far and large , their main advantage is they control so much of the ecosystem.The cost here is born by society .
MS software may be far better than it was a decade ago , but to think that the market is better served by a single vendor than by competitive free enterprise is to ignore centuries of economic history .
So an individual business may save money by going with the flow , but the economy overall suffers from the lack of choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cost of malware is beside the point.
MS has improved security in their product tremendously over the past several years.
It's now possible for a competent admin to run a secure Windows server.
But the social cost of a monopoly software vendor is larger and the price is more deeply hidden.
For a typical small business that wants to run an office suite that's interoperable with their customers and vendors and perhaps some piece of third party software that's relevant to their line of business, there just isn't much choice.
Their options are:
  * Macs (since MS supports their office suite on Mac), but they have a single hardware vendor and few options for commercial third party software.
  * Open source, which is great for those of us who understand the technology, but not everyone wants to do that for a living.
And commercial third party software options are even fewer.
  * Microsoft.So for a small business, the choice to go with the dominant software is pretty obvious.
The thing is, the overall benefits of using MS software have little to do with technical merit.
MS is better at some things and worse at others.
By far and large, their main advantage is they control so much of the ecosystem.The cost here is born by society.
MS software may be far better than it was a decade ago, but to think that the market is better served by a single vendor than by competitive free enterprise is to ignore centuries of economic history.
So an individual business may save money by going with the flow, but the economy overall suffers from the lack of choice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533749</id>
	<title>I have an idea</title>
	<author>joeytmann</author>
	<datestamp>1246395360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about patching your systems in a timely manner so you don't have to suffer through these reactionary costs? The patch for the exploit conficker used was released in Nov 08. When did conficker start spreading around, Jan 09? Just saying.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about patching your systems in a timely manner so you do n't have to suffer through these reactionary costs ?
The patch for the exploit conficker used was released in Nov 08 .
When did conficker start spreading around , Jan 09 ?
Just saying.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about patching your systems in a timely manner so you don't have to suffer through these reactionary costs?
The patch for the exploit conficker used was released in Nov 08.
When did conficker start spreading around, Jan 09?
Just saying.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533735</id>
	<title>I've seen it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246395300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Labor to image a PC: 10 minutes</p><p>Time to actually image and install software: 1 hour, unattended</p><p>Time spent explaining to a user that they should NOT install WeatherBug right after I re-image them for installing WeatherBug: until I ran out of breath</p><p>Time spent explaining to a user that imaging will not cause them to lose the contents of drive U: in one case, a 30-minute lecture followed by weeks of her refusal to allow anything to be done to "her" PC, causing her to then claim that my refusal to solve her problem cost her 60 hours of productivity from a barely-working PC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Labor to image a PC : 10 minutesTime to actually image and install software : 1 hour , unattendedTime spent explaining to a user that they should NOT install WeatherBug right after I re-image them for installing WeatherBug : until I ran out of breathTime spent explaining to a user that imaging will not cause them to lose the contents of drive U : in one case , a 30-minute lecture followed by weeks of her refusal to allow anything to be done to " her " PC , causing her to then claim that my refusal to solve her problem cost her 60 hours of productivity from a barely-working PC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Labor to image a PC: 10 minutesTime to actually image and install software: 1 hour, unattendedTime spent explaining to a user that they should NOT install WeatherBug right after I re-image them for installing WeatherBug: until I ran out of breathTime spent explaining to a user that imaging will not cause them to lose the contents of drive U: in one case, a 30-minute lecture followed by weeks of her refusal to allow anything to be done to "her" PC, causing her to then claim that my refusal to solve her problem cost her 60 hours of productivity from a barely-working PC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535291</id>
	<title>Conficker was patched</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246359120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So it really should be 'The Hidden Cost of Hiring People Who Don't Apply Patches'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So it really should be 'The Hidden Cost of Hiring People Who Do n't Apply Patches'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it really should be 'The Hidden Cost of Hiring People Who Don't Apply Patches'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535313</id>
	<title>Re:Cheaper to prevent than fix</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246359240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amen to that.  However, as an IT that was involved in the cleanup and prevention, I must say that there is no perfect solution for mass deployment of critical patches in a corporate environment.</p><p>Truth is, conficker was incredibly easy to clean up when an infection did occur.  All of the information/software/patches needed to contain and remove the virus were freely available.</p><p>To say that Manchester needs better support/management doesn't do justice to the underlying issues.  Laziness and willful ignorance.  Good job Manchester, hope you guys have replaced that support staff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen to that .
However , as an IT that was involved in the cleanup and prevention , I must say that there is no perfect solution for mass deployment of critical patches in a corporate environment.Truth is , conficker was incredibly easy to clean up when an infection did occur .
All of the information/software/patches needed to contain and remove the virus were freely available.To say that Manchester needs better support/management does n't do justice to the underlying issues .
Laziness and willful ignorance .
Good job Manchester , hope you guys have replaced that support staff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen to that.
However, as an IT that was involved in the cleanup and prevention, I must say that there is no perfect solution for mass deployment of critical patches in a corporate environment.Truth is, conficker was incredibly easy to clean up when an infection did occur.
All of the information/software/patches needed to contain and remove the virus were freely available.To say that Manchester needs better support/management doesn't do justice to the underlying issues.
Laziness and willful ignorance.
Good job Manchester, hope you guys have replaced that support staff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533989</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>Jamie's Nightmare</author>
	<datestamp>1246353120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The default user configuration on Windows in a home environment is that any user has administrative rights...</p></div><p>That <b> <i>was</i> </b> the default, but since Vista that has no longer been the case.  It's also incorrect to assume that users won't elevate privileges on any system to install software they <b> <i>think</i> </b> is legitimate or useful to them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The default user configuration on Windows in a home environment is that any user has administrative rights...That was the default , but since Vista that has no longer been the case .
It 's also incorrect to assume that users wo n't elevate privileges on any system to install software they think is legitimate or useful to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The default user configuration on Windows in a home environment is that any user has administrative rights...That  was  the default, but since Vista that has no longer been the case.
It's also incorrect to assume that users won't elevate privileges on any system to install software they  think  is legitimate or useful to them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533893</id>
	<title>Not mentioned</title>
	<author>Tawnos</author>
	<datestamp>1246352700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For slashdot readers, the not so hidden cost of using microsoft software is the stream of FUD coming from editor kdawson.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For slashdot readers , the not so hidden cost of using microsoft software is the stream of FUD coming from editor kdawson .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For slashdot readers, the not so hidden cost of using microsoft software is the stream of FUD coming from editor kdawson.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538099</id>
	<title>Interesting</title>
	<author>CaptainTux</author>
	<datestamp>1246377900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It always baffles me how supposedly good tech people can jump on whatever bandwagon happens to be popular at the time. Take, for example, the 'Let's Hate Microsoft' one that currently seems to be all the rage.
<p>
I've been involved with computers since I was 9 years old (I'm 34 now) and I've used Windows since its very earliest version. When I was a noob, I got viruses and was hit by just about every worm that went around. Then, I took the time to learn about good computing habits, proper  security, and sensible practices.
</p><p>
On my Windows XP systems I don't run an AV at all, I run Internet Explorer 8, I use Outlook, and all the other supposedly 'deadly' things that make Windows so insecure and dangerous. I occasionally will download an AV and anti-malware programs 'just to be sure' always expecting to find stuff. You know what? I never do!
</p><p>
In the last five to eight years, I have *never* had a virus or worm hit my computer. I don't get spyware, I don't have popups all over the place, and I don't have those ungodly messes of toolbars that you see many Windows users having on IE. Why? Because I took the time to learn proper security, best practices, and don't do stupid stuff. I also keep my system patched.
</p><p>
The fact is that a properly patched, secured, and managed Windows system is just as secure and stable as Linux. So then, why does it seem so many Windows systems seem to fall under the crush of malware?
</p><p>
Users.
</p><p>
Look at the statistics. For most of the major viruses and worms that have been out in the last few years, Microsoft has often had a patch available for the vulnerability they exploited before the software was in the wild. Sometimes, they've had patches available for months or even years. Yet users who listen to the anti-Microsoft drivel of 'they're trying to sneak stuff on your computer' become so paranoid that they choose to either turn off auto-update or they 'selectively' choose 'safe' updates without a good understanding of what the others do. The upshot is that they, through their actions, leave their systems vulnerable.
</p><p>
Now, to be totally fair, I'm also a Linux user (desktop and server Ubuntu and a few Fedora systems) and they are pretty rock solid. But it's easy to say how secure you are when you're in the minority and nobody cares enough to really attack you by writing malware for your platform. Linux also tends to attract a more sophisticated and technically savvy user base than Windows so it's a bit dishonest to compare the two. If all Windows users suddenly migrated to Linux and brought their computing practices along with them, guess what? We'd see a LOT of problems with Linux systems too. So, no, comparing isn't totally honest. But, if we are, we can *easily* find examples of vulnerabilities that were exploited in *nix software and used to own systems.
</p><p>
The simple fact is that *no* operating system, Windows or otherwise, is secure until you choose to make it secure.  It doesn't magically happen. USERS have to take the initiative to be proactive about their systems.
</p><p>
It's very popular to jump on the "Let's hate on Microsoft" bandwagon. Everyone seems to be doing it. I've run into a lot of people who told me "Oh I wouldn't use Windows if you paid me. It's crap" yet when I asked them what exactly their complaint was they would mumble something about 'security' but couldn't go into any details. Why do you think that is? It's because they didn't *know* any details! They just heard the rhetoric and thought spewing it forward made them seem knowledgeable and cool.
</p><p>
It doesn't. It makes them sound stupid and uninformed.
</p><p>
So consider this: next time you want to talk about how much you hate Windows, ask yourself this: why do *you* personally hate it? Have *you* had bad experiences with it or have you just read all the hype and made your decision based on that? Have you educated yourself about proper system care and management?
</p><p>
If not, look into it. I think you'll find Microsoft is doing a pretty bang up job with security these days. The chants of 'Linux is going to OWN Windows' are fading away.
</p><p>
I love Linux but I can't say I hate to see the zealots go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It always baffles me how supposedly good tech people can jump on whatever bandwagon happens to be popular at the time .
Take , for example , the 'Let 's Hate Microsoft ' one that currently seems to be all the rage .
I 've been involved with computers since I was 9 years old ( I 'm 34 now ) and I 've used Windows since its very earliest version .
When I was a noob , I got viruses and was hit by just about every worm that went around .
Then , I took the time to learn about good computing habits , proper security , and sensible practices .
On my Windows XP systems I do n't run an AV at all , I run Internet Explorer 8 , I use Outlook , and all the other supposedly 'deadly ' things that make Windows so insecure and dangerous .
I occasionally will download an AV and anti-malware programs 'just to be sure ' always expecting to find stuff .
You know what ?
I never do !
In the last five to eight years , I have * never * had a virus or worm hit my computer .
I do n't get spyware , I do n't have popups all over the place , and I do n't have those ungodly messes of toolbars that you see many Windows users having on IE .
Why ? Because I took the time to learn proper security , best practices , and do n't do stupid stuff .
I also keep my system patched .
The fact is that a properly patched , secured , and managed Windows system is just as secure and stable as Linux .
So then , why does it seem so many Windows systems seem to fall under the crush of malware ?
Users . Look at the statistics .
For most of the major viruses and worms that have been out in the last few years , Microsoft has often had a patch available for the vulnerability they exploited before the software was in the wild .
Sometimes , they 've had patches available for months or even years .
Yet users who listen to the anti-Microsoft drivel of 'they 're trying to sneak stuff on your computer ' become so paranoid that they choose to either turn off auto-update or they 'selectively ' choose 'safe ' updates without a good understanding of what the others do .
The upshot is that they , through their actions , leave their systems vulnerable .
Now , to be totally fair , I 'm also a Linux user ( desktop and server Ubuntu and a few Fedora systems ) and they are pretty rock solid .
But it 's easy to say how secure you are when you 're in the minority and nobody cares enough to really attack you by writing malware for your platform .
Linux also tends to attract a more sophisticated and technically savvy user base than Windows so it 's a bit dishonest to compare the two .
If all Windows users suddenly migrated to Linux and brought their computing practices along with them , guess what ?
We 'd see a LOT of problems with Linux systems too .
So , no , comparing is n't totally honest .
But , if we are , we can * easily * find examples of vulnerabilities that were exploited in * nix software and used to own systems .
The simple fact is that * no * operating system , Windows or otherwise , is secure until you choose to make it secure .
It does n't magically happen .
USERS have to take the initiative to be proactive about their systems .
It 's very popular to jump on the " Let 's hate on Microsoft " bandwagon .
Everyone seems to be doing it .
I 've run into a lot of people who told me " Oh I would n't use Windows if you paid me .
It 's crap " yet when I asked them what exactly their complaint was they would mumble something about 'security ' but could n't go into any details .
Why do you think that is ?
It 's because they did n't * know * any details !
They just heard the rhetoric and thought spewing it forward made them seem knowledgeable and cool .
It does n't .
It makes them sound stupid and uninformed .
So consider this : next time you want to talk about how much you hate Windows , ask yourself this : why do * you * personally hate it ?
Have * you * had bad experiences with it or have you just read all the hype and made your decision based on that ?
Have you educated yourself about proper system care and management ?
If not , look into it .
I think you 'll find Microsoft is doing a pretty bang up job with security these days .
The chants of 'Linux is going to OWN Windows ' are fading away .
I love Linux but I ca n't say I hate to see the zealots go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It always baffles me how supposedly good tech people can jump on whatever bandwagon happens to be popular at the time.
Take, for example, the 'Let's Hate Microsoft' one that currently seems to be all the rage.
I've been involved with computers since I was 9 years old (I'm 34 now) and I've used Windows since its very earliest version.
When I was a noob, I got viruses and was hit by just about every worm that went around.
Then, I took the time to learn about good computing habits, proper  security, and sensible practices.
On my Windows XP systems I don't run an AV at all, I run Internet Explorer 8, I use Outlook, and all the other supposedly 'deadly' things that make Windows so insecure and dangerous.
I occasionally will download an AV and anti-malware programs 'just to be sure' always expecting to find stuff.
You know what?
I never do!
In the last five to eight years, I have *never* had a virus or worm hit my computer.
I don't get spyware, I don't have popups all over the place, and I don't have those ungodly messes of toolbars that you see many Windows users having on IE.
Why? Because I took the time to learn proper security, best practices, and don't do stupid stuff.
I also keep my system patched.
The fact is that a properly patched, secured, and managed Windows system is just as secure and stable as Linux.
So then, why does it seem so many Windows systems seem to fall under the crush of malware?
Users.

Look at the statistics.
For most of the major viruses and worms that have been out in the last few years, Microsoft has often had a patch available for the vulnerability they exploited before the software was in the wild.
Sometimes, they've had patches available for months or even years.
Yet users who listen to the anti-Microsoft drivel of 'they're trying to sneak stuff on your computer' become so paranoid that they choose to either turn off auto-update or they 'selectively' choose 'safe' updates without a good understanding of what the others do.
The upshot is that they, through their actions, leave their systems vulnerable.
Now, to be totally fair, I'm also a Linux user (desktop and server Ubuntu and a few Fedora systems) and they are pretty rock solid.
But it's easy to say how secure you are when you're in the minority and nobody cares enough to really attack you by writing malware for your platform.
Linux also tends to attract a more sophisticated and technically savvy user base than Windows so it's a bit dishonest to compare the two.
If all Windows users suddenly migrated to Linux and brought their computing practices along with them, guess what?
We'd see a LOT of problems with Linux systems too.
So, no, comparing isn't totally honest.
But, if we are, we can *easily* find examples of vulnerabilities that were exploited in *nix software and used to own systems.
The simple fact is that *no* operating system, Windows or otherwise, is secure until you choose to make it secure.
It doesn't magically happen.
USERS have to take the initiative to be proactive about their systems.
It's very popular to jump on the "Let's hate on Microsoft" bandwagon.
Everyone seems to be doing it.
I've run into a lot of people who told me "Oh I wouldn't use Windows if you paid me.
It's crap" yet when I asked them what exactly their complaint was they would mumble something about 'security' but couldn't go into any details.
Why do you think that is?
It's because they didn't *know* any details!
They just heard the rhetoric and thought spewing it forward made them seem knowledgeable and cool.
It doesn't.
It makes them sound stupid and uninformed.
So consider this: next time you want to talk about how much you hate Windows, ask yourself this: why do *you* personally hate it?
Have *you* had bad experiences with it or have you just read all the hype and made your decision based on that?
Have you educated yourself about proper system care and management?
If not, look into it.
I think you'll find Microsoft is doing a pretty bang up job with security these days.
The chants of 'Linux is going to OWN Windows' are fading away.
I love Linux but I can't say I hate to see the zealots go.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535601</id>
	<title>Re:Other hidden costs.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246360740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It takes 5 minutes to figure out how the ribbon works.  If you can't do it any quicker, you don't need to be using a computer as part of your job description.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It takes 5 minutes to figure out how the ribbon works .
If you ca n't do it any quicker , you do n't need to be using a computer as part of your job description .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It takes 5 minutes to figure out how the ribbon works.
If you can't do it any quicker, you don't need to be using a computer as part of your job description.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533975</id>
	<title>Fail.</title>
	<author>cyberfr0g</author>
	<datestamp>1246353000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TCO is not calculated to include misconfigurations and improper use.</p><p>Viruses are not a function of the operating system but simply a result of misconfiguration and or improper use.</p><p>I look forward to the day when linux kids get hit with something really bad that is impossible to remove and results in massive $$ to clean.</p><p>If anything you should be happy that you haven't been properly targeted yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TCO is not calculated to include misconfigurations and improper use.Viruses are not a function of the operating system but simply a result of misconfiguration and or improper use.I look forward to the day when linux kids get hit with something really bad that is impossible to remove and results in massive $ $ to clean.If anything you should be happy that you have n't been properly targeted yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TCO is not calculated to include misconfigurations and improper use.Viruses are not a function of the operating system but simply a result of misconfiguration and or improper use.I look forward to the day when linux kids get hit with something really bad that is impossible to remove and results in massive $$ to clean.If anything you should be happy that you haven't been properly targeted yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28536079</id>
	<title>What hidden cost?</title>
	<author>CherniyVolk</author>
	<datestamp>1246363140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suppose people think that complexity is some how better or more indicative of truth... because why are we trying to battle on these obscure money-lenders' rationale of governing costs of software?  It's simple, linux is downloaded for free, and to get Windows alone is what.. 199.95?  Oh, and how much for Photoshop?  Oh, maybe add Maya, and then perhaps some VM software?  Because, we all know that Windows by itself, out of the box, is rather limited.  Add in a full blown development environment... oh, yes and Microsoft Office I presume yes?</p><p>TCO is bullshit.  Windows has a price tag greater than 0.  No matter how complex or convoluted you get, no matter how many lawyers with fantasy rationale obfuscating the obvious, no matter what is said or how it's said... any price on Windows is always going to be more expensive than free.</p><p>Cost of operation?  How much wasted time do you think has been put into trying to figure out mundane tasks in Office 2007?  Might as well be a completely new product, Open Office which clearly is a different product is more familiar to a previous Office user than 2007 is.  TCO accounts for "training" as their defense?  They are shooting them in the foot.  I mean, you always have "training" with new software.  Sometimes you have it with just bug-fixes or upgrades.  Some of us, it might only be "familiarizing", but others who are so dead set in a routine to complete a task will struggle for sure.</p><p>What is it, about TCO, is relevant, useful.... real?  Keep that to yourself, I've read all the garbage.  Bottom line is there's really nothing governing this bullshit "TCO" philosophy, any more in favor of Microsoft than any other software or product for that matter.  The real fact is the real numbers.  199.95 for retail Windows.  And then tally up all the numbers that would make your "Windows" installation, and all the third party software, "legal".  There's your real cost, there's the obvious cost.</p><p>How much do you think it would cost to have a legit Windows box?  5,000 USD total in software costs?</p><p>No, better yet.  How much would a Windows box cost, purchasing all of the commercial software available that would enable the Windows user to do what the typical Linux installation can do?  I mean, I have photo editing software, 3D renderers galore... office suites, every server imaginable, VM software, conversion tools... jesus my box is Linux... nuff said.  My Windows box would break the bank paying for and installing only a fraction of the capabilities in commercial software.</p><p>Now, site wide licenses, think organization size... thousands of desktops... niche market functionality... dear god.  TCO is the least of your worries it seems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose people think that complexity is some how better or more indicative of truth... because why are we trying to battle on these obscure money-lenders ' rationale of governing costs of software ?
It 's simple , linux is downloaded for free , and to get Windows alone is what.. 199.95 ? Oh , and how much for Photoshop ?
Oh , maybe add Maya , and then perhaps some VM software ?
Because , we all know that Windows by itself , out of the box , is rather limited .
Add in a full blown development environment... oh , yes and Microsoft Office I presume yes ? TCO is bullshit .
Windows has a price tag greater than 0 .
No matter how complex or convoluted you get , no matter how many lawyers with fantasy rationale obfuscating the obvious , no matter what is said or how it 's said... any price on Windows is always going to be more expensive than free.Cost of operation ?
How much wasted time do you think has been put into trying to figure out mundane tasks in Office 2007 ?
Might as well be a completely new product , Open Office which clearly is a different product is more familiar to a previous Office user than 2007 is .
TCO accounts for " training " as their defense ?
They are shooting them in the foot .
I mean , you always have " training " with new software .
Sometimes you have it with just bug-fixes or upgrades .
Some of us , it might only be " familiarizing " , but others who are so dead set in a routine to complete a task will struggle for sure.What is it , about TCO , is relevant , useful.... real ? Keep that to yourself , I 've read all the garbage .
Bottom line is there 's really nothing governing this bullshit " TCO " philosophy , any more in favor of Microsoft than any other software or product for that matter .
The real fact is the real numbers .
199.95 for retail Windows .
And then tally up all the numbers that would make your " Windows " installation , and all the third party software , " legal " .
There 's your real cost , there 's the obvious cost.How much do you think it would cost to have a legit Windows box ?
5,000 USD total in software costs ? No , better yet .
How much would a Windows box cost , purchasing all of the commercial software available that would enable the Windows user to do what the typical Linux installation can do ?
I mean , I have photo editing software , 3D renderers galore... office suites , every server imaginable , VM software , conversion tools... jesus my box is Linux... nuff said .
My Windows box would break the bank paying for and installing only a fraction of the capabilities in commercial software.Now , site wide licenses , think organization size... thousands of desktops... niche market functionality... dear god .
TCO is the least of your worries it seems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose people think that complexity is some how better or more indicative of truth... because why are we trying to battle on these obscure money-lenders' rationale of governing costs of software?
It's simple, linux is downloaded for free, and to get Windows alone is what.. 199.95?  Oh, and how much for Photoshop?
Oh, maybe add Maya, and then perhaps some VM software?
Because, we all know that Windows by itself, out of the box, is rather limited.
Add in a full blown development environment... oh, yes and Microsoft Office I presume yes?TCO is bullshit.
Windows has a price tag greater than 0.
No matter how complex or convoluted you get, no matter how many lawyers with fantasy rationale obfuscating the obvious, no matter what is said or how it's said... any price on Windows is always going to be more expensive than free.Cost of operation?
How much wasted time do you think has been put into trying to figure out mundane tasks in Office 2007?
Might as well be a completely new product, Open Office which clearly is a different product is more familiar to a previous Office user than 2007 is.
TCO accounts for "training" as their defense?
They are shooting them in the foot.
I mean, you always have "training" with new software.
Sometimes you have it with just bug-fixes or upgrades.
Some of us, it might only be "familiarizing", but others who are so dead set in a routine to complete a task will struggle for sure.What is it, about TCO, is relevant, useful.... real?  Keep that to yourself, I've read all the garbage.
Bottom line is there's really nothing governing this bullshit "TCO" philosophy, any more in favor of Microsoft than any other software or product for that matter.
The real fact is the real numbers.
199.95 for retail Windows.
And then tally up all the numbers that would make your "Windows" installation, and all the third party software, "legal".
There's your real cost, there's the obvious cost.How much do you think it would cost to have a legit Windows box?
5,000 USD total in software costs?No, better yet.
How much would a Windows box cost, purchasing all of the commercial software available that would enable the Windows user to do what the typical Linux installation can do?
I mean, I have photo editing software, 3D renderers galore... office suites, every server imaginable, VM software, conversion tools... jesus my box is Linux... nuff said.
My Windows box would break the bank paying for and installing only a fraction of the capabilities in commercial software.Now, site wide licenses, think organization size... thousands of desktops... niche market functionality... dear god.
TCO is the least of your worries it seems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28536737</id>
	<title>Re:Only Proprietary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246366740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's cheaper to re-install the damnd thing. You don't have to buy extra licenses, or buy licenses that allow you to install it multiple times.<br>I'd be able to clean an entire enterprise system in one day, as long as they have sufficient backups. And it'd be at 1/1000th of the cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's cheaper to re-install the damnd thing .
You do n't have to buy extra licenses , or buy licenses that allow you to install it multiple times.I 'd be able to clean an entire enterprise system in one day , as long as they have sufficient backups .
And it 'd be at 1/1000th of the cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's cheaper to re-install the damnd thing.
You don't have to buy extra licenses, or buy licenses that allow you to install it multiple times.I'd be able to clean an entire enterprise system in one day, as long as they have sufficient backups.
And it'd be at 1/1000th of the cost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533677</id>
	<title>Still Better than Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246395000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For all the talk and the BS, Linux is still a very sub-standard operating system compared to Windows.</p><p>Unless you enjoy typing nonsensical commands to accomplish simple tasks, Linux is not for you.</p><p>Save yourself the aggravation and use a real Operating System like Windows or OS X.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For all the talk and the BS , Linux is still a very sub-standard operating system compared to Windows.Unless you enjoy typing nonsensical commands to accomplish simple tasks , Linux is not for you.Save yourself the aggravation and use a real Operating System like Windows or OS X .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For all the talk and the BS, Linux is still a very sub-standard operating system compared to Windows.Unless you enjoy typing nonsensical commands to accomplish simple tasks, Linux is not for you.Save yourself the aggravation and use a real Operating System like Windows or OS X.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534467</id>
	<title>Re:There's hidden costs to everything</title>
	<author>Locutus</author>
	<datestamp>1246354980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>except that when there is a large migration from Windows to Linux then Microsoft comes in and sometimes spends tens of millions keeping them from migrating. Only in a few cases have the migrating parties given MS the finger and continued with their Linux migrations and those were so large that it's a multi-year project and people tend to forget about those quickly. The world still runs mostly on Microsoft because the PHB's feel safe and they are bombarded with reasons why Microsoft is great by Microsoft funded research. And the belief that nobody gets fired for picking Microsoft. They may put the company in the red with all the expenses of that choice but it won't get blamed on the CTO or down that chain. IMO<br>
&nbsp; </p><p>LoB<br>
&nbsp; </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>except that when there is a large migration from Windows to Linux then Microsoft comes in and sometimes spends tens of millions keeping them from migrating .
Only in a few cases have the migrating parties given MS the finger and continued with their Linux migrations and those were so large that it 's a multi-year project and people tend to forget about those quickly .
The world still runs mostly on Microsoft because the PHB 's feel safe and they are bombarded with reasons why Microsoft is great by Microsoft funded research .
And the belief that nobody gets fired for picking Microsoft .
They may put the company in the red with all the expenses of that choice but it wo n't get blamed on the CTO or down that chain .
IMO   LoB  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>except that when there is a large migration from Windows to Linux then Microsoft comes in and sometimes spends tens of millions keeping them from migrating.
Only in a few cases have the migrating parties given MS the finger and continued with their Linux migrations and those were so large that it's a multi-year project and people tend to forget about those quickly.
The world still runs mostly on Microsoft because the PHB's feel safe and they are bombarded with reasons why Microsoft is great by Microsoft funded research.
And the belief that nobody gets fired for picking Microsoft.
They may put the company in the red with all the expenses of that choice but it won't get blamed on the CTO or down that chain.
IMO
  LoB
  </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535051</id>
	<title>Server Vs. Desktop</title>
	<author>ChronoFish</author>
	<datestamp>1246357740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TCO On the desktop is significantly different than TCO on the server.</p><p>On the server you would (should) be less likely to have to worry about trojans, malware, viruses, etc.  This is because the "server" is *typically* not used to read email, surf for porn, or buying shoes from some random fashion website.  I'm sure there are examples of this...but in general....at least in the shops where I've worked, the servers saw very little face time (as in an operator at the keyboard).  On the server side, both *unix and MS have hack issues as highlighted in other posted comments (probably the biggest threat due to the social engineering aspect of hacking).  But actual server viruses are rare.  Net-Worms are a concern (code-red) but then again there are worms and "script-kiddie kits" on both sides.</p><p>The desktop is a different story: virus, bugs, malware, etc is rampant - especially in the MS world (but still exists in the *unix including OSX).  Of course the TCO of the desktop is just one measurement.  Embedded document objects (Excel, visio, paint directly into word, powerpoint, etc) may be vital to your workflow.  While OpenOffice is a great alternative, it's not a drop in replacement for all cases - and that might be an immeasurable sacrifice.</p><p>Unix on the server side / Windows on the desktop (my preference) leads to it's own share of interoperability issues.  They can be resolved - but not if you don't have the knowledge - and knowledge is costly (and adds to TCO).</p><p>-CF</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TCO On the desktop is significantly different than TCO on the server.On the server you would ( should ) be less likely to have to worry about trojans , malware , viruses , etc .
This is because the " server " is * typically * not used to read email , surf for porn , or buying shoes from some random fashion website .
I 'm sure there are examples of this...but in general....at least in the shops where I 've worked , the servers saw very little face time ( as in an operator at the keyboard ) .
On the server side , both * unix and MS have hack issues as highlighted in other posted comments ( probably the biggest threat due to the social engineering aspect of hacking ) .
But actual server viruses are rare .
Net-Worms are a concern ( code-red ) but then again there are worms and " script-kiddie kits " on both sides.The desktop is a different story : virus , bugs , malware , etc is rampant - especially in the MS world ( but still exists in the * unix including OSX ) .
Of course the TCO of the desktop is just one measurement .
Embedded document objects ( Excel , visio , paint directly into word , powerpoint , etc ) may be vital to your workflow .
While OpenOffice is a great alternative , it 's not a drop in replacement for all cases - and that might be an immeasurable sacrifice.Unix on the server side / Windows on the desktop ( my preference ) leads to it 's own share of interoperability issues .
They can be resolved - but not if you do n't have the knowledge - and knowledge is costly ( and adds to TCO ) .-CF</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TCO On the desktop is significantly different than TCO on the server.On the server you would (should) be less likely to have to worry about trojans, malware, viruses, etc.
This is because the "server" is *typically* not used to read email, surf for porn, or buying shoes from some random fashion website.
I'm sure there are examples of this...but in general....at least in the shops where I've worked, the servers saw very little face time (as in an operator at the keyboard).
On the server side, both *unix and MS have hack issues as highlighted in other posted comments (probably the biggest threat due to the social engineering aspect of hacking).
But actual server viruses are rare.
Net-Worms are a concern (code-red) but then again there are worms and "script-kiddie kits" on both sides.The desktop is a different story: virus, bugs, malware, etc is rampant - especially in the MS world (but still exists in the *unix including OSX).
Of course the TCO of the desktop is just one measurement.
Embedded document objects (Excel, visio, paint directly into word, powerpoint, etc) may be vital to your workflow.
While OpenOffice is a great alternative, it's not a drop in replacement for all cases - and that might be an immeasurable sacrifice.Unix on the server side / Windows on the desktop (my preference) leads to it's own share of interoperability issues.
They can be resolved - but not if you don't have the knowledge - and knowledge is costly (and adds to TCO).-CF</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534973</id>
	<title>Actually...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246357260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2.5 million is certainly due to the incompetence of the IT department, when you need external consulting to take a worm of a PC something had gone wrong with your education as IT technician.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2.5 million is certainly due to the incompetence of the IT department , when you need external consulting to take a worm of a PC something had gone wrong with your education as IT technician .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2.5 million is certainly due to the incompetence of the IT department, when you need external consulting to take a worm of a PC something had gone wrong with your education as IT technician.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535715</id>
	<title>Re:Cheaper to prevent than fix</title>
	<author>DMoylan</author>
	<datestamp>1246361280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; if Manchester had upgraded their systems to Vista on the client side...</p><p>so they would have spent the money instead on licences of vista?  that's a saving!  plus most likely having to have their custom software rewritten to run on vista.  more expense.  plus retraining for staff to use vista.  again more expense.  plus if they are like any government agency i've had dealings with all the hardware would need replacing to be able to run vista.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; if Manchester had upgraded their systems to Vista on the client side...so they would have spent the money instead on licences of vista ?
that 's a saving !
plus most likely having to have their custom software rewritten to run on vista .
more expense .
plus retraining for staff to use vista .
again more expense .
plus if they are like any government agency i 've had dealings with all the hardware would need replacing to be able to run vista .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; if Manchester had upgraded their systems to Vista on the client side...so they would have spent the money instead on licences of vista?
that's a saving!
plus most likely having to have their custom software rewritten to run on vista.
more expense.
plus retraining for staff to use vista.
again more expense.
plus if they are like any government agency i've had dealings with all the hardware would need replacing to be able to run vista.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533927</id>
	<title>Oh yeah</title>
	<author>C\_Kode</author>
	<datestamp>1246352820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh yeah?  What about all the time I spend clicking that little update button that keeps popping up on my Ubuntu Desktop?  Huh?  What about that!  That takes away from my<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....  um, web surfing time!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yeah ?
What about all the time I spend clicking that little update button that keeps popping up on my Ubuntu Desktop ?
Huh ? What about that !
That takes away from my .... um , web surfing time !
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yeah?
What about all the time I spend clicking that little update button that keeps popping up on my Ubuntu Desktop?
Huh?  What about that!
That takes away from my ....  um, web surfing time!
:P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535807</id>
	<title>Re:I have an idea</title>
	<author>DaveWick79</author>
	<datestamp>1246361820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At this point those "IT veterans" have to make the calculated choice of risk - whether to introduce issues because of a patch which can be easily rolled back, or introduce a virus which could have been prevented by the patch, which takes hundreds of hours to clean up.<br>Ultimately, regardless of OS, any software patch could potentially introduce issues and in a corporate environment, should be tested before applying them to the entire user base.  It isn't that complicated, anyone waiting 2 months to apply a patch is just lazy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At this point those " IT veterans " have to make the calculated choice of risk - whether to introduce issues because of a patch which can be easily rolled back , or introduce a virus which could have been prevented by the patch , which takes hundreds of hours to clean up.Ultimately , regardless of OS , any software patch could potentially introduce issues and in a corporate environment , should be tested before applying them to the entire user base .
It is n't that complicated , anyone waiting 2 months to apply a patch is just lazy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At this point those "IT veterans" have to make the calculated choice of risk - whether to introduce issues because of a patch which can be easily rolled back, or introduce a virus which could have been prevented by the patch, which takes hundreds of hours to clean up.Ultimately, regardless of OS, any software patch could potentially introduce issues and in a corporate environment, should be tested before applying them to the entire user base.
It isn't that complicated, anyone waiting 2 months to apply a patch is just lazy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533595</id>
	<title>Every dog has its day...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246394700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Linux will have its malware day when it becomes more popular.  Broken interfaces, poor documentation, mediocre support, incompatibilities up the wazoo, but dang...I bet it's secure as hell.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux will have its malware day when it becomes more popular .
Broken interfaces , poor documentation , mediocre support , incompatibilities up the wazoo , but dang...I bet it 's secure as hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux will have its malware day when it becomes more popular.
Broken interfaces, poor documentation, mediocre support, incompatibilities up the wazoo, but dang...I bet it's secure as hell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534337</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>n4djs</author>
	<datestamp>1246354440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What a joke! I just tried this on my wife's Vista laptop. Your two options for account creation are 'administrator' or 'standard account', with 'standard' being the first defaulted choice. The only problem with this is that you can't install software at all with the standard account. Good luck with trying to install Microsoft Office from a standard account...<br> There is so much software out there that simply won't install correctly if the user is not an administrator, I don't even try any more...
<br>And of course, this does nothing for the bulk of Windows home users, running Windows XP. These  are the principal vectors of most malware...</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a joke !
I just tried this on my wife 's Vista laptop .
Your two options for account creation are 'administrator ' or 'standard account ' , with 'standard ' being the first defaulted choice .
The only problem with this is that you ca n't install software at all with the standard account .
Good luck with trying to install Microsoft Office from a standard account... There is so much software out there that simply wo n't install correctly if the user is not an administrator , I do n't even try any more.. . And of course , this does nothing for the bulk of Windows home users , running Windows XP .
These are the principal vectors of most malware.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a joke!
I just tried this on my wife's Vista laptop.
Your two options for account creation are 'administrator' or 'standard account', with 'standard' being the first defaulted choice.
The only problem with this is that you can't install software at all with the standard account.
Good luck with trying to install Microsoft Office from a standard account... There is so much software out there that simply won't install correctly if the user is not an administrator, I don't even try any more...
And of course, this does nothing for the bulk of Windows home users, running Windows XP.
These  are the principal vectors of most malware...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534381</id>
	<title>Re:Only Proprietary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246354620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah...... It's just the ratio of successful malware affecting windoze compared to affecting GNU/Linux is something along the lines of 500 000 000 : 1 or so. It really doesn't make a difference in the TCOs, except on the one side suggested. So please, don't act like a pin head here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah...... It 's just the ratio of successful malware affecting windoze compared to affecting GNU/Linux is something along the lines of 500 000 000 : 1 or so .
It really does n't make a difference in the TCOs , except on the one side suggested .
So please , do n't act like a pin head here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah...... It's just the ratio of successful malware affecting windoze compared to affecting GNU/Linux is something along the lines of 500 000 000 : 1 or so.
It really doesn't make a difference in the TCOs, except on the one side suggested.
So please, don't act like a pin head here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28537135</id>
	<title>RTFA</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1246370100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Manchester study is very low on detail. But from what I can see, it's just a bunch of incompetent admins which did not install security updates in time. Here's a <a href="http://www.manchester.gov.uk/blog/leadersblog/post/246" title="manchester.gov.uk">blog post</a> [manchester.gov.uk] by the leader on the Manchester City Council which mentions the worm problem. It's dated 03/03/2009, and says that the delay between this post and the previous one was (among other things) because of dealing with the worm. Previous post on the same blog is from 16/02, so presumably they got hit by the worm somewhere in February 2009.</p><p>Now let's look at other dates. Conficker itself first appeared in the wild in November 2008. The patch for the vulnerability was already available out-of-band in October 2008, and had since long been rolled into the normal updates. The publicity after Conficker hit was also quite significant, and missing it - especially as an admin - is really inexcusable. But even if one does, so long as they were making regular updates, they would be fine. So, apparently, they weren't doing that.</p><p>Now, do you really think that running <em>any</em> OS, with no security updates being applied for 3 months (at least!), is a smart thing to do?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Manchester study is very low on detail .
But from what I can see , it 's just a bunch of incompetent admins which did not install security updates in time .
Here 's a blog post [ manchester.gov.uk ] by the leader on the Manchester City Council which mentions the worm problem .
It 's dated 03/03/2009 , and says that the delay between this post and the previous one was ( among other things ) because of dealing with the worm .
Previous post on the same blog is from 16/02 , so presumably they got hit by the worm somewhere in February 2009.Now let 's look at other dates .
Conficker itself first appeared in the wild in November 2008 .
The patch for the vulnerability was already available out-of-band in October 2008 , and had since long been rolled into the normal updates .
The publicity after Conficker hit was also quite significant , and missing it - especially as an admin - is really inexcusable .
But even if one does , so long as they were making regular updates , they would be fine .
So , apparently , they were n't doing that.Now , do you really think that running any OS , with no security updates being applied for 3 months ( at least !
) , is a smart thing to do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Manchester study is very low on detail.
But from what I can see, it's just a bunch of incompetent admins which did not install security updates in time.
Here's a blog post [manchester.gov.uk] by the leader on the Manchester City Council which mentions the worm problem.
It's dated 03/03/2009, and says that the delay between this post and the previous one was (among other things) because of dealing with the worm.
Previous post on the same blog is from 16/02, so presumably they got hit by the worm somewhere in February 2009.Now let's look at other dates.
Conficker itself first appeared in the wild in November 2008.
The patch for the vulnerability was already available out-of-band in October 2008, and had since long been rolled into the normal updates.
The publicity after Conficker hit was also quite significant, and missing it - especially as an admin - is really inexcusable.
But even if one does, so long as they were making regular updates, they would be fine.
So, apparently, they weren't doing that.Now, do you really think that running any OS, with no security updates being applied for 3 months (at least!
), is a smart thing to do?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534347</id>
	<title>Re:Only Proprietary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246354440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, if open source solutions like Linux became truly popular, then the folks that spend their hours writing viruses for Microsoft would simply turn their attention to Linux.  It's the cost of being successful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , if open source solutions like Linux became truly popular , then the folks that spend their hours writing viruses for Microsoft would simply turn their attention to Linux .
It 's the cost of being successful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, if open source solutions like Linux became truly popular, then the folks that spend their hours writing viruses for Microsoft would simply turn their attention to Linux.
It's the cost of being successful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28536187</id>
	<title>You were hit hard, but WHY? You can stop it... apk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246363740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><div class="quote"><p><b>"My company was hit pretty hard by the conficker virus."</b> - by goltzc (1284524) on Tuesday June 30, @04:04PM (#28533883)</p></div><p>Whose fault is that? You CAN prevent it, you know (from striking even), by doing a few simple things, such as what is listed here:</p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1159209&amp;cid=27178753" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1159209&amp;cid=27178753</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Regarding "stalling" CONFICKER specifically:</b></p><p>( From <a href="http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=265edfd9cff2fd6ef1993571b23d1598&amp;t=28430&amp;page=3" title="xtremepccentral.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=265edfd9cff2fd6ef1993571b23d1598&amp;t=28430&amp;page=3</a> [xtremepccentral.com] )</p><p>----</p><p>"<b>A.) STALL SERVER SERVICE</b> (if you don't need a LAN/WAN to connect to &amp; all you do is hit the internet on a single standalone machine)...</p><p>AND</p><p><b>B.) It recommends you stall out indiscriminate usage of javascript also!</b></p><p>Between those 2 measures (&amp;, possibly<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,b&gt;ALSO, a HOSTS file that stops access to this CONFICKER worm's control servers -&gt;  <a href="http://forums.opendns.com/comments.php?DiscussionID=3043" title="opendns.com" rel="nofollow">http://forums.opendns.com/comments.php?DiscussionID=3043</a> [opendns.com] which leads to said list here -&gt; <a href="http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/Downadup\_Domain\_Blocklist\_February.txt" title="f-secure.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/Downadup\_Domain\_Blocklist\_February.txt</a> [f-secure.com] )?</p><p>Hey... YOU TELL ME, lol, IF it works, or not..."</p><p>----</p><p>It'll work... <b>addtionally blocking ACL</b> (access control lists) <b>access to the autorun.inf files in the root of you drives helps also</b> (vs. how it spreads from USB sticks etc. et al).</p><p>(Do all of the above, especially if you don't need to be sharing disks/folders/files from your system to users over the public internet or a local LAN/WAN (saving CPU cycles, RAM, &amp;/or other forms of I/O as well you would be otherwise wasting because you are not using what the server service provides, file &amp; print sharing), &amp; it quite literally (@ least theoretically) should "PROOF YOU" vs. this worm).</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; That was regarding the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. article titled (from near when this worm was discovered):</p><p>New Conficker Variant Increases Its Flexibility:</p><p><a href="http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/20/239229" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/20/239229</a> [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org]</p><p>on 02/20/3009 here on this website... apk</p><p>----</p><p><b>And, it works... </b></p><p>Heck, you CAN do without the server service, as a workstation on a LAN/WAN even (because iirc, workstation service allows for MOST of what you'd need anyways), &amp; have full access to its services, like the internet for example, if you wish!</p><p>(HOWEVER - If you have to share files/folders from said system? THEN, you'll NEED the server service active!)</p><p>Otherwise? Not really - server service is NOT required, but you might have to apply your OWN updates though as an end-user minus the server service running, as stalling server service removes accessible shares &amp; such that SERVER service provides!</p><p>(Which might adversely affect SMS &amp; like updating from a central source in a work LAN/WAN environs (that'd be up to you &amp; the user(s) in question though, &amp; what your + THEIR needs are in such a situation)).</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; I put that out, originally @ xtremepccentral.com, &amp; later here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., because it works, on many levels!</p><p>I did so, almost @ the time it began "blowing away" systems all over the place... because it worked!</p><p>Common-sense should have told you, as an administrator (assuming THAT is your role, or that of a network tech/engineer) that those were the simple steps to take (along with detectors to signal a removal candidate, but you never or should NEVER have seen it in the 1st place, if you did the above steps to your Windows NT-based machines)... apk</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" My company was hit pretty hard by the conficker virus .
" - by goltzc ( 1284524 ) on Tuesday June 30 , @ 04 : 04PM ( # 28533883 ) Whose fault is that ?
You CAN prevent it , you know ( from striking even ) , by doing a few simple things , such as what is listed here : http : //it.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1159209&amp;cid = 27178753 [ slashdot.org ] ----Regarding " stalling " CONFICKER specifically : ( From http : //www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php ? s = 265edfd9cff2fd6ef1993571b23d1598&amp;t = 28430&amp;page = 3 [ xtremepccentral.com ] ) ---- " A .
) STALL SERVER SERVICE ( if you do n't need a LAN/WAN to connect to &amp; all you do is hit the internet on a single standalone machine ) ...ANDB .
) It recommends you stall out indiscriminate usage of javascript also ! Between those 2 measures ( &amp; , possibly ,b &gt; ALSO , a HOSTS file that stops access to this CONFICKER worm 's control servers - &gt; http : //forums.opendns.com/comments.php ? DiscussionID = 3043 [ opendns.com ] which leads to said list here - &gt; http : //www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/Downadup \ _Domain \ _Blocklist \ _February.txt [ f-secure.com ] ) ? Hey... YOU TELL ME , lol , IF it works , or not... " ----It 'll work... addtionally blocking ACL ( access control lists ) access to the autorun.inf files in the root of you drives helps also ( vs. how it spreads from USB sticks etc .
et al ) .
( Do all of the above , especially if you do n't need to be sharing disks/folders/files from your system to users over the public internet or a local LAN/WAN ( saving CPU cycles , RAM , &amp;/or other forms of I/O as well you would be otherwise wasting because you are not using what the server service provides , file &amp; print sharing ) , &amp; it quite literally ( @ least theoretically ) should " PROOF YOU " vs. this worm ) .APKP.S. = &gt; That was regarding the / .
article titled ( from near when this worm was discovered ) : New Conficker Variant Increases Its Flexibility : http : //news.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/02/20/239229 [ slashdot.org ] [ slashdot.org ] on 02/20/3009 here on this website... apk----And , it works... Heck , you CAN do without the server service , as a workstation on a LAN/WAN even ( because iirc , workstation service allows for MOST of what you 'd need anyways ) , &amp; have full access to its services , like the internet for example , if you wish !
( HOWEVER - If you have to share files/folders from said system ?
THEN , you 'll NEED the server service active ! ) Otherwise ?
Not really - server service is NOT required , but you might have to apply your OWN updates though as an end-user minus the server service running , as stalling server service removes accessible shares &amp; such that SERVER service provides !
( Which might adversely affect SMS &amp; like updating from a central source in a work LAN/WAN environs ( that 'd be up to you &amp; the user ( s ) in question though , &amp; what your + THEIR needs are in such a situation ) ) .APKP.S. = &gt; I put that out , originally @ xtremepccentral.com , &amp; later here on /. , because it works , on many levels ! I did so , almost @ the time it began " blowing away " systems all over the place... because it worked ! Common-sense should have told you , as an administrator ( assuming THAT is your role , or that of a network tech/engineer ) that those were the simple steps to take ( along with detectors to signal a removal candidate , but you never or should NEVER have seen it in the 1st place , if you did the above steps to your Windows NT-based machines ) ... apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"My company was hit pretty hard by the conficker virus.
" - by goltzc (1284524) on Tuesday June 30, @04:04PM (#28533883)Whose fault is that?
You CAN prevent it, you know (from striking even), by doing a few simple things, such as what is listed here:http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1159209&amp;cid=27178753 [slashdot.org]----Regarding "stalling" CONFICKER specifically:( From http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=265edfd9cff2fd6ef1993571b23d1598&amp;t=28430&amp;page=3 [xtremepccentral.com] )----"A.
) STALL SERVER SERVICE (if you don't need a LAN/WAN to connect to &amp; all you do is hit the internet on a single standalone machine)...ANDB.
) It recommends you stall out indiscriminate usage of javascript also!Between those 2 measures (&amp;, possibly ,b&gt;ALSO, a HOSTS file that stops access to this CONFICKER worm's control servers -&gt;  http://forums.opendns.com/comments.php?DiscussionID=3043 [opendns.com] which leads to said list here -&gt; http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/Downadup\_Domain\_Blocklist\_February.txt [f-secure.com] )?Hey... YOU TELL ME, lol, IF it works, or not..."----It'll work... addtionally blocking ACL (access control lists) access to the autorun.inf files in the root of you drives helps also (vs. how it spreads from USB sticks etc.
et al).
(Do all of the above, especially if you don't need to be sharing disks/folders/files from your system to users over the public internet or a local LAN/WAN (saving CPU cycles, RAM, &amp;/or other forms of I/O as well you would be otherwise wasting because you are not using what the server service provides, file &amp; print sharing), &amp; it quite literally (@ least theoretically) should "PROOF YOU" vs. this worm).APKP.S.=&gt; That was regarding the /.
article titled (from near when this worm was discovered):New Conficker Variant Increases Its Flexibility:http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/20/239229 [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org]on 02/20/3009 here on this website... apk----And, it works... Heck, you CAN do without the server service, as a workstation on a LAN/WAN even (because iirc, workstation service allows for MOST of what you'd need anyways), &amp; have full access to its services, like the internet for example, if you wish!
(HOWEVER - If you have to share files/folders from said system?
THEN, you'll NEED the server service active!)Otherwise?
Not really - server service is NOT required, but you might have to apply your OWN updates though as an end-user minus the server service running, as stalling server service removes accessible shares &amp; such that SERVER service provides!
(Which might adversely affect SMS &amp; like updating from a central source in a work LAN/WAN environs (that'd be up to you &amp; the user(s) in question though, &amp; what your + THEIR needs are in such a situation)).APKP.S.=&gt; I put that out, originally @ xtremepccentral.com, &amp; later here on /., because it works, on many levels!I did so, almost @ the time it began "blowing away" systems all over the place... because it worked!Common-sense should have told you, as an administrator (assuming THAT is your role, or that of a network tech/engineer) that those were the simple steps to take (along with detectors to signal a removal candidate, but you never or should NEVER have seen it in the 1st place, if you did the above steps to your Windows NT-based machines)... apk
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28539583</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>badpazzword</author>
	<datestamp>1246439040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's because you have UAC disabled.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because you have UAC disabled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because you have UAC disabled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28536561</id>
	<title>Disappointing post considering the title</title>
	<author>Vexorian</author>
	<datestamp>1246365720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I got disappointed here. Sure malware costs and whatever, but dows' supporters will always pull the excuse that it is because of market share. Which is pointless. It could have some small even when considering the dominance of windows in the malware marketshare is much large than the raw market share r, i.e: Desktop Macs sure as hell don't have 3\% of the malware. Yet even assuming windows' malware friendliness  was solely caused by marketshare if it was truth then it means that the huge marketshare for windows is inconvenient and a great solution would be to migrate the industry into one that can have seriously many OS vendors and options and each has from 0 to 35\% marketshare.

<p> I got disappointed because when reading the title I thought this post was going to be about the REAL BIG cost of using Microsoft software. Security is one thing but they have been improving (you got to accept it).  The real issue is the LOCK-IN, and THAT is a giantic hidden cost of MS software, I wish some serious publication could analyze and denounce it cause seriously, malware costs are not a big deal and pro-MS groups will always just use their giantic, excessive marketshare as an excuse for it.

</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got disappointed here .
Sure malware costs and whatever , but dows ' supporters will always pull the excuse that it is because of market share .
Which is pointless .
It could have some small even when considering the dominance of windows in the malware marketshare is much large than the raw market share r , i.e : Desktop Macs sure as hell do n't have 3 \ % of the malware .
Yet even assuming windows ' malware friendliness was solely caused by marketshare if it was truth then it means that the huge marketshare for windows is inconvenient and a great solution would be to migrate the industry into one that can have seriously many OS vendors and options and each has from 0 to 35 \ % marketshare .
I got disappointed because when reading the title I thought this post was going to be about the REAL BIG cost of using Microsoft software .
Security is one thing but they have been improving ( you got to accept it ) .
The real issue is the LOCK-IN , and THAT is a giantic hidden cost of MS software , I wish some serious publication could analyze and denounce it cause seriously , malware costs are not a big deal and pro-MS groups will always just use their giantic , excessive marketshare as an excuse for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got disappointed here.
Sure malware costs and whatever, but dows' supporters will always pull the excuse that it is because of market share.
Which is pointless.
It could have some small even when considering the dominance of windows in the malware marketshare is much large than the raw market share r, i.e: Desktop Macs sure as hell don't have 3\% of the malware.
Yet even assuming windows' malware friendliness  was solely caused by marketshare if it was truth then it means that the huge marketshare for windows is inconvenient and a great solution would be to migrate the industry into one that can have seriously many OS vendors and options and each has from 0 to 35\% marketshare.
I got disappointed because when reading the title I thought this post was going to be about the REAL BIG cost of using Microsoft software.
Security is one thing but they have been improving (you got to accept it).
The real issue is the LOCK-IN, and THAT is a giantic hidden cost of MS software, I wish some serious publication could analyze and denounce it cause seriously, malware costs are not a big deal and pro-MS groups will always just use their giantic, excessive marketshare as an excuse for it.

</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535263</id>
	<title>Re:Viruses proportional to installed user-base</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246358940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This old reply always appears in response to stories about viruses... and its most effective counter is still a single word:</p><p>Apache.</p><p>What software runs most servers on the web? Apache. What web server gets hacked the most? I'll give you three guesses, and it ain't Apache.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This old reply always appears in response to stories about viruses... and its most effective counter is still a single word : Apache.What software runs most servers on the web ?
Apache. What web server gets hacked the most ?
I 'll give you three guesses , and it ai n't Apache .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This old reply always appears in response to stories about viruses... and its most effective counter is still a single word:Apache.What software runs most servers on the web?
Apache. What web server gets hacked the most?
I'll give you three guesses, and it ain't Apache.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534019</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28545291</id>
	<title>Re:I have an idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246472700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was going to say this too.  We only had a 6 month warning and even then we had at least a solid month warning that something was stirring in the wild.  Laziness of companies to patch exploits doesn't equal increased TCO.  It means you're wasting money on your Admins and you need ones not afraid to do their job.  I guess job security equals not patching things in time and I'm sure a lot of admins do this...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was going to say this too .
We only had a 6 month warning and even then we had at least a solid month warning that something was stirring in the wild .
Laziness of companies to patch exploits does n't equal increased TCO .
It means you 're wasting money on your Admins and you need ones not afraid to do their job .
I guess job security equals not patching things in time and I 'm sure a lot of admins do this.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was going to say this too.
We only had a 6 month warning and even then we had at least a solid month warning that something was stirring in the wild.
Laziness of companies to patch exploits doesn't equal increased TCO.
It means you're wasting money on your Admins and you need ones not afraid to do their job.
I guess job security equals not patching things in time and I'm sure a lot of admins do this...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533851</id>
	<title>But on the plus side...</title>
	<author>gov\_coder</author>
	<datestamp>1246352520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your system administration is automagically outsourced to china and russia for free!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your system administration is automagically outsourced to china and russia for free !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your system administration is automagically outsourced to china and russia for free!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535655</id>
	<title>Re:It's more than just those costs</title>
	<author>MightyMartian</author>
	<datestamp>1246361100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>- The cost of CALS. That's one that used to really chap my undies. It wasn't enough to pay for the software, then you had to buy a license so other people can use it.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Not just the cost of CALs, but the cost of figuring out Microsoft licensing rules.  I got nailed on a SAM review because I'd bought a 5 CAL pack and configured them as user CALs on a Server 2003 install licensed via Software Assurance.  I was told "those have to be installed as device CALs or you have to buy five new CALs".</p><p>It's fucking insane, or much more likely, designed specifically to trip people up so they have to go and buy the same goddamned thing again. In my case, I just switched it to device CALs as they requested and got on merry way.  I didn't tell them that I'm putting together a Samba file server for our document storage needs, and that will free up about 20 CALs of the appropriate kind, so it's not likely, unless we get substantially bigger, that I'll ever need to buy a Windows Server CAL again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>- The cost of CALS .
That 's one that used to really chap my undies .
It was n't enough to pay for the software , then you had to buy a license so other people can use it .
Not just the cost of CALs , but the cost of figuring out Microsoft licensing rules .
I got nailed on a SAM review because I 'd bought a 5 CAL pack and configured them as user CALs on a Server 2003 install licensed via Software Assurance .
I was told " those have to be installed as device CALs or you have to buy five new CALs " .It 's fucking insane , or much more likely , designed specifically to trip people up so they have to go and buy the same goddamned thing again .
In my case , I just switched it to device CALs as they requested and got on merry way .
I did n't tell them that I 'm putting together a Samba file server for our document storage needs , and that will free up about 20 CALs of the appropriate kind , so it 's not likely , unless we get substantially bigger , that I 'll ever need to buy a Windows Server CAL again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- The cost of CALS.
That's one that used to really chap my undies.
It wasn't enough to pay for the software, then you had to buy a license so other people can use it.
Not just the cost of CALs, but the cost of figuring out Microsoft licensing rules.
I got nailed on a SAM review because I'd bought a 5 CAL pack and configured them as user CALs on a Server 2003 install licensed via Software Assurance.
I was told "those have to be installed as device CALs or you have to buy five new CALs".It's fucking insane, or much more likely, designed specifically to trip people up so they have to go and buy the same goddamned thing again.
In my case, I just switched it to device CALs as they requested and got on merry way.
I didn't tell them that I'm putting together a Samba file server for our document storage needs, and that will free up about 20 CALs of the appropriate kind, so it's not likely, unless we get substantially bigger, that I'll ever need to buy a Windows Server CAL again.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538433</id>
	<title>Re:does require expensive support staff</title>
	<author>ajlisows</author>
	<datestamp>1246381260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
It is no longer the case that a part time person can keep 20 machines running.  And when something does happen, it can be very difficult to fix.  A single event can require a complete reinstall of the OS.  I've made mistakes of going to a wrong web site and had this happen on a completely up to date machine.  I have allowed untrusted parties to run my MS machines and have had significant damage caused within the hour.  MS machines are the dependable work horses they once were.  It now requires a significant infrastructure to keep MS machines a production.  The best case scenario is to treat each machine as a RAID, keeping data off the machine, and using a standard HD disk images.  Doesn't this sound like the pre-MS days of the so-called inefficient mainframe.
</p></div><p>I assume you are talking about this in terms of the corporate environment.  In that case, why would you not keep data off the machine and use a standard disk image?  Users keeping data on their machines is a problem.  That data is generally inaccessible to other people that may need it and more importantly, is a hard drive failure away from being gone forever.  I think most corporations strongly discourage keeping data locally.</p><p>Not having some disk imaging software if you are managing any number of machines is crazy.  You certainly do not want to use the default installs of Windows that are sent to you by the desktop manufacturers so you want to have disk images anyway.  Most of the client manager's out there also allow you to transfer files and install select software packages as part of the imaging process.  To think that any decent sized company has someone sitting there loading Windows from scratch just seems wrong.</p><p>Realistically, if the IT staff needs more than say...75 minutes to take a computer, transfer files, drop a new image, and install needed software on it they are doing something wrong.  Because of this it is more effective from a perspective of the cost of an IT Employee's time to do it that way instead of troubleshooting a bizarre issue that could take them several hours to fix.  Yeah, that is a crappy way to approach troubleshooting from the point of view of someone who likes to get into the nuts and bolts of a system and I would prefer to find a fix to problems instead of just dumping an image, but it is sensible from a cost of ownership point of view.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is no longer the case that a part time person can keep 20 machines running .
And when something does happen , it can be very difficult to fix .
A single event can require a complete reinstall of the OS .
I 've made mistakes of going to a wrong web site and had this happen on a completely up to date machine .
I have allowed untrusted parties to run my MS machines and have had significant damage caused within the hour .
MS machines are the dependable work horses they once were .
It now requires a significant infrastructure to keep MS machines a production .
The best case scenario is to treat each machine as a RAID , keeping data off the machine , and using a standard HD disk images .
Does n't this sound like the pre-MS days of the so-called inefficient mainframe .
I assume you are talking about this in terms of the corporate environment .
In that case , why would you not keep data off the machine and use a standard disk image ?
Users keeping data on their machines is a problem .
That data is generally inaccessible to other people that may need it and more importantly , is a hard drive failure away from being gone forever .
I think most corporations strongly discourage keeping data locally.Not having some disk imaging software if you are managing any number of machines is crazy .
You certainly do not want to use the default installs of Windows that are sent to you by the desktop manufacturers so you want to have disk images anyway .
Most of the client manager 's out there also allow you to transfer files and install select software packages as part of the imaging process .
To think that any decent sized company has someone sitting there loading Windows from scratch just seems wrong.Realistically , if the IT staff needs more than say...75 minutes to take a computer , transfer files , drop a new image , and install needed software on it they are doing something wrong .
Because of this it is more effective from a perspective of the cost of an IT Employee 's time to do it that way instead of troubleshooting a bizarre issue that could take them several hours to fix .
Yeah , that is a crappy way to approach troubleshooting from the point of view of someone who likes to get into the nuts and bolts of a system and I would prefer to find a fix to problems instead of just dumping an image , but it is sensible from a cost of ownership point of view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It is no longer the case that a part time person can keep 20 machines running.
And when something does happen, it can be very difficult to fix.
A single event can require a complete reinstall of the OS.
I've made mistakes of going to a wrong web site and had this happen on a completely up to date machine.
I have allowed untrusted parties to run my MS machines and have had significant damage caused within the hour.
MS machines are the dependable work horses they once were.
It now requires a significant infrastructure to keep MS machines a production.
The best case scenario is to treat each machine as a RAID, keeping data off the machine, and using a standard HD disk images.
Doesn't this sound like the pre-MS days of the so-called inefficient mainframe.
I assume you are talking about this in terms of the corporate environment.
In that case, why would you not keep data off the machine and use a standard disk image?
Users keeping data on their machines is a problem.
That data is generally inaccessible to other people that may need it and more importantly, is a hard drive failure away from being gone forever.
I think most corporations strongly discourage keeping data locally.Not having some disk imaging software if you are managing any number of machines is crazy.
You certainly do not want to use the default installs of Windows that are sent to you by the desktop manufacturers so you want to have disk images anyway.
Most of the client manager's out there also allow you to transfer files and install select software packages as part of the imaging process.
To think that any decent sized company has someone sitting there loading Windows from scratch just seems wrong.Realistically, if the IT staff needs more than say...75 minutes to take a computer, transfer files, drop a new image, and install needed software on it they are doing something wrong.
Because of this it is more effective from a perspective of the cost of an IT Employee's time to do it that way instead of troubleshooting a bizarre issue that could take them several hours to fix.
Yeah, that is a crappy way to approach troubleshooting from the point of view of someone who likes to get into the nuts and bolts of a system and I would prefer to find a fix to problems instead of just dumping an image, but it is sensible from a cost of ownership point of view.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533797</id>
	<title>A data point</title>
	<author>rkeene517</author>
	<datestamp>1246395480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A a single data point, I spent an hour cleaning the K worm off my laptop after a co-worker lent me his memory stick to transfer a file.
Cost - An hour of pay plus the frustration of directly not getting important tasks done.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A a single data point , I spent an hour cleaning the K worm off my laptop after a co-worker lent me his memory stick to transfer a file .
Cost - An hour of pay plus the frustration of directly not getting important tasks done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A a single data point, I spent an hour cleaning the K worm off my laptop after a co-worker lent me his memory stick to transfer a file.
Cost - An hour of pay plus the frustration of directly not getting important tasks done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534653</id>
	<title>Re:Prediction</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1246355700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean, posts such as yours?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean , posts such as yours ?
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean, posts such as yours?
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534151</id>
	<title>Getting real</title>
	<author>onyxruby</author>
	<datestamp>1246353660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, you have to take into account that costs such as the cleanup cost likely could have been readily avoided simply by having tight computer security standards to begin with. That expense had as much to with the security vs user convenience issue as it did with Windows. Any environment can be made insecure by caving to user desires regardless of the operating system in use.</p><p>A properly locked down windows environment can be fairly secure, the problem is that users can no longer use their computers the way they want to and they complain. User complaints such as those typically win out until such time as convenience starts to cost real money for cleanup. The cost of incompetence or catering to users should not be factored into any cost case for any product.</p><p>Think outside IT, to something like shipping oil overseas. The fact that a single given ship has an incident that costs tens of millions of dollars to cleanup because the captain was incompetent and ran aground does not take away from typical shipping costs at all. It simply shows the cost of administrative or managerial incompetence. If you want a true cost comparison you need to compare sites that follow best practices for the industry and look and see what their costs are.</p><p>Understand I am<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/not/ saying that Microsoft would / is the cheaper product, but comparisons that include incompetence are misleading at best.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , you have to take into account that costs such as the cleanup cost likely could have been readily avoided simply by having tight computer security standards to begin with .
That expense had as much to with the security vs user convenience issue as it did with Windows .
Any environment can be made insecure by caving to user desires regardless of the operating system in use.A properly locked down windows environment can be fairly secure , the problem is that users can no longer use their computers the way they want to and they complain .
User complaints such as those typically win out until such time as convenience starts to cost real money for cleanup .
The cost of incompetence or catering to users should not be factored into any cost case for any product.Think outside IT , to something like shipping oil overseas .
The fact that a single given ship has an incident that costs tens of millions of dollars to cleanup because the captain was incompetent and ran aground does not take away from typical shipping costs at all .
It simply shows the cost of administrative or managerial incompetence .
If you want a true cost comparison you need to compare sites that follow best practices for the industry and look and see what their costs are.Understand I am /not/ saying that Microsoft would / is the cheaper product , but comparisons that include incompetence are misleading at best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, you have to take into account that costs such as the cleanup cost likely could have been readily avoided simply by having tight computer security standards to begin with.
That expense had as much to with the security vs user convenience issue as it did with Windows.
Any environment can be made insecure by caving to user desires regardless of the operating system in use.A properly locked down windows environment can be fairly secure, the problem is that users can no longer use their computers the way they want to and they complain.
User complaints such as those typically win out until such time as convenience starts to cost real money for cleanup.
The cost of incompetence or catering to users should not be factored into any cost case for any product.Think outside IT, to something like shipping oil overseas.
The fact that a single given ship has an incident that costs tens of millions of dollars to cleanup because the captain was incompetent and ran aground does not take away from typical shipping costs at all.
It simply shows the cost of administrative or managerial incompetence.
If you want a true cost comparison you need to compare sites that follow best practices for the industry and look and see what their costs are.Understand I am /not/ saying that Microsoft would / is the cheaper product, but comparisons that include incompetence are misleading at best.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534279</id>
	<title>Re:I have an idea</title>
	<author>venom85</author>
	<datestamp>1246354260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I posted earlier before I got to yours, but it was October 2008 for the patch and November 2008 for Conficker.  You are correct though, that the patch was out before the malware.  Had they patched on time, or even a month later, they'd have been fine.  This is an example of a very poor IT model, not poor security in Windows.  Therefore it is not a good example for the TCO of using MS products.  If you show me a company/organization that patches on time, has a good IT model, good network design, etc., and the cost is still significantly higher than FOSS, then I'll listen.  Until then, quit bashing on MS for the fun of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I posted earlier before I got to yours , but it was October 2008 for the patch and November 2008 for Conficker .
You are correct though , that the patch was out before the malware .
Had they patched on time , or even a month later , they 'd have been fine .
This is an example of a very poor IT model , not poor security in Windows .
Therefore it is not a good example for the TCO of using MS products .
If you show me a company/organization that patches on time , has a good IT model , good network design , etc. , and the cost is still significantly higher than FOSS , then I 'll listen .
Until then , quit bashing on MS for the fun of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I posted earlier before I got to yours, but it was October 2008 for the patch and November 2008 for Conficker.
You are correct though, that the patch was out before the malware.
Had they patched on time, or even a month later, they'd have been fine.
This is an example of a very poor IT model, not poor security in Windows.
Therefore it is not a good example for the TCO of using MS products.
If you show me a company/organization that patches on time, has a good IT model, good network design, etc., and the cost is still significantly higher than FOSS, then I'll listen.
Until then, quit bashing on MS for the fun of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28536511</id>
	<title>Re:Viruses proportional to installed user-base</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246365420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People keep bringing this up but it just plain isn't true. Look at the installed base of Apache vs. IIS. Why is IIS more heavily exploited then? There is hole number 4 million in your theory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People keep bringing this up but it just plain is n't true .
Look at the installed base of Apache vs. IIS. Why is IIS more heavily exploited then ?
There is hole number 4 million in your theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People keep bringing this up but it just plain isn't true.
Look at the installed base of Apache vs. IIS. Why is IIS more heavily exploited then?
There is hole number 4 million in your theory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534019</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533543</id>
	<title>Economy..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246394460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Makes me wonder how much the latest crop of "storms" like Conficker have contributed to the economy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Makes me wonder how much the latest crop of " storms " like Conficker have contributed to the economy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Makes me wonder how much the latest crop of "storms" like Conficker have contributed to the economy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28553665</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1246466340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets see...</p><ul><li>Windows has file permissions.</li><li>Windows has groups.</li><li>*Nix has admin rights - you just typically don't use them. No version of Windows released in the last 5 years has even the default account running with Admin privileges either, and even before that the installer suggested creation of additional accounts, which defaulted to standard user permissions.</li><li>Linux does nothing at all to "literally force" me not to run as root 24/7, never update, turn off my firewall, run sshd on the default port, and set my root password to "password1." Your claim to the contrary is ridiculous.</li><li>Damn near every Linux box has X11 (one of two flavors) and Firefox installed. Most even have Adobe Flash. Many will have Thunderbird and/or Pidgin. Most will also have KDE or GNOME running, either one of which have a number of network-enabled applicaitons. It's certainly not as homogenous as Windows but it's not that hard to find a program that your target runs (even if the "target" is simply a randomly selected IP address). Also, there's the kernel itself.</li><li>Windows has security measures that are almost nonexistent in Windows (though OpenBSD has them) such as DEP and ASLR. This means that even if you find a vulnerable program, it is extremely difficult to execute an attack. On Linux a trivial shellcode injection that overwrites the return address works fine.</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets see...Windows has file permissions.Windows has groups .
* Nix has admin rights - you just typically do n't use them .
No version of Windows released in the last 5 years has even the default account running with Admin privileges either , and even before that the installer suggested creation of additional accounts , which defaulted to standard user permissions.Linux does nothing at all to " literally force " me not to run as root 24/7 , never update , turn off my firewall , run sshd on the default port , and set my root password to " password1 .
" Your claim to the contrary is ridiculous.Damn near every Linux box has X11 ( one of two flavors ) and Firefox installed .
Most even have Adobe Flash .
Many will have Thunderbird and/or Pidgin .
Most will also have KDE or GNOME running , either one of which have a number of network-enabled applicaitons .
It 's certainly not as homogenous as Windows but it 's not that hard to find a program that your target runs ( even if the " target " is simply a randomly selected IP address ) .
Also , there 's the kernel itself.Windows has security measures that are almost nonexistent in Windows ( though OpenBSD has them ) such as DEP and ASLR .
This means that even if you find a vulnerable program , it is extremely difficult to execute an attack .
On Linux a trivial shellcode injection that overwrites the return address works fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets see...Windows has file permissions.Windows has groups.
*Nix has admin rights - you just typically don't use them.
No version of Windows released in the last 5 years has even the default account running with Admin privileges either, and even before that the installer suggested creation of additional accounts, which defaulted to standard user permissions.Linux does nothing at all to "literally force" me not to run as root 24/7, never update, turn off my firewall, run sshd on the default port, and set my root password to "password1.
" Your claim to the contrary is ridiculous.Damn near every Linux box has X11 (one of two flavors) and Firefox installed.
Most even have Adobe Flash.
Many will have Thunderbird and/or Pidgin.
Most will also have KDE or GNOME running, either one of which have a number of network-enabled applicaitons.
It's certainly not as homogenous as Windows but it's not that hard to find a program that your target runs (even if the "target" is simply a randomly selected IP address).
Also, there's the kernel itself.Windows has security measures that are almost nonexistent in Windows (though OpenBSD has them) such as DEP and ASLR.
This means that even if you find a vulnerable program, it is extremely difficult to execute an attack.
On Linux a trivial shellcode injection that overwrites the return address works fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538797</id>
	<title>Re:Troll article yes, but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246385820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Government IT workers are for the most part the bottom of the barrel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Government IT workers are for the most part the bottom of the barrel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government IT workers are for the most part the bottom of the barrel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534411</id>
	<title>Money to be saved today, possibly long-term also</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246354680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree there would be a virus/malware problem in Linux, possibly approaching the severity we see in Windows today, but only if the majority of users switch to Linux.  Until they do (and maybe EVEN IF they do), there is money to be saved by avoiding the MS-based viruses and malware.  Although all platforms are vulnerable, the frequency of attack is predictably higher on Microsoft systems (and we have all known this for YEARS).  I would go so far as to say the cost of virus mitigation exceeds the cost of training users on a new OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree there would be a virus/malware problem in Linux , possibly approaching the severity we see in Windows today , but only if the majority of users switch to Linux .
Until they do ( and maybe EVEN IF they do ) , there is money to be saved by avoiding the MS-based viruses and malware .
Although all platforms are vulnerable , the frequency of attack is predictably higher on Microsoft systems ( and we have all known this for YEARS ) .
I would go so far as to say the cost of virus mitigation exceeds the cost of training users on a new OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree there would be a virus/malware problem in Linux, possibly approaching the severity we see in Windows today, but only if the majority of users switch to Linux.
Until they do (and maybe EVEN IF they do), there is money to be saved by avoiding the MS-based viruses and malware.
Although all platforms are vulnerable, the frequency of attack is predictably higher on Microsoft systems (and we have all known this for YEARS).
I would go so far as to say the cost of virus mitigation exceeds the cost of training users on a new OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534821</id>
	<title>Re:Other hidden costs.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246356600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hidden costs in Microsoft Office have been around a lot longer than that. Many places I work for have traditionally done their manuals in Word. Every new release of Word required some amount of reformatting. Anything more complicated than simple business letters will not display/print/edit the same in any other version of Word than the one it was created in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hidden costs in Microsoft Office have been around a lot longer than that .
Many places I work for have traditionally done their manuals in Word .
Every new release of Word required some amount of reformatting .
Anything more complicated than simple business letters will not display/print/edit the same in any other version of Word than the one it was created in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hidden costs in Microsoft Office have been around a lot longer than that.
Many places I work for have traditionally done their manuals in Word.
Every new release of Word required some amount of reformatting.
Anything more complicated than simple business letters will not display/print/edit the same in any other version of Word than the one it was created in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28536581</id>
	<title>easy fix use your backups</title>
	<author>RobertLTux</author>
	<datestamp>1246365900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>since its just good practice to have a backup system why wouldn't you<br>1 fail your primary and switch to the backup<br>2 upgrade your primary<br>3 revert to your now upgraded primary<br>4 upgrade your backup<br>5 Profit!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>since its just good practice to have a backup system why would n't you1 fail your primary and switch to the backup2 upgrade your primary3 revert to your now upgraded primary4 upgrade your backup5 Profit !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>since its just good practice to have a backup system why wouldn't you1 fail your primary and switch to the backup2 upgrade your primary3 revert to your now upgraded primary4 upgrade your backup5 Profit!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534219</id>
	<title>Re:I have an idea</title>
	<author>Threni</author>
	<datestamp>1246354080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those costs are just bullshit anyway.  They've clearly found people who'll milk them for every penny they can, just like loads of public sector establishments in the UK (universities, hospitals etc).  I hear about it first hand, all the time.  There are layers of management who just provide pure negatives - they don't have the first clue what they're doing, they get taken out for lunches and cricket matches etc and sign up to whatever shit comes there way, and then badly manage developers who have to work late, under stress, to get stuff done.  Those guys are the ones who want a share of the millions of wasted pounds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those costs are just bullshit anyway .
They 've clearly found people who 'll milk them for every penny they can , just like loads of public sector establishments in the UK ( universities , hospitals etc ) .
I hear about it first hand , all the time .
There are layers of management who just provide pure negatives - they do n't have the first clue what they 're doing , they get taken out for lunches and cricket matches etc and sign up to whatever shit comes there way , and then badly manage developers who have to work late , under stress , to get stuff done .
Those guys are the ones who want a share of the millions of wasted pounds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those costs are just bullshit anyway.
They've clearly found people who'll milk them for every penny they can, just like loads of public sector establishments in the UK (universities, hospitals etc).
I hear about it first hand, all the time.
There are layers of management who just provide pure negatives - they don't have the first clue what they're doing, they get taken out for lunches and cricket matches etc and sign up to whatever shit comes there way, and then badly manage developers who have to work late, under stress, to get stuff done.
Those guys are the ones who want a share of the millions of wasted pounds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28536299</id>
	<title>sanity</title>
	<author>overcaffein8d</author>
	<datestamp>1246364340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if Sanity was money, microsoft products would cost even more</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if Sanity was money , microsoft products would cost even more</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if Sanity was money, microsoft products would cost even more</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533909</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246352760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Parent poster is full of crap.</p><p>
&nbsp;  </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Make no mistake: if Linux were as widely used as Windows, there would be bugs galore to be a-cleaning in Linux land.</p></div><p>
&nbsp; <br>This is the same as stating: "If linux had the number of users that microsoft windows had, it would be victim to the same number of viruses, malware, and general script kiddies" which is complete bullshit.</p><p>
&nbsp; <br>I'm sick of hearing this argument, only a complete tool would believe it. *Nix systems are inherently more secure, due to its security model (file permissions, groups, no admin rights, etc), and to the fact that it literally forces you to not be a complete moron (security wise) while using it. Furthermore, because of the variety of software that can be installed on each box, only the most common programs (apache, nginx, ssl, ssh, etc) would be effective targets to attack, limiting the areas an admin needs to cover.</p><p>
&nbsp; <br>Due to the above, there are only certain attacks that would be effective to a *Nix system. Off the top of my head, this leaves: privilege escalation, man-in-the-middle, and social engineering (a problem everywhere, regardless of OS).</p><p>
&nbsp;  <br>
&nbsp; <br>In short, a Linux machine that is run by a competent administrator is MUCH more difficult to infect or attack than a Windows machine, and the parent is a moron.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Parent poster is full of crap .
  Make no mistake : if Linux were as widely used as Windows , there would be bugs galore to be a-cleaning in Linux land .
  This is the same as stating : " If linux had the number of users that microsoft windows had , it would be victim to the same number of viruses , malware , and general script kiddies " which is complete bullshit .
  I 'm sick of hearing this argument , only a complete tool would believe it .
* Nix systems are inherently more secure , due to its security model ( file permissions , groups , no admin rights , etc ) , and to the fact that it literally forces you to not be a complete moron ( security wise ) while using it .
Furthermore , because of the variety of software that can be installed on each box , only the most common programs ( apache , nginx , ssl , ssh , etc ) would be effective targets to attack , limiting the areas an admin needs to cover .
  Due to the above , there are only certain attacks that would be effective to a * Nix system .
Off the top of my head , this leaves : privilege escalation , man-in-the-middle , and social engineering ( a problem everywhere , regardless of OS ) .
    In short , a Linux machine that is run by a competent administrator is MUCH more difficult to infect or attack than a Windows machine , and the parent is a moron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parent poster is full of crap.
   Make no mistake: if Linux were as widely used as Windows, there would be bugs galore to be a-cleaning in Linux land.
  This is the same as stating: "If linux had the number of users that microsoft windows had, it would be victim to the same number of viruses, malware, and general script kiddies" which is complete bullshit.
  I'm sick of hearing this argument, only a complete tool would believe it.
*Nix systems are inherently more secure, due to its security model (file permissions, groups, no admin rights, etc), and to the fact that it literally forces you to not be a complete moron (security wise) while using it.
Furthermore, because of the variety of software that can be installed on each box, only the most common programs (apache, nginx, ssl, ssh, etc) would be effective targets to attack, limiting the areas an admin needs to cover.
  Due to the above, there are only certain attacks that would be effective to a *Nix system.
Off the top of my head, this leaves: privilege escalation, man-in-the-middle, and social engineering (a problem everywhere, regardless of OS).
   
  In short, a Linux machine that is run by a competent administrator is MUCH more difficult to infect or attack than a Windows machine, and the parent is a moron.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534763</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>Phu5ion</author>
	<datestamp>1246356240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Parent poster is full of crap.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Make no mistake: if Linux were as widely used as Windows, there would be bugs galore to be a-cleaning in Linux land.</p></div><p>

This is the same as stating: "If linux had the number of users that microsoft windows had, it would be victim to the same number of viruses, malware, and general script kiddies" which is complete bullshit.</p></div><p>100\% agree.  The more people you have using the apps and eyes you have looking over the source means those obscure, deep defects become much more shallow and easier to fix.  A situation MS can only dream of.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Parent poster is full of crap.Make no mistake : if Linux were as widely used as Windows , there would be bugs galore to be a-cleaning in Linux land .
This is the same as stating : " If linux had the number of users that microsoft windows had , it would be victim to the same number of viruses , malware , and general script kiddies " which is complete bullshit.100 \ % agree .
The more people you have using the apps and eyes you have looking over the source means those obscure , deep defects become much more shallow and easier to fix .
A situation MS can only dream of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parent poster is full of crap.Make no mistake: if Linux were as widely used as Windows, there would be bugs galore to be a-cleaning in Linux land.
This is the same as stating: "If linux had the number of users that microsoft windows had, it would be victim to the same number of viruses, malware, and general script kiddies" which is complete bullshit.100\% agree.
The more people you have using the apps and eyes you have looking over the source means those obscure, deep defects become much more shallow and easier to fix.
A situation MS can only dream of.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534111</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>Tawnos</author>
	<datestamp>1246353540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shouldn't any company, investing in any solution, consider regular virus/malware checks and security audits? Just because a company chooses to go open source doesn't change their responsibility to check for viruses/exploit (though rare, still possible). Especially when considering large scale deployment for a company, the responsibility to check the system's sanity is still important enough that a vendor's solution will/should need to be purchased for either system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't any company , investing in any solution , consider regular virus/malware checks and security audits ?
Just because a company chooses to go open source does n't change their responsibility to check for viruses/exploit ( though rare , still possible ) .
Especially when considering large scale deployment for a company , the responsibility to check the system 's sanity is still important enough that a vendor 's solution will/should need to be purchased for either system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't any company, investing in any solution, consider regular virus/malware checks and security audits?
Just because a company chooses to go open source doesn't change their responsibility to check for viruses/exploit (though rare, still possible).
Especially when considering large scale deployment for a company, the responsibility to check the system's sanity is still important enough that a vendor's solution will/should need to be purchased for either system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28556145</id>
	<title>Re:The hidden cost of a Linux dominated world</title>
	<author>jp10558</author>
	<datestamp>1246540620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While MS maintains great levels of IT employment, I think you may be overstating the case a bit. I do suppose it depends on where you fall in the IT world, but even if you didn't have to show the user yet again how to check their e-mail, there is a case to be made that you'd still have to initially set up the e-mail, set up and deploy the computer, maintain the physical and logical network, etc. Most businesses still have janitors, even though I would guess most employees are capible of cleaning their areas, it's not the most efficient use of their time.</p><p>At the higher levels, there's all sorts of things to do by specialists to keep IT people busy for the forseeable future.</p><p>At worst, I expect we'll continue to see consolidation like we already see into specalized companies that contract out time (or independant contractors) for multiple other compaines so those companies, or units of large corporations, can focus on their core competencies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While MS maintains great levels of IT employment , I think you may be overstating the case a bit .
I do suppose it depends on where you fall in the IT world , but even if you did n't have to show the user yet again how to check their e-mail , there is a case to be made that you 'd still have to initially set up the e-mail , set up and deploy the computer , maintain the physical and logical network , etc .
Most businesses still have janitors , even though I would guess most employees are capible of cleaning their areas , it 's not the most efficient use of their time.At the higher levels , there 's all sorts of things to do by specialists to keep IT people busy for the forseeable future.At worst , I expect we 'll continue to see consolidation like we already see into specalized companies that contract out time ( or independant contractors ) for multiple other compaines so those companies , or units of large corporations , can focus on their core competencies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While MS maintains great levels of IT employment, I think you may be overstating the case a bit.
I do suppose it depends on where you fall in the IT world, but even if you didn't have to show the user yet again how to check their e-mail, there is a case to be made that you'd still have to initially set up the e-mail, set up and deploy the computer, maintain the physical and logical network, etc.
Most businesses still have janitors, even though I would guess most employees are capible of cleaning their areas, it's not the most efficient use of their time.At the higher levels, there's all sorts of things to do by specialists to keep IT people busy for the forseeable future.At worst, I expect we'll continue to see consolidation like we already see into specalized companies that contract out time (or independant contractors) for multiple other compaines so those companies, or units of large corporations, can focus on their core competencies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28549713</id>
	<title>Not doing your job....</title>
	<author>DrRiAdGeOrN</author>
	<datestamp>1246442880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hate to say it, but if you got hit by large amount of Conficker and are in IT, you weren't doing your job. It might be excusable if you have remote users who never come into the office, but for in-house systems it should have been a non-issue. NMAP scans and checking your system management console for applied patches would have taken care of you, and not waiting till the last minute.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to say it , but if you got hit by large amount of Conficker and are in IT , you were n't doing your job .
It might be excusable if you have remote users who never come into the office , but for in-house systems it should have been a non-issue .
NMAP scans and checking your system management console for applied patches would have taken care of you , and not waiting till the last minute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to say it, but if you got hit by large amount of Conficker and are in IT, you weren't doing your job.
It might be excusable if you have remote users who never come into the office, but for in-house systems it should have been a non-issue.
NMAP scans and checking your system management console for applied patches would have taken care of you, and not waiting till the last minute.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533721</id>
	<title>It is the hacker's mentality.</title>
	<author>reporter</author>
	<datestamp>1246395240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hackers target Microsoft software only because it is much more popular than non-Microsoft software.  The mentality of the typical hacker is that he gets a cheap thrill from injuring the most people.  If his worm or virus caused $1 billion of damage and if a prominent newspaper like the "Wall Street Journal" published a story about the damage, then he would become orgasmic.  Maximum damage -- and, hence, maximum orgasm -- is achieved by targetting the software that most people use.
<p>
This attitude is little different from that of a terrorist.  The typical terrorist aims for maximum publicity.  He craves it.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hackers target Microsoft software only because it is much more popular than non-Microsoft software .
The mentality of the typical hacker is that he gets a cheap thrill from injuring the most people .
If his worm or virus caused $ 1 billion of damage and if a prominent newspaper like the " Wall Street Journal " published a story about the damage , then he would become orgasmic .
Maximum damage -- and , hence , maximum orgasm -- is achieved by targetting the software that most people use .
This attitude is little different from that of a terrorist .
The typical terrorist aims for maximum publicity .
He craves it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hackers target Microsoft software only because it is much more popular than non-Microsoft software.
The mentality of the typical hacker is that he gets a cheap thrill from injuring the most people.
If his worm or virus caused $1 billion of damage and if a prominent newspaper like the "Wall Street Journal" published a story about the damage, then he would become orgasmic.
Maximum damage -- and, hence, maximum orgasm -- is achieved by targetting the software that most people use.
This attitude is little different from that of a terrorist.
The typical terrorist aims for maximum publicity.
He craves it.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534545</id>
	<title>Re:Other hidden costs.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246355340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The change of the user interface in Office 2007 is one huge hidden cost. It was done to make things "easier" with the result that old users instead have to re-learn the user interface completely and have a really hard time to do even the things that were simple before.</i></p><p>What I find interesting is that Microsoft's TCO claims depend on retraining costs, yet they seem to put the retraining cost for Office 2007 at zero.</p><p>You can't switch to OpenOffice because it will be so expensive to retrain your users, but you can switch to Office 2007 with low TCO?</p><p>And in line with the subject of this discussion, does Word 2007 still eat large documents the way earlier versions of Word used to?  One of the major advantages touted for OpenOffice is "it doesn't eat your files."  As a specific example, the <a href="http://www.writerstechnology.com/2008/08/word-2007-for-writers-part-3-master-documents-and-outlines" title="writerstechnology.com" rel="nofollow">master document</a> [writerstechnology.com] feature is <a href="http://word.mvps.org/fAQs/General/WhyMasterDocsCorrupt.htm" title="mvps.org" rel="nofollow">not recommended</a> [mvps.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The change of the user interface in Office 2007 is one huge hidden cost .
It was done to make things " easier " with the result that old users instead have to re-learn the user interface completely and have a really hard time to do even the things that were simple before.What I find interesting is that Microsoft 's TCO claims depend on retraining costs , yet they seem to put the retraining cost for Office 2007 at zero.You ca n't switch to OpenOffice because it will be so expensive to retrain your users , but you can switch to Office 2007 with low TCO ? And in line with the subject of this discussion , does Word 2007 still eat large documents the way earlier versions of Word used to ?
One of the major advantages touted for OpenOffice is " it does n't eat your files .
" As a specific example , the master document [ writerstechnology.com ] feature is not recommended [ mvps.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The change of the user interface in Office 2007 is one huge hidden cost.
It was done to make things "easier" with the result that old users instead have to re-learn the user interface completely and have a really hard time to do even the things that were simple before.What I find interesting is that Microsoft's TCO claims depend on retraining costs, yet they seem to put the retraining cost for Office 2007 at zero.You can't switch to OpenOffice because it will be so expensive to retrain your users, but you can switch to Office 2007 with low TCO?And in line with the subject of this discussion, does Word 2007 still eat large documents the way earlier versions of Word used to?
One of the major advantages touted for OpenOffice is "it doesn't eat your files.
"  As a specific example, the master document [writerstechnology.com] feature is not recommended [mvps.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534625</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>Sparky McGruff</author>
	<datestamp>1246355640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Linux (or any other platform) gains in popularity so much that it becomes the target of most viruses, then the "cost of training" will go down, because every high school and community college will be showing their students how to use Open Office on Linux... and MS software would become "niche software" that requires extra training.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Linux ( or any other platform ) gains in popularity so much that it becomes the target of most viruses , then the " cost of training " will go down , because every high school and community college will be showing their students how to use Open Office on Linux... and MS software would become " niche software " that requires extra training .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Linux (or any other platform) gains in popularity so much that it becomes the target of most viruses, then the "cost of training" will go down, because every high school and community college will be showing their students how to use Open Office on Linux... and MS software would become "niche software" that requires extra training.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533837</id>
	<title>Re-loading / Registry problems larger</title>
	<author>frith01</author>
	<datestamp>1246352400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As many have pointed out,  proper virus protection and lock down policies will keep those issues down.</p><p>However,  re-imaging needed due to registry corruption,  debugging software issues on  "identical"  machines that works in one instance and not another,  and many other windows specific maintenance tasks should all be considered part of the over-head that does not exist for a linux installation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As many have pointed out , proper virus protection and lock down policies will keep those issues down.However , re-imaging needed due to registry corruption , debugging software issues on " identical " machines that works in one instance and not another , and many other windows specific maintenance tasks should all be considered part of the over-head that does not exist for a linux installation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As many have pointed out,  proper virus protection and lock down policies will keep those issues down.However,  re-imaging needed due to registry corruption,  debugging software issues on  "identical"  machines that works in one instance and not another,  and many other windows specific maintenance tasks should all be considered part of the over-head that does not exist for a linux installation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533731</id>
	<title>Re:Cheaper to prevent than fix</title>
	<author>Z00L00K</author>
	<datestamp>1246395300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not hire nastier people taking care of people behind botnets?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not hire nastier people taking care of people behind botnets ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not hire nastier people taking care of people behind botnets?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28537649</id>
	<title>It's the hidden cost of computerization...</title>
	<author>sam0737</author>
	<datestamp>1246373880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not MS in particular.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not MS in particular .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not MS in particular.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535637</id>
	<title>The hidden cost of a Linux dominated world</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1246360980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's one thing that everyone is overlooking.  If linux would become the dominant OS, there would be a hidden cost - many of us IT people would no longer have jobs fixing / maintaining MS systems.  I love linux and have tried to get several people to switch to it, but I actually like businesses using Windows because it means job security.</p><p>It's kind of like a conversation we had at work the other day - every IT guy hates idiot users who can't check their email without having to call IT for help, but at the same time if it wasn't for most people being so incompetent when it comes to technology, many of us wouldn't have a job anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's one thing that everyone is overlooking .
If linux would become the dominant OS , there would be a hidden cost - many of us IT people would no longer have jobs fixing / maintaining MS systems .
I love linux and have tried to get several people to switch to it , but I actually like businesses using Windows because it means job security.It 's kind of like a conversation we had at work the other day - every IT guy hates idiot users who ca n't check their email without having to call IT for help , but at the same time if it was n't for most people being so incompetent when it comes to technology , many of us would n't have a job anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's one thing that everyone is overlooking.
If linux would become the dominant OS, there would be a hidden cost - many of us IT people would no longer have jobs fixing / maintaining MS systems.
I love linux and have tried to get several people to switch to it, but I actually like businesses using Windows because it means job security.It's kind of like a conversation we had at work the other day - every IT guy hates idiot users who can't check their email without having to call IT for help, but at the same time if it wasn't for most people being so incompetent when it comes to technology, many of us wouldn't have a job anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28539273</id>
	<title>Re:does require expensive support staff</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1246391280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>And when something does happen, it can be very difficult to fix. A single event can require a complete reinstall of the OS.</i> <br> <br>Which may well not solve whatever the actual fault is thus needing to be repeated.<br> <br> <i>It now requires a significant infrastructure to keep MS machines a production. The best case scenario is to treat each machine as a RAID, keeping data off the machine, and using a standard HD disk images.</i> <br> <br>Which requires both time and additional software to manage. Probably another thing which might not make it to a TCO "study".</htmltext>
<tokenext>And when something does happen , it can be very difficult to fix .
A single event can require a complete reinstall of the OS .
Which may well not solve whatever the actual fault is thus needing to be repeated .
It now requires a significant infrastructure to keep MS machines a production .
The best case scenario is to treat each machine as a RAID , keeping data off the machine , and using a standard HD disk images .
Which requires both time and additional software to manage .
Probably another thing which might not make it to a TCO " study " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And when something does happen, it can be very difficult to fix.
A single event can require a complete reinstall of the OS.
Which may well not solve whatever the actual fault is thus needing to be repeated.
It now requires a significant infrastructure to keep MS machines a production.
The best case scenario is to treat each machine as a RAID, keeping data off the machine, and using a standard HD disk images.
Which requires both time and additional software to manage.
Probably another thing which might not make it to a TCO "study".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534569</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>Absolut187</author>
	<datestamp>1246355400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>it literally forces you to not be a complete moron</p></div></blockquote><p>Say goodbye to target audience..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it literally forces you to not be a complete moronSay goodbye to target audience. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it literally forces you to not be a complete moronSay goodbye to target audience..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28542747</id>
	<title>Caught this late, but have to mention...</title>
	<author>HerculesMO</author>
	<datestamp>1246464960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a 'businessperson' who actually implements *nix and Windows systems (I do system design/architecture) it's generally a factor of productivity.</p><p>While people can argue the better points of Linux or Unix all they want, the simple fact is that there are higher costs associated with *nix than Windows as well. They don't apply to "viruses or malware" which is an impossible thing to measure. Honestly, if you look at the Secunia.org reports, Windows fares pretty well actually. Imagine if somebody used a DNS attack that was patched two years ago in every Linux distro -- who is to blame? The OS, or the admins?</p><p>That said, *nix has a high cost due to administration. It costs me more to bill a *nix SA than a Windows SA. That's how big enterprises work folks, you bill each department for the respective cost back to the business unit. When the business unit sees that the cost of labor for a *nix SA is say, $100/hour and a Windows SA is $70/hour, with a minimum of 200 working hours to implement, plus ongoing support costs -- they generally choose the Windows platform.</p><p>Sorry to the geeks out there, but my job is to inform business units on their options, potential benefits and downfalls. There are things Windows does great -- specifically we can build off Office APIs and deploy enterprise applications in a lightning quick manner, that complement the systems we are building or buying. *nix doesn't have that ability, almost everything we build is from the ground up, totally from scratch. That's a LOT of man hours, a LOT of code management, and oddly enough -- a higher cost.</p><p>You can do what you want in *nix, but it generally takes longer and costs more. The recurring costs are kind of pushed aside because if you are profiting from that system it pays for itself. However if you spend 2 or 3 months longer to get it off the ground for a *nix system, you've lost 2 or 3 months of PROFIT. That profit generally pays for the recurring costs and keeps your TCO much lower.</p><p>The inherent problem here is that people who are techies always look at the technology of *nix as superior -- and in many cases it is -- but forget the whole picture. It's not just about attack vector, or market penetration, or whatever else. We've never had an outbreak (17,000 desktops/laptops) once, because we maintain a strict change control methodology, don't give admin rights to people who don't need them, and ensure we are patching and deploying definitions in a timely manner.</p><p>If you fail to implement a proper security policy, fail to adhere to that policy, you are going to have disasters whether you have a *nix system or a Windows system. And for the Windows vs *nix arguments well... they are idiotic. Use the best tool for the job that you feel gives you the best TCO. Until *nix steps up its game and comes out with something better than OpenOffice for enterprise application deployment (want to know how fast we can deploy something to Sharepoint, have it integrate with Office 2007, and everybody be productive, versus *nix?) then this argument will relegate *nix as what I normally deploy to the backend (Oracle for us, generally), and Windows to the frontend.</p><p>Businesses work in dollars, not technical arguments. I'll use *nix tomorrow if I think that it will be more profitable in the long term. But when most of you here dismiss profit and turnaround, plus support costs, then the argument you're making is pointless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a 'businessperson ' who actually implements * nix and Windows systems ( I do system design/architecture ) it 's generally a factor of productivity.While people can argue the better points of Linux or Unix all they want , the simple fact is that there are higher costs associated with * nix than Windows as well .
They do n't apply to " viruses or malware " which is an impossible thing to measure .
Honestly , if you look at the Secunia.org reports , Windows fares pretty well actually .
Imagine if somebody used a DNS attack that was patched two years ago in every Linux distro -- who is to blame ?
The OS , or the admins ? That said , * nix has a high cost due to administration .
It costs me more to bill a * nix SA than a Windows SA .
That 's how big enterprises work folks , you bill each department for the respective cost back to the business unit .
When the business unit sees that the cost of labor for a * nix SA is say , $ 100/hour and a Windows SA is $ 70/hour , with a minimum of 200 working hours to implement , plus ongoing support costs -- they generally choose the Windows platform.Sorry to the geeks out there , but my job is to inform business units on their options , potential benefits and downfalls .
There are things Windows does great -- specifically we can build off Office APIs and deploy enterprise applications in a lightning quick manner , that complement the systems we are building or buying .
* nix does n't have that ability , almost everything we build is from the ground up , totally from scratch .
That 's a LOT of man hours , a LOT of code management , and oddly enough -- a higher cost.You can do what you want in * nix , but it generally takes longer and costs more .
The recurring costs are kind of pushed aside because if you are profiting from that system it pays for itself .
However if you spend 2 or 3 months longer to get it off the ground for a * nix system , you 've lost 2 or 3 months of PROFIT .
That profit generally pays for the recurring costs and keeps your TCO much lower.The inherent problem here is that people who are techies always look at the technology of * nix as superior -- and in many cases it is -- but forget the whole picture .
It 's not just about attack vector , or market penetration , or whatever else .
We 've never had an outbreak ( 17,000 desktops/laptops ) once , because we maintain a strict change control methodology , do n't give admin rights to people who do n't need them , and ensure we are patching and deploying definitions in a timely manner.If you fail to implement a proper security policy , fail to adhere to that policy , you are going to have disasters whether you have a * nix system or a Windows system .
And for the Windows vs * nix arguments well... they are idiotic .
Use the best tool for the job that you feel gives you the best TCO .
Until * nix steps up its game and comes out with something better than OpenOffice for enterprise application deployment ( want to know how fast we can deploy something to Sharepoint , have it integrate with Office 2007 , and everybody be productive , versus * nix ?
) then this argument will relegate * nix as what I normally deploy to the backend ( Oracle for us , generally ) , and Windows to the frontend.Businesses work in dollars , not technical arguments .
I 'll use * nix tomorrow if I think that it will be more profitable in the long term .
But when most of you here dismiss profit and turnaround , plus support costs , then the argument you 're making is pointless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a 'businessperson' who actually implements *nix and Windows systems (I do system design/architecture) it's generally a factor of productivity.While people can argue the better points of Linux or Unix all they want, the simple fact is that there are higher costs associated with *nix than Windows as well.
They don't apply to "viruses or malware" which is an impossible thing to measure.
Honestly, if you look at the Secunia.org reports, Windows fares pretty well actually.
Imagine if somebody used a DNS attack that was patched two years ago in every Linux distro -- who is to blame?
The OS, or the admins?That said, *nix has a high cost due to administration.
It costs me more to bill a *nix SA than a Windows SA.
That's how big enterprises work folks, you bill each department for the respective cost back to the business unit.
When the business unit sees that the cost of labor for a *nix SA is say, $100/hour and a Windows SA is $70/hour, with a minimum of 200 working hours to implement, plus ongoing support costs -- they generally choose the Windows platform.Sorry to the geeks out there, but my job is to inform business units on their options, potential benefits and downfalls.
There are things Windows does great -- specifically we can build off Office APIs and deploy enterprise applications in a lightning quick manner, that complement the systems we are building or buying.
*nix doesn't have that ability, almost everything we build is from the ground up, totally from scratch.
That's a LOT of man hours, a LOT of code management, and oddly enough -- a higher cost.You can do what you want in *nix, but it generally takes longer and costs more.
The recurring costs are kind of pushed aside because if you are profiting from that system it pays for itself.
However if you spend 2 or 3 months longer to get it off the ground for a *nix system, you've lost 2 or 3 months of PROFIT.
That profit generally pays for the recurring costs and keeps your TCO much lower.The inherent problem here is that people who are techies always look at the technology of *nix as superior -- and in many cases it is -- but forget the whole picture.
It's not just about attack vector, or market penetration, or whatever else.
We've never had an outbreak (17,000 desktops/laptops) once, because we maintain a strict change control methodology, don't give admin rights to people who don't need them, and ensure we are patching and deploying definitions in a timely manner.If you fail to implement a proper security policy, fail to adhere to that policy, you are going to have disasters whether you have a *nix system or a Windows system.
And for the Windows vs *nix arguments well... they are idiotic.
Use the best tool for the job that you feel gives you the best TCO.
Until *nix steps up its game and comes out with something better than OpenOffice for enterprise application deployment (want to know how fast we can deploy something to Sharepoint, have it integrate with Office 2007, and everybody be productive, versus *nix?
) then this argument will relegate *nix as what I normally deploy to the backend (Oracle for us, generally), and Windows to the frontend.Businesses work in dollars, not technical arguments.
I'll use *nix tomorrow if I think that it will be more profitable in the long term.
But when most of you here dismiss profit and turnaround, plus support costs, then the argument you're making is pointless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534237</id>
	<title>not so accurate</title>
	<author>binaryseraph</author>
	<datestamp>1246354080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, we give a lot of flack to Microsoft for their crap OS's and products. And yes, there are a lot of security holes and threats that crop up- but this is because it is the most popular OS on the market. Were any other OS to suddenly take that share I can assure you we would see an increase of viruses and exploits in those systems. Its not like Microsoft is creating these viruses, nor are they responsible for their replication (as much as I would like for them to be). This comes down to computer users with either malicious intent or ignorance to the dangers of computing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , we give a lot of flack to Microsoft for their crap OS 's and products .
And yes , there are a lot of security holes and threats that crop up- but this is because it is the most popular OS on the market .
Were any other OS to suddenly take that share I can assure you we would see an increase of viruses and exploits in those systems .
Its not like Microsoft is creating these viruses , nor are they responsible for their replication ( as much as I would like for them to be ) .
This comes down to computer users with either malicious intent or ignorance to the dangers of computing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, we give a lot of flack to Microsoft for their crap OS's and products.
And yes, there are a lot of security holes and threats that crop up- but this is because it is the most popular OS on the market.
Were any other OS to suddenly take that share I can assure you we would see an increase of viruses and exploits in those systems.
Its not like Microsoft is creating these viruses, nor are they responsible for their replication (as much as I would like for them to be).
This comes down to computer users with either malicious intent or ignorance to the dangers of computing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533755</id>
	<title>Not going far enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246395360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>TJMax and subsidieries was hit with 10 million in fines just from one state, and has had to pay for numerous stolen cards. Estimates are that the WIndows based system that they used to file Applications cost them around 40-50 MILLION DOLLARS. Turns out that it was more than what their IT was costing them from one year. What do you bet that they still have idiots there pushing Windows?</htmltext>
<tokenext>TJMax and subsidieries was hit with 10 million in fines just from one state , and has had to pay for numerous stolen cards .
Estimates are that the WIndows based system that they used to file Applications cost them around 40-50 MILLION DOLLARS .
Turns out that it was more than what their IT was costing them from one year .
What do you bet that they still have idiots there pushing Windows ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TJMax and subsidieries was hit with 10 million in fines just from one state, and has had to pay for numerous stolen cards.
Estimates are that the WIndows based system that they used to file Applications cost them around 40-50 MILLION DOLLARS.
Turns out that it was more than what their IT was costing them from one year.
What do you bet that they still have idiots there pushing Windows?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533515</id>
	<title>You cannot use viruses/bugs as an example of cost</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246394400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Due to the fact that windows has had a 90+\% marketshare since the dawn of time, do you really think people are gonna waste time writing viruses for the 6 people using a mac or the 2 people using linux?  No, they aren't.  It's cost benefit analysis at it's finest, they're aiming for the larger audience, just as they are doing now with firefox which was claimed to be 893589023x more secure than IE, but as soon as it gained popularity the bugs/exploits came out of the woodwork like fucking crazy.
<br>
<br>I personally use windows, and prefer windows, and since XP came out have never had a problem with it myself.  The biggest problem with computers is they're technical machines which lend themselves to needing to have technical knowledge in order to use one safely/correctly....which the majority of people do not have.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Due to the fact that windows has had a 90 + \ % marketshare since the dawn of time , do you really think people are gon na waste time writing viruses for the 6 people using a mac or the 2 people using linux ?
No , they are n't .
It 's cost benefit analysis at it 's finest , they 're aiming for the larger audience , just as they are doing now with firefox which was claimed to be 893589023x more secure than IE , but as soon as it gained popularity the bugs/exploits came out of the woodwork like fucking crazy .
I personally use windows , and prefer windows , and since XP came out have never had a problem with it myself .
The biggest problem with computers is they 're technical machines which lend themselves to needing to have technical knowledge in order to use one safely/correctly....which the majority of people do not have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Due to the fact that windows has had a 90+\% marketshare since the dawn of time, do you really think people are gonna waste time writing viruses for the 6 people using a mac or the 2 people using linux?
No, they aren't.
It's cost benefit analysis at it's finest, they're aiming for the larger audience, just as they are doing now with firefox which was claimed to be 893589023x more secure than IE, but as soon as it gained popularity the bugs/exploits came out of the woodwork like fucking crazy.
I personally use windows, and prefer windows, and since XP came out have never had a problem with it myself.
The biggest problem with computers is they're technical machines which lend themselves to needing to have technical knowledge in order to use one safely/correctly....which the majority of people do not have.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534725</id>
	<title>Re:I have an idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246356000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK</p><p>and then we have to switch the discussion to the hidden costs of fixing or rolling back from Microsoft's updates!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OKand then we have to switch the discussion to the hidden costs of fixing or rolling back from Microsoft 's updates !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OKand then we have to switch the discussion to the hidden costs of fixing or rolling back from Microsoft's updates!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534659</id>
	<title>Re:Only Proprietary?</title>
	<author>the\_womble</author>
	<datestamp>1246355700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linux has a lot less malware. The effect on TCO of counting it would be negligible. That is not true of Windows. Therefore, ignoring it favour Windows.</p><p>If we are going to pick and choose what to ignore, lets ignore retraining costs and one-off transition costs. I wonder who will have the lower TCO then?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux has a lot less malware .
The effect on TCO of counting it would be negligible .
That is not true of Windows .
Therefore , ignoring it favour Windows.If we are going to pick and choose what to ignore , lets ignore retraining costs and one-off transition costs .
I wonder who will have the lower TCO then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux has a lot less malware.
The effect on TCO of counting it would be negligible.
That is not true of Windows.
Therefore, ignoring it favour Windows.If we are going to pick and choose what to ignore, lets ignore retraining costs and one-off transition costs.
I wonder who will have the lower TCO then?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28537553</id>
	<title>Re:An ounce of Prevention</title>
	<author>turbidostato</author>
	<datestamp>1246373100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Every OS should be covered by AV and kept up to date with latest patches / versions etc."</p><p>Yes.  And on top of that, proper security policies should be enacted and the users properly trained on their equipment usage.</p><p>And all of these comes at a cost that sums up to the TCO of the solution.</p><p>And that's exactly the point of the article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Every OS should be covered by AV and kept up to date with latest patches / versions etc. " Yes .
And on top of that , proper security policies should be enacted and the users properly trained on their equipment usage.And all of these comes at a cost that sums up to the TCO of the solution.And that 's exactly the point of the article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Every OS should be covered by AV and kept up to date with latest patches / versions etc."Yes.
And on top of that, proper security policies should be enacted and the users properly trained on their equipment usage.And all of these comes at a cost that sums up to the TCO of the solution.And that's exactly the point of the article.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535019</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533673</id>
	<title>Right</title>
	<author>dedazo</author>
	<datestamp>1246395000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To make the comparison fair, maybe a comparison (pardoning the redundancy) between the companies that don't patch and have no meaningful data security policies in place and those who do would be indicated. I say that because Conficker went live in November of last year, and the out of band patch was available in October. A replay of the other ones where a patch has existed well before the exploit was seen in the wild - in fact in the case of (I think Slammer) the exploit was <i>based</i> on what the patch was fixing.</p><p>This is especially meaningful in the case of <i>companies</i> who have control over their users' PCs, rather than home users that need to be bothered with letting Windows Update run in the background and help them patch their boxes occasionally. We all know how much of a bother <i>that</i> can be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To make the comparison fair , maybe a comparison ( pardoning the redundancy ) between the companies that do n't patch and have no meaningful data security policies in place and those who do would be indicated .
I say that because Conficker went live in November of last year , and the out of band patch was available in October .
A replay of the other ones where a patch has existed well before the exploit was seen in the wild - in fact in the case of ( I think Slammer ) the exploit was based on what the patch was fixing.This is especially meaningful in the case of companies who have control over their users ' PCs , rather than home users that need to be bothered with letting Windows Update run in the background and help them patch their boxes occasionally .
We all know how much of a bother that can be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To make the comparison fair, maybe a comparison (pardoning the redundancy) between the companies that don't patch and have no meaningful data security policies in place and those who do would be indicated.
I say that because Conficker went live in November of last year, and the out of band patch was available in October.
A replay of the other ones where a patch has existed well before the exploit was seen in the wild - in fact in the case of (I think Slammer) the exploit was based on what the patch was fixing.This is especially meaningful in the case of companies who have control over their users' PCs, rather than home users that need to be bothered with letting Windows Update run in the background and help them patch their boxes occasionally.
We all know how much of a bother that can be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535099</id>
	<title>Re:Other hidden costs.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246357980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is one of the hazards of progress.  I personally believe that the Office 2007 interface is far more user friendly.  The functions in Office are easier to find and the preview abilities make them easier to use.  That being said, it is does make life more difficult for people that have gotten used to a particular interface.  I can't help but wonder, should a company try to innovate in order to improve their products, at the possibility of alientating current users, or should just continue to do everything the same way so people don't have to adapt to change.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The style handling in Word is one example that can make the blood pressure rise.</p></div><p>You are the first and only person I have heard complain that styles were easier in the older versions of Office.  If anything the style handling was the most improved aspect of '07</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one of the hazards of progress .
I personally believe that the Office 2007 interface is far more user friendly .
The functions in Office are easier to find and the preview abilities make them easier to use .
That being said , it is does make life more difficult for people that have gotten used to a particular interface .
I ca n't help but wonder , should a company try to innovate in order to improve their products , at the possibility of alientating current users , or should just continue to do everything the same way so people do n't have to adapt to change.The style handling in Word is one example that can make the blood pressure rise.You are the first and only person I have heard complain that styles were easier in the older versions of Office .
If anything the style handling was the most improved aspect of '07</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one of the hazards of progress.
I personally believe that the Office 2007 interface is far more user friendly.
The functions in Office are easier to find and the preview abilities make them easier to use.
That being said, it is does make life more difficult for people that have gotten used to a particular interface.
I can't help but wonder, should a company try to innovate in order to improve their products, at the possibility of alientating current users, or should just continue to do everything the same way so people don't have to adapt to change.The style handling in Word is one example that can make the blood pressure rise.You are the first and only person I have heard complain that styles were easier in the older versions of Office.
If anything the style handling was the most improved aspect of '07
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534463</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1246354980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>This is the same as stating: "If linux had the number of users that microsoft windows had, it would be victim to the same number of viruses, malware, and general script kiddies" which is complete bullshit.</i>
</p><p>The user is the single biggest security hole in any system.  On what basis do you justify ignoring that ?
</p><p> <i>I'm sick of hearing this argument, only a complete tool would believe it. *Nix systems are inherently more secure, due to its security model (file permissions, groups, no admin rights, etc), [...]</i>
</p><p>The Windows permissions system is both more comprehensive, and more secure, than traditional UNIX security.
</p><p> <i>[...] and to the fact that it literally forces you to not be a complete moron (security wise) while using it. </i>
</p><p>Quite the opposite.  The most common way to get around security "annoyances" in UNIX is to run stuff as root.  Root - by definition - completely bypasses the entire security system.
</p><p> <i>Furthermore, because of the variety of software that can be installed on each box, only the most common programs (apache, nginx, ssl, ssh, etc) would be effective targets to attack, limiting the areas an admin needs to cover.</i>
</p><p>So, just like Windows you mean ?
</p><p> <i>Due to the above, there are only certain attacks that would be effective to a *Nix system. Off the top of my head, this leaves: privilege escalation, man-in-the-middle, and social engineering (a problem everywhere, regardless of OS).</i>
</p><p>So, just like Windows then ?
</p><p> <i>In short, a Linux machine that is run by a competent administrator is MUCH more difficult to infect or attack than a Windows machine, and the parent is a moron.</i>
</p><p>A Windows machine run by a competent administrator is just as difficult to infect or attack as a similar Linux machine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the same as stating : " If linux had the number of users that microsoft windows had , it would be victim to the same number of viruses , malware , and general script kiddies " which is complete bullshit .
The user is the single biggest security hole in any system .
On what basis do you justify ignoring that ?
I 'm sick of hearing this argument , only a complete tool would believe it .
* Nix systems are inherently more secure , due to its security model ( file permissions , groups , no admin rights , etc ) , [ ... ] The Windows permissions system is both more comprehensive , and more secure , than traditional UNIX security .
[ ... ] and to the fact that it literally forces you to not be a complete moron ( security wise ) while using it .
Quite the opposite .
The most common way to get around security " annoyances " in UNIX is to run stuff as root .
Root - by definition - completely bypasses the entire security system .
Furthermore , because of the variety of software that can be installed on each box , only the most common programs ( apache , nginx , ssl , ssh , etc ) would be effective targets to attack , limiting the areas an admin needs to cover .
So , just like Windows you mean ?
Due to the above , there are only certain attacks that would be effective to a * Nix system .
Off the top of my head , this leaves : privilege escalation , man-in-the-middle , and social engineering ( a problem everywhere , regardless of OS ) .
So , just like Windows then ?
In short , a Linux machine that is run by a competent administrator is MUCH more difficult to infect or attack than a Windows machine , and the parent is a moron .
A Windows machine run by a competent administrator is just as difficult to infect or attack as a similar Linux machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> This is the same as stating: "If linux had the number of users that microsoft windows had, it would be victim to the same number of viruses, malware, and general script kiddies" which is complete bullshit.
The user is the single biggest security hole in any system.
On what basis do you justify ignoring that ?
I'm sick of hearing this argument, only a complete tool would believe it.
*Nix systems are inherently more secure, due to its security model (file permissions, groups, no admin rights, etc), [...]
The Windows permissions system is both more comprehensive, and more secure, than traditional UNIX security.
[...] and to the fact that it literally forces you to not be a complete moron (security wise) while using it.
Quite the opposite.
The most common way to get around security "annoyances" in UNIX is to run stuff as root.
Root - by definition - completely bypasses the entire security system.
Furthermore, because of the variety of software that can be installed on each box, only the most common programs (apache, nginx, ssl, ssh, etc) would be effective targets to attack, limiting the areas an admin needs to cover.
So, just like Windows you mean ?
Due to the above, there are only certain attacks that would be effective to a *Nix system.
Off the top of my head, this leaves: privilege escalation, man-in-the-middle, and social engineering (a problem everywhere, regardless of OS).
So, just like Windows then ?
In short, a Linux machine that is run by a competent administrator is MUCH more difficult to infect or attack than a Windows machine, and the parent is a moron.
A Windows machine run by a competent administrator is just as difficult to infect or attack as a similar Linux machine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28537305</id>
	<title>Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246371480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is news, how, exactly?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is news , how , exactly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is news, how, exactly?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533923</id>
	<title>Re:There's hidden costs to everything</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246352820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if this mindset were applied to other things? Do you think that we shouldn't bother moving to alternative-fuel cars because it'll be too expensive to change our fuel distribution infrastructure? Do you stick with a more expensive cell provider because it's too difficult to learn how to use a new phone? Do you drive a car for 25 years because it's too hard to learn where all the buttons are in a new one?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if this mindset were applied to other things ?
Do you think that we should n't bother moving to alternative-fuel cars because it 'll be too expensive to change our fuel distribution infrastructure ?
Do you stick with a more expensive cell provider because it 's too difficult to learn how to use a new phone ?
Do you drive a car for 25 years because it 's too hard to learn where all the buttons are in a new one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if this mindset were applied to other things?
Do you think that we shouldn't bother moving to alternative-fuel cars because it'll be too expensive to change our fuel distribution infrastructure?
Do you stick with a more expensive cell provider because it's too difficult to learn how to use a new phone?
Do you drive a car for 25 years because it's too hard to learn where all the buttons are in a new one?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28539357</id>
	<title>Re:Troll article yes, but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246478760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Hell, you could have paid the guys who wrote it 2 million to exclude your IP range in the fricking code, and saved 500k!"</p><p>Give me the adress there! (Spoken in true Austrian-German accent).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Hell , you could have paid the guys who wrote it 2 million to exclude your IP range in the fricking code , and saved 500k !
" Give me the adress there !
( Spoken in true Austrian-German accent ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Hell, you could have paid the guys who wrote it 2 million to exclude your IP range in the fricking code, and saved 500k!
"Give me the adress there!
(Spoken in true Austrian-German accent).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28541869</id>
	<title>But..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246461240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not that I'm a MSFT proponent, but...</p><p>As any OS grows in popularity, so does the malware. If people exercised common sense, most of it would never affect anyone.</p><p>And if we want to start hidden cost wars, the cost of doing installs and updates on linux probably offsets this one on MSFT. Mac I'm not familiar enough with to compare, but I'm sure it has it's holes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I 'm a MSFT proponent , but...As any OS grows in popularity , so does the malware .
If people exercised common sense , most of it would never affect anyone.And if we want to start hidden cost wars , the cost of doing installs and updates on linux probably offsets this one on MSFT .
Mac I 'm not familiar enough with to compare , but I 'm sure it has it 's holes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I'm a MSFT proponent, but...As any OS grows in popularity, so does the malware.
If people exercised common sense, most of it would never affect anyone.And if we want to start hidden cost wars, the cost of doing installs and updates on linux probably offsets this one on MSFT.
Mac I'm not familiar enough with to compare, but I'm sure it has it's holes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533617</id>
	<title>Prediction</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1246394820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This story thread will have an extremely large number of posts which are highly moderated, but contain very little original or useful information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This story thread will have an extremely large number of posts which are highly moderated , but contain very little original or useful information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This story thread will have an extremely large number of posts which are highly moderated, but contain very little original or useful information.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538421</id>
	<title>Re:What about the other costs of AV?</title>
	<author>TheQuantumShift</author>
	<datestamp>1246381140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think that's the best part. Everybody running A/V, Firewall, Access Control, Blacklists, Whitelists and everything in between? You are? And you still get viruses? Someday it's going to come out that all this "security" is snake oil. Use a firewall, educate your users, and update your systems. Let your CPU cycles get something useful done.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that 's the best part .
Everybody running A/V , Firewall , Access Control , Blacklists , Whitelists and everything in between ?
You are ?
And you still get viruses ?
Someday it 's going to come out that all this " security " is snake oil .
Use a firewall , educate your users , and update your systems .
Let your CPU cycles get something useful done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that's the best part.
Everybody running A/V, Firewall, Access Control, Blacklists, Whitelists and everything in between?
You are?
And you still get viruses?
Someday it's going to come out that all this "security" is snake oil.
Use a firewall, educate your users, and update your systems.
Let your CPU cycles get something useful done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533697</id>
	<title>There's hidden costs to everything</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246395060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe the world still runs on Microsoft because the TCO difference just isn't high enough to justify the cost of switching. The cost of migration has to be figured into the TCO of the alternative, despite how unfair it sounds to do so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the world still runs on Microsoft because the TCO difference just is n't high enough to justify the cost of switching .
The cost of migration has to be figured into the TCO of the alternative , despite how unfair it sounds to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the world still runs on Microsoft because the TCO difference just isn't high enough to justify the cost of switching.
The cost of migration has to be figured into the TCO of the alternative, despite how unfair it sounds to do so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28536177</id>
	<title>Re:What about the other costs of AV?</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1246363740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Between AV scanning and the constant background Update checks, and I should have said "among" because there are other little things as well - my notebook is unusable for an hour every day.</p><p>A reboot takes 25 minutes.  That's not a typo.<br>Shutting down takes 5-10 minutes and starting up in the morning takes 15-20 minutes.</p><p>That's going from a usable system to off and to a usable system.  I'm not talking about until the desktop comes up, because it's still unusable at that point.</p><p>My biggest complaint is that disk I/O is a noticeably big resource hog.  "System Idle Process" could be at 95-97\% but I can't click on anything because somehow disk I/O is happening.  It's not the CPU, just waiting for turns on the disk.  At that point I can't do anything.  I can't even launch Task Manager to see if it's a CPU spike.</p><p>My only resolution has been to write a VBScript that uses WMI to set all update processes to low priority, all virus scanning processes to low priority, and turns off Windows Update, and kills the local SMS proxy.  Reboot still takes 20 minutes because a lot of junk happens over our retarded network, but at least I can click around in things.  It's in the startup folder and takes 10 minutes until it even runs, but by the time I can click on something it has made life significantly easier for me.</p><p>I can't tell you how many meetings I've missed the beginning of, even though Outlook is already running and everything is cached offline, because I click on the calendar (or the reminder window) and nothing happens for 15 minutes.  THAT should be calculated in TCO.</p><p>Oh sure, blame my local IT guys, but I feel it's Windows design that's the fundamental problem.  Virus scan, updates, and the scheduler, with possibly disk access routines all part of the problem.  My home notebook doesn't have these problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Between AV scanning and the constant background Update checks , and I should have said " among " because there are other little things as well - my notebook is unusable for an hour every day.A reboot takes 25 minutes .
That 's not a typo.Shutting down takes 5-10 minutes and starting up in the morning takes 15-20 minutes.That 's going from a usable system to off and to a usable system .
I 'm not talking about until the desktop comes up , because it 's still unusable at that point.My biggest complaint is that disk I/O is a noticeably big resource hog .
" System Idle Process " could be at 95-97 \ % but I ca n't click on anything because somehow disk I/O is happening .
It 's not the CPU , just waiting for turns on the disk .
At that point I ca n't do anything .
I ca n't even launch Task Manager to see if it 's a CPU spike.My only resolution has been to write a VBScript that uses WMI to set all update processes to low priority , all virus scanning processes to low priority , and turns off Windows Update , and kills the local SMS proxy .
Reboot still takes 20 minutes because a lot of junk happens over our retarded network , but at least I can click around in things .
It 's in the startup folder and takes 10 minutes until it even runs , but by the time I can click on something it has made life significantly easier for me.I ca n't tell you how many meetings I 've missed the beginning of , even though Outlook is already running and everything is cached offline , because I click on the calendar ( or the reminder window ) and nothing happens for 15 minutes .
THAT should be calculated in TCO.Oh sure , blame my local IT guys , but I feel it 's Windows design that 's the fundamental problem .
Virus scan , updates , and the scheduler , with possibly disk access routines all part of the problem .
My home notebook does n't have these problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Between AV scanning and the constant background Update checks, and I should have said "among" because there are other little things as well - my notebook is unusable for an hour every day.A reboot takes 25 minutes.
That's not a typo.Shutting down takes 5-10 minutes and starting up in the morning takes 15-20 minutes.That's going from a usable system to off and to a usable system.
I'm not talking about until the desktop comes up, because it's still unusable at that point.My biggest complaint is that disk I/O is a noticeably big resource hog.
"System Idle Process" could be at 95-97\% but I can't click on anything because somehow disk I/O is happening.
It's not the CPU, just waiting for turns on the disk.
At that point I can't do anything.
I can't even launch Task Manager to see if it's a CPU spike.My only resolution has been to write a VBScript that uses WMI to set all update processes to low priority, all virus scanning processes to low priority, and turns off Windows Update, and kills the local SMS proxy.
Reboot still takes 20 minutes because a lot of junk happens over our retarded network, but at least I can click around in things.
It's in the startup folder and takes 10 minutes until it even runs, but by the time I can click on something it has made life significantly easier for me.I can't tell you how many meetings I've missed the beginning of, even though Outlook is already running and everything is cached offline, because I click on the calendar (or the reminder window) and nothing happens for 15 minutes.
THAT should be calculated in TCO.Oh sure, blame my local IT guys, but I feel it's Windows design that's the fundamental problem.
Virus scan, updates, and the scheduler, with possibly disk access routines all part of the problem.
My home notebook doesn't have these problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533603</id>
	<title>Troll article yes, but</title>
	<author>SatanicPuppy</author>
	<datestamp>1246394760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the hell were they doing paying $2.5 million to clean up a worm? Seriously? Hell, you could have paid the guys who wrote it 2 million to exclude your IP range in the fricking code, and saved 500k!</p><p>Governments have got to get their crap together on this stuff. When that worm hit corporate here, in luddite central, the number of effected machines was under 30...For the entire corporation! And that's with all properties connected by a corporate WAN.</p><p>That they had that level of infection is inexcusable. Shows that they're just wasting money right and left and getting nothing but a crap product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell were they doing paying $ 2.5 million to clean up a worm ?
Seriously ? Hell , you could have paid the guys who wrote it 2 million to exclude your IP range in the fricking code , and saved 500k ! Governments have got to get their crap together on this stuff .
When that worm hit corporate here , in luddite central , the number of effected machines was under 30...For the entire corporation !
And that 's with all properties connected by a corporate WAN.That they had that level of infection is inexcusable .
Shows that they 're just wasting money right and left and getting nothing but a crap product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell were they doing paying $2.5 million to clean up a worm?
Seriously? Hell, you could have paid the guys who wrote it 2 million to exclude your IP range in the fricking code, and saved 500k!Governments have got to get their crap together on this stuff.
When that worm hit corporate here, in luddite central, the number of effected machines was under 30...For the entire corporation!
And that's with all properties connected by a corporate WAN.That they had that level of infection is inexcusable.
Shows that they're just wasting money right and left and getting nothing but a crap product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28537387</id>
	<title>Re:fw;dr</title>
	<author>bursch-X</author>
	<datestamp>1246372020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's the downtime that give corporations the biggest headaches. If you have to clean the whole company for viruses, you often can't afford running even one machine potentially infecting all the others back while you're cleaning, so the whole company might come to a grinding halt. Considering this 2 Mio. might be realistic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the downtime that give corporations the biggest headaches .
If you have to clean the whole company for viruses , you often ca n't afford running even one machine potentially infecting all the others back while you 're cleaning , so the whole company might come to a grinding halt .
Considering this 2 Mio .
might be realistic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the downtime that give corporations the biggest headaches.
If you have to clean the whole company for viruses, you often can't afford running even one machine potentially infecting all the others back while you're cleaning, so the whole company might come to a grinding halt.
Considering this 2 Mio.
might be realistic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28540601</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246452360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is the same as stating: "If linux had the number of users that microsoft windows had, it would be victim to the same number of viruses, malware, and general script kiddies" which is complete bullshit.</p></div><p>You are under-estimating the destructive abilities of idiots. Even when there is no way to do damage, they still find a way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the same as stating : " If linux had the number of users that microsoft windows had , it would be victim to the same number of viruses , malware , and general script kiddies " which is complete bullshit.You are under-estimating the destructive abilities of idiots .
Even when there is no way to do damage , they still find a way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the same as stating: "If linux had the number of users that microsoft windows had, it would be victim to the same number of viruses, malware, and general script kiddies" which is complete bullshit.You are under-estimating the destructive abilities of idiots.
Even when there is no way to do damage, they still find a way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28537505</id>
	<title>Re:What about the other costs of AV?</title>
	<author>achenaar</author>
	<datestamp>1246372800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aaaaaaaaaaaand, the terrorists have won.<br>
Neat innit? How this sort of threat looks and quacks just like all the others and garners the same response.<br>
Interesting really.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Aaaaaaaaaaaand , the terrorists have won .
Neat innit ?
How this sort of threat looks and quacks just like all the others and garners the same response .
Interesting really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aaaaaaaaaaaand, the terrorists have won.
Neat innit?
How this sort of threat looks and quacks just like all the others and garners the same response.
Interesting really.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535199</id>
	<title>Re:Viruses proportional to installed user-base</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246358580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When windows will allow software installation without the need of administrator / system then I will agree with you. Windows starts with one basic flaw and they need to get rid of the "SYSTEM" user.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When windows will allow software installation without the need of administrator / system then I will agree with you .
Windows starts with one basic flaw and they need to get rid of the " SYSTEM " user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When windows will allow software installation without the need of administrator / system then I will agree with you.
Windows starts with one basic flaw and they need to get rid of the "SYSTEM" user.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534019</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533559</id>
	<title>Can't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246394580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>MS can't include these into calculations for obvious reasons. They must proceed as if such vulnerabilities don't exist in order to market their product. What's funny is they don't want you to either. They want to hold themselves up as either "just as good as" the next guy or make excuses for their lack of security.<br> <br> In the long run this is a cost that need not be spent. There are alternative OS's and it's high time governments, of all entities, started using open alternatives. It's not just costing them in terms of being beholding to corporations like MS but in real dollars as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>MS ca n't include these into calculations for obvious reasons .
They must proceed as if such vulnerabilities do n't exist in order to market their product .
What 's funny is they do n't want you to either .
They want to hold themselves up as either " just as good as " the next guy or make excuses for their lack of security .
In the long run this is a cost that need not be spent .
There are alternative OS 's and it 's high time governments , of all entities , started using open alternatives .
It 's not just costing them in terms of being beholding to corporations like MS but in real dollars as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS can't include these into calculations for obvious reasons.
They must proceed as if such vulnerabilities don't exist in order to market their product.
What's funny is they don't want you to either.
They want to hold themselves up as either "just as good as" the next guy or make excuses for their lack of security.
In the long run this is a cost that need not be spent.
There are alternative OS's and it's high time governments, of all entities, started using open alternatives.
It's not just costing them in terms of being beholding to corporations like MS but in real dollars as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28537915</id>
	<title>Re:Only Proprietary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246376220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yea, but linux malware will all be located in the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.wine directory.</p><p>That's a lot cheaper than cleaning up malware on windows machines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , but linux malware will all be located in the .wine directory.That 's a lot cheaper than cleaning up malware on windows machines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, but linux malware will all be located in the .wine directory.That's a lot cheaper than cleaning up malware on windows machines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28539683</id>
	<title>test</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246440000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I run dual boot vista/ubuntu at home. There was a time a few years ago when I needed visual studio, sql server, etc installed. But now, I only use it for games (vista) and downloads (ubuntu). After I lost data from a hd crash 1 year ago I started to use gmail and office online (google docs). So I basically use whatever I feel like at the time. Both systems have antivirus installed, are updated constantly. Vista has also 3 antimalware, spyware apps running. At this point it makes little difference to a common user to use windows or linux. Both have achieved enormous complexity and require some level of knowledge to use. I do feel personally that Linux is becoming more easy to use and windows more complicated to use. Nevertheless, for experts on windows it doesn't make much difference. But It's my opinion that some MS products have evolved with intelligence and others are sinking rapidly in terms of easy of use. Right now, windows' reputation for being easy to use is their primary sell factor (to home users). Professionals use it because they have no choice. BUT, Ubuntu IS FREE. So that is a big deal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I run dual boot vista/ubuntu at home .
There was a time a few years ago when I needed visual studio , sql server , etc installed .
But now , I only use it for games ( vista ) and downloads ( ubuntu ) .
After I lost data from a hd crash 1 year ago I started to use gmail and office online ( google docs ) .
So I basically use whatever I feel like at the time .
Both systems have antivirus installed , are updated constantly .
Vista has also 3 antimalware , spyware apps running .
At this point it makes little difference to a common user to use windows or linux .
Both have achieved enormous complexity and require some level of knowledge to use .
I do feel personally that Linux is becoming more easy to use and windows more complicated to use .
Nevertheless , for experts on windows it does n't make much difference .
But It 's my opinion that some MS products have evolved with intelligence and others are sinking rapidly in terms of easy of use .
Right now , windows ' reputation for being easy to use is their primary sell factor ( to home users ) .
Professionals use it because they have no choice .
BUT , Ubuntu IS FREE .
So that is a big deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run dual boot vista/ubuntu at home.
There was a time a few years ago when I needed visual studio, sql server, etc installed.
But now, I only use it for games (vista) and downloads (ubuntu).
After I lost data from a hd crash 1 year ago I started to use gmail and office online (google docs).
So I basically use whatever I feel like at the time.
Both systems have antivirus installed, are updated constantly.
Vista has also 3 antimalware, spyware apps running.
At this point it makes little difference to a common user to use windows or linux.
Both have achieved enormous complexity and require some level of knowledge to use.
I do feel personally that Linux is becoming more easy to use and windows more complicated to use.
Nevertheless, for experts on windows it doesn't make much difference.
But It's my opinion that some MS products have evolved with intelligence and others are sinking rapidly in terms of easy of use.
Right now, windows' reputation for being easy to use is their primary sell factor (to home users).
Professionals use it because they have no choice.
BUT, Ubuntu IS FREE.
So that is a big deal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28539077</id>
	<title>Re: Not true</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246389120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As far as I know, Conficker can install itself even if you aren't in the "Administrator" group. I know a company where this has happened, and all active users were "Power Users" at most. I'm not entirely sure how Conficker "got in", but it spread to other clients via network. Doesn't the service being exploited run as SYSTEM, anyway?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I know , Conficker can install itself even if you are n't in the " Administrator " group .
I know a company where this has happened , and all active users were " Power Users " at most .
I 'm not entirely sure how Conficker " got in " , but it spread to other clients via network .
Does n't the service being exploited run as SYSTEM , anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I know, Conficker can install itself even if you aren't in the "Administrator" group.
I know a company where this has happened, and all active users were "Power Users" at most.
I'm not entirely sure how Conficker "got in", but it spread to other clients via network.
Doesn't the service being exploited run as SYSTEM, anyway?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534071</id>
	<title>Re:I have an idea</title>
	<author>Anubis IV</author>
	<datestamp>1246353360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course, some companies, not saying names here, have a reputation for releasing patches that introduce more bugs than they fix, even if they haven't done much to earn that reputation in recent years. IT veterans are like elephants though: they never forget. Plus, when you have mission critical systems that need to be online 24/7, scheduling downtime to install a software patch sometimes needs to happen weeks or months in advance (I'm not suggesting this is good practice, just that it does happen), and two months doesn't seem unreasonable if a company wants to take a wait-and-see approach to whether or not a patch is safe to deploy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , some companies , not saying names here , have a reputation for releasing patches that introduce more bugs than they fix , even if they have n't done much to earn that reputation in recent years .
IT veterans are like elephants though : they never forget .
Plus , when you have mission critical systems that need to be online 24/7 , scheduling downtime to install a software patch sometimes needs to happen weeks or months in advance ( I 'm not suggesting this is good practice , just that it does happen ) , and two months does n't seem unreasonable if a company wants to take a wait-and-see approach to whether or not a patch is safe to deploy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, some companies, not saying names here, have a reputation for releasing patches that introduce more bugs than they fix, even if they haven't done much to earn that reputation in recent years.
IT veterans are like elephants though: they never forget.
Plus, when you have mission critical systems that need to be online 24/7, scheduling downtime to install a software patch sometimes needs to happen weeks or months in advance (I'm not suggesting this is good practice, just that it does happen), and two months doesn't seem unreasonable if a company wants to take a wait-and-see approach to whether or not a patch is safe to deploy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534343</id>
	<title>Re:Cheaper to prevent than fix</title>
	<author>Locutus</author>
	<datestamp>1246354440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the problem is, when hiring people for administering Microsoft software, they are screened and rated on how muscular the index finger is. <br>
&nbsp; </p><p>LoB<br>
&nbsp; </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the problem is , when hiring people for administering Microsoft software , they are screened and rated on how muscular the index finger is .
  LoB  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>the problem is, when hiring people for administering Microsoft software, they are screened and rated on how muscular the index finger is.
  LoB
  </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535113</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1246358100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe it's a strength that Linux is used less.</p></div><p>Question for people smarter than me: If Linux is on 80\% (or so) of servers out there, you'd think there'd be viruses like crazy for Linux, right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's a strength that Linux is used less.Question for people smarter than me : If Linux is on 80 \ % ( or so ) of servers out there , you 'd think there 'd be viruses like crazy for Linux , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's a strength that Linux is used less.Question for people smarter than me: If Linux is on 80\% (or so) of servers out there, you'd think there'd be viruses like crazy for Linux, right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534505</id>
	<title>The cost of OutLook</title>
	<author>WheelDweller</author>
	<datestamp>1246355160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's an airport in Indy that has two men on payroll, specifically to rebuild Outlook as a messenging-agent, every week when it takes a dump.  This is needless, especially since Zimbra's done so very well on wide rollout.</p><p>Can you imagine trying to hire two people because Postfix goes down every couple of weeks? Unheard-of.  But people will do anything for Microsoft.</p><p>And we're not even figuring-in the cases where a man loses $30,000 removed from his bank account, and spends six YEARS trying to get it back, becauase of malware.</p><p>Malware is very, very expensive.  And Microsoft is quite the petri dish for growing such problems.</p><p>Don't tell me that, when Linux gets big enough, it'll have 2,000,000 viruses out in the wild, too.  That stable of viruses was grown because it's done in closed-source and/or to cause people to buy support.</p><p>Linux, now, is larger than Apple, and still has less infections and malware trouble. I don't see a time when TWO MILLION viruses will be tolerated by the Linux brotherhood.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's an airport in Indy that has two men on payroll , specifically to rebuild Outlook as a messenging-agent , every week when it takes a dump .
This is needless , especially since Zimbra 's done so very well on wide rollout.Can you imagine trying to hire two people because Postfix goes down every couple of weeks ?
Unheard-of. But people will do anything for Microsoft.And we 're not even figuring-in the cases where a man loses $ 30,000 removed from his bank account , and spends six YEARS trying to get it back , becauase of malware.Malware is very , very expensive .
And Microsoft is quite the petri dish for growing such problems.Do n't tell me that , when Linux gets big enough , it 'll have 2,000,000 viruses out in the wild , too .
That stable of viruses was grown because it 's done in closed-source and/or to cause people to buy support.Linux , now , is larger than Apple , and still has less infections and malware trouble .
I do n't see a time when TWO MILLION viruses will be tolerated by the Linux brotherhood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's an airport in Indy that has two men on payroll, specifically to rebuild Outlook as a messenging-agent, every week when it takes a dump.
This is needless, especially since Zimbra's done so very well on wide rollout.Can you imagine trying to hire two people because Postfix goes down every couple of weeks?
Unheard-of.  But people will do anything for Microsoft.And we're not even figuring-in the cases where a man loses $30,000 removed from his bank account, and spends six YEARS trying to get it back, becauase of malware.Malware is very, very expensive.
And Microsoft is quite the petri dish for growing such problems.Don't tell me that, when Linux gets big enough, it'll have 2,000,000 viruses out in the wild, too.
That stable of viruses was grown because it's done in closed-source and/or to cause people to buy support.Linux, now, is larger than Apple, and still has less infections and malware trouble.
I don't see a time when TWO MILLION viruses will be tolerated by the Linux brotherhood.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534117</id>
	<title>Re:Only Proprietary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246353540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And you can name this malware please? Please list them. Then let's do a side by side comparison.</p><p>Nice FUD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And you can name this malware please ?
Please list them .
Then let 's do a side by side comparison.Nice FUD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you can name this malware please?
Please list them.
Then let's do a side by side comparison.Nice FUD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533727</id>
	<title>Re:Cheaper to prevent than fix</title>
	<author>Bourbonium</author>
	<datestamp>1246395240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a good point that I hoped someone would make.  What is not explained in the article is that "Windows" isn't exactly the cause of the problem, but "Windows XP."  If systems were maintained and upgraded per Microsoft's recommendations, Conficker would not have been anywhere near as big a problem.  Say what you will about Windows Vista, if Manchester had upgraded their systems to Vista on the client side (or at the very least, not allowed users to run XP under Admin credentials), Conficker would never have been able to install itself.</p><p>I'm a big promoter of Open Source, but I work in a Microsoft shop where we still have all our desktops standardized on WindowsXP, but we never allow standard users to run as Admin, and we never had any problem with Conficker.</p><p>Migrating to Open Source would help a lot, but Manchester just needs better IT support (or more likely, better IT management) all the way around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a good point that I hoped someone would make .
What is not explained in the article is that " Windows " is n't exactly the cause of the problem , but " Windows XP .
" If systems were maintained and upgraded per Microsoft 's recommendations , Conficker would not have been anywhere near as big a problem .
Say what you will about Windows Vista , if Manchester had upgraded their systems to Vista on the client side ( or at the very least , not allowed users to run XP under Admin credentials ) , Conficker would never have been able to install itself.I 'm a big promoter of Open Source , but I work in a Microsoft shop where we still have all our desktops standardized on WindowsXP , but we never allow standard users to run as Admin , and we never had any problem with Conficker.Migrating to Open Source would help a lot , but Manchester just needs better IT support ( or more likely , better IT management ) all the way around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a good point that I hoped someone would make.
What is not explained in the article is that "Windows" isn't exactly the cause of the problem, but "Windows XP.
"  If systems were maintained and upgraded per Microsoft's recommendations, Conficker would not have been anywhere near as big a problem.
Say what you will about Windows Vista, if Manchester had upgraded their systems to Vista on the client side (or at the very least, not allowed users to run XP under Admin credentials), Conficker would never have been able to install itself.I'm a big promoter of Open Source, but I work in a Microsoft shop where we still have all our desktops standardized on WindowsXP, but we never allow standard users to run as Admin, and we never had any problem with Conficker.Migrating to Open Source would help a lot, but Manchester just needs better IT support (or more likely, better IT management) all the way around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534103</id>
	<title>Dumn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246353480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I appreciate that free software is great.  It does 95\% of what most people want and does it for free.  What more could one want?</p><p>But so much about this "article" is invalid.  It does nothing but hurt the credibility of the author.</p><p>You don't need to make spurious arguments to bolster the argument for free software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I appreciate that free software is great .
It does 95 \ % of what most people want and does it for free .
What more could one want ? But so much about this " article " is invalid .
It does nothing but hurt the credibility of the author.You do n't need to make spurious arguments to bolster the argument for free software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I appreciate that free software is great.
It does 95\% of what most people want and does it for free.
What more could one want?But so much about this "article" is invalid.
It does nothing but hurt the credibility of the author.You don't need to make spurious arguments to bolster the argument for free software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28541033</id>
	<title>Re:Not an inherent cost of Windows</title>
	<author>amotion</author>
	<datestamp>1246456440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, having such knowledgeable admins that can maintain a Windows user base in such an advanced way should not be included in the TCO for Windows??! What is your definition of TCO then? Just buying the thing off the shelf?!

And what happens when you include the users' frustration of having to <em>use</em> such a bogged-down machine (where for example you would have trouble listening to your music, using your favorite text editor or web browser) in the calculation of the TCO?

I bet that even if Linux had to be <em>paid</em> for, it would still have a lower TCO!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , having such knowledgeable admins that can maintain a Windows user base in such an advanced way should not be included in the TCO for Windows ? ? !
What is your definition of TCO then ?
Just buying the thing off the shelf ? !
And what happens when you include the users ' frustration of having to use such a bogged-down machine ( where for example you would have trouble listening to your music , using your favorite text editor or web browser ) in the calculation of the TCO ?
I bet that even if Linux had to be paid for , it would still have a lower TCO !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, having such knowledgeable admins that can maintain a Windows user base in such an advanced way should not be included in the TCO for Windows??!
What is your definition of TCO then?
Just buying the thing off the shelf?!
And what happens when you include the users' frustration of having to use such a bogged-down machine (where for example you would have trouble listening to your music, using your favorite text editor or web browser) in the calculation of the TCO?
I bet that even if Linux had to be paid for, it would still have a lower TCO!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534095</id>
	<title>i must point out....</title>
	<author>kevinroyalty</author>
	<datestamp>1246353480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>that I do IT support for MANY small businesses.  a lot of them don't want to pay for properly keeping their malware/virus software up-to-date and healthy.  the result is infection, and the cost to clean it up.  So, my point is a lot of these costs are brought on by the businesses themselves and these costs should not be in any calculation against or for any platform.  you can put the cost into the "stupidity" column if you wish<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>that I do IT support for MANY small businesses .
a lot of them do n't want to pay for properly keeping their malware/virus software up-to-date and healthy .
the result is infection , and the cost to clean it up .
So , my point is a lot of these costs are brought on by the businesses themselves and these costs should not be in any calculation against or for any platform .
you can put the cost into the " stupidity " column if you wish : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that I do IT support for MANY small businesses.
a lot of them don't want to pay for properly keeping their malware/virus software up-to-date and healthy.
the result is infection, and the cost to clean it up.
So, my point is a lot of these costs are brought on by the businesses themselves and these costs should not be in any calculation against or for any platform.
you can put the cost into the "stupidity" column if you wish :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28546371</id>
	<title>ha</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246475760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>where ever stupid people use a computer<br>worms will follow</p><p>The horny dumb computer man will always click nakedchix.exe</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>where ever stupid people use a computerworms will followThe horny dumb computer man will always click nakedchix.exe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>where ever stupid people use a computerworms will followThe horny dumb computer man will always click nakedchix.exe</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533659</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246394940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>No one said Linux is "bulletproof".  Don't try to change the topic.
<br> <br>
TFA is saying that the closed-source software costs more when operating costs are included in the total price tag.  How much does industry pay for malware protection, virus protection, trojan protection, downtime from infection, and loss of productivity as a result of closed-source software?  Those costs are relevant to businesses and should be considered.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No one said Linux is " bulletproof " .
Do n't try to change the topic .
TFA is saying that the closed-source software costs more when operating costs are included in the total price tag .
How much does industry pay for malware protection , virus protection , trojan protection , downtime from infection , and loss of productivity as a result of closed-source software ?
Those costs are relevant to businesses and should be considered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one said Linux is "bulletproof".
Don't try to change the topic.
TFA is saying that the closed-source software costs more when operating costs are included in the total price tag.
How much does industry pay for malware protection, virus protection, trojan protection, downtime from infection, and loss of productivity as a result of closed-source software?
Those costs are relevant to businesses and should be considered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538141</id>
	<title>Re:Viruses proportional to installed user-base</title>
	<author>godrik</author>
	<datestamp>1246378260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>mmm, I am not sure it is only a matter of number of machine you can infected. But a cost/efficience analyze such as in "one hour of work, how many machine could I infect".

My point is that if there was twice much Linux than Windows but requires ten times more effort to infect them, you'll probably stick with infecting Windows since it is more efficient.</htmltext>
<tokenext>mmm , I am not sure it is only a matter of number of machine you can infected .
But a cost/efficience analyze such as in " one hour of work , how many machine could I infect " .
My point is that if there was twice much Linux than Windows but requires ten times more effort to infect them , you 'll probably stick with infecting Windows since it is more efficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mmm, I am not sure it is only a matter of number of machine you can infected.
But a cost/efficience analyze such as in "one hour of work, how many machine could I infect".
My point is that if there was twice much Linux than Windows but requires ten times more effort to infect them, you'll probably stick with infecting Windows since it is more efficient.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534019</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535133</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>jimicus</author>
	<datestamp>1246358220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please don't get me wrong - a lot of people have replied (rather nastily IMO) - these are questions which I would like to see an answer to and aren't intended as sarcasm.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm sick of hearing this argument, only a complete tool would believe it. *Nix systems are inherently more secure, due to its security model (file permissions, groups, no admin rights, etc),</p></div><p>How exactly is a full ACL-based permissions system less secure than the "user, group, world" security model used in traditional Unix?</p><p>The implementation may suck in some cases, but we're talking about something that's inherent here, not a foible of the implementation.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Furthermore, because of the variety of software that can be installed on each box, only the most common programs (apache, nginx, ssl, ssh, etc) would be effective targets to attack,</p></div><p>There are three main forms of malware in the world - viruses (spread with minimal human intervention), worms (spreads with no human intervention whatsoever, generally takes advantage of a software bug) and trojans (requires a human to spread it).</p><p>A quick look on Symantec's website shows that the latest security issues are almost exclusively worms and trojans - neither of which Unix offers any intrinsic protection against.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In short, a Linux machine that is run by a competent administrator is MUCH more difficult to infect or attack than a Windows machine, and the parent is a moron.</p></div><p>Same is true of Windows, though a competent Windows administrator is perhaps rather harder to find amongst the enormous number of people who claim to be Windows admins.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please do n't get me wrong - a lot of people have replied ( rather nastily IMO ) - these are questions which I would like to see an answer to and are n't intended as sarcasm.I 'm sick of hearing this argument , only a complete tool would believe it .
* Nix systems are inherently more secure , due to its security model ( file permissions , groups , no admin rights , etc ) ,How exactly is a full ACL-based permissions system less secure than the " user , group , world " security model used in traditional Unix ? The implementation may suck in some cases , but we 're talking about something that 's inherent here , not a foible of the implementation.Furthermore , because of the variety of software that can be installed on each box , only the most common programs ( apache , nginx , ssl , ssh , etc ) would be effective targets to attack,There are three main forms of malware in the world - viruses ( spread with minimal human intervention ) , worms ( spreads with no human intervention whatsoever , generally takes advantage of a software bug ) and trojans ( requires a human to spread it ) .A quick look on Symantec 's website shows that the latest security issues are almost exclusively worms and trojans - neither of which Unix offers any intrinsic protection against.In short , a Linux machine that is run by a competent administrator is MUCH more difficult to infect or attack than a Windows machine , and the parent is a moron.Same is true of Windows , though a competent Windows administrator is perhaps rather harder to find amongst the enormous number of people who claim to be Windows admins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please don't get me wrong - a lot of people have replied (rather nastily IMO) - these are questions which I would like to see an answer to and aren't intended as sarcasm.I'm sick of hearing this argument, only a complete tool would believe it.
*Nix systems are inherently more secure, due to its security model (file permissions, groups, no admin rights, etc),How exactly is a full ACL-based permissions system less secure than the "user, group, world" security model used in traditional Unix?The implementation may suck in some cases, but we're talking about something that's inherent here, not a foible of the implementation.Furthermore, because of the variety of software that can be installed on each box, only the most common programs (apache, nginx, ssl, ssh, etc) would be effective targets to attack,There are three main forms of malware in the world - viruses (spread with minimal human intervention), worms (spreads with no human intervention whatsoever, generally takes advantage of a software bug) and trojans (requires a human to spread it).A quick look on Symantec's website shows that the latest security issues are almost exclusively worms and trojans - neither of which Unix offers any intrinsic protection against.In short, a Linux machine that is run by a competent administrator is MUCH more difficult to infect or attack than a Windows machine, and the parent is a moron.Same is true of Windows, though a competent Windows administrator is perhaps rather harder to find amongst the enormous number of people who claim to be Windows admins.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534229</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>Yaa 101</author>
	<datestamp>1246354080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only Linux is not used less, Linux is used for almost every platform that includes a microprocessor, from PCs to embedded stuff to gadgets etc...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only Linux is not used less , Linux is used for almost every platform that includes a microprocessor , from PCs to embedded stuff to gadgets etc.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only Linux is not used less, Linux is used for almost every platform that includes a microprocessor, from PCs to embedded stuff to gadgets etc...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535761</id>
	<title>Re:Only Proprietary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246361580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's funny... in 7 years of using Linux I've never once gotten a single piece of malware.... I've also never even heard of a malware outbreak for Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's funny... in 7 years of using Linux I 've never once gotten a single piece of malware.... I 've also never even heard of a malware outbreak for Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's funny... in 7 years of using Linux I've never once gotten a single piece of malware.... I've also never even heard of a malware outbreak for Linux.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28537253</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1246371180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Question for people smarter than me: If Linux is on 80\% (or so) of servers out there, you'd think there'd be viruses like crazy for Linux, right?</i>
</p><p>No.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Question for people smarter than me : If Linux is on 80 \ % ( or so ) of servers out there , you 'd think there 'd be viruses like crazy for Linux , right ?
No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Question for people smarter than me: If Linux is on 80\% (or so) of servers out there, you'd think there'd be viruses like crazy for Linux, right?
No.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535923</id>
	<title>PEBKAC</title>
	<author>InsertCleverUsername</author>
	<datestamp>1246362480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looking for a Better OS?</p><p>How about better users and better sysadmins?  Seriously, sysadmins ought to have some liability when they aren't doing their due diligence.  There was a <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/MS08-067.mspx" title="microsoft.com">critical patch</a> [microsoft.com] that would have prevented Conflicker released way back in October.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking for a Better OS ? How about better users and better sysadmins ?
Seriously , sysadmins ought to have some liability when they are n't doing their due diligence .
There was a critical patch [ microsoft.com ] that would have prevented Conflicker released way back in October .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking for a Better OS?How about better users and better sysadmins?
Seriously, sysadmins ought to have some liability when they aren't doing their due diligence.
There was a critical patch [microsoft.com] that would have prevented Conflicker released way back in October.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534215</id>
	<title>Re:Cheaper to prevent than fix</title>
	<author>gilesjuk</author>
	<datestamp>1246354020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True, but there's often a balance between having machines locked down and having them usable. This is where Windows often struggles, some software just doesn't behave in a locked down environment.</p><p>When you buy some Windows software you can never quite be sure what you need to have locked down, activeX can be a risk but block the registration of activeX controls and you can prevent the software working.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True , but there 's often a balance between having machines locked down and having them usable .
This is where Windows often struggles , some software just does n't behave in a locked down environment.When you buy some Windows software you can never quite be sure what you need to have locked down , activeX can be a risk but block the registration of activeX controls and you can prevent the software working .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, but there's often a balance between having machines locked down and having them usable.
This is where Windows often struggles, some software just doesn't behave in a locked down environment.When you buy some Windows software you can never quite be sure what you need to have locked down, activeX can be a risk but block the registration of activeX controls and you can prevent the software working.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28536301</id>
	<title>Why not patch? Patches are free from Microsoft.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246364340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't it about time folks start downloading and applying free patches from Microsoft. The worm would have never infected the machines had the exploits been patch several months before (when the patches were available).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't it about time folks start downloading and applying free patches from Microsoft .
The worm would have never infected the machines had the exploits been patch several months before ( when the patches were available ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't it about time folks start downloading and applying free patches from Microsoft.
The worm would have never infected the machines had the exploits been patch several months before (when the patches were available).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28536833</id>
	<title>Re:Hear hear!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246367460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the same organization, btw, which insisted on writing IE-7 specific apps for their potential users (poorly written apps, at that) even with a series of outside vendors trying to push them to write to open standards.  Their programmers would have none of it, of course.  Surprise!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the same organization , btw , which insisted on writing IE-7 specific apps for their potential users ( poorly written apps , at that ) even with a series of outside vendors trying to push them to write to open standards .
Their programmers would have none of it , of course .
Surprise !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the same organization, btw, which insisted on writing IE-7 specific apps for their potential users (poorly written apps, at that) even with a series of outside vendors trying to push them to write to open standards.
Their programmers would have none of it, of course.
Surprise!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28552309</id>
	<title>Re:does require expensive support staff</title>
	<author>Bent Spoke</author>
	<datestamp>1246455120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All the above is true.  However, it ignores one factor: inertia.
Non-MS solutions must also counter the inertia of the widespread
conventional wisdom of the MS way is the only way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All the above is true .
However , it ignores one factor : inertia .
Non-MS solutions must also counter the inertia of the widespread conventional wisdom of the MS way is the only way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the above is true.
However, it ignores one factor: inertia.
Non-MS solutions must also counter the inertia of the widespread
conventional wisdom of the MS way is the only way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28539633</id>
	<title>You have to ask?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246439460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TCO means Total Cost of Ownership, wasn't it? So what part of Total Cost isn't clear here?</p><p>Considering the fact you cannot possibly have thought about all possible costs and thus your TCO calculations are guaranteed to be off and meaningless might enlighten you. Maybe not your manager, even though that sort of thing is in his job description.</p><p>Yes, I think TCO is a sack of lies, why do you ask?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TCO means Total Cost of Ownership , was n't it ?
So what part of Total Cost is n't clear here ? Considering the fact you can not possibly have thought about all possible costs and thus your TCO calculations are guaranteed to be off and meaningless might enlighten you .
Maybe not your manager , even though that sort of thing is in his job description.Yes , I think TCO is a sack of lies , why do you ask ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TCO means Total Cost of Ownership, wasn't it?
So what part of Total Cost isn't clear here?Considering the fact you cannot possibly have thought about all possible costs and thus your TCO calculations are guaranteed to be off and meaningless might enlighten you.
Maybe not your manager, even though that sort of thing is in his job description.Yes, I think TCO is a sack of lies, why do you ask?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534469</id>
	<title>Yes,yes,yes</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1246354980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, its about time we include these extreme costs for keeping a bad or insecure environment working...<br>I work exclusively on windows with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net at work, and I am constantly reminded of the daftness of it all,<br>having all these extra security measures and application, to narrow down chances of getting any viruses or malware etc.</p><p>Sure there are some rootkits and viruses for linux, but between you and me, how many compared to windows.<br>As for the costs of admins for linux, yes...they might be higher, but when you compare how much it costs to bring in techs all the time because windows was scrapped or some server lost its boot sector, etc, etc...they lean towards linux and not windows in terms of cost efficiency.</p><p>I try talking to management about linux in a vmware environment to get used to it, and let them experience, the basic equivalency between both worlds...but there is always that linux is too complicated movement...I keep using what they want...<br>although if ever they did change over to linux, then we would have to get an euqivalent to Visual Studio for linux, because this is the best tool from MS that is a full monopoly to date.</p><p>I would love to see some c++ borland suite try to tie in all different modules for creating in house development that allows you to tie into your office suite, etc... as well students are coming out by the thousands trained with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net where as regulr c++ or python or php, they tend to be fewer than....so until this changes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....the movement will stay M$...unfortunately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , its about time we include these extreme costs for keeping a bad or insecure environment working...I work exclusively on windows with .net at work , and I am constantly reminded of the daftness of it all,having all these extra security measures and application , to narrow down chances of getting any viruses or malware etc.Sure there are some rootkits and viruses for linux , but between you and me , how many compared to windows.As for the costs of admins for linux , yes...they might be higher , but when you compare how much it costs to bring in techs all the time because windows was scrapped or some server lost its boot sector , etc , etc...they lean towards linux and not windows in terms of cost efficiency.I try talking to management about linux in a vmware environment to get used to it , and let them experience , the basic equivalency between both worlds...but there is always that linux is too complicated movement...I keep using what they want...although if ever they did change over to linux , then we would have to get an euqivalent to Visual Studio for linux , because this is the best tool from MS that is a full monopoly to date.I would love to see some c + + borland suite try to tie in all different modules for creating in house development that allows you to tie into your office suite , etc... as well students are coming out by the thousands trained with .net where as regulr c + + or python or php , they tend to be fewer than....so until this changes ....the movement will stay M $ ...unfortunately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, its about time we include these extreme costs for keeping a bad or insecure environment working...I work exclusively on windows with .net at work, and I am constantly reminded of the daftness of it all,having all these extra security measures and application, to narrow down chances of getting any viruses or malware etc.Sure there are some rootkits and viruses for linux, but between you and me, how many compared to windows.As for the costs of admins for linux, yes...they might be higher, but when you compare how much it costs to bring in techs all the time because windows was scrapped or some server lost its boot sector, etc, etc...they lean towards linux and not windows in terms of cost efficiency.I try talking to management about linux in a vmware environment to get used to it, and let them experience, the basic equivalency between both worlds...but there is always that linux is too complicated movement...I keep using what they want...although if ever they did change over to linux, then we would have to get an euqivalent to Visual Studio for linux, because this is the best tool from MS that is a full monopoly to date.I would love to see some c++ borland suite try to tie in all different modules for creating in house development that allows you to tie into your office suite, etc... as well students are coming out by the thousands trained with .net where as regulr c++ or python or php, they tend to be fewer than....so until this changes ....the movement will stay M$...unfortunately.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533573</id>
	<title>Other hidden costs.</title>
	<author>Z00L00K</author>
	<datestamp>1246394640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The change of the user interface in Office 2007 is one huge hidden cost. It was done to make things "easier" with the result that old users instead have to re-learn the user interface completely and have a really hard time to do even the things that were simple before.</p><p>And some things that was easy in the old Office version is now really cumbersome. The style handling in Word is one example that can make the blood pressure rise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The change of the user interface in Office 2007 is one huge hidden cost .
It was done to make things " easier " with the result that old users instead have to re-learn the user interface completely and have a really hard time to do even the things that were simple before.And some things that was easy in the old Office version is now really cumbersome .
The style handling in Word is one example that can make the blood pressure rise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The change of the user interface in Office 2007 is one huge hidden cost.
It was done to make things "easier" with the result that old users instead have to re-learn the user interface completely and have a really hard time to do even the things that were simple before.And some things that was easy in the old Office version is now really cumbersome.
The style handling in Word is one example that can make the blood pressure rise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534455</id>
	<title>Re:Troll article yes, but</title>
	<author>jd</author>
	<datestamp>1246354980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It actually sounds dubiously cheap. There are something like 88,000 students at the universities in Manchester, and probably close to ten times that in the whole of Greater Manchester. (The population in each is around 440,000 and 2.2 million respectively.)</p><p>So even if we ignore ALL the costs involved in cleaning up the computers for University and school staff, the city council, the civil service, and all other Government-related facilities, we're looking at $4 per incident.</p><p>The REAL cost to Manchester will obviously depend on the exact fraction of machines infected and the exact number of people with machines running Windows in the first place, but a saner estimate of costs would be closer to $40 per incident, and about 1 non-student incident per student incident.</p><p>This would give you a cost 80 times greater than the estimate given. You won't find it in any single financial account, because it's incredibly distributed, but it still gets paid for by the same people in the end whether it's on one statement or 2.2 million statements. It's just better-hidden on 2.2 million statements.</p><p>If we use Manchester's estimate and assume it applied to the whole country, then Britain as a whole forked over $60 million to clean up the worm. If we use my estimate, it'd be closer to $4.2 billion. Not that it matters which it is, really, it's far far too much in either case.</p><p>You're absolutely right that it's inexcusable, and I'd love to know why it was anything like so high. The regional and national computing centres are in Manchester, the University of Manchester has one of the best computing departments on the planet and GMING means that infections should have been easy to identify, trace and block.</p><p>With the kinds of resources that COULD have been thrown at the problem, Manchester has really no excuse for there ever having been a problem at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It actually sounds dubiously cheap .
There are something like 88,000 students at the universities in Manchester , and probably close to ten times that in the whole of Greater Manchester .
( The population in each is around 440,000 and 2.2 million respectively .
) So even if we ignore ALL the costs involved in cleaning up the computers for University and school staff , the city council , the civil service , and all other Government-related facilities , we 're looking at $ 4 per incident.The REAL cost to Manchester will obviously depend on the exact fraction of machines infected and the exact number of people with machines running Windows in the first place , but a saner estimate of costs would be closer to $ 40 per incident , and about 1 non-student incident per student incident.This would give you a cost 80 times greater than the estimate given .
You wo n't find it in any single financial account , because it 's incredibly distributed , but it still gets paid for by the same people in the end whether it 's on one statement or 2.2 million statements .
It 's just better-hidden on 2.2 million statements.If we use Manchester 's estimate and assume it applied to the whole country , then Britain as a whole forked over $ 60 million to clean up the worm .
If we use my estimate , it 'd be closer to $ 4.2 billion .
Not that it matters which it is , really , it 's far far too much in either case.You 're absolutely right that it 's inexcusable , and I 'd love to know why it was anything like so high .
The regional and national computing centres are in Manchester , the University of Manchester has one of the best computing departments on the planet and GMING means that infections should have been easy to identify , trace and block.With the kinds of resources that COULD have been thrown at the problem , Manchester has really no excuse for there ever having been a problem at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It actually sounds dubiously cheap.
There are something like 88,000 students at the universities in Manchester, and probably close to ten times that in the whole of Greater Manchester.
(The population in each is around 440,000 and 2.2 million respectively.
)So even if we ignore ALL the costs involved in cleaning up the computers for University and school staff, the city council, the civil service, and all other Government-related facilities, we're looking at $4 per incident.The REAL cost to Manchester will obviously depend on the exact fraction of machines infected and the exact number of people with machines running Windows in the first place, but a saner estimate of costs would be closer to $40 per incident, and about 1 non-student incident per student incident.This would give you a cost 80 times greater than the estimate given.
You won't find it in any single financial account, because it's incredibly distributed, but it still gets paid for by the same people in the end whether it's on one statement or 2.2 million statements.
It's just better-hidden on 2.2 million statements.If we use Manchester's estimate and assume it applied to the whole country, then Britain as a whole forked over $60 million to clean up the worm.
If we use my estimate, it'd be closer to $4.2 billion.
Not that it matters which it is, really, it's far far too much in either case.You're absolutely right that it's inexcusable, and I'd love to know why it was anything like so high.
The regional and national computing centres are in Manchester, the University of Manchester has one of the best computing departments on the planet and GMING means that infections should have been easy to identify, trace and block.With the kinds of resources that COULD have been thrown at the problem, Manchester has really no excuse for there ever having been a problem at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28536857</id>
	<title>ms is "Secure enough" if you do it right</title>
	<author>smash</author>
	<datestamp>1246367640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Put in a WSUS server, use it (WSUS is free, for fucks sake).  Roll out AV everywhere, keep it updated.  Get an admin to put in slightly less retarded group policy than default, and don't let users run as admin (would you let them run as root all the time??).
<p>
Are there holes?  Sure.  But you don't get bitten by 99\% of them if you follow any sort of basic security policy...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Put in a WSUS server , use it ( WSUS is free , for fucks sake ) .
Roll out AV everywhere , keep it updated .
Get an admin to put in slightly less retarded group policy than default , and do n't let users run as admin ( would you let them run as root all the time ? ? ) .
Are there holes ?
Sure. But you do n't get bitten by 99 \ % of them if you follow any sort of basic security policy.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Put in a WSUS server, use it (WSUS is free, for fucks sake).
Roll out AV everywhere, keep it updated.
Get an admin to put in slightly less retarded group policy than default, and don't let users run as admin (would you let them run as root all the time??).
Are there holes?
Sure.  But you don't get bitten by 99\% of them if you follow any sort of basic security policy...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534281</id>
	<title>Consider the source</title>
	<author>Jamie's Nightmare</author>
	<datestamp>1246354260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good old Glyn.  No doubt a favorite of Kdawson and many Slashdot folk.  This is the same guy that idolized Stallman by using an <a href="http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2009/05/rms-and-his-magic-bread.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">analogy of a man who passes out a never ending supply of bread</a> [blogspot.com] and then claimed ignorance when I showed this was a rip off of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feeding\_the\_multitude" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Jesus Feeding the multitude</a> [wikipedia.org].  A real class act to be sure.</p><p>I asserted, as I do here, that zealots like Glyn who treat Foss as if it were a religion are a problem that is not discussed often enough, and is the reason articles like this should be viewed with a skeptical eye that is careful to notice the true motivations of the author.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good old Glyn .
No doubt a favorite of Kdawson and many Slashdot folk .
This is the same guy that idolized Stallman by using an analogy of a man who passes out a never ending supply of bread [ blogspot.com ] and then claimed ignorance when I showed this was a rip off of Jesus Feeding the multitude [ wikipedia.org ] .
A real class act to be sure.I asserted , as I do here , that zealots like Glyn who treat Foss as if it were a religion are a problem that is not discussed often enough , and is the reason articles like this should be viewed with a skeptical eye that is careful to notice the true motivations of the author .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good old Glyn.
No doubt a favorite of Kdawson and many Slashdot folk.
This is the same guy that idolized Stallman by using an analogy of a man who passes out a never ending supply of bread [blogspot.com] and then claimed ignorance when I showed this was a rip off of Jesus Feeding the multitude [wikipedia.org].
A real class act to be sure.I asserted, as I do here, that zealots like Glyn who treat Foss as if it were a religion are a problem that is not discussed often enough, and is the reason articles like this should be viewed with a skeptical eye that is careful to notice the true motivations of the author.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28537273</id>
	<title>You can avoid much malware by not being admin</title>
	<author>Edgester</author>
	<datestamp>1246371240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love Linux, but I have seen a properly run MS network where the users don'es have administrator rights. We have next to no malware problems. so in defense of MS, it can't be included in the TCO because you can avoid it by proper security. The problem is that so many apps assume that normal users are admins, so that makes restricting users very painful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love Linux , but I have seen a properly run MS network where the users don'es have administrator rights .
We have next to no malware problems .
so in defense of MS , it ca n't be included in the TCO because you can avoid it by proper security .
The problem is that so many apps assume that normal users are admins , so that makes restricting users very painful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love Linux, but I have seen a properly run MS network where the users don'es have administrator rights.
We have next to no malware problems.
so in defense of MS, it can't be included in the TCO because you can avoid it by proper security.
The problem is that so many apps assume that normal users are admins, so that makes restricting users very painful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534819</id>
	<title>Re:Other hidden costs.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246356600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Style handling is a million times easier in Office 2007.  First, you can preview the style without actually applying it.  Then it's unobtrusive but your most common styles are always present.  And finally you can break it out really easily &amp; have them floating like you would with the various styling toolbars in painting tools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Style handling is a million times easier in Office 2007 .
First , you can preview the style without actually applying it .
Then it 's unobtrusive but your most common styles are always present .
And finally you can break it out really easily &amp; have them floating like you would with the various styling toolbars in painting tools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Style handling is a million times easier in Office 2007.
First, you can preview the style without actually applying it.
Then it's unobtrusive but your most common styles are always present.
And finally you can break it out really easily &amp; have them floating like you would with the various styling toolbars in painting tools.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534555</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1246355340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd like to know your opinion on Vista's efforts to borrow that infrastructure.  Does it get your seal of approval due to the security model upgrade?</p><p>Also are you comparing administrative competency?  Are we assuming that all Linux users are Smart(tm) and all Windows users are not?  If so, why?</p><p>Personally, I agree with you, but seemingly not because your logic is sound.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to know your opinion on Vista 's efforts to borrow that infrastructure .
Does it get your seal of approval due to the security model upgrade ? Also are you comparing administrative competency ?
Are we assuming that all Linux users are Smart ( tm ) and all Windows users are not ?
If so , why ? Personally , I agree with you , but seemingly not because your logic is sound .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to know your opinion on Vista's efforts to borrow that infrastructure.
Does it get your seal of approval due to the security model upgrade?Also are you comparing administrative competency?
Are we assuming that all Linux users are Smart(tm) and all Windows users are not?
If so, why?Personally, I agree with you, but seemingly not because your logic is sound.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535019</id>
	<title>An ounce of Prevention</title>
	<author>Intrusive\_Rogue</author>
	<datestamp>1246357560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every OS should be covered by AV and kept up to date with latest patches / versions etc.  If an organization is caught with it's pants down because of poor Security practices or insufficient malware protection that is not any OS mfg's fault.

All OS's "should," have protection and update policies.  When they're not followed that is a poorly run IT organization, not a hidden cost of an OS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every OS should be covered by AV and kept up to date with latest patches / versions etc .
If an organization is caught with it 's pants down because of poor Security practices or insufficient malware protection that is not any OS mfg 's fault .
All OS 's " should , " have protection and update policies .
When they 're not followed that is a poorly run IT organization , not a hidden cost of an OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every OS should be covered by AV and kept up to date with latest patches / versions etc.
If an organization is caught with it's pants down because of poor Security practices or insufficient malware protection that is not any OS mfg's fault.
All OS's "should," have protection and update policies.
When they're not followed that is a poorly run IT organization, not a hidden cost of an OS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538425</id>
	<title>Re:What about the other costs of AV?</title>
	<author>XMode</author>
	<datestamp>1246381140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This would be the same antivirus that failed to pick up conficker in the first place would it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This would be the same antivirus that failed to pick up conficker in the first place would it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would be the same antivirus that failed to pick up conficker in the first place would it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534247</id>
	<title>Re:There's hidden costs to everything</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246354140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your granny will never switch to Linux because she'll get bitched out by 1000 angry fanboys when she asks for help because she doesn't know the 20 steps to get her wireless modem working on her Linux laptop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your granny will never switch to Linux because she 'll get bitched out by 1000 angry fanboys when she asks for help because she does n't know the 20 steps to get her wireless modem working on her Linux laptop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your granny will never switch to Linux because she'll get bitched out by 1000 angry fanboys when she asks for help because she doesn't know the 20 steps to get her wireless modem working on her Linux laptop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534711</id>
	<title>Re:There's hidden costs to everything</title>
	<author>nsteinme</author>
	<datestamp>1246355940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you kidding me? Insightful? Migration (out of Microsoft's pocket) is a one-time cost, while the savings from not purchasing "software licenses" adds up year after year. It's just like buying a hotel or a piece of land that gives returns year after year for a one-time fixed cost (economy jokes aside).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you kidding me ?
Insightful ? Migration ( out of Microsoft 's pocket ) is a one-time cost , while the savings from not purchasing " software licenses " adds up year after year .
It 's just like buying a hotel or a piece of land that gives returns year after year for a one-time fixed cost ( economy jokes aside ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you kidding me?
Insightful? Migration (out of Microsoft's pocket) is a one-time cost, while the savings from not purchasing "software licenses" adds up year after year.
It's just like buying a hotel or a piece of land that gives returns year after year for a one-time fixed cost (economy jokes aside).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28540219</id>
	<title>Re:Cheaper to prevent than fix</title>
	<author>JAlexoi</author>
	<datestamp>1246447500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Guess you don't work in a heterogeneous environment even if it's standard OS is Windows.<br>
There are a lot of applications that require admin privileges. And a lot of MS patches do break a lot of things.<br>
If you are a big enough shop, then you will know that before you push the patches to your users th IT dept needs to test the patches with all standard software for a LOT of depts. And you financial dept will not have the same standard software as your sales.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess you do n't work in a heterogeneous environment even if it 's standard OS is Windows .
There are a lot of applications that require admin privileges .
And a lot of MS patches do break a lot of things .
If you are a big enough shop , then you will know that before you push the patches to your users th IT dept needs to test the patches with all standard software for a LOT of depts .
And you financial dept will not have the same standard software as your sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess you don't work in a heterogeneous environment even if it's standard OS is Windows.
There are a lot of applications that require admin privileges.
And a lot of MS patches do break a lot of things.
If you are a big enough shop, then you will know that before you push the patches to your users th IT dept needs to test the patches with all standard software for a LOT of depts.
And you financial dept will not have the same standard software as your sales.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534233</id>
	<title>Re:It is the hacker's mentality.</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1246354080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Hackers target Microsoft software only because it is much more popular than non-Microsoft software. </i> <br> <br>It probably goes a little deeper than that.  Most malware writers, because of the popularity of Microsoft software, probably cut their teeth writing programs for Windows.  They may know the Microsoft APIs backwards and forwards, put put them on a linux box and it might take them an hour just to get "Hello World" working.  Everyone knows the HKML\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run registry entry, but what is the linux equivalent?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hackers target Microsoft software only because it is much more popular than non-Microsoft software .
It probably goes a little deeper than that .
Most malware writers , because of the popularity of Microsoft software , probably cut their teeth writing programs for Windows .
They may know the Microsoft APIs backwards and forwards , put put them on a linux box and it might take them an hour just to get " Hello World " working .
Everyone knows the HKML \ SOFTWARE \ Microsoft \ Windows \ CurrentVersion \ Run registry entry , but what is the linux equivalent ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hackers target Microsoft software only because it is much more popular than non-Microsoft software.
It probably goes a little deeper than that.
Most malware writers, because of the popularity of Microsoft software, probably cut their teeth writing programs for Windows.
They may know the Microsoft APIs backwards and forwards, put put them on a linux box and it might take them an hour just to get "Hello World" working.
Everyone knows the HKML\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run registry entry, but what is the linux equivalent?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28540205</id>
	<title>Another beat up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246447440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Im a consultant who does the vast majority of my (and my guys) work with the MS platform.</p><p>Open source is great, but the MS platform is good too, its just managed very poorly.</p><p>Without reservation i accept that MS documentation is poor... in some cases very very poor, but that doesnt change the fact that this doesnt happen in network run by competent admins. So many networks are run by absolute luddites who dont have the first clue about basic concepts - and whatever product they are running gets the blame for it.</p><p>MS doesnt help the situation, but comments like this are just a drum for the anti-microsoft crew to beat - nothing more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Im a consultant who does the vast majority of my ( and my guys ) work with the MS platform.Open source is great , but the MS platform is good too , its just managed very poorly.Without reservation i accept that MS documentation is poor... in some cases very very poor , but that doesnt change the fact that this doesnt happen in network run by competent admins .
So many networks are run by absolute luddites who dont have the first clue about basic concepts - and whatever product they are running gets the blame for it.MS doesnt help the situation , but comments like this are just a drum for the anti-microsoft crew to beat - nothing more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Im a consultant who does the vast majority of my (and my guys) work with the MS platform.Open source is great, but the MS platform is good too, its just managed very poorly.Without reservation i accept that MS documentation is poor... in some cases very very poor, but that doesnt change the fact that this doesnt happen in network run by competent admins.
So many networks are run by absolute luddites who dont have the first clue about basic concepts - and whatever product they are running gets the blame for it.MS doesnt help the situation, but comments like this are just a drum for the anti-microsoft crew to beat - nothing more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534179</id>
	<title>Re:I have an idea</title>
	<author>Evildonald</author>
	<datestamp>1246353840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The perfect response to a bullsh*t KDawson article like this.  I know slashdot has a self-confessed linux bias, but it doesn't mean they need to make themselves look like a$$hats.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The perfect response to a bullsh * t KDawson article like this .
I know slashdot has a self-confessed linux bias , but it does n't mean they need to make themselves look like a $ $ hats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The perfect response to a bullsh*t KDawson article like this.
I know slashdot has a self-confessed linux bias, but it doesn't mean they need to make themselves look like a$$hats.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535551</id>
	<title>TCO of OSS</title>
	<author>mjayde</author>
	<datestamp>1246360440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's look on the other side of the coin, and imagine the TCO of OSS.<br> <br>

Can you imagine a medium-scale business environment switching from Microsoft to the OSS available today?<br>
I can see an unbounded amount of wasted employee time of people futzing around attempting to fix operator-errors on a linux desktop machine, even after the acclimation period.<br> <br>

It would be nearly impossible for finance to record that amount down on paper.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's look on the other side of the coin , and imagine the TCO of OSS .
Can you imagine a medium-scale business environment switching from Microsoft to the OSS available today ?
I can see an unbounded amount of wasted employee time of people futzing around attempting to fix operator-errors on a linux desktop machine , even after the acclimation period .
It would be nearly impossible for finance to record that amount down on paper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's look on the other side of the coin, and imagine the TCO of OSS.
Can you imagine a medium-scale business environment switching from Microsoft to the OSS available today?
I can see an unbounded amount of wasted employee time of people futzing around attempting to fix operator-errors on a linux desktop machine, even after the acclimation period.
It would be nearly impossible for finance to record that amount down on paper.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533867</id>
	<title>Last time I checked...</title>
	<author>johosaphats</author>
	<datestamp>1246352580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Last time my boss bought software, he wasn't concerned about fancy things like TCO, ROI, or whether the software he was buying actually did anything that was useful to us whatsoever.  He thought it looked pretty, and that was all the criteria he needed to go on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last time my boss bought software , he was n't concerned about fancy things like TCO , ROI , or whether the software he was buying actually did anything that was useful to us whatsoever .
He thought it looked pretty , and that was all the criteria he needed to go on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last time my boss bought software, he wasn't concerned about fancy things like TCO, ROI, or whether the software he was buying actually did anything that was useful to us whatsoever.
He thought it looked pretty, and that was all the criteria he needed to go on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534923</id>
	<title>Re:Other hidden costs.</title>
	<author>recoiledsnake</author>
	<datestamp>1246356960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am sure this applies to FOSS as well. For example, the change from KDE 3.x to 4.x.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am sure this applies to FOSS as well .
For example , the change from KDE 3.x to 4.x .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am sure this applies to FOSS as well.
For example, the change from KDE 3.x to 4.x.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533771</id>
	<title>Overhead of Running AV and Such</title>
	<author>smist08</author>
	<datestamp>1246395420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Add to the TCO, the lost productivity because computers running MS Windows, are so much slower because of the overhead of AV software, anti-spybot, anti-adware, popup blockers and such. Every packet that comes and goes from the network and/or disk is scanned several times. Its amazing how fast a Windows computer can be if you turn all these off (and how quickly it will become infected).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Add to the TCO , the lost productivity because computers running MS Windows , are so much slower because of the overhead of AV software , anti-spybot , anti-adware , popup blockers and such .
Every packet that comes and goes from the network and/or disk is scanned several times .
Its amazing how fast a Windows computer can be if you turn all these off ( and how quickly it will become infected ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Add to the TCO, the lost productivity because computers running MS Windows, are so much slower because of the overhead of AV software, anti-spybot, anti-adware, popup blockers and such.
Every packet that comes and goes from the network and/or disk is scanned several times.
Its amazing how fast a Windows computer can be if you turn all these off (and how quickly it will become infected).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533545</id>
	<title>Cheaper to prevent than fix</title>
	<author>TPJ-Basin</author>
	<datestamp>1246394520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Instead of spending $2 million to *fix* virus issues, why not hire smarter people to *prevent* virus issues? I'm sure doing so would be much cheaper.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of spending $ 2 million to * fix * virus issues , why not hire smarter people to * prevent * virus issues ?
I 'm sure doing so would be much cheaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of spending $2 million to *fix* virus issues, why not hire smarter people to *prevent* virus issues?
I'm sure doing so would be much cheaper.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538799</id>
	<title>Re:Hear hear!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246385880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The cost of cleaning (even if it is a "dangerous" Windows system) is also due to inappropriate/dangerous use of the computer by users/employees.  As a malware researcher, I see too much use of pornogrophy, cracked software, social networking, P2P, "dumb" clicking, and other actions that would tend to make even the safest system (if there ever is one) dangerous.</p><p>Regards,</p><p>AC</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The cost of cleaning ( even if it is a " dangerous " Windows system ) is also due to inappropriate/dangerous use of the computer by users/employees .
As a malware researcher , I see too much use of pornogrophy , cracked software , social networking , P2P , " dumb " clicking , and other actions that would tend to make even the safest system ( if there ever is one ) dangerous.Regards,AC</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cost of cleaning (even if it is a "dangerous" Windows system) is also due to inappropriate/dangerous use of the computer by users/employees.
As a malware researcher, I see too much use of pornogrophy, cracked software, social networking, P2P, "dumb" clicking, and other actions that would tend to make even the safest system (if there ever is one) dangerous.Regards,AC</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534099</id>
	<title>does require expensive support staff</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246353480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Way back when, MS got itself into businesses by being cheaper than Unix.  Seriously.  I worked on a vertical application solution and the MS solution was cheaper than 1/3.  For a small business, this was significant.  We had no problem paying the money, as we were going to make money, but there seemed little reason to be little reason to spend the money just to get the (declining) industry standard solution.  Add to this that, at that time, MS OS was a reletively simple structure and basically any minimal competent person could set it up, the MS solution would end up being an order of magnitude cheaper.
<p>
Fast forward.  MS only produces complicated behemoths.  To this day MS Windows has not completely understood it is a network OS(perhaps 7 will do it).  It is no longer the case that a part time person can keep 20 machines running.  And when something does happen, it can be very difficult to fix.  A single event can require a complete reinstall of the OS.  I've made mistakes of going to a wrong web site and had this happen on a completely up to date machine.  I have allowed untrusted parties to run my MS machines and have had significant damage caused within the hour.  MS machines are the dependable work horses they once were.  It now requires a significant infrastructure to keep MS machines a production.  The best case scenario is to treat each machine as a RAID, keeping data off the machine, and using a standard HD disk images.  Doesn't this sound like the pre-MS days of the so-called inefficient mainframe.  MS is worried about this and has began a defensive campaign against IBM.
</p><p>
I would argue that MS machines are now, overall, as expensive and inefficient as the Unix machines were when ATT tried to save themselves with the introduction of <a href="http://www.corestack.com/machines/unixpc.html" title="corestack.com">this machine</a> [corestack.com]. This does not mean that MS does not have value, at least to legacy customers, but it may not be the best choice for startups, as Unix was the not the best choice in the late 1980's.
</p><p>
I can point to an exact time, around 2000, when MS became too expensive to use.  It was a time whem MS would accuse paying customers of theft.  Force customer to undergo intrusive and expensive audits.  Require support staff to be redirected from supporting the customers need to make a profit, to the MS need to make a profit.
</p><p>
In light of this, I think we are going to see non-MS solution, just like we say non-ATT and non-IBM solutions.  The biggest impediment to this is the easy supply of reliable naked PCs with full support to the SOHO owner.  I think some companies, like Gateway, made a mistake in continuing to hook their saddle to the MS bandwagon instead of providing *nix solution for common business problems.  In many cases, smart firms buy solutions, not an OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Way back when , MS got itself into businesses by being cheaper than Unix .
Seriously. I worked on a vertical application solution and the MS solution was cheaper than 1/3 .
For a small business , this was significant .
We had no problem paying the money , as we were going to make money , but there seemed little reason to be little reason to spend the money just to get the ( declining ) industry standard solution .
Add to this that , at that time , MS OS was a reletively simple structure and basically any minimal competent person could set it up , the MS solution would end up being an order of magnitude cheaper .
Fast forward .
MS only produces complicated behemoths .
To this day MS Windows has not completely understood it is a network OS ( perhaps 7 will do it ) .
It is no longer the case that a part time person can keep 20 machines running .
And when something does happen , it can be very difficult to fix .
A single event can require a complete reinstall of the OS .
I 've made mistakes of going to a wrong web site and had this happen on a completely up to date machine .
I have allowed untrusted parties to run my MS machines and have had significant damage caused within the hour .
MS machines are the dependable work horses they once were .
It now requires a significant infrastructure to keep MS machines a production .
The best case scenario is to treat each machine as a RAID , keeping data off the machine , and using a standard HD disk images .
Does n't this sound like the pre-MS days of the so-called inefficient mainframe .
MS is worried about this and has began a defensive campaign against IBM .
I would argue that MS machines are now , overall , as expensive and inefficient as the Unix machines were when ATT tried to save themselves with the introduction of this machine [ corestack.com ] .
This does not mean that MS does not have value , at least to legacy customers , but it may not be the best choice for startups , as Unix was the not the best choice in the late 1980 's .
I can point to an exact time , around 2000 , when MS became too expensive to use .
It was a time whem MS would accuse paying customers of theft .
Force customer to undergo intrusive and expensive audits .
Require support staff to be redirected from supporting the customers need to make a profit , to the MS need to make a profit .
In light of this , I think we are going to see non-MS solution , just like we say non-ATT and non-IBM solutions .
The biggest impediment to this is the easy supply of reliable naked PCs with full support to the SOHO owner .
I think some companies , like Gateway , made a mistake in continuing to hook their saddle to the MS bandwagon instead of providing * nix solution for common business problems .
In many cases , smart firms buy solutions , not an OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Way back when, MS got itself into businesses by being cheaper than Unix.
Seriously.  I worked on a vertical application solution and the MS solution was cheaper than 1/3.
For a small business, this was significant.
We had no problem paying the money, as we were going to make money, but there seemed little reason to be little reason to spend the money just to get the (declining) industry standard solution.
Add to this that, at that time, MS OS was a reletively simple structure and basically any minimal competent person could set it up, the MS solution would end up being an order of magnitude cheaper.
Fast forward.
MS only produces complicated behemoths.
To this day MS Windows has not completely understood it is a network OS(perhaps 7 will do it).
It is no longer the case that a part time person can keep 20 machines running.
And when something does happen, it can be very difficult to fix.
A single event can require a complete reinstall of the OS.
I've made mistakes of going to a wrong web site and had this happen on a completely up to date machine.
I have allowed untrusted parties to run my MS machines and have had significant damage caused within the hour.
MS machines are the dependable work horses they once were.
It now requires a significant infrastructure to keep MS machines a production.
The best case scenario is to treat each machine as a RAID, keeping data off the machine, and using a standard HD disk images.
Doesn't this sound like the pre-MS days of the so-called inefficient mainframe.
MS is worried about this and has began a defensive campaign against IBM.
I would argue that MS machines are now, overall, as expensive and inefficient as the Unix machines were when ATT tried to save themselves with the introduction of this machine [corestack.com].
This does not mean that MS does not have value, at least to legacy customers, but it may not be the best choice for startups, as Unix was the not the best choice in the late 1980's.
I can point to an exact time, around 2000, when MS became too expensive to use.
It was a time whem MS would accuse paying customers of theft.
Force customer to undergo intrusive and expensive audits.
Require support staff to be redirected from supporting the customers need to make a profit, to the MS need to make a profit.
In light of this, I think we are going to see non-MS solution, just like we say non-ATT and non-IBM solutions.
The biggest impediment to this is the easy supply of reliable naked PCs with full support to the SOHO owner.
I think some companies, like Gateway, made a mistake in continuing to hook their saddle to the MS bandwagon instead of providing *nix solution for common business problems.
In many cases, smart firms buy solutions, not an OS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534947</id>
	<title>Re:I have an idea</title>
	<author>usacomp2k3</author>
	<datestamp>1246357080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My thought exactly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My thought exactly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My thought exactly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28552985</id>
	<title>Re:Only Proprietary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246460340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Name one, just fucking one!</p><p>I am SO sick of this "Linux also have malware" crap. Of course malware is possible on Linux - it's just a program. But I have yet to see one single "Linux virus / worm" take down a LAN or a campus lab -- but I have seen hundreds of Windows boxes die with various malware shit.</p><p>So yes, it is possible to have a Linux virus.... but it HAS NOT HAPPENED YET, SO NO COST!!!!</p><p>Fuckwit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Name one , just fucking one ! I am SO sick of this " Linux also have malware " crap .
Of course malware is possible on Linux - it 's just a program .
But I have yet to see one single " Linux virus / worm " take down a LAN or a campus lab -- but I have seen hundreds of Windows boxes die with various malware shit.So yes , it is possible to have a Linux virus.... but it HAS NOT HAPPENED YET , SO NO COST ! ! !
! Fuckwit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Name one, just fucking one!I am SO sick of this "Linux also have malware" crap.
Of course malware is possible on Linux - it's just a program.
But I have yet to see one single "Linux virus / worm" take down a LAN or a campus lab -- but I have seen hundreds of Windows boxes die with various malware shit.So yes, it is possible to have a Linux virus.... but it HAS NOT HAPPENED YET, SO NO COST!!!
!Fuckwit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535413</id>
	<title>Re:Only Proprietary?</title>
	<author>charlieman</author>
	<datestamp>1246359840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Real world companies use NPV (Net Present Value) instead of TCO. The only reason they make comparisons in TCO terms is because free software wins in NPV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Real world companies use NPV ( Net Present Value ) instead of TCO .
The only reason they make comparisons in TCO terms is because free software wins in NPV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Real world companies use NPV (Net Present Value) instead of TCO.
The only reason they make comparisons in TCO terms is because free software wins in NPV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28537411</id>
	<title>Re:I have an idea</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1246372140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Plus, when you have mission critical systems that need to be online 24/7 [...]</i>
</p><p>If any single system needs to be online 24/7, your architecture is broken.
</p><p>This is true regardless of what your OS is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plus , when you have mission critical systems that need to be online 24/7 [ ... ] If any single system needs to be online 24/7 , your architecture is broken .
This is true regardless of what your OS is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Plus, when you have mission critical systems that need to be online 24/7 [...]
If any single system needs to be online 24/7, your architecture is broken.
This is true regardless of what your OS is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538783</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246385760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You forget about the Linux server market, where Linux is number one</p></div><p>Linux is number one in the Linux server market?? Wow! How's Windows doing in the Windows server market?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You forget about the Linux server market , where Linux is number oneLinux is number one in the Linux server market ? ?
Wow ! How 's Windows doing in the Windows server market ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forget about the Linux server market, where Linux is number oneLinux is number one in the Linux server market??
Wow! How's Windows doing in the Windows server market?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534037</id>
	<title>Re:Only Proprietary?</title>
	<author>morgan\_greywolf</author>
	<datestamp>1246353240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tbere is theory and then there is reality.  How <em>likely</em> are you to encounter that Linux malware?  Properly admined, not likely.  On Windows?  The odds are near 100\%, no matter how effective your system administration skills are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tbere is theory and then there is reality .
How likely are you to encounter that Linux malware ?
Properly admined , not likely .
On Windows ?
The odds are near 100 \ % , no matter how effective your system administration skills are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tbere is theory and then there is reality.
How likely are you to encounter that Linux malware?
Properly admined, not likely.
On Windows?
The odds are near 100\%, no matter how effective your system administration skills are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534183</id>
	<title>what is the cost of responsibly using anti-virus?</title>
	<author>Latinhypercube</author>
	<datestamp>1246353840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>c'mon. everyone and his dog knows to use anti-virus. it isn't microsoft's fault it's the most widely used and abused os.</htmltext>
<tokenext>c'mon .
everyone and his dog knows to use anti-virus .
it is n't microsoft 's fault it 's the most widely used and abused os .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>c'mon.
everyone and his dog knows to use anti-virus.
it isn't microsoft's fault it's the most widely used and abused os.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534671</id>
	<title>Cart before the horse...</title>
	<author>bugnuts</author>
	<datestamp>1246355760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MS Windows has so many worms and such because it is a prime target, and the malware criminals get the biggest bang for the buck by targeting it.  FOSS OS's have several proof-of-concept worms and such, but it's not the same thing because the user base and different OS versions make malware and worms bear far less fruit.</p><p>When you consider a single operating system designed to run on many types of machines and has a high adoption rate, a single bug can make many machines vulnerable.  E.g. Windows.  FOSS OS's are not a single operating system... it's more like 50 different OS's and distributions running on many types of machines from FPICs to 10,000 node supercomputers.  This, combined with the low cost:benefit for malware authors targeting 50 OS's instead of one, makes the infection rate very low.  So comparing Windows to many different OS's (as if it's a single competing OS) is not a fair comparison.</p><p>If at some point the unheard of became true and everything went to FOSS we'd have the <b>same issues</b> we have with Windows.  One or two FOSS operating systems would become most prevalent, and thus, would also become the new targets.  Suddenly, the TCO would go up significantly for free software.</p><p>Although it's true that the TCO may be higher for Windows, the reasoning of the summary's conclusion is ass-backwards.  The TCO will go up on any OS that has a very high adoption rate, because the attacks will be proportional to the number of users.  I strongly suspect that the cost of malware cleanup is a constant, weighted by the adoption rate of the particular software.  There may be some other factor such as community involvement in reporting and fixing issues, but then you have people donating free time which flies under the TCO radar.</p><p>Be aware, I'm no windows apologist.  But the original cost of your software doesn't matter for the TCO considering cleanup costs; what really matters is how big a target it is.  Use something obscure and present a useless target, and your cleanup costs will generally be lower.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MS Windows has so many worms and such because it is a prime target , and the malware criminals get the biggest bang for the buck by targeting it .
FOSS OS 's have several proof-of-concept worms and such , but it 's not the same thing because the user base and different OS versions make malware and worms bear far less fruit.When you consider a single operating system designed to run on many types of machines and has a high adoption rate , a single bug can make many machines vulnerable .
E.g. Windows .
FOSS OS 's are not a single operating system... it 's more like 50 different OS 's and distributions running on many types of machines from FPICs to 10,000 node supercomputers .
This , combined with the low cost : benefit for malware authors targeting 50 OS 's instead of one , makes the infection rate very low .
So comparing Windows to many different OS 's ( as if it 's a single competing OS ) is not a fair comparison.If at some point the unheard of became true and everything went to FOSS we 'd have the same issues we have with Windows .
One or two FOSS operating systems would become most prevalent , and thus , would also become the new targets .
Suddenly , the TCO would go up significantly for free software.Although it 's true that the TCO may be higher for Windows , the reasoning of the summary 's conclusion is ass-backwards .
The TCO will go up on any OS that has a very high adoption rate , because the attacks will be proportional to the number of users .
I strongly suspect that the cost of malware cleanup is a constant , weighted by the adoption rate of the particular software .
There may be some other factor such as community involvement in reporting and fixing issues , but then you have people donating free time which flies under the TCO radar.Be aware , I 'm no windows apologist .
But the original cost of your software does n't matter for the TCO considering cleanup costs ; what really matters is how big a target it is .
Use something obscure and present a useless target , and your cleanup costs will generally be lower .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS Windows has so many worms and such because it is a prime target, and the malware criminals get the biggest bang for the buck by targeting it.
FOSS OS's have several proof-of-concept worms and such, but it's not the same thing because the user base and different OS versions make malware and worms bear far less fruit.When you consider a single operating system designed to run on many types of machines and has a high adoption rate, a single bug can make many machines vulnerable.
E.g. Windows.
FOSS OS's are not a single operating system... it's more like 50 different OS's and distributions running on many types of machines from FPICs to 10,000 node supercomputers.
This, combined with the low cost:benefit for malware authors targeting 50 OS's instead of one, makes the infection rate very low.
So comparing Windows to many different OS's (as if it's a single competing OS) is not a fair comparison.If at some point the unheard of became true and everything went to FOSS we'd have the same issues we have with Windows.
One or two FOSS operating systems would become most prevalent, and thus, would also become the new targets.
Suddenly, the TCO would go up significantly for free software.Although it's true that the TCO may be higher for Windows, the reasoning of the summary's conclusion is ass-backwards.
The TCO will go up on any OS that has a very high adoption rate, because the attacks will be proportional to the number of users.
I strongly suspect that the cost of malware cleanup is a constant, weighted by the adoption rate of the particular software.
There may be some other factor such as community involvement in reporting and fixing issues, but then you have people donating free time which flies under the TCO radar.Be aware, I'm no windows apologist.
But the original cost of your software doesn't matter for the TCO considering cleanup costs; what really matters is how big a target it is.
Use something obscure and present a useless target, and your cleanup costs will generally be lower.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534617</id>
	<title>Re:Other hidden costs.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246355580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The change of the user interface in Office 2007 is one huge hidden cost.</i> </p><p>The simplest response to this may be to look at the sales charts at Amazon.com.</p><p>It's fair to assume that most of these users are on their own - no help desk to call for support. Their time. Their money.</p><p>1 Office Home &amp; Student 918 Days In The Top 100<br>3 Office Home &amp; Student Mac. 596 Days<br>9 Office Standard Full Version 903 Days<br>10 Office Small Business Upgrade 562 Days<br>16 Office Pro Full Version 481 Days<br>19 Office Small Business Full Version 387 Days<br>23 Office Pro Full Version 917 Days<br>24 Microsoft Office Mac Media Edition 230 Days</p><p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/software/229535/ref=pd\_ts\_sw\_nav" title="amazon.com">Software Best Sellers in Business &amp; Office</a> [amazon.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The change of the user interface in Office 2007 is one huge hidden cost .
The simplest response to this may be to look at the sales charts at Amazon.com.It 's fair to assume that most of these users are on their own - no help desk to call for support .
Their time .
Their money.1 Office Home &amp; Student 918 Days In The Top 1003 Office Home &amp; Student Mac .
596 Days9 Office Standard Full Version 903 Days10 Office Small Business Upgrade 562 Days16 Office Pro Full Version 481 Days19 Office Small Business Full Version 387 Days23 Office Pro Full Version 917 Days24 Microsoft Office Mac Media Edition 230 DaysSoftware Best Sellers in Business &amp; Office [ amazon.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The change of the user interface in Office 2007 is one huge hidden cost.
The simplest response to this may be to look at the sales charts at Amazon.com.It's fair to assume that most of these users are on their own - no help desk to call for support.
Their time.
Their money.1 Office Home &amp; Student 918 Days In The Top 1003 Office Home &amp; Student Mac.
596 Days9 Office Standard Full Version 903 Days10 Office Small Business Upgrade 562 Days16 Office Pro Full Version 481 Days19 Office Small Business Full Version 387 Days23 Office Pro Full Version 917 Days24 Microsoft Office Mac Media Edition 230 DaysSoftware Best Sellers in Business &amp; Office [amazon.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534351</id>
	<title>It's more than just those costs</title>
	<author>HangingChad</author>
	<datestamp>1246354500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Malware and virus cleanup do cost money, but there are other costs routinely left out of cost estimates.  I've seen enough of them to know.

</p><p>- Cost of anti-virus software.  The reps will claim that's a wash because you still need A/V software for Linux.  BZZZT.  You still need a firewall and scanner for email attachments but not software to guard every workstation on your network.  If you use corporate Gmail, Google does a pretty good job screening out the email nasties.  All for $50/user per year.  Cheap compared to Exchange.

</p><p>- The cost of patch testing.  The time it takes to research and test patches before they're rolled out. And the cost of spending hours in the MS knowledge base researching why X stopped working on Wednesday only to find something was hosed by automatic updates.  You have one expense or the other, sometimes both.

</p><p>- The cost of CALS.  That's one that used to really chap my undies.  It wasn't enough to pay for the software, then you had to buy a license so other people can use it.

</p><p>-The cost of training.  Which, ironically, is one of the things MS throws up as a hidden cost of switching to Linux.  Every couple years you'll be going back to class for...something.

</p><p>Some of those might have changed since I left the last MS shop...I hope so anyway.  Life is so much calmer, less complicated and less expensive in a non-MS environment, you have no idea until you try it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Malware and virus cleanup do cost money , but there are other costs routinely left out of cost estimates .
I 've seen enough of them to know .
- Cost of anti-virus software .
The reps will claim that 's a wash because you still need A/V software for Linux .
BZZZT. You still need a firewall and scanner for email attachments but not software to guard every workstation on your network .
If you use corporate Gmail , Google does a pretty good job screening out the email nasties .
All for $ 50/user per year .
Cheap compared to Exchange .
- The cost of patch testing .
The time it takes to research and test patches before they 're rolled out .
And the cost of spending hours in the MS knowledge base researching why X stopped working on Wednesday only to find something was hosed by automatic updates .
You have one expense or the other , sometimes both .
- The cost of CALS .
That 's one that used to really chap my undies .
It was n't enough to pay for the software , then you had to buy a license so other people can use it .
-The cost of training .
Which , ironically , is one of the things MS throws up as a hidden cost of switching to Linux .
Every couple years you 'll be going back to class for...something .
Some of those might have changed since I left the last MS shop...I hope so anyway .
Life is so much calmer , less complicated and less expensive in a non-MS environment , you have no idea until you try it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Malware and virus cleanup do cost money, but there are other costs routinely left out of cost estimates.
I've seen enough of them to know.
- Cost of anti-virus software.
The reps will claim that's a wash because you still need A/V software for Linux.
BZZZT.  You still need a firewall and scanner for email attachments but not software to guard every workstation on your network.
If you use corporate Gmail, Google does a pretty good job screening out the email nasties.
All for $50/user per year.
Cheap compared to Exchange.
- The cost of patch testing.
The time it takes to research and test patches before they're rolled out.
And the cost of spending hours in the MS knowledge base researching why X stopped working on Wednesday only to find something was hosed by automatic updates.
You have one expense or the other, sometimes both.
- The cost of CALS.
That's one that used to really chap my undies.
It wasn't enough to pay for the software, then you had to buy a license so other people can use it.
-The cost of training.
Which, ironically, is one of the things MS throws up as a hidden cost of switching to Linux.
Every couple years you'll be going back to class for...something.
Some of those might have changed since I left the last MS shop...I hope so anyway.
Life is so much calmer, less complicated and less expensive in a non-MS environment, you have no idea until you try it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533963</id>
	<title>Microsoft incompatibility costs too</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1246353000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They are all but forcing a rollout of IE8, but it is not compatibility with Sharepoint.  Don't know how many times I have watch this happen, but there is nothing you can do about it.  At least with Open Source you could go in and fix it yourself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are all but forcing a rollout of IE8 , but it is not compatibility with Sharepoint .
Do n't know how many times I have watch this happen , but there is nothing you can do about it .
At least with Open Source you could go in and fix it yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are all but forcing a rollout of IE8, but it is not compatibility with Sharepoint.
Don't know how many times I have watch this happen, but there is nothing you can do about it.
At least with Open Source you could go in and fix it yourself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534695</id>
	<title>Re:Other hidden costs.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246355880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>compare that to *every* interface in FLOSS software being different.  Microsoft at least publishes a user interface spec that the majority of developers want to follow to make their software feel familiar to new users right from the start.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>compare that to * every * interface in FLOSS software being different .
Microsoft at least publishes a user interface spec that the majority of developers want to follow to make their software feel familiar to new users right from the start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>compare that to *every* interface in FLOSS software being different.
Microsoft at least publishes a user interface spec that the majority of developers want to follow to make their software feel familiar to new users right from the start.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28539329</id>
	<title>Re:Not an inherent cost of Windows</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1246391940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>This is not a hidden cost of Windows, but a hidden cost of having ignorant admins and/or management.</i> <br> <br>They are somewhat linked in that Windows was sold of the premise of not needing "expensive admins". Thus you typically end up with a complete mess.<br> <br> <i>Most machines in most places of business maintain the same software day-in and day-out. Those machines should either be booting via write-protected remote images or using something like SteadyState to keep everything running perfectly. The servers should have correctly created permissions and security which make viral infections nearly impossible. The rest of the machines should be locked down with policies, limited privilege accounts, and software providing protection from infections. They should also be regularly imaged (as in nightly to a SAN/NAS/etc).</i> <br> <br>This is so radically different from the way that Windows is typically used that replacing Windows with something else probably wouldn't be any more shocking for the users (and management).</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not a hidden cost of Windows , but a hidden cost of having ignorant admins and/or management .
They are somewhat linked in that Windows was sold of the premise of not needing " expensive admins " .
Thus you typically end up with a complete mess .
Most machines in most places of business maintain the same software day-in and day-out .
Those machines should either be booting via write-protected remote images or using something like SteadyState to keep everything running perfectly .
The servers should have correctly created permissions and security which make viral infections nearly impossible .
The rest of the machines should be locked down with policies , limited privilege accounts , and software providing protection from infections .
They should also be regularly imaged ( as in nightly to a SAN/NAS/etc ) .
This is so radically different from the way that Windows is typically used that replacing Windows with something else probably would n't be any more shocking for the users ( and management ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not a hidden cost of Windows, but a hidden cost of having ignorant admins and/or management.
They are somewhat linked in that Windows was sold of the premise of not needing "expensive admins".
Thus you typically end up with a complete mess.
Most machines in most places of business maintain the same software day-in and day-out.
Those machines should either be booting via write-protected remote images or using something like SteadyState to keep everything running perfectly.
The servers should have correctly created permissions and security which make viral infections nearly impossible.
The rest of the machines should be locked down with policies, limited privilege accounts, and software providing protection from infections.
They should also be regularly imaged (as in nightly to a SAN/NAS/etc).
This is so radically different from the way that Windows is typically used that replacing Windows with something else probably wouldn't be any more shocking for the users (and management).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28539749</id>
	<title>Migration costs are a one off.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246440840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Licensing and clean up costs go on for ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Licensing and clean up costs go on for ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Licensing and clean up costs go on for ever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28547461</id>
	<title>Re:Hear hear!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246479420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MS products have more malware problems because they are the biggest target...i.e. the most "cost-effective" platform for malware writers.  If Penguine-ware were on as many machines, it would have as many malware problems.  Only then, there wouldn't be a highly-paid and dedicated team of individuals working to develop and test updates to fix vulnerabilities in the OS.  Fixes would be slower to deploy, less effective, and riskier.</p><p>Life's different when you're the big dog.  The worst thing that could happen to BeOS, Linux, et al would be to "hit the big time" and actually capture a significant market share on ordinary users' machines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MS products have more malware problems because they are the biggest target...i.e .
the most " cost-effective " platform for malware writers .
If Penguine-ware were on as many machines , it would have as many malware problems .
Only then , there would n't be a highly-paid and dedicated team of individuals working to develop and test updates to fix vulnerabilities in the OS .
Fixes would be slower to deploy , less effective , and riskier.Life 's different when you 're the big dog .
The worst thing that could happen to BeOS , Linux , et al would be to " hit the big time " and actually capture a significant market share on ordinary users ' machines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS products have more malware problems because they are the biggest target...i.e.
the most "cost-effective" platform for malware writers.
If Penguine-ware were on as many machines, it would have as many malware problems.
Only then, there wouldn't be a highly-paid and dedicated team of individuals working to develop and test updates to fix vulnerabilities in the OS.
Fixes would be slower to deploy, less effective, and riskier.Life's different when you're the big dog.
The worst thing that could happen to BeOS, Linux, et al would be to "hit the big time" and actually capture a significant market share on ordinary users' machines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534225</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>lorenzo.boccaccia</author>
	<datestamp>1246354080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>...and for one step forward in vista, you have that code run trought rundll on 7 is run as administrator by default and without uac prompt. But finally windows programs are starting to be development with unprivileged user in mind, and that's really good. Not as the jails or chroots, not as the application dropping privileges after the relevant operation are performed, but better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and for one step forward in vista , you have that code run trought rundll on 7 is run as administrator by default and without uac prompt .
But finally windows programs are starting to be development with unprivileged user in mind , and that 's really good .
Not as the jails or chroots , not as the application dropping privileges after the relevant operation are performed , but better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and for one step forward in vista, you have that code run trought rundll on 7 is run as administrator by default and without uac prompt.
But finally windows programs are starting to be development with unprivileged user in mind, and that's really good.
Not as the jails or chroots, not as the application dropping privileges after the relevant operation are performed, but better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534211</id>
	<title>Re:There's hidden costs to everything</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246354020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The cost of NOT migrating should be figured into the TCO as well!!!</p><p>"Opportunity costs" is one of the basic concepts of Economics 101.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The cost of NOT migrating should be figured into the TCO as well ! ! !
" Opportunity costs " is one of the basic concepts of Economics 101 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cost of NOT migrating should be figured into the TCO as well!!!
"Opportunity costs" is one of the basic concepts of Economics 101.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535167</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1246358400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You forget about the Linux server market, where Linux is number one, and this fact hasn't upped the amount of viruses whatsoever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You forget about the Linux server market , where Linux is number one , and this fact has n't upped the amount of viruses whatsoever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forget about the Linux server market, where Linux is number one, and this fact hasn't upped the amount of viruses whatsoever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534623</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535231</id>
	<title>Obvious troll...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246358760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... is obvious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... is obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... is obvious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534805</id>
	<title>Re:they must have stupid IT people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246356480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's people like this that make it so easy for viruses to spread.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's people like this that make it so easy for viruses to spread .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's people like this that make it so easy for viruses to spread.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534465</id>
	<title>this is stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246354980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"For example, the UK city of Manchester has just paid out nearly $2.5 million to clean up the Conficker worm"<br>so they spent extra 2.5 millions because they don't turn on windows update, and now they blame microsoft?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" For example , the UK city of Manchester has just paid out nearly $ 2.5 million to clean up the Conficker worm " so they spent extra 2.5 millions because they do n't turn on windows update , and now they blame microsoft ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"For example, the UK city of Manchester has just paid out nearly $2.5 million to clean up the Conficker worm"so they spent extra 2.5 millions because they don't turn on windows update, and now they blame microsoft?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533583</id>
	<title>fw;dr</title>
	<author>iamhigh</author>
	<datestamp>1246394640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Flame War; Didn't Read<br> <br>But seriously, 2 MILLION to clean up some viruses?  I need to move to Manchester and become a consultant!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Flame War ; Did n't Read But seriously , 2 MILLION to clean up some viruses ?
I need to move to Manchester and become a consultant !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flame War; Didn't Read But seriously, 2 MILLION to clean up some viruses?
I need to move to Manchester and become a consultant!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533777</id>
	<title>Re:Cheaper to prevent than fix</title>
	<author>Voyager529</author>
	<datestamp>1246395420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's no saying that your solution isn't employed. The problem is that in this game of cat-and mouse, the mice have two advantages: manpower and social engineering.<p> First, As soon as one leak is plugged, virus writers can look for the next. Commercially speaking, the virus writers get paid when they find holes to exploit. Anyone can take time to do this. The individuals working to prevent viruses keep their jobs by plugging holes, but Symantec/McAffee/Trend Micro/ESET/Kaspersky/Your Vendor Here only has so many spots on the payroll for leak-pluggers.</p><p>Secondly, it's becoming increasingly common to have viruses mimic security software. Some of the latest crops of malware look incredibly similar to Windows security warnings such that even a reasonably computer literate person would have to take a hard look to be sure that they're genuine. Faking someone else's security warnings is significantly easier than proving that one is original in an irreproducible form.</p><p>Honorable mention goes to the bean counters. If the network director/consumer sees two packages, and one is $20 more expensive (or $20/seat more expensive), convincing people to pay extra for it becomes difficult. Even if one can prove that it genuinely does a better job, given the number of people who have let their subscriptions laps for months or years, convincing them to pay for the added security proactively, instead of a specialist reactively, is quite a challenge. Just look at how many people balk at paying for a backup solution  before their hard drive bites the dust.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no saying that your solution is n't employed .
The problem is that in this game of cat-and mouse , the mice have two advantages : manpower and social engineering .
First , As soon as one leak is plugged , virus writers can look for the next .
Commercially speaking , the virus writers get paid when they find holes to exploit .
Anyone can take time to do this .
The individuals working to prevent viruses keep their jobs by plugging holes , but Symantec/McAffee/Trend Micro/ESET/Kaspersky/Your Vendor Here only has so many spots on the payroll for leak-pluggers.Secondly , it 's becoming increasingly common to have viruses mimic security software .
Some of the latest crops of malware look incredibly similar to Windows security warnings such that even a reasonably computer literate person would have to take a hard look to be sure that they 're genuine .
Faking someone else 's security warnings is significantly easier than proving that one is original in an irreproducible form.Honorable mention goes to the bean counters .
If the network director/consumer sees two packages , and one is $ 20 more expensive ( or $ 20/seat more expensive ) , convincing people to pay extra for it becomes difficult .
Even if one can prove that it genuinely does a better job , given the number of people who have let their subscriptions laps for months or years , convincing them to pay for the added security proactively , instead of a specialist reactively , is quite a challenge .
Just look at how many people balk at paying for a backup solution before their hard drive bites the dust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no saying that your solution isn't employed.
The problem is that in this game of cat-and mouse, the mice have two advantages: manpower and social engineering.
First, As soon as one leak is plugged, virus writers can look for the next.
Commercially speaking, the virus writers get paid when they find holes to exploit.
Anyone can take time to do this.
The individuals working to prevent viruses keep their jobs by plugging holes, but Symantec/McAffee/Trend Micro/ESET/Kaspersky/Your Vendor Here only has so many spots on the payroll for leak-pluggers.Secondly, it's becoming increasingly common to have viruses mimic security software.
Some of the latest crops of malware look incredibly similar to Windows security warnings such that even a reasonably computer literate person would have to take a hard look to be sure that they're genuine.
Faking someone else's security warnings is significantly easier than proving that one is original in an irreproducible form.Honorable mention goes to the bean counters.
If the network director/consumer sees two packages, and one is $20 more expensive (or $20/seat more expensive), convincing people to pay extra for it becomes difficult.
Even if one can prove that it genuinely does a better job, given the number of people who have let their subscriptions laps for months or years, convincing them to pay for the added security proactively, instead of a specialist reactively, is quite a challenge.
Just look at how many people balk at paying for a backup solution  before their hard drive bites the dust.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534009</id>
	<title>Also, don't forget virus scanners slowing down.</title>
	<author>mr\_java66</author>
	<datestamp>1246353180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also, don't forget virus scanners slowing down your system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , do n't forget virus scanners slowing down your system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, don't forget virus scanners slowing down your system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28543117</id>
	<title>What the FUCK</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246466340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, I despise Microsoft more than you do (don't doubt me).</p><p>However.</p><p>Cleaning up a malware infection is YOUR FUCKING FAULT. You, the stupid ass who infected yourself. Yes, you. The security and integrity of your PC and your data starts and ends with you. You, oh excuse me, I mean I, can run a fully secure Microsoft-based PC. If you can't, you suck, you're sad, get out of the industry, stop blaming other people for your lack of ability.</p><p>Idiots.<br>Guess which AV package I run? NONE.<br>Guess which anti-malware I run? NONE.<br>Guess which OS I have been running connected to the Internet for years and it's problem and infection free because of my secure habits? Microsoft Windows XP.<br>You fucking LOSERS! Learn how to run a computer and maybe you won't fuck your customers and industry in the ass!</p><p>Signed,<br>Not a Stupid Ass</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , I despise Microsoft more than you do ( do n't doubt me ) .However.Cleaning up a malware infection is YOUR FUCKING FAULT .
You , the stupid ass who infected yourself .
Yes , you .
The security and integrity of your PC and your data starts and ends with you .
You , oh excuse me , I mean I , can run a fully secure Microsoft-based PC .
If you ca n't , you suck , you 're sad , get out of the industry , stop blaming other people for your lack of ability.Idiots.Guess which AV package I run ?
NONE.Guess which anti-malware I run ?
NONE.Guess which OS I have been running connected to the Internet for years and it 's problem and infection free because of my secure habits ?
Microsoft Windows XP.You fucking LOSERS !
Learn how to run a computer and maybe you wo n't fuck your customers and industry in the ass ! Signed,Not a Stupid Ass</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, I despise Microsoft more than you do (don't doubt me).However.Cleaning up a malware infection is YOUR FUCKING FAULT.
You, the stupid ass who infected yourself.
Yes, you.
The security and integrity of your PC and your data starts and ends with you.
You, oh excuse me, I mean I, can run a fully secure Microsoft-based PC.
If you can't, you suck, you're sad, get out of the industry, stop blaming other people for your lack of ability.Idiots.Guess which AV package I run?
NONE.Guess which anti-malware I run?
NONE.Guess which OS I have been running connected to the Internet for years and it's problem and infection free because of my secure habits?
Microsoft Windows XP.You fucking LOSERS!
Learn how to run a computer and maybe you won't fuck your customers and industry in the ass!Signed,Not a Stupid Ass</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534829</id>
	<title>Other hidden costs...</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1246356660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These studies often fail to take many things into account...</p><p>One of the most common security issues i see with windows based networks, is a lack of patching for third party apps... A lot of places install the windows updates these days, but then they have ancient versions of various third party apps like av tools, remote management software, adobe acrobat etc... There is no single integrated way to update everything like there is on linux.</p><p>There is also the cost of third party apps which are needed on windows but come by default with linux distributions (and are therefore easily updated as part of the distro too, reducing patching effort)..</p><p>Linux also makes it easier to remove unwanted default apps, a smaller install will have less things that need patching and thus reduce the burden of testing and deploying patches.</p><p>Then there are various standards that you might need your network to comply with, such as PCI, where there are various requirements such as having remote logging for all devices... linux supports syslog out of the box, as do 99\% of networking devices, windows doesn't and requires (often expensive) third party software. A lot of these standards are orders of magnitude cheaper to achieve with linux than windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These studies often fail to take many things into account...One of the most common security issues i see with windows based networks , is a lack of patching for third party apps... A lot of places install the windows updates these days , but then they have ancient versions of various third party apps like av tools , remote management software , adobe acrobat etc... There is no single integrated way to update everything like there is on linux.There is also the cost of third party apps which are needed on windows but come by default with linux distributions ( and are therefore easily updated as part of the distro too , reducing patching effort ) ..Linux also makes it easier to remove unwanted default apps , a smaller install will have less things that need patching and thus reduce the burden of testing and deploying patches.Then there are various standards that you might need your network to comply with , such as PCI , where there are various requirements such as having remote logging for all devices... linux supports syslog out of the box , as do 99 \ % of networking devices , windows does n't and requires ( often expensive ) third party software .
A lot of these standards are orders of magnitude cheaper to achieve with linux than windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These studies often fail to take many things into account...One of the most common security issues i see with windows based networks, is a lack of patching for third party apps... A lot of places install the windows updates these days, but then they have ancient versions of various third party apps like av tools, remote management software, adobe acrobat etc... There is no single integrated way to update everything like there is on linux.There is also the cost of third party apps which are needed on windows but come by default with linux distributions (and are therefore easily updated as part of the distro too, reducing patching effort)..Linux also makes it easier to remove unwanted default apps, a smaller install will have less things that need patching and thus reduce the burden of testing and deploying patches.Then there are various standards that you might need your network to comply with, such as PCI, where there are various requirements such as having remote logging for all devices... linux supports syslog out of the box, as do 99\% of networking devices, windows doesn't and requires (often expensive) third party software.
A lot of these standards are orders of magnitude cheaper to achieve with linux than windows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533699</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>n4djs</author>
	<datestamp>1246395060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Linux would never have the same level of bugs as Windows, for one simple reason. The default user configuration on Windows in a home environment is that any user has administrative rights (which is not the case, by and large, in corporate environments). This is primarily due to the vast majority of Windows applications being unable to
install correctly if the user does not have administrator capability.

<p>This leads to all sorts of bogus cruft getting installed on machines by users who are without a clue with computer security, and simply don't know to install tools like NoScript or SiteAdvisor and to pay attention to the warnings they generate.
</p><p>Linux's in general do not run normal users with superuser capabilities, which stops a lot of garbage from getting installed on machines in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux would never have the same level of bugs as Windows , for one simple reason .
The default user configuration on Windows in a home environment is that any user has administrative rights ( which is not the case , by and large , in corporate environments ) .
This is primarily due to the vast majority of Windows applications being unable to install correctly if the user does not have administrator capability .
This leads to all sorts of bogus cruft getting installed on machines by users who are without a clue with computer security , and simply do n't know to install tools like NoScript or SiteAdvisor and to pay attention to the warnings they generate .
Linux 's in general do not run normal users with superuser capabilities , which stops a lot of garbage from getting installed on machines in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Linux would never have the same level of bugs as Windows, for one simple reason.
The default user configuration on Windows in a home environment is that any user has administrative rights (which is not the case, by and large, in corporate environments).
This is primarily due to the vast majority of Windows applications being unable to
install correctly if the user does not have administrator capability.
This leads to all sorts of bogus cruft getting installed on machines by users who are without a clue with computer security, and simply don't know to install tools like NoScript or SiteAdvisor and to pay attention to the warnings they generate.
Linux's in general do not run normal users with superuser capabilities, which stops a lot of garbage from getting installed on machines in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534815</id>
	<title>Hidden cost of hiring the wrong people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246356540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I worked at a major company with thousands of windows desktops when one of these big worms hit.  Exactly one machine was infected and it was only because someone had violated policy and hooked up their personal laptop to the network.  Two people were automatically paged, they cleaned up the mess from home and increased the surveillance on the network.</p><p>The key thing was this company hired top notch security and admins and let them do their job.</p><p>This is really the cost of hiring unqualified people just because they MCSE's and the like.  In many aspects of business, this is the correct thing to do, because the law protects you.  In the case of your infrastructure, this will protect you from stock holder lawsuits, but it doesn't make you look good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I worked at a major company with thousands of windows desktops when one of these big worms hit .
Exactly one machine was infected and it was only because someone had violated policy and hooked up their personal laptop to the network .
Two people were automatically paged , they cleaned up the mess from home and increased the surveillance on the network.The key thing was this company hired top notch security and admins and let them do their job.This is really the cost of hiring unqualified people just because they MCSE 's and the like .
In many aspects of business , this is the correct thing to do , because the law protects you .
In the case of your infrastructure , this will protect you from stock holder lawsuits , but it does n't make you look good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I worked at a major company with thousands of windows desktops when one of these big worms hit.
Exactly one machine was infected and it was only because someone had violated policy and hooked up their personal laptop to the network.
Two people were automatically paged, they cleaned up the mess from home and increased the surveillance on the network.The key thing was this company hired top notch security and admins and let them do their job.This is really the cost of hiring unqualified people just because they MCSE's and the like.
In many aspects of business, this is the correct thing to do, because the law protects you.
In the case of your infrastructure, this will protect you from stock holder lawsuits, but it doesn't make you look good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533685</id>
	<title>Smart Customers</title>
	<author>r45d15</author>
	<datestamp>1246395060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>These costs are only included in TCO calculations by smart customers, the other customers trust corporations like Microsoft, because they are dumb and/or bribed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>These costs are only included in TCO calculations by smart customers , the other customers trust corporations like Microsoft , because they are dumb and/or bribed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These costs are only included in TCO calculations by smart customers, the other customers trust corporations like Microsoft, because they are dumb and/or bribed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538355</id>
	<title>Re:Other hidden costs.</title>
	<author>ajlisows</author>
	<datestamp>1246380360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll tell you what....I actually have grown to like the Office 2007 Interface.  I've been using it for over two years now so I get confused using older versions of Office.</p><p>I am certainly in the minority though.  Most of the people at the Office I work at simply have not adjusted even after using it for an entire year. They absolutely despise it.  The amount of time that I have spent showing people where things are (Not to mention department "Power Users") showing other users where things are has been outrageous.</p><p>If they felt they needed to do this, I think their big mistake was not easing the users into this type of menu.  At least for one release of the software have both available or something. It has been an enormous hidden cost for the company I work at and I would imagine for a lot of other companies that use the Office Suite.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll tell you what....I actually have grown to like the Office 2007 Interface .
I 've been using it for over two years now so I get confused using older versions of Office.I am certainly in the minority though .
Most of the people at the Office I work at simply have not adjusted even after using it for an entire year .
They absolutely despise it .
The amount of time that I have spent showing people where things are ( Not to mention department " Power Users " ) showing other users where things are has been outrageous.If they felt they needed to do this , I think their big mistake was not easing the users into this type of menu .
At least for one release of the software have both available or something .
It has been an enormous hidden cost for the company I work at and I would imagine for a lot of other companies that use the Office Suite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll tell you what....I actually have grown to like the Office 2007 Interface.
I've been using it for over two years now so I get confused using older versions of Office.I am certainly in the minority though.
Most of the people at the Office I work at simply have not adjusted even after using it for an entire year.
They absolutely despise it.
The amount of time that I have spent showing people where things are (Not to mention department "Power Users") showing other users where things are has been outrageous.If they felt they needed to do this, I think their big mistake was not easing the users into this type of menu.
At least for one release of the software have both available or something.
It has been an enormous hidden cost for the company I work at and I would imagine for a lot of other companies that use the Office Suite.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533949</id>
	<title>TCP</title>
	<author>trb</author>
	<datestamp>1246352940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think there should be a new calculation:
<p>
TCP - Total Cost of Pwnership</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think there should be a new calculation : TCP - Total Cost of Pwnership</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think there should be a new calculation:

TCP - Total Cost of Pwnership</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534063</id>
	<title>Re:There's hidden costs to everything</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246353360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about the cost of migration to Vista or Windows 7?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the cost of migration to Vista or Windows 7 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the cost of migration to Vista or Windows 7?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534401</id>
	<title>Re:I have an idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246354680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was my first thought.  Pay your IT guys a reasonable amount so you can afford good ones and avoid the whole hassle.  That's something that is a constant across all operating systems / software variants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was my first thought .
Pay your IT guys a reasonable amount so you can afford good ones and avoid the whole hassle .
That 's something that is a constant across all operating systems / software variants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was my first thought.
Pay your IT guys a reasonable amount so you can afford good ones and avoid the whole hassle.
That's something that is a constant across all operating systems / software variants.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534019</id>
	<title>Viruses proportional to installed user-base</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246353180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously the effort of the virus-making community is proportional to installed user-base.</p><p>More people would create malware for Linux/Mac/etc if more people used those OSs.</p><p>To really <b>prove</b> that an OS is actually "more secure" than Windows, you'll need to put it on like 80\% of computers worldwide to test it.</p><p>I'm not saying Linux is or isn't more secure.  I'm saying that there will always be a security advantage in running a lesser-used operating system.</p><p>You could probably run Windows 3.1 and never get a virus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously the effort of the virus-making community is proportional to installed user-base.More people would create malware for Linux/Mac/etc if more people used those OSs.To really prove that an OS is actually " more secure " than Windows , you 'll need to put it on like 80 \ % of computers worldwide to test it.I 'm not saying Linux is or is n't more secure .
I 'm saying that there will always be a security advantage in running a lesser-used operating system.You could probably run Windows 3.1 and never get a virus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously the effort of the virus-making community is proportional to installed user-base.More people would create malware for Linux/Mac/etc if more people used those OSs.To really prove that an OS is actually "more secure" than Windows, you'll need to put it on like 80\% of computers worldwide to test it.I'm not saying Linux is or isn't more secure.
I'm saying that there will always be a security advantage in running a lesser-used operating system.You could probably run Windows 3.1 and never get a virus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538699</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>someSnarkyBastard</author>
	<datestamp>1246384740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually I thought the figure was around 50\% (+/- 10\%) but yes, you would. If I were going to create a massive botnet, Google's server farms (which run Linux) would be a massive windfall if I could root them. Hell, even if I just managed to tweak a few web pages to run malicious code, if the site gets enough traffic, I could make bank. Imagine Slashdot or Google serving drive-by downloads for example, scary thought isn't it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I thought the figure was around 50 \ % ( + /- 10 \ % ) but yes , you would .
If I were going to create a massive botnet , Google 's server farms ( which run Linux ) would be a massive windfall if I could root them .
Hell , even if I just managed to tweak a few web pages to run malicious code , if the site gets enough traffic , I could make bank .
Imagine Slashdot or Google serving drive-by downloads for example , scary thought is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I thought the figure was around 50\% (+/- 10\%) but yes, you would.
If I were going to create a massive botnet, Google's server farms (which run Linux) would be a massive windfall if I could root them.
Hell, even if I just managed to tweak a few web pages to run malicious code, if the site gets enough traffic, I could make bank.
Imagine Slashdot or Google serving drive-by downloads for example, scary thought isn't it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534839</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>adamstew</author>
	<datestamp>1246356660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.ubcd4win.com/" title="ubcd4win.com">http://www.ubcd4win.com/</a> [ubcd4win.com]</p><p>Windows booting from a read-only CD drive.  I use it often.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.ubcd4win.com/ [ ubcd4win.com ] Windows booting from a read-only CD drive .
I use it often .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.ubcd4win.com/ [ubcd4win.com]Windows booting from a read-only CD drive.
I use it often.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535251</id>
	<title>Not Really...</title>
	<author>EXTomar</author>
	<datestamp>1246358880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>....but you are close.  It isn't that "virus-making community is proportional to the installed user-base" as much as "developers are proportional to the quality of tools" where "virus-making community" is simply a subset.  Given the tools for free you can get for Microsoft and the quality of documentation and debuggers you are going to have an easier time making software in general than you are going for Linux or Mac where "malware" is simply a subset.

The weakness in Windows has always been they have too many ways software can modify system resources with easy to access tools and documentation.  Since I don't believe hiding the tools or documentation is the correct course of action nor does it promote user interaction which is ultimately the use of any machine I'm left with believing that the reason why Windows has a lot of virus is the system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>....but you are close .
It is n't that " virus-making community is proportional to the installed user-base " as much as " developers are proportional to the quality of tools " where " virus-making community " is simply a subset .
Given the tools for free you can get for Microsoft and the quality of documentation and debuggers you are going to have an easier time making software in general than you are going for Linux or Mac where " malware " is simply a subset .
The weakness in Windows has always been they have too many ways software can modify system resources with easy to access tools and documentation .
Since I do n't believe hiding the tools or documentation is the correct course of action nor does it promote user interaction which is ultimately the use of any machine I 'm left with believing that the reason why Windows has a lot of virus is the system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....but you are close.
It isn't that "virus-making community is proportional to the installed user-base" as much as "developers are proportional to the quality of tools" where "virus-making community" is simply a subset.
Given the tools for free you can get for Microsoft and the quality of documentation and debuggers you are going to have an easier time making software in general than you are going for Linux or Mac where "malware" is simply a subset.
The weakness in Windows has always been they have too many ways software can modify system resources with easy to access tools and documentation.
Since I don't believe hiding the tools or documentation is the correct course of action nor does it promote user interaction which is ultimately the use of any machine I'm left with believing that the reason why Windows has a lot of virus is the system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534019</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534087</id>
	<title>Re:I have an idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246353420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if one of your legacy applications that you rely on is broken by one of the Microsoft patches, causing you to disable updates until you resolve this between the original vendor and Microsoft?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if one of your legacy applications that you rely on is broken by one of the Microsoft patches , causing you to disable updates until you resolve this between the original vendor and Microsoft ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if one of your legacy applications that you rely on is broken by one of the Microsoft patches, causing you to disable updates until you resolve this between the original vendor and Microsoft?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535171</id>
	<title>Re:There's hidden costs to everything</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246358400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually no the cost of migration should not be included in the the TCO.  The TCO should be complete but migration is not included.  The cost of migration should be divided by the TCO delta and considered an ROI timeframe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually no the cost of migration should not be included in the the TCO .
The TCO should be complete but migration is not included .
The cost of migration should be divided by the TCO delta and considered an ROI timeframe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually no the cost of migration should not be included in the the TCO.
The TCO should be complete but migration is not included.
The cost of migration should be divided by the TCO delta and considered an ROI timeframe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538591</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1246383180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Begging the question.  Linux is not on 80\% of the servers out there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Begging the question .
Linux is not on 80 \ % of the servers out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Begging the question.
Linux is not on 80\% of the servers out there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535025</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246357620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"privilege escalation" is what it's all about. Most of the nastiest bugs to hit windows were from getting your code run at a higher authority than you are supposed to have. Your counter argument is saying that Linux does not have any access violations. Nobody designs systems to have exploitable bugs, they're completely unrelated to how strict the security model is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" privilege escalation " is what it 's all about .
Most of the nastiest bugs to hit windows were from getting your code run at a higher authority than you are supposed to have .
Your counter argument is saying that Linux does not have any access violations .
Nobody designs systems to have exploitable bugs , they 're completely unrelated to how strict the security model is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"privilege escalation" is what it's all about.
Most of the nastiest bugs to hit windows were from getting your code run at a higher authority than you are supposed to have.
Your counter argument is saying that Linux does not have any access violations.
Nobody designs systems to have exploitable bugs, they're completely unrelated to how strict the security model is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533795</id>
	<title>Yeah, we should count the TCO</title>
	<author>wubti</author>
	<datestamp>1246395480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft is driving the planet to ruin with its wasteful high carbon footprint.   All those employees driving and flying to work just for Micorosoft...
While FOSS is typically done from the home office... no driving involved.

You can include linux as part of your Company's "Green" initiative!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is driving the planet to ruin with its wasteful high carbon footprint .
All those employees driving and flying to work just for Micorosoft.. . While FOSS is typically done from the home office... no driving involved .
You can include linux as part of your Company 's " Green " initiative !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is driving the planet to ruin with its wasteful high carbon footprint.
All those employees driving and flying to work just for Micorosoft...
While FOSS is typically done from the home office... no driving involved.
You can include linux as part of your Company's "Green" initiative!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534677</id>
	<title>Re:fw;dr</title>
	<author>Daniel Dvorkin</author>
	<datestamp>1246355820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Admins have to work so much harder to protect a Windows network than they do to protect a *nix network that the two aren't really comparable.  It's like looking at two patients, one who has a papercut and one who has brain cancer, and saying, "Their chances for recovery only depend on the skills of the doctor."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Admins have to work so much harder to protect a Windows network than they do to protect a * nix network that the two are n't really comparable .
It 's like looking at two patients , one who has a papercut and one who has brain cancer , and saying , " Their chances for recovery only depend on the skills of the doctor .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Admins have to work so much harder to protect a Windows network than they do to protect a *nix network that the two aren't really comparable.
It's like looking at two patients, one who has a papercut and one who has brain cancer, and saying, "Their chances for recovery only depend on the skills of the doctor.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534933</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246357080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>that is run by a competent administrator</p></div><p>This would be the key to any secure system.  It is also possible to run Vista securely, but nobody does because that would require "training" the users more than we are used to.  Linux is more secure by default, Linux users are more accustomed to running in a secured environment, etc.<br> <br>

Is the Linux security model "better" than the Vista one?  I think that's a 99\% subjective question.  Subjectively, I find it easier to run Linux securely than Vista, and more importantly, it is easier to do things securely in Linux than to do them insecurely, in most instances.  In Vista the opposite is often true - far easier to run in Administrator mode than to hassle with reconfiguring something to work properly in a secure way.<br> <br>

But, if you have a competent administrator and well trained users (both as common as Blue Moons on Thursdays), then Vista can be run just as securely as Linux, but then, well trained Linux user/administrators are also quite rare, in the real world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>that is run by a competent administratorThis would be the key to any secure system .
It is also possible to run Vista securely , but nobody does because that would require " training " the users more than we are used to .
Linux is more secure by default , Linux users are more accustomed to running in a secured environment , etc .
Is the Linux security model " better " than the Vista one ?
I think that 's a 99 \ % subjective question .
Subjectively , I find it easier to run Linux securely than Vista , and more importantly , it is easier to do things securely in Linux than to do them insecurely , in most instances .
In Vista the opposite is often true - far easier to run in Administrator mode than to hassle with reconfiguring something to work properly in a secure way .
But , if you have a competent administrator and well trained users ( both as common as Blue Moons on Thursdays ) , then Vista can be run just as securely as Linux , but then , well trained Linux user/administrators are also quite rare , in the real world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that is run by a competent administratorThis would be the key to any secure system.
It is also possible to run Vista securely, but nobody does because that would require "training" the users more than we are used to.
Linux is more secure by default, Linux users are more accustomed to running in a secured environment, etc.
Is the Linux security model "better" than the Vista one?
I think that's a 99\% subjective question.
Subjectively, I find it easier to run Linux securely than Vista, and more importantly, it is easier to do things securely in Linux than to do them insecurely, in most instances.
In Vista the opposite is often true - far easier to run in Administrator mode than to hassle with reconfiguring something to work properly in a secure way.
But, if you have a competent administrator and well trained users (both as common as Blue Moons on Thursdays), then Vista can be run just as securely as Linux, but then, well trained Linux user/administrators are also quite rare, in the real world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28536353</id>
	<title>Benchmarks with AV-software, too</title>
	<author>rainer\_d</author>
	<datestamp>1246364580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Benchmarks comparing PCs with Windows and other OSs should be forced to run with AV-software installed - because that's the normal use-case.</p><p>Everything else silly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Benchmarks comparing PCs with Windows and other OSs should be forced to run with AV-software installed - because that 's the normal use-case.Everything else silly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Benchmarks comparing PCs with Windows and other OSs should be forced to run with AV-software installed - because that's the normal use-case.Everything else silly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534423</id>
	<title>Re:Prediction</title>
	<author>Daniel Dvorkin</author>
	<datestamp>1246354740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm trying to decide if it's funny or terrifying that your post almost immediately got modded up to +5.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm trying to decide if it 's funny or terrifying that your post almost immediately got modded up to + 5 .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm trying to decide if it's funny or terrifying that your post almost immediately got modded up to +5.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535317</id>
	<title>Re:Only Proprietary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246359300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Care to back that up with numbers?</p><p>According to wikipedia, the number of viruses etc. written for Linux is 863.</p><p>I really cannot see a meaningful comparison of security in this respect between Windows and FOSS.</p><p>(Yes, I know Linux is a subset of FOSS, but you see my point).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Care to back that up with numbers ? According to wikipedia , the number of viruses etc .
written for Linux is 863.I really can not see a meaningful comparison of security in this respect between Windows and FOSS .
( Yes , I know Linux is a subset of FOSS , but you see my point ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Care to back that up with numbers?According to wikipedia, the number of viruses etc.
written for Linux is 863.I really cannot see a meaningful comparison of security in this respect between Windows and FOSS.
(Yes, I know Linux is a subset of FOSS, but you see my point).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28541397</id>
	<title>Already asked at get the facts and ignored.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246458600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I asked this question about TCO many moons ago at the get the facts conference, to see if they had included this in their figures. Guess what? They avoided answering me directly but told me about what was included and quickly moved on.<br>So yes, TCO with malware appears to be far higher.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I asked this question about TCO many moons ago at the get the facts conference , to see if they had included this in their figures .
Guess what ?
They avoided answering me directly but told me about what was included and quickly moved on.So yes , TCO with malware appears to be far higher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I asked this question about TCO many moons ago at the get the facts conference, to see if they had included this in their figures.
Guess what?
They avoided answering me directly but told me about what was included and quickly moved on.So yes, TCO with malware appears to be far higher.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533883</id>
	<title>What about the other costs of AV?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246352640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>My company was hit pretty hard by the conficker virus. It took a lot of users offline for days. The cleanup effort included bringing in a small army of consultants to help fix the issue. After everything was cleaned up and ready to go, IT's response to the outbreak was to kick our Virus Scanner into some crazy ultra cautious mode. The end result of that is 50\% of my cpu is being used up by my virus scanner constantly and opening an app or compiling something in eclipse takes substantially longer than it used to.

The fact that virus scanning software decreases worker productivity by tying up substantial system resources should be part of the TCO as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My company was hit pretty hard by the conficker virus .
It took a lot of users offline for days .
The cleanup effort included bringing in a small army of consultants to help fix the issue .
After everything was cleaned up and ready to go , IT 's response to the outbreak was to kick our Virus Scanner into some crazy ultra cautious mode .
The end result of that is 50 \ % of my cpu is being used up by my virus scanner constantly and opening an app or compiling something in eclipse takes substantially longer than it used to .
The fact that virus scanning software decreases worker productivity by tying up substantial system resources should be part of the TCO as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My company was hit pretty hard by the conficker virus.
It took a lot of users offline for days.
The cleanup effort included bringing in a small army of consultants to help fix the issue.
After everything was cleaned up and ready to go, IT's response to the outbreak was to kick our Virus Scanner into some crazy ultra cautious mode.
The end result of that is 50\% of my cpu is being used up by my virus scanner constantly and opening an app or compiling something in eclipse takes substantially longer than it used to.
The fact that virus scanning software decreases worker productivity by tying up substantial system resources should be part of the TCO as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533979</id>
	<title>Preventing water damage.</title>
	<author>Ungrounded Lightning</author>
	<datestamp>1246353060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Instead of spending $2 million to *fix* virus issues, why not hire smarter people to *prevent* virus issues? I'm sure doing so would be much cheaper.</i></p><p>Instead of spending $20,000 to fix water damage, why not hire a contractor to patch the holes in the roof and walls where the rain gets in?</p><p>When you have enough holes in the roof it becomes cheaper to re-roof than to patch.</p><p>When you have enough holes in the roof, walls, window frames, floor, foundation, etc. it becomes cheaper to tear down the house and replace it with a tighter, better built one.</p><p>The issue raised by the article is whether the "Windows/Microsoft apps" and "Linux/FOSS apps" houses meet that last criterion.</p><p>It's instructive that the issue of whether the new house can hold the family ("Is Linux Ready For [whatever]?) is no longer in doubt - thanks to service organizations like IBM's.  The debate has moved from whether Linux can do the job to whether it does it cheaper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of spending $ 2 million to * fix * virus issues , why not hire smarter people to * prevent * virus issues ?
I 'm sure doing so would be much cheaper.Instead of spending $ 20,000 to fix water damage , why not hire a contractor to patch the holes in the roof and walls where the rain gets in ? When you have enough holes in the roof it becomes cheaper to re-roof than to patch.When you have enough holes in the roof , walls , window frames , floor , foundation , etc .
it becomes cheaper to tear down the house and replace it with a tighter , better built one.The issue raised by the article is whether the " Windows/Microsoft apps " and " Linux/FOSS apps " houses meet that last criterion.It 's instructive that the issue of whether the new house can hold the family ( " Is Linux Ready For [ whatever ] ?
) is no longer in doubt - thanks to service organizations like IBM 's .
The debate has moved from whether Linux can do the job to whether it does it cheaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of spending $2 million to *fix* virus issues, why not hire smarter people to *prevent* virus issues?
I'm sure doing so would be much cheaper.Instead of spending $20,000 to fix water damage, why not hire a contractor to patch the holes in the roof and walls where the rain gets in?When you have enough holes in the roof it becomes cheaper to re-roof than to patch.When you have enough holes in the roof, walls, window frames, floor, foundation, etc.
it becomes cheaper to tear down the house and replace it with a tighter, better built one.The issue raised by the article is whether the "Windows/Microsoft apps" and "Linux/FOSS apps" houses meet that last criterion.It's instructive that the issue of whether the new house can hold the family ("Is Linux Ready For [whatever]?
) is no longer in doubt - thanks to service organizations like IBM's.
The debate has moved from whether Linux can do the job to whether it does it cheaper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28540051</id>
	<title>Re:Only Proprietary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246444920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't want to sound like a detractor of free software (I actually favor FLOSS as much as I can), but it's not like Linux doesn't have any malware written for it. Sure, it's to a lesser degree, but it's still there and I'm not sure the costs of removing them are systematically calculated into the TCO either.</p></div><p>The degree is so much lesser that I run my Linux machines without such things as an antivirus software for many years (almost a decade now, since RH6.2), and none of them was ever infected. While my Windows machine did manage to get ill, despite the up to date A/V running on it.</p><p>Let's talk about real world threat levels, not a real one versus a hypothetical one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want to sound like a detractor of free software ( I actually favor FLOSS as much as I can ) , but it 's not like Linux does n't have any malware written for it .
Sure , it 's to a lesser degree , but it 's still there and I 'm not sure the costs of removing them are systematically calculated into the TCO either.The degree is so much lesser that I run my Linux machines without such things as an antivirus software for many years ( almost a decade now , since RH6.2 ) , and none of them was ever infected .
While my Windows machine did manage to get ill , despite the up to date A/V running on it.Let 's talk about real world threat levels , not a real one versus a hypothetical one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want to sound like a detractor of free software (I actually favor FLOSS as much as I can), but it's not like Linux doesn't have any malware written for it.
Sure, it's to a lesser degree, but it's still there and I'm not sure the costs of removing them are systematically calculated into the TCO either.The degree is so much lesser that I run my Linux machines without such things as an antivirus software for many years (almost a decade now, since RH6.2), and none of them was ever infected.
While my Windows machine did manage to get ill, despite the up to date A/V running on it.Let's talk about real world threat levels, not a real one versus a hypothetical one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534943</id>
	<title>Not an inherent cost of Windows</title>
	<author>Loki\_1929</author>
	<datestamp>1246357080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not a hidden cost of Windows, but a hidden cost of having ignorant admins and/or management. If you're spending $2.5 Million cleaning up a virus infection, you've done something terribly wrong along the way. Most machines in most places of business maintain the same software day-in and day-out. Those machines should either be booting via write-protected remote images or using something like SteadyState to keep everything running perfectly. The servers should have correctly created permissions and security which make viral infections nearly impossible. The rest of the machines should be locked down with policies, limited privilege accounts, and software providing protection from infections. They should also be regularly imaged (as in nightly to a SAN/NAS/etc).</p><p>That's just the common sense little stuff. There's plenty more that could be done as well, but just the above will all but guarantee you never see a multi-million dollar cleanup bill regardless of your choice of OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not a hidden cost of Windows , but a hidden cost of having ignorant admins and/or management .
If you 're spending $ 2.5 Million cleaning up a virus infection , you 've done something terribly wrong along the way .
Most machines in most places of business maintain the same software day-in and day-out .
Those machines should either be booting via write-protected remote images or using something like SteadyState to keep everything running perfectly .
The servers should have correctly created permissions and security which make viral infections nearly impossible .
The rest of the machines should be locked down with policies , limited privilege accounts , and software providing protection from infections .
They should also be regularly imaged ( as in nightly to a SAN/NAS/etc ) .That 's just the common sense little stuff .
There 's plenty more that could be done as well , but just the above will all but guarantee you never see a multi-million dollar cleanup bill regardless of your choice of OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not a hidden cost of Windows, but a hidden cost of having ignorant admins and/or management.
If you're spending $2.5 Million cleaning up a virus infection, you've done something terribly wrong along the way.
Most machines in most places of business maintain the same software day-in and day-out.
Those machines should either be booting via write-protected remote images or using something like SteadyState to keep everything running perfectly.
The servers should have correctly created permissions and security which make viral infections nearly impossible.
The rest of the machines should be locked down with policies, limited privilege accounts, and software providing protection from infections.
They should also be regularly imaged (as in nightly to a SAN/NAS/etc).That's just the common sense little stuff.
There's plenty more that could be done as well, but just the above will all but guarantee you never see a multi-million dollar cleanup bill regardless of your choice of OS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538409</id>
	<title>Oh really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246380960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but it's not like Linux doesn't have any malware written for it.</p></div><p>Citation please.  Funny last time I ran SpybotDS on a machine it scanned for over 500,000 known pieces of malware.  What is there less than 10 for Linux?</p><p>In Linux IF a Users space does get infected it takes maybe 30 mins to clean it up compared to sometimes a full day cleaning a Windows machine.  Add that to your TCO calculations.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but it 's not like Linux does n't have any malware written for it.Citation please .
Funny last time I ran SpybotDS on a machine it scanned for over 500,000 known pieces of malware .
What is there less than 10 for Linux ? In Linux IF a Users space does get infected it takes maybe 30 mins to clean it up compared to sometimes a full day cleaning a Windows machine .
Add that to your TCO calculations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but it's not like Linux doesn't have any malware written for it.Citation please.
Funny last time I ran SpybotDS on a machine it scanned for over 500,000 known pieces of malware.
What is there less than 10 for Linux?In Linux IF a Users space does get infected it takes maybe 30 mins to clean it up compared to sometimes a full day cleaning a Windows machine.
Add that to your TCO calculations.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535925</id>
	<title>That's kind of short-sighted, don't you think?</title>
	<author>holophrastic</author>
	<datestamp>1246362480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Including malware cleanup is simply short-sighted.  Certainly it's a cost, and if we were all to agree that MS Office has more malware problems than OO, then this point stands valid; but only for now.  The problem is that next year, what's to say that OO doesn't get more malware?  Or that MSO doesn't get less? And if we were all to suddenly agree that OO is better, and MSO is worse, and we all immediately switch to OO, and MSO is no more, then OO now has more malware problems than the non-existent MSO.</p><p>So it's a valid point that is no longer valid after its conclusion is fulfilled.</p><p>Besides, there are plenty of things with fewer problems that offer fewer benefits.  In the business world, unlike the consumer world, it isn't always cost or benefit, and even value doesn't always hold.  Sometimes, a business needs one particular benefit, and the costs are simply irrelevant.  That's the business, plain and simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Including malware cleanup is simply short-sighted .
Certainly it 's a cost , and if we were all to agree that MS Office has more malware problems than OO , then this point stands valid ; but only for now .
The problem is that next year , what 's to say that OO does n't get more malware ?
Or that MSO does n't get less ?
And if we were all to suddenly agree that OO is better , and MSO is worse , and we all immediately switch to OO , and MSO is no more , then OO now has more malware problems than the non-existent MSO.So it 's a valid point that is no longer valid after its conclusion is fulfilled.Besides , there are plenty of things with fewer problems that offer fewer benefits .
In the business world , unlike the consumer world , it is n't always cost or benefit , and even value does n't always hold .
Sometimes , a business needs one particular benefit , and the costs are simply irrelevant .
That 's the business , plain and simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Including malware cleanup is simply short-sighted.
Certainly it's a cost, and if we were all to agree that MS Office has more malware problems than OO, then this point stands valid; but only for now.
The problem is that next year, what's to say that OO doesn't get more malware?
Or that MSO doesn't get less?
And if we were all to suddenly agree that OO is better, and MSO is worse, and we all immediately switch to OO, and MSO is no more, then OO now has more malware problems than the non-existent MSO.So it's a valid point that is no longer valid after its conclusion is fulfilled.Besides, there are plenty of things with fewer problems that offer fewer benefits.
In the business world, unlike the consumer world, it isn't always cost or benefit, and even value doesn't always hold.
Sometimes, a business needs one particular benefit, and the costs are simply irrelevant.
That's the business, plain and simple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28536303</id>
	<title>Re:Only Proprietary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246364340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Examples or references please? The only virus/malware i've had to deal with on linux is the crap that Symantec has managed to convince sysadmins to install:</p><p>http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/ent-security.nsf/ppfdocs/2005110716014248</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Examples or references please ?
The only virus/malware i 've had to deal with on linux is the crap that Symantec has managed to convince sysadmins to install : http : //service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/ent-security.nsf/ppfdocs/2005110716014248</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Examples or references please?
The only virus/malware i've had to deal with on linux is the crap that Symantec has managed to convince sysadmins to install:http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/ent-security.nsf/ppfdocs/2005110716014248</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533551</id>
	<title>they must have stupid IT people</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1246394520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i've worked in a MS environment for a long time and have seen a few virus infections. not once have we called in any consultants to clean up. in the worst case we have an old NT server that is infected but has to remain operational. solution was to put a free Firewall on it, block all traffic except for a few people that need access to it. still infected, but the virus can't get out. everyone else gets pulled off the network and cleaned up using the normal suite of AV and free tools availalble</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i 've worked in a MS environment for a long time and have seen a few virus infections .
not once have we called in any consultants to clean up .
in the worst case we have an old NT server that is infected but has to remain operational .
solution was to put a free Firewall on it , block all traffic except for a few people that need access to it .
still infected , but the virus ca n't get out .
everyone else gets pulled off the network and cleaned up using the normal suite of AV and free tools availalble</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i've worked in a MS environment for a long time and have seen a few virus infections.
not once have we called in any consultants to clean up.
in the worst case we have an old NT server that is infected but has to remain operational.
solution was to put a free Firewall on it, block all traffic except for a few people that need access to it.
still infected, but the virus can't get out.
everyone else gets pulled off the network and cleaned up using the normal suite of AV and free tools availalble</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535055</id>
	<title>Microsoft products have no other price</title>
	<author>HannethCom</author>
	<datestamp>1246357740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No really, Microsoft says it so it must be true.<br>
<br>
Price of training every two years that a new Microsoft product comes out? But open source software comes out with new versions faster.<br>
<br>
So what if the open source software doesn't undergo major changes for no reason. You still have the price of retraining from moving from Microsoft products to open source.<br>
<br>
Bugs, what bugs? No Microsoft product have any show stopping bugs. BTW, that new feature you requested will be in the next version(tm).<br>
(Legal: Next version is not a binding contract and just refers to some future version of the software which may, or may not be the next release. Microsoft reserves the right to cease production of this product line at any time with out implementing said feature)</htmltext>
<tokenext>No really , Microsoft says it so it must be true .
Price of training every two years that a new Microsoft product comes out ?
But open source software comes out with new versions faster .
So what if the open source software does n't undergo major changes for no reason .
You still have the price of retraining from moving from Microsoft products to open source .
Bugs , what bugs ?
No Microsoft product have any show stopping bugs .
BTW , that new feature you requested will be in the next version ( tm ) .
( Legal : Next version is not a binding contract and just refers to some future version of the software which may , or may not be the next release .
Microsoft reserves the right to cease production of this product line at any time with out implementing said feature )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No really, Microsoft says it so it must be true.
Price of training every two years that a new Microsoft product comes out?
But open source software comes out with new versions faster.
So what if the open source software doesn't undergo major changes for no reason.
You still have the price of retraining from moving from Microsoft products to open source.
Bugs, what bugs?
No Microsoft product have any show stopping bugs.
BTW, that new feature you requested will be in the next version(tm).
(Legal: Next version is not a binding contract and just refers to some future version of the software which may, or may not be the next release.
Microsoft reserves the right to cease production of this product line at any time with out implementing said feature)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534047</id>
	<title>Re:Cheaper to prevent than fix</title>
	<author>MightyMartian</author>
	<datestamp>1246353300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm kind of curious here.  Are these guys actually running workstations outside of AD domains?  I mean, group policies have been around since the olden days on Windows server platforms, and a well constructed group policy that simply denies the capacity to install software can probably eliminate many of the worms, spyware and the like.  Not all of it, of course, which is why anti-virus is still necessary, but if you have a large network and you don't have it locked down, then you're either cheaping out and getting home versions of XP (and even these can be locked down, though it's a lot more of a pain to distribute registry entries than to the GPO mechanism do it), or your IT guys should be fired.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm kind of curious here .
Are these guys actually running workstations outside of AD domains ?
I mean , group policies have been around since the olden days on Windows server platforms , and a well constructed group policy that simply denies the capacity to install software can probably eliminate many of the worms , spyware and the like .
Not all of it , of course , which is why anti-virus is still necessary , but if you have a large network and you do n't have it locked down , then you 're either cheaping out and getting home versions of XP ( and even these can be locked down , though it 's a lot more of a pain to distribute registry entries than to the GPO mechanism do it ) , or your IT guys should be fired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm kind of curious here.
Are these guys actually running workstations outside of AD domains?
I mean, group policies have been around since the olden days on Windows server platforms, and a well constructed group policy that simply denies the capacity to install software can probably eliminate many of the worms, spyware and the like.
Not all of it, of course, which is why anti-virus is still necessary, but if you have a large network and you don't have it locked down, then you're either cheaping out and getting home versions of XP (and even these can be locked down, though it's a lot more of a pain to distribute registry entries than to the GPO mechanism do it), or your IT guys should be fired.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28539161</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>ajlisows</author>
	<datestamp>1246389960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In short, a Linux machine that is run by a competent administrator is MUCH more difficult to infect or attack than a Windows machine, and the parent is a moron.</p></div><p>I'm going to agree with you on much of what you said, but I would like to point out the term "Competent Administrator" as a major issue here in terms of a business environment.</p><p>I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that most of the people who become proficient enough with a *nix system to get hired as some type of administrator at a company are going to be somewhat passionate about working with computer systems....spending time/have spent time at home learning how things really work.  This should lead to them being at least somewhat competent.</p><p>Windows Admins?  Not necessarily.  I've worked with people that ranged from "Help Desk" to "Senior Network Engineer" whom I have no idea how they managed to get a job in IT or why (Actually the why is obviously, they heard it payed well) they even wanted to.  They didn't know much and didn't care to learn anything more.  Utterly incompetent.  I had one "Senior Network Engineer" that told me at one time he didn't even have a computer at home...and he left his work laptop at work.</p><p>If we saw Linux suddenly grab 40\% of the corporate desktop market, you'd end up with some positions filled by these types of people. It would still be more secure than Systems run by incompetent Windows Admins but certainly less secure than having most of the systems run by reasonably competent Linux Admins.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In short , a Linux machine that is run by a competent administrator is MUCH more difficult to infect or attack than a Windows machine , and the parent is a moron.I 'm going to agree with you on much of what you said , but I would like to point out the term " Competent Administrator " as a major issue here in terms of a business environment.I 'm going to go out on a limb and assume that most of the people who become proficient enough with a * nix system to get hired as some type of administrator at a company are going to be somewhat passionate about working with computer systems....spending time/have spent time at home learning how things really work .
This should lead to them being at least somewhat competent.Windows Admins ?
Not necessarily .
I 've worked with people that ranged from " Help Desk " to " Senior Network Engineer " whom I have no idea how they managed to get a job in IT or why ( Actually the why is obviously , they heard it payed well ) they even wanted to .
They did n't know much and did n't care to learn anything more .
Utterly incompetent .
I had one " Senior Network Engineer " that told me at one time he did n't even have a computer at home...and he left his work laptop at work.If we saw Linux suddenly grab 40 \ % of the corporate desktop market , you 'd end up with some positions filled by these types of people .
It would still be more secure than Systems run by incompetent Windows Admins but certainly less secure than having most of the systems run by reasonably competent Linux Admins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In short, a Linux machine that is run by a competent administrator is MUCH more difficult to infect or attack than a Windows machine, and the parent is a moron.I'm going to agree with you on much of what you said, but I would like to point out the term "Competent Administrator" as a major issue here in terms of a business environment.I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that most of the people who become proficient enough with a *nix system to get hired as some type of administrator at a company are going to be somewhat passionate about working with computer systems....spending time/have spent time at home learning how things really work.
This should lead to them being at least somewhat competent.Windows Admins?
Not necessarily.
I've worked with people that ranged from "Help Desk" to "Senior Network Engineer" whom I have no idea how they managed to get a job in IT or why (Actually the why is obviously, they heard it payed well) they even wanted to.
They didn't know much and didn't care to learn anything more.
Utterly incompetent.
I had one "Senior Network Engineer" that told me at one time he didn't even have a computer at home...and he left his work laptop at work.If we saw Linux suddenly grab 40\% of the corporate desktop market, you'd end up with some positions filled by these types of people.
It would still be more secure than Systems run by incompetent Windows Admins but certainly less secure than having most of the systems run by reasonably competent Linux Admins.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533917</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246352820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except you forget: you can boot a clean Linux machine in a second - you can't CD-boot Windows, or boot it from a read-only drive.  Architecturally, Linux is better designed to repel attacks in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except you forget : you can boot a clean Linux machine in a second - you ca n't CD-boot Windows , or boot it from a read-only drive .
Architecturally , Linux is better designed to repel attacks in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except you forget: you can boot a clean Linux machine in a second - you can't CD-boot Windows, or boot it from a read-only drive.
Architecturally, Linux is better designed to repel attacks in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28539791</id>
	<title>Re:It is the hacker's mentality.</title>
	<author>VulpesFoxnik</author>
	<datestamp>1246441680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Using initscripts should get the job done on most systems; however this requires root access.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Using initscripts should get the job done on most systems ; however this requires root access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using initscripts should get the job done on most systems; however this requires root access.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534361</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1246354500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I mean if Microsoft Wrote an OS that would not allow the user or their programs to write to anywhere else except the user home directory and programs could not starup other programs or modify their files, then you would never see any other viruses again on the Windows platform.</i>
</p><p>Of course you would.  Why wouldn't you ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean if Microsoft Wrote an OS that would not allow the user or their programs to write to anywhere else except the user home directory and programs could not starup other programs or modify their files , then you would never see any other viruses again on the Windows platform .
Of course you would .
Why would n't you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I mean if Microsoft Wrote an OS that would not allow the user or their programs to write to anywhere else except the user home directory and programs could not starup other programs or modify their files, then you would never see any other viruses again on the Windows platform.
Of course you would.
Why wouldn't you ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535221</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>nxtw</author>
	<datestamp>1246358700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Take the iPhone for example. Its used by a lot of people but its nigh impossible to exploit simply because its locked down.</p></div></blockquote><p>Bullshit.  What exactly is <a href="http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/06/safari-charlie-to-reveal-iphone-unsigned-code-exploit-next-month.ars" title="arstechnica.com">all this about</a> [arstechnica.com]?  <a href="http://search.securityfocus.com/swsearch?sbm=\%2F&amp;metaname=alldoc&amp;query=iphone&amp;x=0&amp;y=0" title="securityfocus.com">And this</a> [securityfocus.com]?</p><p>What do you think jailbreaking is? <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/29/iphone-and-ipod-touch-v1-1-1-get-instant-jailbreak-installer" title="engadget.com">Older firmware could even do it over the Web</a> [engadget.com].</p><p>A while back, there was even a bug that let anyone bypass the lock screen (and the password).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Take the iPhone for example .
Its used by a lot of people but its nigh impossible to exploit simply because its locked down.Bullshit .
What exactly is all this about [ arstechnica.com ] ?
And this [ securityfocus.com ] ? What do you think jailbreaking is ?
Older firmware could even do it over the Web [ engadget.com ] .A while back , there was even a bug that let anyone bypass the lock screen ( and the password ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take the iPhone for example.
Its used by a lot of people but its nigh impossible to exploit simply because its locked down.Bullshit.
What exactly is all this about [arstechnica.com]?
And this [securityfocus.com]?What do you think jailbreaking is?
Older firmware could even do it over the Web [engadget.com].A while back, there was even a bug that let anyone bypass the lock screen (and the password).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538107</id>
	<title>Hmmm</title>
	<author>madcat2c</author>
	<datestamp>1246377960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They do know that malwarebytes is free right? $30 bucks if you want it to monitor the pc?</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do know that malwarebytes is free right ?
$ 30 bucks if you want it to monitor the pc ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They do know that malwarebytes is free right?
$30 bucks if you want it to monitor the pc?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28546789</id>
	<title>Re:What about the other costs of AV?</title>
	<author>gilgongo</author>
	<datestamp>1246477140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My company was hit pretty hard by the conficker virus. It took a lot of users offline for days. The cleanup effort included bringing in a small army of consultants to help fix the issue. After everything was cleaned up and ready to go, IT's response to the outbreak was to kick our Virus Scanner into some crazy ultra cautious mode. The end result of that is 50\% of my cpu is being used up by my virus scanner constantly and opening an app or compiling something in eclipse takes substantially longer than it used to.

The fact that virus scanning software decreases worker productivity by tying up substantial system resources should be part of the TCO as well.</p></div><p>OT, but don't forget that if anti-virus scanning software actually worked, you wouldn't have the damn virus in the first place!

I'm going to get modded to troll hell for this, but really: anti-virus software is about as close to a total con-job as it's possible to be without actually going to jail.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My company was hit pretty hard by the conficker virus .
It took a lot of users offline for days .
The cleanup effort included bringing in a small army of consultants to help fix the issue .
After everything was cleaned up and ready to go , IT 's response to the outbreak was to kick our Virus Scanner into some crazy ultra cautious mode .
The end result of that is 50 \ % of my cpu is being used up by my virus scanner constantly and opening an app or compiling something in eclipse takes substantially longer than it used to .
The fact that virus scanning software decreases worker productivity by tying up substantial system resources should be part of the TCO as well.OT , but do n't forget that if anti-virus scanning software actually worked , you would n't have the damn virus in the first place !
I 'm going to get modded to troll hell for this , but really : anti-virus software is about as close to a total con-job as it 's possible to be without actually going to jail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My company was hit pretty hard by the conficker virus.
It took a lot of users offline for days.
The cleanup effort included bringing in a small army of consultants to help fix the issue.
After everything was cleaned up and ready to go, IT's response to the outbreak was to kick our Virus Scanner into some crazy ultra cautious mode.
The end result of that is 50\% of my cpu is being used up by my virus scanner constantly and opening an app or compiling something in eclipse takes substantially longer than it used to.
The fact that virus scanning software decreases worker productivity by tying up substantial system resources should be part of the TCO as well.OT, but don't forget that if anti-virus scanning software actually worked, you wouldn't have the damn virus in the first place!
I'm going to get modded to troll hell for this, but really: anti-virus software is about as close to a total con-job as it's possible to be without actually going to jail.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28553889</id>
	<title>Re:Not an inherent cost of Windows</title>
	<author>kencoe</author>
	<datestamp>1246469280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is not a hidden cost of Windows, but a hidden cost of having ignorant admins and/or management. If you're spending $2.5 Million cleaning up a virus infection, you've done something terribly wrong along the way.</p></div><p>But there is an important point to be made there, as well. Microsoft advertises the large number of Windows admins available, and warns of the increased cost of using "specialist" admins for *nix environments. If they are basing their TCO studies off of these admins, then the "ignorant admin" cost as you call it IS part of the TCO which is not being considered. Microsoft put themselves in this spot when they modeled their certification into an advertising campaign for the number of admins rather than a way to certify the best technicians when they were competing against Novell 4.3. The author's point still stands.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not a hidden cost of Windows , but a hidden cost of having ignorant admins and/or management .
If you 're spending $ 2.5 Million cleaning up a virus infection , you 've done something terribly wrong along the way.But there is an important point to be made there , as well .
Microsoft advertises the large number of Windows admins available , and warns of the increased cost of using " specialist " admins for * nix environments .
If they are basing their TCO studies off of these admins , then the " ignorant admin " cost as you call it IS part of the TCO which is not being considered .
Microsoft put themselves in this spot when they modeled their certification into an advertising campaign for the number of admins rather than a way to certify the best technicians when they were competing against Novell 4.3 .
The author 's point still stands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not a hidden cost of Windows, but a hidden cost of having ignorant admins and/or management.
If you're spending $2.5 Million cleaning up a virus infection, you've done something terribly wrong along the way.But there is an important point to be made there, as well.
Microsoft advertises the large number of Windows admins available, and warns of the increased cost of using "specialist" admins for *nix environments.
If they are basing their TCO studies off of these admins, then the "ignorant admin" cost as you call it IS part of the TCO which is not being considered.
Microsoft put themselves in this spot when they modeled their certification into an advertising campaign for the number of admins rather than a way to certify the best technicians when they were competing against Novell 4.3.
The author's point still stands.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534293</id>
	<title>ALL software has "hidden costs"</title>
	<author>musicalmicah</author>
	<datestamp>1246354260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Excel crashes, Exchange has quirks, Apache conf files can be a headache, and 75\% of the operating system installs I've done have resulted in some level of headaches, whether Windows or Linux. Most human beings don't have the time, skills, or inclination to deal with these problems. While I've never witnessed this Windows vs. Linux argument happen in a fair and non-evangelical way, I think acknowledging that these costs exist for all software is a first step.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Excel crashes , Exchange has quirks , Apache conf files can be a headache , and 75 \ % of the operating system installs I 've done have resulted in some level of headaches , whether Windows or Linux .
Most human beings do n't have the time , skills , or inclination to deal with these problems .
While I 've never witnessed this Windows vs. Linux argument happen in a fair and non-evangelical way , I think acknowledging that these costs exist for all software is a first step .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excel crashes, Exchange has quirks, Apache conf files can be a headache, and 75\% of the operating system installs I've done have resulted in some level of headaches, whether Windows or Linux.
Most human beings don't have the time, skills, or inclination to deal with these problems.
While I've never witnessed this Windows vs. Linux argument happen in a fair and non-evangelical way, I think acknowledging that these costs exist for all software is a first step.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534623</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1246355640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, you are more dangerous to the Linux community than the parent poster you call a moron.  Let me make this clear: any computer attached to the Internet is a vulnerable computer.  If Linux was THE OS, some things would have to happen.  One flavor of Linux would come out on top. It would be considered the best for business and hope use and everyone would use it. With a standard Linux, more commercial software would be made for it.  Thus causing an increase in the # of standard applications that are on most boxes (that and you will have a dominant Linux).  More people are then going to write viruses for it.  Does Linux have inherent advantages over Windows?  Absolutely, and that will mean squat when everyone is writing viruses for it and all the script kiddies want to tip over as many boxes as possible.<br> <br>Your attitude of "Linux is SO MUCH MORE SECURE..OMG, shut up stupid people" is counter-productive.  Keeping your information safe is always an ongoing battle and protecting your system is always on the side of catching up.  I mean really, do you deny that if Linux was the #1 OS, people would give up and go find day jobs?  Please.<br> <br>But Linux isn't going to take over.  Why?  It just doesn't work out of the box.  There is always some driver issue, always something that fails to work correctly that is annoying.  It is too complex for a normal user.  They don't care about sudo apt-get update.  They want to download something, double click on it, then have the icon on their desktop so they can double click it.  But the biggest reason is that corporations want someone to blame when something goes wrong.  That is what MS gives them.  Linux is going to stay niche.  And I am saying this as someone who likes and uses Linux.<br> <br>In any case, don't sit back and think Linux is safe.  It isn't.  It's the same as telling a Mac user that they don't have to worry about viruses.  Yeah, the odds are less likely...but as soon as more things are written for it, you have a bunch of smug users that think they are safe and click on everything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , you are more dangerous to the Linux community than the parent poster you call a moron .
Let me make this clear : any computer attached to the Internet is a vulnerable computer .
If Linux was THE OS , some things would have to happen .
One flavor of Linux would come out on top .
It would be considered the best for business and hope use and everyone would use it .
With a standard Linux , more commercial software would be made for it .
Thus causing an increase in the # of standard applications that are on most boxes ( that and you will have a dominant Linux ) .
More people are then going to write viruses for it .
Does Linux have inherent advantages over Windows ?
Absolutely , and that will mean squat when everyone is writing viruses for it and all the script kiddies want to tip over as many boxes as possible .
Your attitude of " Linux is SO MUCH MORE SECURE..OMG , shut up stupid people " is counter-productive .
Keeping your information safe is always an ongoing battle and protecting your system is always on the side of catching up .
I mean really , do you deny that if Linux was the # 1 OS , people would give up and go find day jobs ?
Please. But Linux is n't going to take over .
Why ? It just does n't work out of the box .
There is always some driver issue , always something that fails to work correctly that is annoying .
It is too complex for a normal user .
They do n't care about sudo apt-get update .
They want to download something , double click on it , then have the icon on their desktop so they can double click it .
But the biggest reason is that corporations want someone to blame when something goes wrong .
That is what MS gives them .
Linux is going to stay niche .
And I am saying this as someone who likes and uses Linux .
In any case , do n't sit back and think Linux is safe .
It is n't .
It 's the same as telling a Mac user that they do n't have to worry about viruses .
Yeah , the odds are less likely...but as soon as more things are written for it , you have a bunch of smug users that think they are safe and click on everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, you are more dangerous to the Linux community than the parent poster you call a moron.
Let me make this clear: any computer attached to the Internet is a vulnerable computer.
If Linux was THE OS, some things would have to happen.
One flavor of Linux would come out on top.
It would be considered the best for business and hope use and everyone would use it.
With a standard Linux, more commercial software would be made for it.
Thus causing an increase in the # of standard applications that are on most boxes (that and you will have a dominant Linux).
More people are then going to write viruses for it.
Does Linux have inherent advantages over Windows?
Absolutely, and that will mean squat when everyone is writing viruses for it and all the script kiddies want to tip over as many boxes as possible.
Your attitude of "Linux is SO MUCH MORE SECURE..OMG, shut up stupid people" is counter-productive.
Keeping your information safe is always an ongoing battle and protecting your system is always on the side of catching up.
I mean really, do you deny that if Linux was the #1 OS, people would give up and go find day jobs?
Please. But Linux isn't going to take over.
Why?  It just doesn't work out of the box.
There is always some driver issue, always something that fails to work correctly that is annoying.
It is too complex for a normal user.
They don't care about sudo apt-get update.
They want to download something, double click on it, then have the icon on their desktop so they can double click it.
But the biggest reason is that corporations want someone to blame when something goes wrong.
That is what MS gives them.
Linux is going to stay niche.
And I am saying this as someone who likes and uses Linux.
In any case, don't sit back and think Linux is safe.
It isn't.
It's the same as telling a Mac user that they don't have to worry about viruses.
Yeah, the odds are less likely...but as soon as more things are written for it, you have a bunch of smug users that think they are safe and click on everything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533495</id>
	<title>Hear hear!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246394220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>For example: The State of Vermont's Agency of Human Services just went through a similar exercise and I'm sure it cost them a fortune. The state is suffering financially as it is and yet, we haven't heard a WORD (there really isn't any investigative news in VT) about the outcome or how much it is costing</htmltext>
<tokenext>For example : The State of Vermont 's Agency of Human Services just went through a similar exercise and I 'm sure it cost them a fortune .
The state is suffering financially as it is and yet , we have n't heard a WORD ( there really is n't any investigative news in VT ) about the outcome or how much it is costing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example: The State of Vermont's Agency of Human Services just went through a similar exercise and I'm sure it cost them a fortune.
The state is suffering financially as it is and yet, we haven't heard a WORD (there really isn't any investigative news in VT) about the outcome or how much it is costing</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535381</id>
	<title>Businesses rely on this...</title>
	<author>npoczynek</author>
	<datestamp>1246359660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had an interview at Geek Squad back at the beginning of summer. I didn't do well - and I'm rather glad.

One of his questions was what I thought of free software. Being a naive young lad who has never worked in sales, I foolishly stated my position. I told him that I think it has a lot of advantages, and have often used free alternatives and/or open source software.

His response to this - "How hard would you work for free?" It was a little shocking how he completely disregarded the benefits of the free software community.

He then made it very clear that Geek Squad employees who mention free software to customers are often at risk of being fired.

I can only imagine that this "hidden cost" referred to in TFA is far from hidden in the eyes of places like Best Buy. If people knew about all this cool free stuff that was out there, who would you rip off? Where would you find spyware-infested PCs that you can charge an arm and a leg to fix?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had an interview at Geek Squad back at the beginning of summer .
I did n't do well - and I 'm rather glad .
One of his questions was what I thought of free software .
Being a naive young lad who has never worked in sales , I foolishly stated my position .
I told him that I think it has a lot of advantages , and have often used free alternatives and/or open source software .
His response to this - " How hard would you work for free ?
" It was a little shocking how he completely disregarded the benefits of the free software community .
He then made it very clear that Geek Squad employees who mention free software to customers are often at risk of being fired .
I can only imagine that this " hidden cost " referred to in TFA is far from hidden in the eyes of places like Best Buy .
If people knew about all this cool free stuff that was out there , who would you rip off ?
Where would you find spyware-infested PCs that you can charge an arm and a leg to fix ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had an interview at Geek Squad back at the beginning of summer.
I didn't do well - and I'm rather glad.
One of his questions was what I thought of free software.
Being a naive young lad who has never worked in sales, I foolishly stated my position.
I told him that I think it has a lot of advantages, and have often used free alternatives and/or open source software.
His response to this - "How hard would you work for free?
" It was a little shocking how he completely disregarded the benefits of the free software community.
He then made it very clear that Geek Squad employees who mention free software to customers are often at risk of being fired.
I can only imagine that this "hidden cost" referred to in TFA is far from hidden in the eyes of places like Best Buy.
If people knew about all this cool free stuff that was out there, who would you rip off?
Where would you find spyware-infested PCs that you can charge an arm and a leg to fix?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533821</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1246395540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Make no mistake: if Linux were as widely used as Windows, there would be bugs galore to be a-cleaning in Linux land. I love Linux (heck, "I'm rinsing in it now!"), and have used it as my primary desktop and server platform since '94, but bulletproof it ain't.</i></p><p>I think by bullet proof they mean mitigate stupid user and developer tricks which still happen in Linux but you have to try harder.</p><p>I mean the first thing I did when first trying out Linux in 1997 was to learn it while logged in as root because that was how you logged into Windows NT.</p><p>That said, I strongly disagree that OS usage is directly correlated to viable exploits on a device.</p><p>Take the iPhone for example. Its used by a lot of people but its nigh impossible to exploit simply because its locked down.</p><p>Now you sacrifice a lot of usability, but that is the price you pay in terms of security.</p><p>I mean if Microsoft Wrote an OS that would not allow the user or their programs to write to anywhere else except the user home directory and programs could not starup other programs or modify their files, then you would never see any other viruses again on the Windows platform.</p><p>Of course this would break all the legacy programs and you wouldn't really be running windows anymore in a sense... But wouldn't it be worth it?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Make no mistake : if Linux were as widely used as Windows , there would be bugs galore to be a-cleaning in Linux land .
I love Linux ( heck , " I 'm rinsing in it now !
" ) , and have used it as my primary desktop and server platform since '94 , but bulletproof it ai n't.I think by bullet proof they mean mitigate stupid user and developer tricks which still happen in Linux but you have to try harder.I mean the first thing I did when first trying out Linux in 1997 was to learn it while logged in as root because that was how you logged into Windows NT.That said , I strongly disagree that OS usage is directly correlated to viable exploits on a device.Take the iPhone for example .
Its used by a lot of people but its nigh impossible to exploit simply because its locked down.Now you sacrifice a lot of usability , but that is the price you pay in terms of security.I mean if Microsoft Wrote an OS that would not allow the user or their programs to write to anywhere else except the user home directory and programs could not starup other programs or modify their files , then you would never see any other viruses again on the Windows platform.Of course this would break all the legacy programs and you would n't really be running windows anymore in a sense... But would n't it be worth it ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make no mistake: if Linux were as widely used as Windows, there would be bugs galore to be a-cleaning in Linux land.
I love Linux (heck, "I'm rinsing in it now!
"), and have used it as my primary desktop and server platform since '94, but bulletproof it ain't.I think by bullet proof they mean mitigate stupid user and developer tricks which still happen in Linux but you have to try harder.I mean the first thing I did when first trying out Linux in 1997 was to learn it while logged in as root because that was how you logged into Windows NT.That said, I strongly disagree that OS usage is directly correlated to viable exploits on a device.Take the iPhone for example.
Its used by a lot of people but its nigh impossible to exploit simply because its locked down.Now you sacrifice a lot of usability, but that is the price you pay in terms of security.I mean if Microsoft Wrote an OS that would not allow the user or their programs to write to anywhere else except the user home directory and programs could not starup other programs or modify their files, then you would never see any other viruses again on the Windows platform.Of course this would break all the legacy programs and you wouldn't really be running windows anymore in a sense... But wouldn't it be worth it?
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28539801</id>
	<title>Re:Troll article yes, but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246441800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The bulk of the losses seem to be due to non payment of traffic fines caused by the infection and its cleanup.</p><p>The vast majority of the Manchester Evening News' readers were more concerned about the traffic laws which led to the fines in the first place, and were very happy indeed that proprietry software had led to them not having to pay the fines.</p><p>This is a typical comment - </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Best news of the day. We need a jobsworth virus being unleased on all local authority computer systems.</p> </div><p>I'm afraid I can't see Manchester's citizenry in favour of introducing software which would lead to them having to pay up for traffic offences for which they already feel aggrieved.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The bulk of the losses seem to be due to non payment of traffic fines caused by the infection and its cleanup.The vast majority of the Manchester Evening News ' readers were more concerned about the traffic laws which led to the fines in the first place , and were very happy indeed that proprietry software had led to them not having to pay the fines.This is a typical comment - Best news of the day .
We need a jobsworth virus being unleased on all local authority computer systems .
I 'm afraid I ca n't see Manchester 's citizenry in favour of introducing software which would lead to them having to pay up for traffic offences for which they already feel aggrieved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bulk of the losses seem to be due to non payment of traffic fines caused by the infection and its cleanup.The vast majority of the Manchester Evening News' readers were more concerned about the traffic laws which led to the fines in the first place, and were very happy indeed that proprietry software had led to them not having to pay the fines.This is a typical comment - Best news of the day.
We need a jobsworth virus being unleased on all local authority computer systems.
I'm afraid I can't see Manchester's citizenry in favour of introducing software which would lead to them having to pay up for traffic offences for which they already feel aggrieved.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534235</id>
	<title>Are you crazy?</title>
	<author>sonciwind</author>
	<datestamp>1246354080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's the freeware that most commonly spreads viruses and Trojans. The article does not attribute the cause of these problems to Microsoft at all. Did confiker get distributed by installing Microsoft products? No.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the freeware that most commonly spreads viruses and Trojans .
The article does not attribute the cause of these problems to Microsoft at all .
Did confiker get distributed by installing Microsoft products ?
No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the freeware that most commonly spreads viruses and Trojans.
The article does not attribute the cause of these problems to Microsoft at all.
Did confiker get distributed by installing Microsoft products?
No.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534067</id>
	<title>Re:Economy..</title>
	<author>Ajaxamander</author>
	<datestamp>1246353360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google "Broken Window Fallacy."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google " Broken Window Fallacy .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google "Broken Window Fallacy.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534221</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246354080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Linux's in general do not run normal users with superuser capabilities, which stops a lot of garbage from getting installed on machines in the first place.</i>
</p><p>No, Linux simply does not have the ignorant home user demographic that Windows does.
</p><p>Not running as root is, at best, a minor bump in the road.  There's very little that a malicious program might want to do, that it cannot do as a regular user.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux 's in general do not run normal users with superuser capabilities , which stops a lot of garbage from getting installed on machines in the first place .
No , Linux simply does not have the ignorant home user demographic that Windows does .
Not running as root is , at best , a minor bump in the road .
There 's very little that a malicious program might want to do , that it can not do as a regular user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Linux's in general do not run normal users with superuser capabilities, which stops a lot of garbage from getting installed on machines in the first place.
No, Linux simply does not have the ignorant home user demographic that Windows does.
Not running as root is, at best, a minor bump in the road.
There's very little that a malicious program might want to do, that it cannot do as a regular user.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534737</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246356060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's say I hire an Architect and a Building Contractor to design &amp; build me a building, and then the doors &amp; windows on that building won't keep people out when locked, or the building keeps crumbling apart, or catching on fire;   What do I do?   I first direct the Architect and/or Building Contractor to fix their deficiencies in the design or construction of the building.   If they cannot or will not do so, then I take them to court and ask for compensation including putative damages for my losses due to a defective building.    Software makers need to be held to the same standard.      Until done, we will continue to get buggy, incomplete, insecure, and just down right broken software delivered to use every day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's say I hire an Architect and a Building Contractor to design &amp; build me a building , and then the doors &amp; windows on that building wo n't keep people out when locked , or the building keeps crumbling apart , or catching on fire ; What do I do ?
I first direct the Architect and/or Building Contractor to fix their deficiencies in the design or construction of the building .
If they can not or will not do so , then I take them to court and ask for compensation including putative damages for my losses due to a defective building .
Software makers need to be held to the same standard .
Until done , we will continue to get buggy , incomplete , insecure , and just down right broken software delivered to use every day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's say I hire an Architect and a Building Contractor to design &amp; build me a building, and then the doors &amp; windows on that building won't keep people out when locked, or the building keeps crumbling apart, or catching on fire;   What do I do?
I first direct the Architect and/or Building Contractor to fix their deficiencies in the design or construction of the building.
If they cannot or will not do so, then I take them to court and ask for compensation including putative damages for my losses due to a defective building.
Software makers need to be held to the same standard.
Until done, we will continue to get buggy, incomplete, insecure, and just down right broken software delivered to use every day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28552701</id>
	<title>Re:Troll article yes, but</title>
	<author>averner</author>
	<datestamp>1246458300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But can you imagine the effects in the long term?  It's like making a habit of paying terrorists who hold hostages.  You <b>don't</b> pay the bad guys to set things straight, otherwise they'll have an incentive to ruin them even more in the future.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But can you imagine the effects in the long term ?
It 's like making a habit of paying terrorists who hold hostages .
You do n't pay the bad guys to set things straight , otherwise they 'll have an incentive to ruin them even more in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But can you imagine the effects in the long term?
It's like making a habit of paying terrorists who hold hostages.
You don't pay the bad guys to set things straight, otherwise they'll have an incentive to ruin them even more in the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534981</id>
	<title>Re:Other hidden costs.</title>
	<author>asg1</author>
	<datestamp>1246357320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously??  This was modded +5??  If you consider that learning something new is a hidden cost, then this applies to ALL software which releases new versions... not just Microsoft's.  Check your bias at the door next time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously ? ?
This was modded + 5 ? ?
If you consider that learning something new is a hidden cost , then this applies to ALL software which releases new versions... not just Microsoft 's .
Check your bias at the door next time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously??
This was modded +5??
If you consider that learning something new is a hidden cost, then this applies to ALL software which releases new versions... not just Microsoft's.
Check your bias at the door next time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523</id>
	<title>Sadly, I don't agree.</title>
	<author>Slartibartfast</author>
	<datestamp>1246394400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's overhead.  In other words, while it's true that malware affects closed-source far more frequently than OSS, that's just because CSS is far more commonly-used, and, therefore, makes a more tempting target.  Make no mistake: if Linux were as widely used as Windows, there would be bugs galore to be a-cleaning in Linux land.  I love Linux (heck, "I'm rinsing in it now!"), and have used it as my primary desktop and server platform since '94, but bulletproof it ain't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's overhead .
In other words , while it 's true that malware affects closed-source far more frequently than OSS , that 's just because CSS is far more commonly-used , and , therefore , makes a more tempting target .
Make no mistake : if Linux were as widely used as Windows , there would be bugs galore to be a-cleaning in Linux land .
I love Linux ( heck , " I 'm rinsing in it now !
" ) , and have used it as my primary desktop and server platform since '94 , but bulletproof it ai n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's overhead.
In other words, while it's true that malware affects closed-source far more frequently than OSS, that's just because CSS is far more commonly-used, and, therefore, makes a more tempting target.
Make no mistake: if Linux were as widely used as Windows, there would be bugs galore to be a-cleaning in Linux land.
I love Linux (heck, "I'm rinsing in it now!
"), and have used it as my primary desktop and server platform since '94, but bulletproof it ain't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28539791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28537505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534617
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534711
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28536581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28536511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28537387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28539357
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28545291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28536737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28541033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28539801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28537253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538783
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28556145
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28539699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28537915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28552985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28536177
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28546789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28540051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534047
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535655
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28542957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28552309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28540601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28547461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28539329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534933
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28537411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28553889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28553665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28539273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28536127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28540647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533923
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534767
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28552701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28537553
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534037
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28539077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534063
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28536833
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28539161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534923
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28539749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28541869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28539379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28536303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28536187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28536687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28540219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28539583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534343
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_1752220_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534469
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28552309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28539273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538433
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28539379
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533727
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535715
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534047
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535313
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28540219
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28539077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534343
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533777
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533979
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534251
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533615
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28541033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28553889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28539329
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533543
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534067
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28536127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28537387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534355
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534677
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533773
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533515
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533949
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28536079
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538099
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533677
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534815
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28536187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28537505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28546789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28536177
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533771
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533595
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28537553
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534235
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533735
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533963
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533755
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534653
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28545291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534401
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534071
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28536581
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535807
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28537411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534725
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534947
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534279
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28539699
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534293
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535655
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28539357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28552701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28539801
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533721
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534233
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28539791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533711
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535637
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28556145
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534625
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534111
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534411
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535113
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538591
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538699
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28537253
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533917
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533699
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534221
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534767
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533989
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534015
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534337
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28539583
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533821
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535221
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534361
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533909
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534623
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535167
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538783
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534763
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534463
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535133
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535025
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534933
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28553665
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534569
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534555
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28539161
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28540601
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534505
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535171
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28539749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28540647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534063
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534101
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535601
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534821
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534485
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533533
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534117
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28536687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28537915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28536303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28540051
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28542957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28536737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534037
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28552985
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535263
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28536511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28535251
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28534095
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_1752220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28533495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28536833
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28547461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28538799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_1752220.28541869
</commentlist>
</conversation>
