<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_08_1652207</id>
	<title>Firefox To Get Multi-Process Browsing</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1247073420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes with news that <a href="http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/07/firefox-stability-to-get-a-boost-with-multiprocess-browsing.ars">multi-process browsing will be coming to Firefox</a>. The project is called Electrolysis, and the developers "have <a href="http://blog.mozilla.com/cjones/2009/06/21/multi-process-firefox-coming-to-an-internets-near-you/">already assembled a prototype</a> that renders a page in a separate process from the interface shell in which it is displayed." Mozilla's Benjamin Smedberg says they're currently "[sprinting] as fast as possible <a href="http://benjamin.smedbergs.us/blog/2009-06-16/electrolysis-making-mozilla-faster-and-more-stable-using-multiple-processes/">to get basic code working</a>, running simple testcase plugins and content tabs in a separate process," after which they'll fix everything that breaks in the process. <a href="https://wiki.mozilla.org/Content\_Processes">Further details of their plan</a> are available on the Mozilla wiki, and <a href="http://techfragments.com/news/944/Software/FireFox\_To\_Get\_Process\_Separation\_Multi-Core\_Support.html">a summary is up at TechFragments</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes with news that multi-process browsing will be coming to Firefox .
The project is called Electrolysis , and the developers " have already assembled a prototype that renders a page in a separate process from the interface shell in which it is displayed .
" Mozilla 's Benjamin Smedberg says they 're currently " [ sprinting ] as fast as possible to get basic code working , running simple testcase plugins and content tabs in a separate process , " after which they 'll fix everything that breaks in the process .
Further details of their plan are available on the Mozilla wiki , and a summary is up at TechFragments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes with news that multi-process browsing will be coming to Firefox.
The project is called Electrolysis, and the developers "have already assembled a prototype that renders a page in a separate process from the interface shell in which it is displayed.
" Mozilla's Benjamin Smedberg says they're currently "[sprinting] as fast as possible to get basic code working, running simple testcase plugins and content tabs in a separate process," after which they'll fix everything that breaks in the process.
Further details of their plan are available on the Mozilla wiki, and a summary is up at TechFragments.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624921</id>
	<title>Linux users are fucking bastards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247077380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are a linux user you deserve your penis to be <a href="http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Beecock" title="encycloped...matica.com" rel="nofollow">covered in bees</a> [encycloped...matica.com]</p><p>Also MS willl come out with its replacement for , the ActiveX video plug in so firefox can fuck off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are a linux user you deserve your penis to be covered in bees [ encycloped...matica.com ] Also MS willl come out with its replacement for , the ActiveX video plug in so firefox can fuck off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are a linux user you deserve your penis to be covered in bees [encycloped...matica.com]Also MS willl come out with its replacement for , the ActiveX video plug in so firefox can fuck off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28632099</id>
	<title>Re:About time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247071320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What "developer community"? The idea never left Mountain View; it was never publicly discussed.</p><p>The community was never involved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What " developer community " ?
The idea never left Mountain View ; it was never publicly discussed.The community was never involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What "developer community"?
The idea never left Mountain View; it was never publicly discussed.The community was never involved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625443</id>
	<title>Re:I think I prefer a single process</title>
	<author>FishWithAHammer</author>
	<datestamp>1247079120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've missed many things.</p><p>Just because you aren't crashing Firefox doesn't mean that it doesn't still crash very often.</p><p>The authentication store is controlled by the master process so other tabs can access it (at least in Chrome, though given Mozilla's determination to fuck up I would not be surprised if they had problems with this).</p><p>It only appears to be unnecessary overhead because you don't know what's going on. Try to keep up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've missed many things.Just because you are n't crashing Firefox does n't mean that it does n't still crash very often.The authentication store is controlled by the master process so other tabs can access it ( at least in Chrome , though given Mozilla 's determination to fuck up I would not be surprised if they had problems with this ) .It only appears to be unnecessary overhead because you do n't know what 's going on .
Try to keep up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've missed many things.Just because you aren't crashing Firefox doesn't mean that it doesn't still crash very often.The authentication store is controlled by the master process so other tabs can access it (at least in Chrome, though given Mozilla's determination to fuck up I would not be surprised if they had problems with this).It only appears to be unnecessary overhead because you don't know what's going on.
Try to keep up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624935</id>
	<title>Processes, processes, processes!</title>
	<author>jeffb (2.718)</author>
	<datestamp>1247077380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Mozilla's Benjamin Smedberg says they're currently "[sprinting] as fast as possible to get basic code working, running simple testcase plugins and content tabs in a separate <b>process</b>," after which they'll fix everything that breaks in the <b>process</b>.</p></div><p>This sentence was a little hard to <b>process</b>.</p><p>(I note that the "process" of Slashdot incremental improvement has now reached a point where clicking anywhere in the text-entry box causes the box to LOSE focus.  If you don't want us using Safari, there are more efficient ways to get us to move.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla 's Benjamin Smedberg says they 're currently " [ sprinting ] as fast as possible to get basic code working , running simple testcase plugins and content tabs in a separate process , " after which they 'll fix everything that breaks in the process.This sentence was a little hard to process .
( I note that the " process " of Slashdot incremental improvement has now reached a point where clicking anywhere in the text-entry box causes the box to LOSE focus .
If you do n't want us using Safari , there are more efficient ways to get us to move .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla's Benjamin Smedberg says they're currently "[sprinting] as fast as possible to get basic code working, running simple testcase plugins and content tabs in a separate process," after which they'll fix everything that breaks in the process.This sentence was a little hard to process.
(I note that the "process" of Slashdot incremental improvement has now reached a point where clicking anywhere in the text-entry box causes the box to LOSE focus.
If you don't want us using Safari, there are more efficient ways to get us to move.
)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28629241</id>
	<title>Re:What about cookies/isolation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247052120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see how this would be a problem when DB systems like SQLite can have multiple processes accessing the DB at the same time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see how this would be a problem when DB systems like SQLite can have multiple processes accessing the DB at the same time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see how this would be a problem when DB systems like SQLite can have multiple processes accessing the DB at the same time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627597</id>
	<title>It's good</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1247043960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's really good to see this sort of thing happening, no matter what feature it is, and what browser pioneered it.</p><p>Today, we (finally!) have a fairly competitive browser market, and here are the results of it: as soon as one browser adds a feature that is genuinely good, others race to implement it as well, sometimes developing it further in the process. Even IE had something to bring to the table (process-per-tab first appeared in public IE8 betas).</p><p>Competition is good. More competition is better. Bring it on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's really good to see this sort of thing happening , no matter what feature it is , and what browser pioneered it.Today , we ( finally !
) have a fairly competitive browser market , and here are the results of it : as soon as one browser adds a feature that is genuinely good , others race to implement it as well , sometimes developing it further in the process .
Even IE had something to bring to the table ( process-per-tab first appeared in public IE8 betas ) .Competition is good .
More competition is better .
Bring it on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's really good to see this sort of thing happening, no matter what feature it is, and what browser pioneered it.Today, we (finally!
) have a fairly competitive browser market, and here are the results of it: as soon as one browser adds a feature that is genuinely good, others race to implement it as well, sometimes developing it further in the process.
Even IE had something to bring to the table (process-per-tab first appeared in public IE8 betas).Competition is good.
More competition is better.
Bring it on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626247</id>
	<title>Re:Will this benefit the average user?</title>
	<author>nickspoon</author>
	<datestamp>1247081940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This will benefit extremely the average user who might be watching a Flash video in one tab, with an unsaved e-mail open in another - if the Flash video crashes, under the current system, the whole application goes down (and so therefore does your e-mail, quite often). With multi-process tab support, only the video tab crashes, which is (I'm sure you'll agree) much better, and worth the extra couple of seconds it might take to load the browser.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This will benefit extremely the average user who might be watching a Flash video in one tab , with an unsaved e-mail open in another - if the Flash video crashes , under the current system , the whole application goes down ( and so therefore does your e-mail , quite often ) .
With multi-process tab support , only the video tab crashes , which is ( I 'm sure you 'll agree ) much better , and worth the extra couple of seconds it might take to load the browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will benefit extremely the average user who might be watching a Flash video in one tab, with an unsaved e-mail open in another - if the Flash video crashes, under the current system, the whole application goes down (and so therefore does your e-mail, quite often).
With multi-process tab support, only the video tab crashes, which is (I'm sure you'll agree) much better, and worth the extra couple of seconds it might take to load the browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626929</id>
	<title>Re:About time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247084340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was part of a real-time software project dealing with a user application.  The first year I got there, I was told, don't worry about the real-time requirements, they are still working those out.  And I watched the architect tell everyone not to worry about polling and busy loops.  Next year, same story.  Third year, we finally got real time requirements, but by that time, the cost of removing the polling and busy loops basically overwhelmed the entire project.</p><p>No fear, the architect has been richly rewarded the entire time.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/military later canceled most of the program for cost overruns.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was part of a real-time software project dealing with a user application .
The first year I got there , I was told , do n't worry about the real-time requirements , they are still working those out .
And I watched the architect tell everyone not to worry about polling and busy loops .
Next year , same story .
Third year , we finally got real time requirements , but by that time , the cost of removing the polling and busy loops basically overwhelmed the entire project.No fear , the architect has been richly rewarded the entire time .
/military later canceled most of the program for cost overruns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was part of a real-time software project dealing with a user application.
The first year I got there, I was told, don't worry about the real-time requirements, they are still working those out.
And I watched the architect tell everyone not to worry about polling and busy loops.
Next year, same story.
Third year, we finally got real time requirements, but by that time, the cost of removing the polling and busy loops basically overwhelmed the entire project.No fear, the architect has been richly rewarded the entire time.
/military later canceled most of the program for cost overruns.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624851</id>
	<title>lol</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247077140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First post?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First post ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First post?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627107</id>
	<title>Just one question.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247085000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I ctrl+alt+del it, will it show as many different processes as there are tabs + main process?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I ctrl + alt + del it , will it show as many different processes as there are tabs + main process ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I ctrl+alt+del it, will it show as many different processes as there are tabs + main process?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28628095</id>
	<title>Re:Will this benefit the average user?</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1247046360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;this will result in things getting *slower* because of the process overhead.</p><p>I really doubt it. In the IE6 days, IE users would do their equivalent of tabs by just starting a new IE process by double-clicking the IE icon.  That would launch a whole new copy of iexplore.exe. If that level of performance was acceptable then (and it seems it was) then we'll be fine. Heck, Ive already run IE8 (which does this today) on a single-core beater laptop with no complaints.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; this will result in things getting * slower * because of the process overhead.I really doubt it .
In the IE6 days , IE users would do their equivalent of tabs by just starting a new IE process by double-clicking the IE icon .
That would launch a whole new copy of iexplore.exe .
If that level of performance was acceptable then ( and it seems it was ) then we 'll be fine .
Heck , Ive already run IE8 ( which does this today ) on a single-core beater laptop with no complaints .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;this will result in things getting *slower* because of the process overhead.I really doubt it.
In the IE6 days, IE users would do their equivalent of tabs by just starting a new IE process by double-clicking the IE icon.
That would launch a whole new copy of iexplore.exe.
If that level of performance was acceptable then (and it seems it was) then we'll be fine.
Heck, Ive already run IE8 (which does this today) on a single-core beater laptop with no complaints.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625373</id>
	<title>Re:About time</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1247078940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I also read a discussion once about how it would involve a TON of work to get the extensions working properly again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I also read a discussion once about how it would involve a TON of work to get the extensions working properly again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also read a discussion once about how it would involve a TON of work to get the extensions working properly again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625015</id>
	<title>Nice of them to announce that</title>
	<author>Pentium100</author>
	<datestamp>1247077680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now I'll know that before updating Firefox I have to carefully read the "what's new in version x.y" part.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I 'll know that before updating Firefox I have to carefully read the " what 's new in version x.y " part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I'll know that before updating Firefox I have to carefully read the "what's new in version x.y" part.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625395</id>
	<title>Will this benefit the average user?</title>
	<author>DutchUncle</author>
	<datestamp>1247079000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>For users with anything pre-multi-core (and that's only a few years old), this will result in things getting *slower* because of the process overhead.  I hope it senses resources and optimizes appropriately, or all of the friends and relatives I tech-support will be cursing me when the update happens.  Some of them are already ticked that when they double-click on the Firefox icon, it takes longer to load than IE because of all the update-phone-home (the sort of thing for which we would all get annoyed at M$).
<br> <br>
Eventually we'll get to the point where the window comes up and it takes a ludicrous time to fill . . . just like Windows already does now.
<br> <br>
Better philosophical architecture is a good thing.  Running well in the practical typical system, in front of the average user, is good too.  Disruptive change is not always the way to please your users.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For users with anything pre-multi-core ( and that 's only a few years old ) , this will result in things getting * slower * because of the process overhead .
I hope it senses resources and optimizes appropriately , or all of the friends and relatives I tech-support will be cursing me when the update happens .
Some of them are already ticked that when they double-click on the Firefox icon , it takes longer to load than IE because of all the update-phone-home ( the sort of thing for which we would all get annoyed at M $ ) .
Eventually we 'll get to the point where the window comes up and it takes a ludicrous time to fill .
. .
just like Windows already does now .
Better philosophical architecture is a good thing .
Running well in the practical typical system , in front of the average user , is good too .
Disruptive change is not always the way to please your users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For users with anything pre-multi-core (and that's only a few years old), this will result in things getting *slower* because of the process overhead.
I hope it senses resources and optimizes appropriately, or all of the friends and relatives I tech-support will be cursing me when the update happens.
Some of them are already ticked that when they double-click on the Firefox icon, it takes longer to load than IE because of all the update-phone-home (the sort of thing for which we would all get annoyed at M$).
Eventually we'll get to the point where the window comes up and it takes a ludicrous time to fill .
. .
just like Windows already does now.
Better philosophical architecture is a good thing.
Running well in the practical typical system, in front of the average user, is good too.
Disruptive change is not always the way to please your users.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625587</id>
	<title>Re:Nice</title>
	<author>two basket skinner</author>
	<datestamp>1247079660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>separate plugins might improve security but if they aren't careful, all those heavy-weight process will tie up resources. Ive never looked at the code but this was my first impression of chrome last year, though that impression has changed over time. Heres to hoping the firefox team learns from chrome</htmltext>
<tokenext>separate plugins might improve security but if they are n't careful , all those heavy-weight process will tie up resources .
Ive never looked at the code but this was my first impression of chrome last year , though that impression has changed over time .
Heres to hoping the firefox team learns from chrome</tokentext>
<sentencetext>separate plugins might improve security but if they aren't careful, all those heavy-weight process will tie up resources.
Ive never looked at the code but this was my first impression of chrome last year, though that impression has changed over time.
Heres to hoping the firefox team learns from chrome</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627661</id>
	<title>Re:Will this benefit the average user?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247044320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think it will be any slower, but it will be safer (firefox has been crashing a bunch lately and taking out all 20 windows ) and yes it will reduce memory usage because when a process is killed with its window or tab, it will clean up. Mac users rejoice- firefox has been a memory hog over there for a long time. My firefox for windows now running at... 228 Mb. That's actually low.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think it will be any slower , but it will be safer ( firefox has been crashing a bunch lately and taking out all 20 windows ) and yes it will reduce memory usage because when a process is killed with its window or tab , it will clean up .
Mac users rejoice- firefox has been a memory hog over there for a long time .
My firefox for windows now running at... 228 Mb .
That 's actually low .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think it will be any slower, but it will be safer (firefox has been crashing a bunch lately and taking out all 20 windows ) and yes it will reduce memory usage because when a process is killed with its window or tab, it will clean up.
Mac users rejoice- firefox has been a memory hog over there for a long time.
My firefox for windows now running at... 228 Mb.
That's actually low.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28629645</id>
	<title>Re:The "About Time" Bandwagon</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1247054460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed, and once upon a time, IE would actually start up a separate process for every window you open. Funny how things come full circle...</p><p>(No doubt someone will claim a difference between "tab" and "window", but the difference is basically a UI thing, affecting whether they take up one task bar window or several.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , and once upon a time , IE would actually start up a separate process for every window you open .
Funny how things come full circle... ( No doubt someone will claim a difference between " tab " and " window " , but the difference is basically a UI thing , affecting whether they take up one task bar window or several .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, and once upon a time, IE would actually start up a separate process for every window you open.
Funny how things come full circle...(No doubt someone will claim a difference between "tab" and "window", but the difference is basically a UI thing, affecting whether they take up one task bar window or several.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625095</id>
	<title>Re:About time</title>
	<author>Krneki</author>
	<datestamp>1247077980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most of the people are still running a single core CPU.<br>And if we could remove Adobe Flash player we would never need a second CPU.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the people are still running a single core CPU.And if we could remove Adobe Flash player we would never need a second CPU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the people are still running a single core CPU.And if we could remove Adobe Flash player we would never need a second CPU.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625429</id>
	<title>Re:I think I prefer a single process</title>
	<author>ShadowRangerRIT</author>
	<datestamp>1247079120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On *Nix systems, process creation overhead is low enough, and thread cost high enough, that the perf hit will probably be negligible.  Problem is, Windows tends to do poorly on process creation, while handling multi-threading fairly well.</p><p>In both cases, the costs are seen at creation time (I haven't looked into whether the scheduler for each is optimized for one or the other).  This does mean that a multi-tab bookmark (like my 30 webcomic bookmark at home) may start taking noticeably longer to load on Windows machines.  Then again, it seems to have slowed down slightly in FF 3.5 anyway (that may be just a UI change though, it's not like I read them all inside of five seconds).</p><p>Of course, I'd also like to see browsers and plugins go 64 bit; the built-in nulls in memory addresses make buffer overruns much harder to exploit, and I'd prefer they work on security for a little.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On * Nix systems , process creation overhead is low enough , and thread cost high enough , that the perf hit will probably be negligible .
Problem is , Windows tends to do poorly on process creation , while handling multi-threading fairly well.In both cases , the costs are seen at creation time ( I have n't looked into whether the scheduler for each is optimized for one or the other ) .
This does mean that a multi-tab bookmark ( like my 30 webcomic bookmark at home ) may start taking noticeably longer to load on Windows machines .
Then again , it seems to have slowed down slightly in FF 3.5 anyway ( that may be just a UI change though , it 's not like I read them all inside of five seconds ) .Of course , I 'd also like to see browsers and plugins go 64 bit ; the built-in nulls in memory addresses make buffer overruns much harder to exploit , and I 'd prefer they work on security for a little .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On *Nix systems, process creation overhead is low enough, and thread cost high enough, that the perf hit will probably be negligible.
Problem is, Windows tends to do poorly on process creation, while handling multi-threading fairly well.In both cases, the costs are seen at creation time (I haven't looked into whether the scheduler for each is optimized for one or the other).
This does mean that a multi-tab bookmark (like my 30 webcomic bookmark at home) may start taking noticeably longer to load on Windows machines.
Then again, it seems to have slowed down slightly in FF 3.5 anyway (that may be just a UI change though, it's not like I read them all inside of five seconds).Of course, I'd also like to see browsers and plugins go 64 bit; the built-in nulls in memory addresses make buffer overruns much harder to exploit, and I'd prefer they work on security for a little.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627053</id>
	<title>Re:Will this benefit the average user?</title>
	<author>Anonymous Brave Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1247084820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For users with anything pre-multi-core (and that's only a few years old), this will result in things getting *slower* because of the process overhead.</p></div><p>You are <em>vastly</em> over-estimating the impact of a process switch on any hardware from the last decade or more. Right now, my WinXP PC is running 53 processes. If I click another application on my task bar, a full screen has redrawn with the new application's window before my finger has finished releasing the mouse button I clicked. Do you have any idea how many process switches took place in the fraction of a second while that happened?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Better philosophical architecture is a good thing.</p></div><p>There's a lot more than philosophy going on here.</p><p>Independent processes allow a dramatic improvement in robustness. Any plug-in, heck even a hostile JavaScript, can take out your entire Firefox browser right now. Plenty of people browse with many windows open doing everything from writing e-mail to posting on social networking sites to watching YouTube. All of that goes boom if a single tab hits a single plug-in/scripting bug.</p><p>Independent processes also allow improvements in security. Resources on modern operating systems are typically allocated on a per-process basis; this is the difference between a process and a thread. Avoiding sharing resources between different tabs, where such tabs might contain scripts or plug-ins that you have granted certain extra permissions, is a good thing.</p><p>And of course, in practice, many people are now running on multi-core hardware that will benefit in performance terms as well. Moreover, major architectural clean-ups on software projects tend to improve performance as a side-effect anyway.</p><p>I'm afraid your post is one long stream of technically incompetent FUD.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For users with anything pre-multi-core ( and that 's only a few years old ) , this will result in things getting * slower * because of the process overhead.You are vastly over-estimating the impact of a process switch on any hardware from the last decade or more .
Right now , my WinXP PC is running 53 processes .
If I click another application on my task bar , a full screen has redrawn with the new application 's window before my finger has finished releasing the mouse button I clicked .
Do you have any idea how many process switches took place in the fraction of a second while that happened ? Better philosophical architecture is a good thing.There 's a lot more than philosophy going on here.Independent processes allow a dramatic improvement in robustness .
Any plug-in , heck even a hostile JavaScript , can take out your entire Firefox browser right now .
Plenty of people browse with many windows open doing everything from writing e-mail to posting on social networking sites to watching YouTube .
All of that goes boom if a single tab hits a single plug-in/scripting bug.Independent processes also allow improvements in security .
Resources on modern operating systems are typically allocated on a per-process basis ; this is the difference between a process and a thread .
Avoiding sharing resources between different tabs , where such tabs might contain scripts or plug-ins that you have granted certain extra permissions , is a good thing.And of course , in practice , many people are now running on multi-core hardware that will benefit in performance terms as well .
Moreover , major architectural clean-ups on software projects tend to improve performance as a side-effect anyway.I 'm afraid your post is one long stream of technically incompetent FUD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For users with anything pre-multi-core (and that's only a few years old), this will result in things getting *slower* because of the process overhead.You are vastly over-estimating the impact of a process switch on any hardware from the last decade or more.
Right now, my WinXP PC is running 53 processes.
If I click another application on my task bar, a full screen has redrawn with the new application's window before my finger has finished releasing the mouse button I clicked.
Do you have any idea how many process switches took place in the fraction of a second while that happened?Better philosophical architecture is a good thing.There's a lot more than philosophy going on here.Independent processes allow a dramatic improvement in robustness.
Any plug-in, heck even a hostile JavaScript, can take out your entire Firefox browser right now.
Plenty of people browse with many windows open doing everything from writing e-mail to posting on social networking sites to watching YouTube.
All of that goes boom if a single tab hits a single plug-in/scripting bug.Independent processes also allow improvements in security.
Resources on modern operating systems are typically allocated on a per-process basis; this is the difference between a process and a thread.
Avoiding sharing resources between different tabs, where such tabs might contain scripts or plug-ins that you have granted certain extra permissions, is a good thing.And of course, in practice, many people are now running on multi-core hardware that will benefit in performance terms as well.
Moreover, major architectural clean-ups on software projects tend to improve performance as a side-effect anyway.I'm afraid your post is one long stream of technically incompetent FUD.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624971</id>
	<title>So sad...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247077560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...to see Firefox desperately jumping on the multithread bandwagon. Yes, of course restarting your browser once about every month is a terrible pain in the butt. Takes a long time too! I'm thinking: they didn't design for this from the start, so implementing it now will not be worth the headaches caused by unforseen issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...to see Firefox desperately jumping on the multithread bandwagon .
Yes , of course restarting your browser once about every month is a terrible pain in the butt .
Takes a long time too !
I 'm thinking : they did n't design for this from the start , so implementing it now will not be worth the headaches caused by unforseen issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...to see Firefox desperately jumping on the multithread bandwagon.
Yes, of course restarting your browser once about every month is a terrible pain in the butt.
Takes a long time too!
I'm thinking: they didn't design for this from the start, so implementing it now will not be worth the headaches caused by unforseen issues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625605</id>
	<title>The "About Time" Bandwagon</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1247079720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll bite.  It's about time.</p><p>Even explorer.exe is able to open directories using different processes, if you want.  Frankly, I found it frightfully annoying to have X+ tabs open and have ONE of those tabs cause the entire program to crash, usually due to a plugin issue.  Made no sense to me.  Multi-process/multi-threaded/multi-whatever programming has been around for quite a while now, and multi-core cpus have been pretty common, too.</p><p>It's one of the huge advantages that I saw with Chrome (over Firefox).  That and program open/new tab open speed.  FF 3.5 seems to have addressed this somewhat, but it's still slower, I think.</p><p>Hooray for competition, and hooray for finally taking advantage of the hardware out there.  Really, for one of the most used applications someone will use, it seems silly to only allow it to use a single-process model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll bite .
It 's about time.Even explorer.exe is able to open directories using different processes , if you want .
Frankly , I found it frightfully annoying to have X + tabs open and have ONE of those tabs cause the entire program to crash , usually due to a plugin issue .
Made no sense to me .
Multi-process/multi-threaded/multi-whatever programming has been around for quite a while now , and multi-core cpus have been pretty common , too.It 's one of the huge advantages that I saw with Chrome ( over Firefox ) .
That and program open/new tab open speed .
FF 3.5 seems to have addressed this somewhat , but it 's still slower , I think.Hooray for competition , and hooray for finally taking advantage of the hardware out there .
Really , for one of the most used applications someone will use , it seems silly to only allow it to use a single-process model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll bite.
It's about time.Even explorer.exe is able to open directories using different processes, if you want.
Frankly, I found it frightfully annoying to have X+ tabs open and have ONE of those tabs cause the entire program to crash, usually due to a plugin issue.
Made no sense to me.
Multi-process/multi-threaded/multi-whatever programming has been around for quite a while now, and multi-core cpus have been pretty common, too.It's one of the huge advantages that I saw with Chrome (over Firefox).
That and program open/new tab open speed.
FF 3.5 seems to have addressed this somewhat, but it's still slower, I think.Hooray for competition, and hooray for finally taking advantage of the hardware out there.
Really, for one of the most used applications someone will use, it seems silly to only allow it to use a single-process model.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625257</id>
	<title>Yup... fashion</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1247078520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Security</p><p>Speed  ----------- You are here.</p><p>Security ----------- The rest of the world is here.</p><p>Speed</p><p>Need to catch up mate. We'll be getting rid of virtual machines next too.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SecuritySpeed ----------- You are here.Security ----------- The rest of the world is here.SpeedNeed to catch up mate .
We 'll be getting rid of virtual machines next too .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>SecuritySpeed  ----------- You are here.Security ----------- The rest of the world is here.SpeedNeed to catch up mate.
We'll be getting rid of virtual machines next too.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625441</id>
	<title>Re:I think I prefer a single process</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247079120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bingo.  An increase in the number of moving parts needed to render a frickin' web page is a really dumb idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bingo .
An increase in the number of moving parts needed to render a frickin ' web page is a really dumb idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bingo.
An increase in the number of moving parts needed to render a frickin' web page is a really dumb idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625591</id>
	<title>Re:So sad...</title>
	<author>DMUTPeregrine</author>
	<datestamp>1247079660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Firefox is already multithreaded. This is multiprocessing, which is different. Threads are subsets of a process, and if a thread crashes the whole process crashes. This will allow one process (tab) to crash without crashing the entire browser. Each process (tab, UI) can be multithreaded, allowing for performance gains.
<br> <br>
The downside, of course, is that processes generally require more overhead than tabs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox is already multithreaded .
This is multiprocessing , which is different .
Threads are subsets of a process , and if a thread crashes the whole process crashes .
This will allow one process ( tab ) to crash without crashing the entire browser .
Each process ( tab , UI ) can be multithreaded , allowing for performance gains .
The downside , of course , is that processes generally require more overhead than tabs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox is already multithreaded.
This is multiprocessing, which is different.
Threads are subsets of a process, and if a thread crashes the whole process crashes.
This will allow one process (tab) to crash without crashing the entire browser.
Each process (tab, UI) can be multithreaded, allowing for performance gains.
The downside, of course, is that processes generally require more overhead than tabs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625203</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28633287</id>
	<title>Re:The "About Time" Bandwagon</title>
	<author>ion.simon.c</author>
	<datestamp>1247172720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'll bite.  It's about time.</p><p>Even explorer.exe is able to open directories using different processes, if you want.</p></div><p>Cite?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll bite .
It 's about time.Even explorer.exe is able to open directories using different processes , if you want.Cite ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll bite.
It's about time.Even explorer.exe is able to open directories using different processes, if you want.Cite?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625455</id>
	<title>Re:Why a process? Surely a thread would scale bett</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247079240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Process creation is much cheaper under Windows than it used to be.</p><p>And one crashed thread takes out all the threads, resulting in--gasp!--the current situation, as Firefox's tabs <em>are</em> nominally multithreaded.</p><p>Process segmentation is the only way to retrofit that bad codebase into actually some sort of working order when compared to IE8 and Chrome. It should also help their astonishing memory leaks too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Process creation is much cheaper under Windows than it used to be.And one crashed thread takes out all the threads , resulting in--gasp ! --the current situation , as Firefox 's tabs are nominally multithreaded.Process segmentation is the only way to retrofit that bad codebase into actually some sort of working order when compared to IE8 and Chrome .
It should also help their astonishing memory leaks too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Process creation is much cheaper under Windows than it used to be.And one crashed thread takes out all the threads, resulting in--gasp!--the current situation, as Firefox's tabs are nominally multithreaded.Process segmentation is the only way to retrofit that bad codebase into actually some sort of working order when compared to IE8 and Chrome.
It should also help their astonishing memory leaks too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627937</id>
	<title>Re:What about cookies/isolation?</title>
	<author>Late Adopter</author>
	<datestamp>1247045640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Try <tt>firefox -ProfileManager</tt>.  I know it's not as simple as you're asking for, but you can have an entirely separate set of preferences, cookies, cache, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Try firefox -ProfileManager .
I know it 's not as simple as you 're asking for , but you can have an entirely separate set of preferences , cookies , cache , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try firefox -ProfileManager.
I know it's not as simple as you're asking for, but you can have an entirely separate set of preferences, cookies, cache, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625947</id>
	<title>moD up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247080980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">world's Gay Nigger centralized hobbyist dilettante and exciting; JOIN THE GNAA!! it. Its mission is Dicks produced conversations where states that there irc network. The Long term survival 'I have to kill parties). At THE some of you have channel, you might [idge.net] The rain..we can be the developer Which don't use 7he hand...don't hobby. It was all shall we? OK! If you have noises out of the includes where you The party in street And what supplies guests. Some people consistent with the rapid, clearly. There Theo de Raadt, one BSD had become Case you want to may disturb other Are you a NIGGER practical purposes, recruitment, but may also want BSD's acclaimed have left in</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>world 's Gay Nigger centralized hobbyist dilettante and exciting ; JOIN THE GNAA ! !
it. Its mission is Dicks produced conversations where states that there irc network .
The Long term survival 'I have to kill parties ) .
At THE some of you have channel , you might [ idge.net ] The rain..we can be the developer Which do n't use 7he hand...do n't hobby .
It was all shall we ?
OK ! If you have noises out of the includes where you The party in street And what supplies guests .
Some people consistent with the rapid , clearly .
There Theo de Raadt , one BSD had become Case you want to may disturb other Are you a NIGGER practical purposes , recruitment , but may also want BSD 's acclaimed have left in [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>world's Gay Nigger centralized hobbyist dilettante and exciting; JOIN THE GNAA!!
it. Its mission is Dicks produced conversations where states that there irc network.
The Long term survival 'I have to kill parties).
At THE some of you have channel, you might [idge.net] The rain..we can be the developer Which don't use 7he hand...don't hobby.
It was all shall we?
OK! If you have noises out of the includes where you The party in street And what supplies guests.
Some people consistent with the rapid, clearly.
There Theo de Raadt, one BSD had become Case you want to may disturb other Are you a NIGGER practical purposes, recruitment, but may also want BSD's acclaimed have left in [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626845</id>
	<title>Re:About time</title>
	<author>bhima</author>
	<datestamp>1247084040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's also still using DOS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's also still using DOS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's also still using DOS</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625735</id>
	<title>Re:Will this benefit the average user?</title>
	<author>Eric52902</author>
	<datestamp>1247080200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The machine I'm currently on is a single core machine running XP (1.6 GHz if I'm not mistaken...so lazy I don't even want to pull up the specs!).  I've been using Chrome for months on this thing and it's lightning fast.  Your concern over speed is unfounded.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The machine I 'm currently on is a single core machine running XP ( 1.6 GHz if I 'm not mistaken...so lazy I do n't even want to pull up the specs ! ) .
I 've been using Chrome for months on this thing and it 's lightning fast .
Your concern over speed is unfounded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The machine I'm currently on is a single core machine running XP (1.6 GHz if I'm not mistaken...so lazy I don't even want to pull up the specs!).
I've been using Chrome for months on this thing and it's lightning fast.
Your concern over speed is unfounded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28632161</id>
	<title>Re:Nice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247071920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like a good idea to make the web browser more robust since it's been trying to take over the desktop ever since 1995 or so.  Nevertheless, this plan could be fraught with peril.    Simple multiprocess applications work great.  Complex ones don't always if they ever do.  For one thing, tabs have really caught on, at least with me, but trying to get all these processes to play nice together inside of a single X window doesn't sound like something that will be easily debugged to work well on your favorite OS and windowing system.  Should implementing the latter *really* be a mozilla problem or an X extension?  As it is, X needs a lot of work.   All of this should arguably be less of a disaster than Windows explorer (not even interested in talking about Internet Explorer), but in the end the result of this initiative might be just more bloat and overhead for the same functionality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a good idea to make the web browser more robust since it 's been trying to take over the desktop ever since 1995 or so .
Nevertheless , this plan could be fraught with peril .
Simple multiprocess applications work great .
Complex ones do n't always if they ever do .
For one thing , tabs have really caught on , at least with me , but trying to get all these processes to play nice together inside of a single X window does n't sound like something that will be easily debugged to work well on your favorite OS and windowing system .
Should implementing the latter * really * be a mozilla problem or an X extension ?
As it is , X needs a lot of work .
All of this should arguably be less of a disaster than Windows explorer ( not even interested in talking about Internet Explorer ) , but in the end the result of this initiative might be just more bloat and overhead for the same functionality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a good idea to make the web browser more robust since it's been trying to take over the desktop ever since 1995 or so.
Nevertheless, this plan could be fraught with peril.
Simple multiprocess applications work great.
Complex ones don't always if they ever do.
For one thing, tabs have really caught on, at least with me, but trying to get all these processes to play nice together inside of a single X window doesn't sound like something that will be easily debugged to work well on your favorite OS and windowing system.
Should implementing the latter *really* be a mozilla problem or an X extension?
As it is, X needs a lot of work.
All of this should arguably be less of a disaster than Windows explorer (not even interested in talking about Internet Explorer), but in the end the result of this initiative might be just more bloat and overhead for the same functionality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624885</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625393</id>
	<title>Re:I think I prefer a single process</title>
	<author>The Moof</author>
	<datestamp>1247079000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would prefer multiple processes, especially for things like plugin support.  Nothing like watching one poorly written swf hose all of your browsers for a minute.   Also, there are still a few javascript tricks to lock the browser, forcing a manual kill.  It'd be nice to just kill the offending process instead of killing everything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would prefer multiple processes , especially for things like plugin support .
Nothing like watching one poorly written swf hose all of your browsers for a minute .
Also , there are still a few javascript tricks to lock the browser , forcing a manual kill .
It 'd be nice to just kill the offending process instead of killing everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would prefer multiple processes, especially for things like plugin support.
Nothing like watching one poorly written swf hose all of your browsers for a minute.
Also, there are still a few javascript tricks to lock the browser, forcing a manual kill.
It'd be nice to just kill the offending process instead of killing everything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625411</id>
	<title>Re:Nice</title>
	<author>mr crypto</author>
	<datestamp>1247079060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They should call it <a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/skulk" title="wiktionary.org" rel="nofollow">skulk</a> [wiktionary.org]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>They should call it skulk [ wiktionary.org ] .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should call it skulk [wiktionary.org] ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624885</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625561</id>
	<title>Re:About time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247079600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It was probably too large a project to consider doing without a pressing need.</i></p><p>Cuz yeah, Flash locking up the entire browser wasn't a pressing need until IE8 and Chrome. Riiiight.</p><p>LOTS of us have been asking about this for a VERY long time (years). Leaving it this late is called 'lack of vision'. This should've been in the very first version. Now there IS a ton of code to make this work with. I imagine that's why they call this Electrolysis...it's a hairy problem now that it's been ignored for so long.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was probably too large a project to consider doing without a pressing need.Cuz yeah , Flash locking up the entire browser was n't a pressing need until IE8 and Chrome .
Riiiight.LOTS of us have been asking about this for a VERY long time ( years ) .
Leaving it this late is called 'lack of vision' .
This should 've been in the very first version .
Now there IS a ton of code to make this work with .
I imagine that 's why they call this Electrolysis...it 's a hairy problem now that it 's been ignored for so long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was probably too large a project to consider doing without a pressing need.Cuz yeah, Flash locking up the entire browser wasn't a pressing need until IE8 and Chrome.
Riiiight.LOTS of us have been asking about this for a VERY long time (years).
Leaving it this late is called 'lack of vision'.
This should've been in the very first version.
Now there IS a ton of code to make this work with.
I imagine that's why they call this Electrolysis...it's a hairy problem now that it's been ignored for so long.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627469</id>
	<title>Re:Will this benefit the average user?</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1247086560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, it will be slower.  And if a plug in crashes, it won't kill the browser.  If a single page crashes, it won't take down the browser.  The goal for this isn't speed (though it's a side effect in multi-core/processor systems), it is stability.  And yes, on a single CPU system, that stability will come with a performance hit.  Though I would claim it is still a net gain.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it will be slower .
And if a plug in crashes , it wo n't kill the browser .
If a single page crashes , it wo n't take down the browser .
The goal for this is n't speed ( though it 's a side effect in multi-core/processor systems ) , it is stability .
And yes , on a single CPU system , that stability will come with a performance hit .
Though I would claim it is still a net gain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it will be slower.
And if a plug in crashes, it won't kill the browser.
If a single page crashes, it won't take down the browser.
The goal for this isn't speed (though it's a side effect in multi-core/processor systems), it is stability.
And yes, on a single CPU system, that stability will come with a performance hit.
Though I would claim it is still a net gain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625275</id>
	<title>Re:About time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247078580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Most of the people are still running a single core CPU.</p><p>Do not confuse multi-process with multi-processor (or multi-core).</p><p>Even a single core machine can make use of multiple tasks, or threads, or processes, to get more work done while waiting for one task to complete.</p><p>When monolithic code reaches a point where it is waiting for data from the server, it stalls.  Multiprocess code has another process it can put to use rendering the images, or playing the goddamed flash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Most of the people are still running a single core CPU.Do not confuse multi-process with multi-processor ( or multi-core ) .Even a single core machine can make use of multiple tasks , or threads , or processes , to get more work done while waiting for one task to complete.When monolithic code reaches a point where it is waiting for data from the server , it stalls .
Multiprocess code has another process it can put to use rendering the images , or playing the goddamed flash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Most of the people are still running a single core CPU.Do not confuse multi-process with multi-processor (or multi-core).Even a single core machine can make use of multiple tasks, or threads, or processes, to get more work done while waiting for one task to complete.When monolithic code reaches a point where it is waiting for data from the server, it stalls.
Multiprocess code has another process it can put to use rendering the images, or playing the goddamed flash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625839</id>
	<title>Re:About time</title>
	<author>metamatic</author>
	<datestamp>1247080560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now, if only we can get Chrome to have a simple UI for per-site cookie and script preferences, maybe they'll finally add that feature to core Firefox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , if only we can get Chrome to have a simple UI for per-site cookie and script preferences , maybe they 'll finally add that feature to core Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, if only we can get Chrome to have a simple UI for per-site cookie and script preferences, maybe they'll finally add that feature to core Firefox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28628713</id>
	<title>Re:Will this benefit the average user?</title>
	<author>frission</author>
	<datestamp>1247049420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i don't see why this would happen.  I run Firefox and Chrome on a P4 3.0 (no multi core) and Chrome's speed blows away FF.  My chrome starts almost immediately after I press the icon button in the quick launch tray.  FF takes forever to load, I hope they fix that soon (and no, I don't have that many plugins installed)</htmltext>
<tokenext>i do n't see why this would happen .
I run Firefox and Chrome on a P4 3.0 ( no multi core ) and Chrome 's speed blows away FF .
My chrome starts almost immediately after I press the icon button in the quick launch tray .
FF takes forever to load , I hope they fix that soon ( and no , I do n't have that many plugins installed )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i don't see why this would happen.
I run Firefox and Chrome on a P4 3.0 (no multi core) and Chrome's speed blows away FF.
My chrome starts almost immediately after I press the icon button in the quick launch tray.
FF takes forever to load, I hope they fix that soon (and no, I don't have that many plugins installed)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625663</id>
	<title>Re:Why a process? Surely a thread would scale bett</title>
	<author>Tumbleweed</author>
	<datestamp>1247079900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Forking a process on unix-like systems if fairly lightweight but for Windows this will not scale well at all.</i></p><p>Yeah, cuz multi-process Chrome on Windows is such a piece of shit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forking a process on unix-like systems if fairly lightweight but for Windows this will not scale well at all.Yeah , cuz multi-process Chrome on Windows is such a piece of shit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forking a process on unix-like systems if fairly lightweight but for Windows this will not scale well at all.Yeah, cuz multi-process Chrome on Windows is such a piece of shit?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627677</id>
	<title>Re:About time</title>
	<author>stevied</author>
	<datestamp>1247044440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is also possible to do non-blocking or async I/O, of course. A pain in the arse in many situations, but some applications are a good fit for a single process / thread model. Given the amount of state involved in modern web browsers, though, they're probably not one of them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is also possible to do non-blocking or async I/O , of course .
A pain in the arse in many situations , but some applications are a good fit for a single process / thread model .
Given the amount of state involved in modern web browsers , though , they 're probably not one of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is also possible to do non-blocking or async I/O, of course.
A pain in the arse in many situations, but some applications are a good fit for a single process / thread model.
Given the amount of state involved in modern web browsers, though, they're probably not one of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28713123</id>
	<title>Re:Will this benefit the average user?</title>
	<author>Zearin</author>
	<datestamp>1247684820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In addition to the other comments to this, I'll add...<p>Unless you're Dr. Who, or Doc Brown, or Q...</p><p>Time only moves in one direction: forward.</p><p>Previous versions of Firefox are still available for single-core users.  I'm not an expert on low-level computer architecture, but many others seem to disagree with your sentiments about overhead.</p><p>Even if you are right, previous versions already have the single-core field covered.  How much longer would you have them cater to an architecture that is only going to become more and more obsolete?  </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In addition to the other comments to this , I 'll add...Unless you 're Dr. Who , or Doc Brown , or Q...Time only moves in one direction : forward.Previous versions of Firefox are still available for single-core users .
I 'm not an expert on low-level computer architecture , but many others seem to disagree with your sentiments about overhead.Even if you are right , previous versions already have the single-core field covered .
How much longer would you have them cater to an architecture that is only going to become more and more obsolete ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In addition to the other comments to this, I'll add...Unless you're Dr. Who, or Doc Brown, or Q...Time only moves in one direction: forward.Previous versions of Firefox are still available for single-core users.
I'm not an expert on low-level computer architecture, but many others seem to disagree with your sentiments about overhead.Even if you are right, previous versions already have the single-core field covered.
How much longer would you have them cater to an architecture that is only going to become more and more obsolete?  </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28632203</id>
	<title>Re:About time</title>
	<author>Phroggy</author>
	<datestamp>1247072280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The trouble was, when users complained about Flash-related performance or stability problems, Mozilla developers would typically respond "try disabling plugins and extensions, and if the problem goes away, the matter is resolved."  This is a common problem of open source:  users and developers don't have the same kinds of problems, and developers aren't especially interested in meeting the needs of the users, preferring instead to continue to meet the needs of the developers.</p><p>Of course, if Flash were open-source, it might be possible to improve the performance and stability, so users wouldn't complain to Mozilla.  Adobe obviously isn't going to do it.  Since that's not happening, we need to expect plugins to be buggy and unstable, and work around the problem instead of hoping the problem gets fixed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The trouble was , when users complained about Flash-related performance or stability problems , Mozilla developers would typically respond " try disabling plugins and extensions , and if the problem goes away , the matter is resolved .
" This is a common problem of open source : users and developers do n't have the same kinds of problems , and developers are n't especially interested in meeting the needs of the users , preferring instead to continue to meet the needs of the developers.Of course , if Flash were open-source , it might be possible to improve the performance and stability , so users would n't complain to Mozilla .
Adobe obviously is n't going to do it .
Since that 's not happening , we need to expect plugins to be buggy and unstable , and work around the problem instead of hoping the problem gets fixed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The trouble was, when users complained about Flash-related performance or stability problems, Mozilla developers would typically respond "try disabling plugins and extensions, and if the problem goes away, the matter is resolved.
"  This is a common problem of open source:  users and developers don't have the same kinds of problems, and developers aren't especially interested in meeting the needs of the users, preferring instead to continue to meet the needs of the developers.Of course, if Flash were open-source, it might be possible to improve the performance and stability, so users wouldn't complain to Mozilla.
Adobe obviously isn't going to do it.
Since that's not happening, we need to expect plugins to be buggy and unstable, and work around the problem instead of hoping the problem gets fixed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626199</id>
	<title>Re:Why a process? Surely a thread would scale bett</title>
	<author>SpinyNorman</author>
	<datestamp>1247081760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Forking a process on unix-like systems if fairly lightweight but for Windows this will not scale well at all. Why not just have rendering worker threads? Have I missed something?</i></p><p>One of the main reason's threads are more lightweight than processes is because they share an address space (so it's cheaper to switch between threads - you don't need to reload page tables), but the downside of that is that one thread can corrupt another. Processes don't share memory hence they are better isolated from each other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forking a process on unix-like systems if fairly lightweight but for Windows this will not scale well at all .
Why not just have rendering worker threads ?
Have I missed something ? One of the main reason 's threads are more lightweight than processes is because they share an address space ( so it 's cheaper to switch between threads - you do n't need to reload page tables ) , but the downside of that is that one thread can corrupt another .
Processes do n't share memory hence they are better isolated from each other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forking a process on unix-like systems if fairly lightweight but for Windows this will not scale well at all.
Why not just have rendering worker threads?
Have I missed something?One of the main reason's threads are more lightweight than processes is because they share an address space (so it's cheaper to switch between threads - you don't need to reload page tables), but the downside of that is that one thread can corrupt another.
Processes don't share memory hence they are better isolated from each other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624885</id>
	<title>Nice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247077260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is cool. Competition is good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is cool .
Competition is good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is cool.
Competition is good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28628255</id>
	<title>Re:Will this benefit the average user?</title>
	<author>stevied</author>
	<datestamp>1247047080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Process creation / switching overheads have been pretty good on Linux for years, not sure about Windows. IPC is a different issue, but again with shared memory (rather than pushing stuff through pipes and sockets), the overhead should be minimal - assuming a well-designed architecture.<br> <br>

Having said that, I seem to recall that there are under-the-hood settings in Chrome that can be tweaked to control how enthusiastically it compartmentalizes - I imagine (and hope) FF will do the same.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Process creation / switching overheads have been pretty good on Linux for years , not sure about Windows .
IPC is a different issue , but again with shared memory ( rather than pushing stuff through pipes and sockets ) , the overhead should be minimal - assuming a well-designed architecture .
Having said that , I seem to recall that there are under-the-hood settings in Chrome that can be tweaked to control how enthusiastically it compartmentalizes - I imagine ( and hope ) FF will do the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Process creation / switching overheads have been pretty good on Linux for years, not sure about Windows.
IPC is a different issue, but again with shared memory (rather than pushing stuff through pipes and sockets), the overhead should be minimal - assuming a well-designed architecture.
Having said that, I seem to recall that there are under-the-hood settings in Chrome that can be tweaked to control how enthusiastically it compartmentalizes - I imagine (and hope) FF will do the same.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626915</id>
	<title>Re:About time</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1247084280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Cuz yeah, Flash locking up the entire browser wasn't a pressing need until IE8 and Chrome. Riiiight.</i></p><p>Not when there's already an <a href="http://noscript.net/" title="noscript.net">easy solution</a> [noscript.net]. I don't remember the last time my browser crashed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cuz yeah , Flash locking up the entire browser was n't a pressing need until IE8 and Chrome .
Riiiight.Not when there 's already an easy solution [ noscript.net ] .
I do n't remember the last time my browser crashed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cuz yeah, Flash locking up the entire browser wasn't a pressing need until IE8 and Chrome.
Riiiight.Not when there's already an easy solution [noscript.net].
I don't remember the last time my browser crashed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28628745</id>
	<title>Re:About time</title>
	<author>atraintocry</author>
	<datestamp>1247049600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stop being so damn reasonable. It's Slashdot. Pick a side and childishly refuse to acknowledge the other or GTFO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop being so damn reasonable .
It 's Slashdot .
Pick a side and childishly refuse to acknowledge the other or GTFO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop being so damn reasonable.
It's Slashdot.
Pick a side and childishly refuse to acknowledge the other or GTFO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28635803</id>
	<title>Re:About time</title>
	<author>sumitibow</author>
	<datestamp>1247151420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a wonderful opinion. The things mentioned are unanimous and needs to be appreciated by everyone.
<a href="http://www.restaurantjobboard.com/" title="restaurantjobboard.com" rel="nofollow">Restaurant Jobs</a> [restaurantjobboard.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a wonderful opinion .
The things mentioned are unanimous and needs to be appreciated by everyone .
Restaurant Jobs [ restaurantjobboard.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a wonderful opinion.
The things mentioned are unanimous and needs to be appreciated by everyone.
Restaurant Jobs [restaurantjobboard.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625869</id>
	<title>Re:Will this benefit the average user?</title>
	<author>SpinyNorman</author>
	<datestamp>1247080680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, there's no reason to assume it'll be slow, unless they just screw up the implementation.</p><p>If you're really worried about process creation overhead, then just create a pool of processes and reuse them.</p><p>More to the point, do have any idea how absurdly fast today's processors are compared to things like process creation. Exactly how long do you imagine it to take to create one? Long enough for you to notice?!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , there 's no reason to assume it 'll be slow , unless they just screw up the implementation.If you 're really worried about process creation overhead , then just create a pool of processes and reuse them.More to the point , do have any idea how absurdly fast today 's processors are compared to things like process creation .
Exactly how long do you imagine it to take to create one ?
Long enough for you to notice ? !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, there's no reason to assume it'll be slow, unless they just screw up the implementation.If you're really worried about process creation overhead, then just create a pool of processes and reuse them.More to the point, do have any idea how absurdly fast today's processors are compared to things like process creation.
Exactly how long do you imagine it to take to create one?
Long enough for you to notice?!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625495</id>
	<title>Re:About time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247079420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not a question of multi-core architecture. No commercial program on earth takes advantage of more than two cores, not even the high-end drafting programs on mirrored quad Xeons.</p><p>So this multi-process browsing makes the underlying code behave the way Firefox looks like it behaves. What you get is each tab or each window spawning its own process - or runtime space - in the OS. This keeps them from interfering from each other under normal circumstances.</p><p>This means that while you're waiting for a Flash player to load the rest of your tabs will keep working. (For example, if you're using Ubuntu and you want to see something on Youtube.) If one website freezes or crashes, you don't get every tab and window thrown out.</p><p>Mods, the parent's Offtopic rating is unfair. He's simply mistaken about terminology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a question of multi-core architecture .
No commercial program on earth takes advantage of more than two cores , not even the high-end drafting programs on mirrored quad Xeons.So this multi-process browsing makes the underlying code behave the way Firefox looks like it behaves .
What you get is each tab or each window spawning its own process - or runtime space - in the OS .
This keeps them from interfering from each other under normal circumstances.This means that while you 're waiting for a Flash player to load the rest of your tabs will keep working .
( For example , if you 're using Ubuntu and you want to see something on Youtube .
) If one website freezes or crashes , you do n't get every tab and window thrown out.Mods , the parent 's Offtopic rating is unfair .
He 's simply mistaken about terminology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a question of multi-core architecture.
No commercial program on earth takes advantage of more than two cores, not even the high-end drafting programs on mirrored quad Xeons.So this multi-process browsing makes the underlying code behave the way Firefox looks like it behaves.
What you get is each tab or each window spawning its own process - or runtime space - in the OS.
This keeps them from interfering from each other under normal circumstances.This means that while you're waiting for a Flash player to load the rest of your tabs will keep working.
(For example, if you're using Ubuntu and you want to see something on Youtube.
) If one website freezes or crashes, you don't get every tab and window thrown out.Mods, the parent's Offtopic rating is unfair.
He's simply mistaken about terminology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624963</id>
	<title>That's good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247077560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was concerned that Firefox wasn't using as much of my system's RAM as it could.  I bought 8GB, and I intend to use it.</p><p>In all seriousness, this is good.  It should handle crashes and frozen processes better, like Chrome.  </p><p>Thanks google, and thanks mozilla, for helping to drive competition and make the web browser better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was concerned that Firefox was n't using as much of my system 's RAM as it could .
I bought 8GB , and I intend to use it.In all seriousness , this is good .
It should handle crashes and frozen processes better , like Chrome .
Thanks google , and thanks mozilla , for helping to drive competition and make the web browser better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was concerned that Firefox wasn't using as much of my system's RAM as it could.
I bought 8GB, and I intend to use it.In all seriousness, this is good.
It should handle crashes and frozen processes better, like Chrome.
Thanks google, and thanks mozilla, for helping to drive competition and make the web browser better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28639537</id>
	<title>Re:Will this benefit the average user?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247166180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For users with anything pre-multi-core (and that's only a few years old), this will result in things getting *slower* because of the process overhead.</p></div><p>I am not sure that you completely understand what it means to have multiple processes. There is a queue of processes that wait to get CPU time, and when an application, such as Firefox, uses or creates multiple processes this simply means it has more processes waiting for an opportunity to use the CPU. It will make an application run faster via more CPU time no matter the number of cores a system has at its disposal. I also think that you are VASTLY overestimating just how much overhead more processes cause.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I hope it senses resources and optimizes appropriately</p></div><p>This is handled by the operating system. Applications should just be written not to run like hogs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For users with anything pre-multi-core ( and that 's only a few years old ) , this will result in things getting * slower * because of the process overhead.I am not sure that you completely understand what it means to have multiple processes .
There is a queue of processes that wait to get CPU time , and when an application , such as Firefox , uses or creates multiple processes this simply means it has more processes waiting for an opportunity to use the CPU .
It will make an application run faster via more CPU time no matter the number of cores a system has at its disposal .
I also think that you are VASTLY overestimating just how much overhead more processes cause.I hope it senses resources and optimizes appropriatelyThis is handled by the operating system .
Applications should just be written not to run like hogs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For users with anything pre-multi-core (and that's only a few years old), this will result in things getting *slower* because of the process overhead.I am not sure that you completely understand what it means to have multiple processes.
There is a queue of processes that wait to get CPU time, and when an application, such as Firefox, uses or creates multiple processes this simply means it has more processes waiting for an opportunity to use the CPU.
It will make an application run faster via more CPU time no matter the number of cores a system has at its disposal.
I also think that you are VASTLY overestimating just how much overhead more processes cause.I hope it senses resources and optimizes appropriatelyThis is handled by the operating system.
Applications should just be written not to run like hogs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28632043</id>
	<title>Re:The "About Time" Bandwagon</title>
	<author>mgblst</author>
	<datestamp>1247070840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a joke. Explorer doesn't use different processes, ever noticed how when it crashes, you lose all your windows. And does Microsoft use different processes for each doc in Word, Excel, etc... No.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a joke .
Explorer does n't use different processes , ever noticed how when it crashes , you lose all your windows .
And does Microsoft use different processes for each doc in Word , Excel , etc... No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a joke.
Explorer doesn't use different processes, ever noticed how when it crashes, you lose all your windows.
And does Microsoft use different processes for each doc in Word, Excel, etc... No.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28628025</id>
	<title>Re:Will this benefit the average user?</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1247046060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>For users with anything pre-multi-core (and that's only a few years old),</p></div></blockquote><p>All of computing history is only "a few years old".</p><blockquote><div><p>this will result in things getting *slower* because of the process overhead.</p></div></blockquote><p>Slight, but I'd be happy to deal with some small performance reduction if it means I can open multiple tabs in the background without the UI freezing up and being unresponsive for a few seconds.</p><p>Really, what good is progressive page-load when you can't scroll, switch tabs, stop, etc.?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For users with anything pre-multi-core ( and that 's only a few years old ) ,All of computing history is only " a few years old " .this will result in things getting * slower * because of the process overhead.Slight , but I 'd be happy to deal with some small performance reduction if it means I can open multiple tabs in the background without the UI freezing up and being unresponsive for a few seconds.Really , what good is progressive page-load when you ca n't scroll , switch tabs , stop , etc .
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For users with anything pre-multi-core (and that's only a few years old),All of computing history is only "a few years old".this will result in things getting *slower* because of the process overhead.Slight, but I'd be happy to deal with some small performance reduction if it means I can open multiple tabs in the background without the UI freezing up and being unresponsive for a few seconds.Really, what good is progressive page-load when you can't scroll, switch tabs, stop, etc.
?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626603</id>
	<title>Re:About time</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1247083080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>No commercial program on earth takes advantage of more than two cores, not even the high-end drafting programs on mirrored quad Xeons</i></p><p>Huh?  MS Sql Server certainly does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No commercial program on earth takes advantage of more than two cores , not even the high-end drafting programs on mirrored quad XeonsHuh ?
MS Sql Server certainly does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No commercial program on earth takes advantage of more than two cores, not even the high-end drafting programs on mirrored quad XeonsHuh?
MS Sql Server certainly does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625231</id>
	<title>Re:Why a process? Surely a thread would scale bett</title>
	<author>EvanED</author>
	<datestamp>1247078460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Forking a process on unix-like systems if fairly lightweight but for Windows this will not scale well at all.</i></p><p>Chrome does it on Windows and it's okay.</p><p><i>Why not just have rendering worker threads?</i></p><p>There are two benefits to switching to this. First, it will become more responsive as one tab is much less likely able to eat CPU for a while and delay others (something that happens to me enough I have to restart Firefox for that reason every day or two). But the second reason is that if one tab causes a crashing bug to manifest, it is much harder to bring down the whole browser, and instead it just brings down that tab.</p><p>Threading gives you the first benefit, but not the second. Processes give you both.</p><p>I'm not sure how important the second reason is, but I do get crashes from time to time because of Flash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forking a process on unix-like systems if fairly lightweight but for Windows this will not scale well at all.Chrome does it on Windows and it 's okay.Why not just have rendering worker threads ? There are two benefits to switching to this .
First , it will become more responsive as one tab is much less likely able to eat CPU for a while and delay others ( something that happens to me enough I have to restart Firefox for that reason every day or two ) .
But the second reason is that if one tab causes a crashing bug to manifest , it is much harder to bring down the whole browser , and instead it just brings down that tab.Threading gives you the first benefit , but not the second .
Processes give you both.I 'm not sure how important the second reason is , but I do get crashes from time to time because of Flash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forking a process on unix-like systems if fairly lightweight but for Windows this will not scale well at all.Chrome does it on Windows and it's okay.Why not just have rendering worker threads?There are two benefits to switching to this.
First, it will become more responsive as one tab is much less likely able to eat CPU for a while and delay others (something that happens to me enough I have to restart Firefox for that reason every day or two).
But the second reason is that if one tab causes a crashing bug to manifest, it is much harder to bring down the whole browser, and instead it just brings down that tab.Threading gives you the first benefit, but not the second.
Processes give you both.I'm not sure how important the second reason is, but I do get crashes from time to time because of Flash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28633125</id>
	<title>Re:About time</title>
	<author>MadUndergrad</author>
	<datestamp>1247170680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"won't be <b>affected</b>" goddamnit. Why can't slashdotters get this stuff right? It's really not that hard, I promise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" wo n't be affected " goddamnit .
Why ca n't slashdotters get this stuff right ?
It 's really not that hard , I promise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"won't be affected" goddamnit.
Why can't slashdotters get this stuff right?
It's really not that hard, I promise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625475</id>
	<title>Re:So sad...</title>
	<author>funkatron</author>
	<datestamp>1247079300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would already expect it to be multithreaded, otherwise waiting for the network would slow down other parts of the browser. The changes proposed are a move to a multi-process model where each tab is unable to interfere with the rest of the browser, effectively constraining any problems to the tab in which they occur.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would already expect it to be multithreaded , otherwise waiting for the network would slow down other parts of the browser .
The changes proposed are a move to a multi-process model where each tab is unable to interfere with the rest of the browser , effectively constraining any problems to the tab in which they occur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would already expect it to be multithreaded, otherwise waiting for the network would slow down other parts of the browser.
The changes proposed are a move to a multi-process model where each tab is unable to interfere with the rest of the browser, effectively constraining any problems to the tab in which they occur.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625967</id>
	<title>Re:About time</title>
	<author>afabbro</author>
	<datestamp>1247081040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not a question of multi-core architecture. No commercial program on earth takes advantage of more than two cores, not even the high-end drafting programs on mirrored quad Xeons.</p></div><p>That is a ridiculously untrue statement.  Oracle's database certainly uses more than two cores (yes, even the Windows version).  A number of engineering and 3D/rendering packages I'm aware of can use more than two cores.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a question of multi-core architecture .
No commercial program on earth takes advantage of more than two cores , not even the high-end drafting programs on mirrored quad Xeons.That is a ridiculously untrue statement .
Oracle 's database certainly uses more than two cores ( yes , even the Windows version ) .
A number of engineering and 3D/rendering packages I 'm aware of can use more than two cores .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a question of multi-core architecture.
No commercial program on earth takes advantage of more than two cores, not even the high-end drafting programs on mirrored quad Xeons.That is a ridiculously untrue statement.
Oracle's database certainly uses more than two cores (yes, even the Windows version).
A number of engineering and 3D/rendering packages I'm aware of can use more than two cores.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28628077</id>
	<title>Re:Why a process? Surely a thread would scale bett</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1247046300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A thread approach has most of the same difficulties as a process approach without some of the (security, stability) benefits.  Put another way, if one thread crashes, you lose.</p><p>It can also be \_harder\_ to write well-isolated shared-nothing code with the thread approach, since threads make it so easy to share state... and then you start running into synchronization, deadlock, and locking overhead issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A thread approach has most of the same difficulties as a process approach without some of the ( security , stability ) benefits .
Put another way , if one thread crashes , you lose.It can also be \ _harder \ _ to write well-isolated shared-nothing code with the thread approach , since threads make it so easy to share state... and then you start running into synchronization , deadlock , and locking overhead issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A thread approach has most of the same difficulties as a process approach without some of the (security, stability) benefits.
Put another way, if one thread crashes, you lose.It can also be \_harder\_ to write well-isolated shared-nothing code with the thread approach, since threads make it so easy to share state... and then you start running into synchronization, deadlock, and locking overhead issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28629177</id>
	<title>Re:That's good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247051640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention the 4-32 processing units that we will soon enough find in \_all\_ computers, including netbooks probably.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It should handle crashes and frozen processes better, like Chrome.</p></div><p>The ability to let the whole browser crash and then restore everything on restart removed 90\% of the hassle of crashing tabs.</p><p>But I suppose that the ability to let one tab crash will become more important as people try to program more real time functionality into their web apps.</p><p>It won't save the overhead of saving data for restoration purposes, because restore will still be needed in case (or when) the whole browser somehow manages to crash, anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention the 4-32 processing units that we will soon enough find in \ _all \ _ computers , including netbooks probably.It should handle crashes and frozen processes better , like Chrome.The ability to let the whole browser crash and then restore everything on restart removed 90 \ % of the hassle of crashing tabs.But I suppose that the ability to let one tab crash will become more important as people try to program more real time functionality into their web apps.It wo n't save the overhead of saving data for restoration purposes , because restore will still be needed in case ( or when ) the whole browser somehow manages to crash , anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention the 4-32 processing units that we will soon enough find in \_all\_ computers, including netbooks probably.It should handle crashes and frozen processes better, like Chrome.The ability to let the whole browser crash and then restore everything on restart removed 90\% of the hassle of crashing tabs.But I suppose that the ability to let one tab crash will become more important as people try to program more real time functionality into their web apps.It won't save the overhead of saving data for restoration purposes, because restore will still be needed in case (or when) the whole browser somehow manages to crash, anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626923</id>
	<title>Re:Why a process? Surely a thread would scale bett</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1247084340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Forking a process on unix-like systems if fairly lightweight but for Windows this will not scale well at all.</p></div><p>How many tens of thousands of times per second do you need to open a new browser tab?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Forking a process on unix-like systems if fairly lightweight but for Windows this will not scale well at all.How many tens of thousands of times per second do you need to open a new browser tab ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forking a process on unix-like systems if fairly lightweight but for Windows this will not scale well at all.How many tens of thousands of times per second do you need to open a new browser tab?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627947</id>
	<title>Re:What about cookies/isolation?</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1247045640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Now with multiple processes is this the case.</p><p>It is if you use the Chrome approach of having all network access in the UI process and having locked-down renderer processes that can't touch the filesystem or network.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Now with multiple processes is this the case.It is if you use the Chrome approach of having all network access in the UI process and having locked-down renderer processes that ca n't touch the filesystem or network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Now with multiple processes is this the case.It is if you use the Chrome approach of having all network access in the UI process and having locked-down renderer processes that can't touch the filesystem or network.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626271</id>
	<title>First Virtualbox SMP support, now this</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1247082060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Finally, apps are getting more multi-CPU focused.  Very cool.   All of us with multi processor systems thank you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , apps are getting more multi-CPU focused .
Very cool .
All of us with multi processor systems thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, apps are getting more multi-CPU focused.
Very cool.
All of us with multi processor systems thank you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627335</id>
	<title>Re:About time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247085960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering the popularity of things like flashblock, I'd have to say that if your argument is based on the idea that flash can lock up your browser, than its a safe bet that its not really a  pressing need.</p><p>So yes, flash can lock up a thread, and since a large amount of firefox users intentionally block flash, its not actually that pressing of a need.</p><p>Its good that you think it should have been in the very first version, thats why you are in charge of a major cross platform multithreaded application which supports all sorts of random plugins and extensions.</p><p>Wait, what?  You aren't in charge of such a project?  Oh, my bad, well, I guess at least you can always talk out your ass now that everyone else is doing it and pretend you knew this all along.  Obviously it was your idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering the popularity of things like flashblock , I 'd have to say that if your argument is based on the idea that flash can lock up your browser , than its a safe bet that its not really a pressing need.So yes , flash can lock up a thread , and since a large amount of firefox users intentionally block flash , its not actually that pressing of a need.Its good that you think it should have been in the very first version , thats why you are in charge of a major cross platform multithreaded application which supports all sorts of random plugins and extensions.Wait , what ?
You are n't in charge of such a project ?
Oh , my bad , well , I guess at least you can always talk out your ass now that everyone else is doing it and pretend you knew this all along .
Obviously it was your idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering the popularity of things like flashblock, I'd have to say that if your argument is based on the idea that flash can lock up your browser, than its a safe bet that its not really a  pressing need.So yes, flash can lock up a thread, and since a large amount of firefox users intentionally block flash, its not actually that pressing of a need.Its good that you think it should have been in the very first version, thats why you are in charge of a major cross platform multithreaded application which supports all sorts of random plugins and extensions.Wait, what?
You aren't in charge of such a project?
Oh, my bad, well, I guess at least you can always talk out your ass now that everyone else is doing it and pretend you knew this all along.
Obviously it was your idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28636015</id>
	<title>Re:Why a process? Surely a thread would scale bett</title>
	<author>sumitibow</author>
	<datestamp>1247152320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a wonderful opinion. The things mentioned are unanimous and needs to be appreciated by everyone.</p><p><a href="http://www.restaurantjobboard.com/" title="restaurantjobboard.com" rel="nofollow">Restaurant Jobs</a> [restaurantjobboard.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a wonderful opinion .
The things mentioned are unanimous and needs to be appreciated by everyone.Restaurant Jobs [ restaurantjobboard.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a wonderful opinion.
The things mentioned are unanimous and needs to be appreciated by everyone.Restaurant Jobs [restaurantjobboard.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626345</id>
	<title>Re:About time</title>
	<author>tixxit</author>
	<datestamp>1247082300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know. When I'm looking at a list of bugs and features requests longer then a book, I tend to be pretty picky about which features I implement as well. Having separate processes for each page is great, but you still have to prioritize. Especially when you have the choice between a handful of user-visible features or a not-so-visible feature that none of your competitors had as well. Remember, developers are a limited resource.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know .
When I 'm looking at a list of bugs and features requests longer then a book , I tend to be pretty picky about which features I implement as well .
Having separate processes for each page is great , but you still have to prioritize .
Especially when you have the choice between a handful of user-visible features or a not-so-visible feature that none of your competitors had as well .
Remember , developers are a limited resource .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know.
When I'm looking at a list of bugs and features requests longer then a book, I tend to be pretty picky about which features I implement as well.
Having separate processes for each page is great, but you still have to prioritize.
Especially when you have the choice between a handful of user-visible features or a not-so-visible feature that none of your competitors had as well.
Remember, developers are a limited resource.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625335</id>
	<title>Re:I think I prefer a single process</title>
	<author>Millennium</author>
	<datestamp>1247078820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, back in the days when a bad web page would crash your browser this was bad, but I have not seen those crashes recently.</p></div><p>Do you run a lot of plug-ins, by any chance? Browser makers don't control plug-in code (other than the code for their own plug-ins, of course), but this code is still capable of taking out a browser process if it goes bad.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If the browser is stable, what benefit do multi-processes have?</p></div><p>The other big benefit is that one process can't hog the CPU: even if one page gets into a ridiculously tight JavaScript loop that bogs that page down, the others should continue to load.</p><p>Still, the "if the browser is stable" issue is a very big <em>if</em>, and as I mentioned above, it's not completely under the browser maker's control.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, and maybe I should read the details, but if I am authenticated to a website in one tab, does that authentication carry over to other tabs using other processes?</p></div><p>It depends on how the browser is written, but it can be done.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , back in the days when a bad web page would crash your browser this was bad , but I have not seen those crashes recently.Do you run a lot of plug-ins , by any chance ?
Browser makers do n't control plug-in code ( other than the code for their own plug-ins , of course ) , but this code is still capable of taking out a browser process if it goes bad.If the browser is stable , what benefit do multi-processes have ? The other big benefit is that one process ca n't hog the CPU : even if one page gets into a ridiculously tight JavaScript loop that bogs that page down , the others should continue to load.Still , the " if the browser is stable " issue is a very big if , and as I mentioned above , it 's not completely under the browser maker 's control.Also , and maybe I should read the details , but if I am authenticated to a website in one tab , does that authentication carry over to other tabs using other processes ? It depends on how the browser is written , but it can be done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, back in the days when a bad web page would crash your browser this was bad, but I have not seen those crashes recently.Do you run a lot of plug-ins, by any chance?
Browser makers don't control plug-in code (other than the code for their own plug-ins, of course), but this code is still capable of taking out a browser process if it goes bad.If the browser is stable, what benefit do multi-processes have?The other big benefit is that one process can't hog the CPU: even if one page gets into a ridiculously tight JavaScript loop that bogs that page down, the others should continue to load.Still, the "if the browser is stable" issue is a very big if, and as I mentioned above, it's not completely under the browser maker's control.Also, and maybe I should read the details, but if I am authenticated to a website in one tab, does that authentication carry over to other tabs using other processes?It depends on how the browser is written, but it can be done.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28631285</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean distributed XPCOM?</title>
	<author>bsmedberg</author>
	<datestamp>1247065200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, we are not doing distributed XPCOM. Proving anything about the security or stability of a distributed COM model is almost impossible. It's very easy to deadlock when you have IPC channels making mixes of synchronous and asynchronous IPC calls without a pretty strict control mechanism. We are using very specific protocol layers which validate all their parameters and track protocol state very carefully.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , we are not doing distributed XPCOM .
Proving anything about the security or stability of a distributed COM model is almost impossible .
It 's very easy to deadlock when you have IPC channels making mixes of synchronous and asynchronous IPC calls without a pretty strict control mechanism .
We are using very specific protocol layers which validate all their parameters and track protocol state very carefully .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, we are not doing distributed XPCOM.
Proving anything about the security or stability of a distributed COM model is almost impossible.
It's very easy to deadlock when you have IPC channels making mixes of synchronous and asynchronous IPC calls without a pretty strict control mechanism.
We are using very specific protocol layers which validate all their parameters and track protocol state very carefully.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625113</id>
	<title>Re:About time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247078040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the <a href="http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/07/firefox-stability-to-get-a-boost-with-multiprocess-browsing.ars" title="arstechnica.com">Ars coverage</a> [arstechnica.com]:</p><blockquote><div><p>Mozilla has explored the possibility of adopting a multiprocessing approach for Firefox in the past, but the idea didn't gain serious traction in the Firefox developer community until it was implemented by Google and Microsoft in their respective web browsers.</p></div></blockquote><p>It was probably too large a project to consider doing without a pressing need.  Chrome and IE8 supplied that pressure.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the Ars coverage [ arstechnica.com ] : Mozilla has explored the possibility of adopting a multiprocessing approach for Firefox in the past , but the idea did n't gain serious traction in the Firefox developer community until it was implemented by Google and Microsoft in their respective web browsers.It was probably too large a project to consider doing without a pressing need .
Chrome and IE8 supplied that pressure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the Ars coverage [arstechnica.com]:Mozilla has explored the possibility of adopting a multiprocessing approach for Firefox in the past, but the idea didn't gain serious traction in the Firefox developer community until it was implemented by Google and Microsoft in their respective web browsers.It was probably too large a project to consider doing without a pressing need.
Chrome and IE8 supplied that pressure.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625295</id>
	<title>Re:Why a process? Surely a thread would scale bett</title>
	<author>EvilRyry</author>
	<datestamp>1247078640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That doesn't solve the stability problem. If one of those worker threads does something naughty, the whole process is going down. </p><p>Although process creation time on Windows is slow compared to other OSes its more than fast enough for spawning a process per tab. Chrome and IE8 have already proved this in the real world. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That does n't solve the stability problem .
If one of those worker threads does something naughty , the whole process is going down .
Although process creation time on Windows is slow compared to other OSes its more than fast enough for spawning a process per tab .
Chrome and IE8 have already proved this in the real world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That doesn't solve the stability problem.
If one of those worker threads does something naughty, the whole process is going down.
Although process creation time on Windows is slow compared to other OSes its more than fast enough for spawning a process per tab.
Chrome and IE8 have already proved this in the real world. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625203</id>
	<title>Re:So sad...</title>
	<author>Thiez</author>
	<datestamp>1247078340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 'multithread bandwagen'? Multithreading is not just some temporary hype that will be gone and forgotten next year. It is A Good Thing. If they get it right it'll be a big improvement to the browser.</p><p>Having said that, your concerns that it may be a pain to implement in a browser that was not designed to support them are valid. While I expect them to succeed, you can always stick with an older (single-threaded) version for a while while the most problematic bugs get fixed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 'multithread bandwagen ' ?
Multithreading is not just some temporary hype that will be gone and forgotten next year .
It is A Good Thing .
If they get it right it 'll be a big improvement to the browser.Having said that , your concerns that it may be a pain to implement in a browser that was not designed to support them are valid .
While I expect them to succeed , you can always stick with an older ( single-threaded ) version for a while while the most problematic bugs get fixed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 'multithread bandwagen'?
Multithreading is not just some temporary hype that will be gone and forgotten next year.
It is A Good Thing.
If they get it right it'll be a big improvement to the browser.Having said that, your concerns that it may be a pain to implement in a browser that was not designed to support them are valid.
While I expect them to succeed, you can always stick with an older (single-threaded) version for a while while the most problematic bugs get fixed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626893</id>
	<title>Re:About time</title>
	<author>bhima</author>
	<datestamp>1247084220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got the impression that was exactly the sort thing Google wanted Chrome to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got the impression that was exactly the sort thing Google wanted Chrome to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got the impression that was exactly the sort thing Google wanted Chrome to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28628047</id>
	<title>Re:That's good</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1247046120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Thanks google, and thanks mozilla, for helping to drive competition and make the web browser better.</p><p>Ironically, the reason why this is happening is because <a href="http://techie-buzz.com/ie8/ie8-creates-separate-processes-for-each-tab.html" title="techie-buzz.com">IE8 has it today</a> [techie-buzz.com] and the Firefox team is feeling left behind.  If anyone should be thanked its Google and then MS for keeping FF honest. Funny how things turn out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Thanks google , and thanks mozilla , for helping to drive competition and make the web browser better.Ironically , the reason why this is happening is because IE8 has it today [ techie-buzz.com ] and the Firefox team is feeling left behind .
If anyone should be thanked its Google and then MS for keeping FF honest .
Funny how things turn out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Thanks google, and thanks mozilla, for helping to drive competition and make the web browser better.Ironically, the reason why this is happening is because IE8 has it today [techie-buzz.com] and the Firefox team is feeling left behind.
If anyone should be thanked its Google and then MS for keeping FF honest.
Funny how things turn out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625325</id>
	<title>Re:About time</title>
	<author>Vectronic</author>
	<datestamp>1247078760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't really about CPU/Core counts, having tabs/plug-ins running in a separate process is useful because if that page/plug-in crashes that process, the remaining pages won't be effected. I highly doubt they will be dabbling with being able to set which processor a certain process runs on (just yet).</p><p>This won't really make use of extra processors/cores, that's what threads (should) already do, even if the application doesn't have any special code to do so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't really about CPU/Core counts , having tabs/plug-ins running in a separate process is useful because if that page/plug-in crashes that process , the remaining pages wo n't be effected .
I highly doubt they will be dabbling with being able to set which processor a certain process runs on ( just yet ) .This wo n't really make use of extra processors/cores , that 's what threads ( should ) already do , even if the application does n't have any special code to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't really about CPU/Core counts, having tabs/plug-ins running in a separate process is useful because if that page/plug-in crashes that process, the remaining pages won't be effected.
I highly doubt they will be dabbling with being able to set which processor a certain process runs on (just yet).This won't really make use of extra processors/cores, that's what threads (should) already do, even if the application doesn't have any special code to do so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626425</id>
	<title>Re:Why a process? Surely a thread would scale bett</title>
	<author>not already in use</author>
	<datestamp>1247082540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Firefox is already multi-threaded.  Single process, multi-threaded.  Any one thread can crash the entire process.  One process cannot crash another process, at least not directly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox is already multi-threaded .
Single process , multi-threaded .
Any one thread can crash the entire process .
One process can not crash another process , at least not directly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox is already multi-threaded.
Single process, multi-threaded.
Any one thread can crash the entire process.
One process cannot crash another process, at least not directly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28630071</id>
	<title>Re:I think I prefer a single process</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1247057280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Do you run a lot of plug-ins, by any chance? Browser makers don't control plug-in code (other than the code for their own plug-ins, of course), but this code is still capable of taking out a browser process if it goes bad.</i></p><p>It shouldn't be. If your browser architecture doesn't protect or isolate the browser well, that is on the browser developers. No point whining about it when the perceived quality of your browser then tanks.</p><p><i>The other big benefit is that one process can't hog the CPU: even if one page gets into a ridiculously tight JavaScript loop that bogs that page down, the others should continue to load.</i></p><p>Calls to Javascript should be interuptable. This competes with performance requirements for Javascript but the real problem is that Javascript design is so horrible. Did you know there isn't even a decent sleep/wait function in Javascript. You have to busy wait meaning 100\% CPU usage. A built in sleep function that relinquishes control for so many milliseconds is something that's been a basic part of scripting languages for decades. HORRIBLE.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you run a lot of plug-ins , by any chance ?
Browser makers do n't control plug-in code ( other than the code for their own plug-ins , of course ) , but this code is still capable of taking out a browser process if it goes bad.It should n't be .
If your browser architecture does n't protect or isolate the browser well , that is on the browser developers .
No point whining about it when the perceived quality of your browser then tanks.The other big benefit is that one process ca n't hog the CPU : even if one page gets into a ridiculously tight JavaScript loop that bogs that page down , the others should continue to load.Calls to Javascript should be interuptable .
This competes with performance requirements for Javascript but the real problem is that Javascript design is so horrible .
Did you know there is n't even a decent sleep/wait function in Javascript .
You have to busy wait meaning 100 \ % CPU usage .
A built in sleep function that relinquishes control for so many milliseconds is something that 's been a basic part of scripting languages for decades .
HORRIBLE .  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you run a lot of plug-ins, by any chance?
Browser makers don't control plug-in code (other than the code for their own plug-ins, of course), but this code is still capable of taking out a browser process if it goes bad.It shouldn't be.
If your browser architecture doesn't protect or isolate the browser well, that is on the browser developers.
No point whining about it when the perceived quality of your browser then tanks.The other big benefit is that one process can't hog the CPU: even if one page gets into a ridiculously tight JavaScript loop that bogs that page down, the others should continue to load.Calls to Javascript should be interuptable.
This competes with performance requirements for Javascript but the real problem is that Javascript design is so horrible.
Did you know there isn't even a decent sleep/wait function in Javascript.
You have to busy wait meaning 100\% CPU usage.
A built in sleep function that relinquishes control for so many milliseconds is something that's been a basic part of scripting languages for decades.
HORRIBLE.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626115</id>
	<title>Re:Why a process? Surely a thread would scale bett</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247081520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Forking a process on unix-like systems if fairly lightweight but for Windows this will not scale well at all. Why not just have rendering worker threads? Have I missed something?</p></div><p>Er. This is an argument which applies to high-volume servers that handle hundreds/thousands of requests per second.  Windows' process model is not so heavy-weight that you notice it opening a new browser tab once every few minutes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Forking a process on unix-like systems if fairly lightweight but for Windows this will not scale well at all .
Why not just have rendering worker threads ?
Have I missed something ? Er .
This is an argument which applies to high-volume servers that handle hundreds/thousands of requests per second .
Windows ' process model is not so heavy-weight that you notice it opening a new browser tab once every few minutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forking a process on unix-like systems if fairly lightweight but for Windows this will not scale well at all.
Why not just have rendering worker threads?
Have I missed something?Er.
This is an argument which applies to high-volume servers that handle hundreds/thousands of requests per second.
Windows' process model is not so heavy-weight that you notice it opening a new browser tab once every few minutes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626601</id>
	<title>NSPluginViewer?</title>
	<author>Wolfier</author>
	<datestamp>1247083080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember some browser (Konqueror, is it?) uses a separate NSPluginViewer process to run Flash.  It's the best approach because it let me renice the Flash.</p><p>Do you notice Flash runs at a lower priority in IE?  (Try running into a busy Flash page and scroll up and down - you'll see the Flash applet slowing down but the UI scrolling of the browser is still responsive.</p><p>Not so in Firefox.  Hope they'll finally get it right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember some browser ( Konqueror , is it ?
) uses a separate NSPluginViewer process to run Flash .
It 's the best approach because it let me renice the Flash.Do you notice Flash runs at a lower priority in IE ?
( Try running into a busy Flash page and scroll up and down - you 'll see the Flash applet slowing down but the UI scrolling of the browser is still responsive.Not so in Firefox .
Hope they 'll finally get it right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember some browser (Konqueror, is it?
) uses a separate NSPluginViewer process to run Flash.
It's the best approach because it let me renice the Flash.Do you notice Flash runs at a lower priority in IE?
(Try running into a busy Flash page and scroll up and down - you'll see the Flash applet slowing down but the UI scrolling of the browser is still responsive.Not so in Firefox.
Hope they'll finally get it right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626597</id>
	<title>Does this mean</title>
	<author>C\_Kode</author>
	<datestamp>1247083020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this mean I can have five different Flash players hijacking my CPUs at once?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean I can have five different Flash players hijacking my CPUs at once ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean I can have five different Flash players hijacking my CPUs at once?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624855</id>
	<title>About time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247077140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What took so long?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What took so long ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What took so long?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627305</id>
	<title>that straightens it out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247085780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I imagine that's why they call this Electrolysis...it's a hairy problem now that it's been ignored for so long.</p></div><p>I was thinking more along the lines of "With Electrolysis, surfing pr0n will be better than ever."  But your theory sounds better.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I imagine that 's why they call this Electrolysis...it 's a hairy problem now that it 's been ignored for so long.I was thinking more along the lines of " With Electrolysis , surfing pr0n will be better than ever .
" But your theory sounds better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I imagine that's why they call this Electrolysis...it's a hairy problem now that it's been ignored for so long.I was thinking more along the lines of "With Electrolysis, surfing pr0n will be better than ever.
"  But your theory sounds better.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625437</id>
	<title>Re:About time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247079120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd be worried how plugins work across multiple processes.  Do we run an addon seperately for each process?  Do they all load under the firefox process?  Can we crash an addon in one process and not have it bring down other processes?</p><p>Chrome and IE have the benefit of not dealing with those questions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be worried how plugins work across multiple processes .
Do we run an addon seperately for each process ?
Do they all load under the firefox process ?
Can we crash an addon in one process and not have it bring down other processes ? Chrome and IE have the benefit of not dealing with those questions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be worried how plugins work across multiple processes.
Do we run an addon seperately for each process?
Do they all load under the firefox process?
Can we crash an addon in one process and not have it bring down other processes?Chrome and IE have the benefit of not dealing with those questions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624891</id>
	<title>I love how..</title>
	<author>sys.stdout.write</author>
	<datestamp>1247077260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mozilla is playing catch-up to Google in this regard.<br> <br>How long until a Mozilla Firefox OS is announced?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla is playing catch-up to Google in this regard .
How long until a Mozilla Firefox OS is announced ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla is playing catch-up to Google in this regard.
How long until a Mozilla Firefox OS is announced?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28631847</id>
	<title>Re:About time</title>
	<author>dudpixel</author>
	<datestamp>1247069100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this isn't going to stop flash locking up your browser.  it also wont stop any calls from blocking while you're trying to load a web page.</p><p>All it does it stop these things affecting OTHER web pages (except that IO tends to freeze everything in windows - but thats another story).</p><p>If all you're ever looking at are these OTHER web pages, then dont load the one with flash at all, and then you wont need multi-process.</p><p>I think people get caught up in stuff like this without realising that all we really need is a fast, stable browser.  I personally think we have a more stable browser in firefox than either chrome or IE, already.  Sure multi-process will help when used with a multi-core processor for browsing processor-intensive websites...but how often do you do that?</p><p>I had this conversation with an IE user who was promoting the use of multi-process.</p><p>Me: Why do you need multi-process?<br>IEU: Because if one tab crashes, the other tabs will keep running.  Firefox doesn't have this feature.<br>Me: So...when you've used firefox, did it ever crash?<br>IEU: No.<br>Me: and...when you're using IE, does it crash?<br>IEU: yes, but because its multi-process, it doesn't crash the other tabs...<br>Me: what?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is n't going to stop flash locking up your browser .
it also wont stop any calls from blocking while you 're trying to load a web page.All it does it stop these things affecting OTHER web pages ( except that IO tends to freeze everything in windows - but thats another story ) .If all you 're ever looking at are these OTHER web pages , then dont load the one with flash at all , and then you wont need multi-process.I think people get caught up in stuff like this without realising that all we really need is a fast , stable browser .
I personally think we have a more stable browser in firefox than either chrome or IE , already .
Sure multi-process will help when used with a multi-core processor for browsing processor-intensive websites...but how often do you do that ? I had this conversation with an IE user who was promoting the use of multi-process.Me : Why do you need multi-process ? IEU : Because if one tab crashes , the other tabs will keep running .
Firefox does n't have this feature.Me : So...when you 've used firefox , did it ever crash ? IEU : No.Me : and...when you 're using IE , does it crash ? IEU : yes , but because its multi-process , it does n't crash the other tabs...Me : what ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this isn't going to stop flash locking up your browser.
it also wont stop any calls from blocking while you're trying to load a web page.All it does it stop these things affecting OTHER web pages (except that IO tends to freeze everything in windows - but thats another story).If all you're ever looking at are these OTHER web pages, then dont load the one with flash at all, and then you wont need multi-process.I think people get caught up in stuff like this without realising that all we really need is a fast, stable browser.
I personally think we have a more stable browser in firefox than either chrome or IE, already.
Sure multi-process will help when used with a multi-core processor for browsing processor-intensive websites...but how often do you do that?I had this conversation with an IE user who was promoting the use of multi-process.Me: Why do you need multi-process?IEU: Because if one tab crashes, the other tabs will keep running.
Firefox doesn't have this feature.Me: So...when you've used firefox, did it ever crash?IEU: No.Me: and...when you're using IE, does it crash?IEU: yes, but because its multi-process, it doesn't crash the other tabs...Me: what?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626003</id>
	<title>Excellent, not apply isolation!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247081160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is excellent and ties directly into a thread in a previous posting regarding the isolation/sandboxing of the browser.  Apart from using the multiple processes to guard against a crash taking down the entire browser, they should employ all of the capabilities that the OS provides to isolate the child processes into as tight of a constrained context as possible.  That will help mitigate successful exploits of vulnerabilities of the renderer and dependent libraries.</p><p>Furthermore, if Mozilla is serious about joining this party, I seriously think that Microsoft, Google and Mozilla need to sit down together and come up with a recommendation for writing plug-ins that can be hosted safely out of process.  That would increase the reliability and security of the browser by preventing a failing plug-in from taking the browser with it, or a vulnerability in a plug-in from being able to exploit the system outside of the sandbox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is excellent and ties directly into a thread in a previous posting regarding the isolation/sandboxing of the browser .
Apart from using the multiple processes to guard against a crash taking down the entire browser , they should employ all of the capabilities that the OS provides to isolate the child processes into as tight of a constrained context as possible .
That will help mitigate successful exploits of vulnerabilities of the renderer and dependent libraries.Furthermore , if Mozilla is serious about joining this party , I seriously think that Microsoft , Google and Mozilla need to sit down together and come up with a recommendation for writing plug-ins that can be hosted safely out of process .
That would increase the reliability and security of the browser by preventing a failing plug-in from taking the browser with it , or a vulnerability in a plug-in from being able to exploit the system outside of the sandbox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is excellent and ties directly into a thread in a previous posting regarding the isolation/sandboxing of the browser.
Apart from using the multiple processes to guard against a crash taking down the entire browser, they should employ all of the capabilities that the OS provides to isolate the child processes into as tight of a constrained context as possible.
That will help mitigate successful exploits of vulnerabilities of the renderer and dependent libraries.Furthermore, if Mozilla is serious about joining this party, I seriously think that Microsoft, Google and Mozilla need to sit down together and come up with a recommendation for writing plug-ins that can be hosted safely out of process.
That would increase the reliability and security of the browser by preventing a failing plug-in from taking the browser with it, or a vulnerability in a plug-in from being able to exploit the system outside of the sandbox.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625399</id>
	<title>Re:So sad...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247079000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Netscape Navigator just called...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Netscape Navigator just called.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Netscape Navigator just called...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627945</id>
	<title>You mean Internet Explorer 8</title>
	<author>Atypical Geek</author>
	<datestamp>1247045640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Competition from Chrome was a good thing: first the Javascript improvements, now separate processes for the plugins.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Process per tab made its debut in IE8, not Chrome.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Competition from Chrome was a good thing : first the Javascript improvements , now separate processes for the plugins .
Process per tab made its debut in IE8 , not Chrome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Competition from Chrome was a good thing: first the Javascript improvements, now separate processes for the plugins.
Process per tab made its debut in IE8, not Chrome.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626577</id>
	<title>Re:About time</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1247082960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Especially when you have the choice between a handful of user-visible features or a not-so-visible feature that none of your competitors had as well.</i> <br> <br>It was a justified request, or you wouldn't have your competitors rolling it out.  If it was a justified request, why was it ignored for so long?  If it wasn't important, why is it so important now, after others have it?  It was on the "inevitable" list.  It was ignored until they have to play catch-up.  That is, as was said, lack of vision.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially when you have the choice between a handful of user-visible features or a not-so-visible feature that none of your competitors had as well .
It was a justified request , or you would n't have your competitors rolling it out .
If it was a justified request , why was it ignored for so long ?
If it was n't important , why is it so important now , after others have it ?
It was on the " inevitable " list .
It was ignored until they have to play catch-up .
That is , as was said , lack of vision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially when you have the choice between a handful of user-visible features or a not-so-visible feature that none of your competitors had as well.
It was a justified request, or you wouldn't have your competitors rolling it out.
If it was a justified request, why was it ignored for so long?
If it wasn't important, why is it so important now, after others have it?
It was on the "inevitable" list.
It was ignored until they have to play catch-up.
That is, as was said, lack of vision.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627921</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean distributed XPCOM?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247045520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>One way to implementing multi-process Firefox is first allow XPCOM to work across process. i.e. allow objects to be via XPCOM that are actually spawned in another process, one explicitly created for the task. In COM it had a thing called a running object table (ROT). When you create a process hosted object it looks to see if one is running already, and if not it uses the registry info to spawn one. Then it waits for it to start and then it tells the process to create the object, sets up all the marshaling etc. XPCOM could do something similar, though it would have to do so in a cross-platform manner.</p></div></blockquote><p>Or, instead of writing a custom IPC layer for XPCOM, they could use dbus, which does exactly that and the rest of the open source world is already using it. It's being ported to non-Linux platforms too. Dbus would probably get a ton of performance improvements in the process and writing Gecko derived browsers would be as easy as consuming a dbus interface, so it'd be a win-win scenario.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One way to implementing multi-process Firefox is first allow XPCOM to work across process .
i.e. allow objects to be via XPCOM that are actually spawned in another process , one explicitly created for the task .
In COM it had a thing called a running object table ( ROT ) .
When you create a process hosted object it looks to see if one is running already , and if not it uses the registry info to spawn one .
Then it waits for it to start and then it tells the process to create the object , sets up all the marshaling etc .
XPCOM could do something similar , though it would have to do so in a cross-platform manner.Or , instead of writing a custom IPC layer for XPCOM , they could use dbus , which does exactly that and the rest of the open source world is already using it .
It 's being ported to non-Linux platforms too .
Dbus would probably get a ton of performance improvements in the process and writing Gecko derived browsers would be as easy as consuming a dbus interface , so it 'd be a win-win scenario .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One way to implementing multi-process Firefox is first allow XPCOM to work across process.
i.e. allow objects to be via XPCOM that are actually spawned in another process, one explicitly created for the task.
In COM it had a thing called a running object table (ROT).
When you create a process hosted object it looks to see if one is running already, and if not it uses the registry info to spawn one.
Then it waits for it to start and then it tells the process to create the object, sets up all the marshaling etc.
XPCOM could do something similar, though it would have to do so in a cross-platform manner.Or, instead of writing a custom IPC layer for XPCOM, they could use dbus, which does exactly that and the rest of the open source world is already using it.
It's being ported to non-Linux platforms too.
Dbus would probably get a ton of performance improvements in the process and writing Gecko derived browsers would be as easy as consuming a dbus interface, so it'd be a win-win scenario.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28629119</id>
	<title>Re:About time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247051280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As an example x264, an open source h.264 enocder, scales very well with the number of cores. You can take a look at <a href="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3559&amp;p=6" title="anandtech.com" rel="nofollow">this chart</a> [anandtech.com] and compare dual and quadcore processors from the same family with the same clock speed. The second pass of the x264 encode is what you should look at since frametype decision, which is done in the first pass, isn't threaded in x264.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As an example x264 , an open source h.264 enocder , scales very well with the number of cores .
You can take a look at this chart [ anandtech.com ] and compare dual and quadcore processors from the same family with the same clock speed .
The second pass of the x264 encode is what you should look at since frametype decision , which is done in the first pass , is n't threaded in x264 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an example x264, an open source h.264 enocder, scales very well with the number of cores.
You can take a look at this chart [anandtech.com] and compare dual and quadcore processors from the same family with the same clock speed.
The second pass of the x264 encode is what you should look at since frametype decision, which is done in the first pass, isn't threaded in x264.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625333</id>
	<title>Re:I think I prefer a single process</title>
	<author>runningduck</author>
	<datestamp>1247078820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There shouldn't be too much overhead being most modern OSs use shared code pages and copy on write memory management.</p><p>While pages generally do not crash browsers plug-ins do!  By launching the plug-ins with the page rendering process the browser should be able to isolate and minimize the impact.</p><p>If the engineers design the changes intelligently all the page metadata should remain within the parent process.  This greatly simplifies caching and coherency--which they appear to be discussing in the article.  The only components that should be pushed into the child processes are things which execute uncontrolled and untrusted content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There should n't be too much overhead being most modern OSs use shared code pages and copy on write memory management.While pages generally do not crash browsers plug-ins do !
By launching the plug-ins with the page rendering process the browser should be able to isolate and minimize the impact.If the engineers design the changes intelligently all the page metadata should remain within the parent process .
This greatly simplifies caching and coherency--which they appear to be discussing in the article .
The only components that should be pushed into the child processes are things which execute uncontrolled and untrusted content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There shouldn't be too much overhead being most modern OSs use shared code pages and copy on write memory management.While pages generally do not crash browsers plug-ins do!
By launching the plug-ins with the page rendering process the browser should be able to isolate and minimize the impact.If the engineers design the changes intelligently all the page metadata should remain within the parent process.
This greatly simplifies caching and coherency--which they appear to be discussing in the article.
The only components that should be pushed into the child processes are things which execute uncontrolled and untrusted content.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625047</id>
	<title>I think I prefer a single process</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247077800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, back in the days when a bad web page would crash your browser this was bad, but I have not seen those crashes recently. If the browser is stable, what benefit do multi-processes have? Multiple Firefox processes seems like unnecessary overhead. Also, and maybe I should read the details, but if I am authenticated to a website in one tab, does that authentication carry over to other tabs using other processes?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , back in the days when a bad web page would crash your browser this was bad , but I have not seen those crashes recently .
If the browser is stable , what benefit do multi-processes have ?
Multiple Firefox processes seems like unnecessary overhead .
Also , and maybe I should read the details , but if I am authenticated to a website in one tab , does that authentication carry over to other tabs using other processes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, back in the days when a bad web page would crash your browser this was bad, but I have not seen those crashes recently.
If the browser is stable, what benefit do multi-processes have?
Multiple Firefox processes seems like unnecessary overhead.
Also, and maybe I should read the details, but if I am authenticated to a website in one tab, does that authentication carry over to other tabs using other processes?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625669</id>
	<title>Does that mean distributed XPCOM?</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1247079900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most of Gecko is bound together with interfaces defined in IDL and implemented in C++ / JS. This model is called XPCOM and is based off Microsoft's COM in a large part. In theory (though not always in practice), it didn't matter in COM where the interfaces are implemented - single thread, multi-thread, multi-process or even across a network so long as the caller and callee abide by things such as rules for memory allocation, reference counting, object creation etc. I say in theory because some interfaces can be horribly inefficient when called repeatedly over a network, some interfaces might have broken IDL definitions and some interfaces might deal with things like handles or memory addresses which don't translate properly between processes.
<p>
One way to implementing multi-process Firefox is first allow XPCOM to work across process. i.e. allow objects to be via XPCOM that are actually spawned in another process, one explicitly created for the task. In COM it had a thing called a running object table (ROT). When you create a process hosted object it looks to see if one is running already, and if not it uses the registry info to spawn one. Then it waits for it to start and then it tells the process to create the object, sets up all the marshaling etc. XPCOM could do something similar, though it would have to do so in a cross-platform manner. I assume that Firefox would have to determine when creating a browser object first if it was chrome or content, and if it was content to spawn a host process and then set up the interfaces. Once set up and assuming the interfaces were efficient, the effect would be largely transparent.
</p><p>
The biggest performance hit would probably be on anything which tried to call or iterate over the DOM boundary between chrome and content. For example chrome which introspected content would suffer because all the calls would have to be serialized / deserialized.
</p><p>
Personally I think its feasible but it would hit performance. An alternative would be to just host plugins in another process. Windowless plugins might be a pain to implement but at least you could kill the other process if a plugin goes nuts which seems to happen all too frequently for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of Gecko is bound together with interfaces defined in IDL and implemented in C + + / JS .
This model is called XPCOM and is based off Microsoft 's COM in a large part .
In theory ( though not always in practice ) , it did n't matter in COM where the interfaces are implemented - single thread , multi-thread , multi-process or even across a network so long as the caller and callee abide by things such as rules for memory allocation , reference counting , object creation etc .
I say in theory because some interfaces can be horribly inefficient when called repeatedly over a network , some interfaces might have broken IDL definitions and some interfaces might deal with things like handles or memory addresses which do n't translate properly between processes .
One way to implementing multi-process Firefox is first allow XPCOM to work across process .
i.e. allow objects to be via XPCOM that are actually spawned in another process , one explicitly created for the task .
In COM it had a thing called a running object table ( ROT ) .
When you create a process hosted object it looks to see if one is running already , and if not it uses the registry info to spawn one .
Then it waits for it to start and then it tells the process to create the object , sets up all the marshaling etc .
XPCOM could do something similar , though it would have to do so in a cross-platform manner .
I assume that Firefox would have to determine when creating a browser object first if it was chrome or content , and if it was content to spawn a host process and then set up the interfaces .
Once set up and assuming the interfaces were efficient , the effect would be largely transparent .
The biggest performance hit would probably be on anything which tried to call or iterate over the DOM boundary between chrome and content .
For example chrome which introspected content would suffer because all the calls would have to be serialized / deserialized .
Personally I think its feasible but it would hit performance .
An alternative would be to just host plugins in another process .
Windowless plugins might be a pain to implement but at least you could kill the other process if a plugin goes nuts which seems to happen all too frequently for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of Gecko is bound together with interfaces defined in IDL and implemented in C++ / JS.
This model is called XPCOM and is based off Microsoft's COM in a large part.
In theory (though not always in practice), it didn't matter in COM where the interfaces are implemented - single thread, multi-thread, multi-process or even across a network so long as the caller and callee abide by things such as rules for memory allocation, reference counting, object creation etc.
I say in theory because some interfaces can be horribly inefficient when called repeatedly over a network, some interfaces might have broken IDL definitions and some interfaces might deal with things like handles or memory addresses which don't translate properly between processes.
One way to implementing multi-process Firefox is first allow XPCOM to work across process.
i.e. allow objects to be via XPCOM that are actually spawned in another process, one explicitly created for the task.
In COM it had a thing called a running object table (ROT).
When you create a process hosted object it looks to see if one is running already, and if not it uses the registry info to spawn one.
Then it waits for it to start and then it tells the process to create the object, sets up all the marshaling etc.
XPCOM could do something similar, though it would have to do so in a cross-platform manner.
I assume that Firefox would have to determine when creating a browser object first if it was chrome or content, and if it was content to spawn a host process and then set up the interfaces.
Once set up and assuming the interfaces were efficient, the effect would be largely transparent.
The biggest performance hit would probably be on anything which tried to call or iterate over the DOM boundary between chrome and content.
For example chrome which introspected content would suffer because all the calls would have to be serialized / deserialized.
Personally I think its feasible but it would hit performance.
An alternative would be to just host plugins in another process.
Windowless plugins might be a pain to implement but at least you could kill the other process if a plugin goes nuts which seems to happen all too frequently for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28661243</id>
	<title>Re:About time</title>
	<author>badkarmadayaccount</author>
	<datestamp>1247335260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Better idea, make them not crash. Sign up with C programmers anonymous or something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Better idea , make them not crash .
Sign up with C programmers anonymous or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better idea, make them not crash.
Sign up with C programmers anonymous or something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627523</id>
	<title>Re:Will this benefit the average user?</title>
	<author>thue</author>
	<datestamp>1247043600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will mean that one tab can't freeze the whole browser. Which will make the browser feel more responsive.</p><p>So the result will probably be feel faster, even on single-core machines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will mean that one tab ca n't freeze the whole browser .
Which will make the browser feel more responsive.So the result will probably be feel faster , even on single-core machines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will mean that one tab can't freeze the whole browser.
Which will make the browser feel more responsive.So the result will probably be feel faster, even on single-core machines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625833</id>
	<title>Re:About time</title>
	<author>Vectronic</author>
	<datestamp>1247080560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No commercial program on earth takes advantage of more than two cores...</p></div><p>What? Yes, even some of the "high-end drafting" programs do, every single 3D Modeling and/or Drafting application I have, can use 1, 2, or 4 (and likely upwards, but the highest core/CPU PC I have is 4) as they see fit.</p><p>Operating Systems are a "commercial program", and most of them can handle 8, 16, 32 or more processors.</p><p>If you have information as to otherwise, I'd be highly interested.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No commercial program on earth takes advantage of more than two cores...What ?
Yes , even some of the " high-end drafting " programs do , every single 3D Modeling and/or Drafting application I have , can use 1 , 2 , or 4 ( and likely upwards , but the highest core/CPU PC I have is 4 ) as they see fit.Operating Systems are a " commercial program " , and most of them can handle 8 , 16 , 32 or more processors.If you have information as to otherwise , I 'd be highly interested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No commercial program on earth takes advantage of more than two cores...What?
Yes, even some of the "high-end drafting" programs do, every single 3D Modeling and/or Drafting application I have, can use 1, 2, or 4 (and likely upwards, but the highest core/CPU PC I have is 4) as they see fit.Operating Systems are a "commercial program", and most of them can handle 8, 16, 32 or more processors.If you have information as to otherwise, I'd be highly interested.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624937</id>
	<title>Rickrolling.</title>
	<author>itai.saku.kusari</author>
	<datestamp>1247077380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No more rickrolls to have to abort all of firefox!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No more rickrolls to have to abort all of firefox !
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No more rickrolls to have to abort all of firefox!
:D</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28628925</id>
	<title>Re:So sad...</title>
	<author>atraintocry</author>
	<datestamp>1247050380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The trolling is spot on...what worries me are the positive mods.</p><p>Any app with GUI has a good reason to be multi-threaded...we don't expect a button to stay down if it triggers, say, network activity, we expect it to come back up immediately regardless of how long the activity takes.</p><p>And anyway this isn't about multi-threading at all. So what's with the mods? I think someone smelled some (misguided) cynicism on the post and said, "yeah, now there's a sentiment I can get behind!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The trolling is spot on...what worries me are the positive mods.Any app with GUI has a good reason to be multi-threaded...we do n't expect a button to stay down if it triggers , say , network activity , we expect it to come back up immediately regardless of how long the activity takes.And anyway this is n't about multi-threading at all .
So what 's with the mods ?
I think someone smelled some ( misguided ) cynicism on the post and said , " yeah , now there 's a sentiment I can get behind !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The trolling is spot on...what worries me are the positive mods.Any app with GUI has a good reason to be multi-threaded...we don't expect a button to stay down if it triggers, say, network activity, we expect it to come back up immediately regardless of how long the activity takes.And anyway this isn't about multi-threading at all.
So what's with the mods?
I think someone smelled some (misguided) cynicism on the post and said, "yeah, now there's a sentiment I can get behind!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627987</id>
	<title>Re:So sad...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247045940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>God you're such a scrub.  Good thing you posted AC fag.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>God you 're such a scrub .
Good thing you posted AC fag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God you're such a scrub.
Good thing you posted AC fag.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625027</id>
	<title>Once again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247077740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Firefox browser has never inovated. It has not brought anything new.Tabbed browsing, private mode, multi-process tabs, etc. Everything -- really -- everything was copied by Mozilla from a competing browser. Add to it that it is awfully slow and you get the worst browser in the field.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Firefox browser has never inovated .
It has not brought anything new.Tabbed browsing , private mode , multi-process tabs , etc .
Everything -- really -- everything was copied by Mozilla from a competing browser .
Add to it that it is awfully slow and you get the worst browser in the field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Firefox browser has never inovated.
It has not brought anything new.Tabbed browsing, private mode, multi-process tabs, etc.
Everything -- really -- everything was copied by Mozilla from a competing browser.
Add to it that it is awfully slow and you get the worst browser in the field.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28632221</id>
	<title>Re:Will this benefit the average user?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247072460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>     It shouldn't resort in a slowdown and in fact should gain a nice speedup from user standpoint.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Consider the present situation -- Firefox runs some kind of event handler, reacting to your clicks, handling javascript, plugins, html redraws, plugins, etc. within a single process.  Consider:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1. There's going to be some amount of overhead in keeping track of all these items, scheduling them, and so on.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 2. Tabs are logically independent.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; So, potentially the tabs will not be interdepndent, and relatively easy to seperate;  You'd have the overhead of multiple processes (which is low under most OSes -- they play memory management tricks so an executable is only in RAM once even if it's being run multiple times, low scheduling overhead, etc), but the internal scheduling and state-tracking overhead in Firefox could be less time-consuming..  This would likely be a crapshoot.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; BUT, there could easily be an *effective* speedup, misbehaving javascript, bloated css, and so on, instead of having the whole browser slug out or freeze, it'll be one tab while the other tabs and the interface are fine  -- I like to load some tabs in the background so this'd be great.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I would say it's like going from the horrors of cooperative task switching  (which Apple mis-named "multitasking" in MacOS 7-9, and Microsoft mis-named "cooperative multitasking" in Windows 1.x-ME) to true multitasking.  Cooperative task switching relies on an app to specifically make a kernel call to end it's time slice; if the app burns lots of CPU time without making a kernel call, your system's dead in the water until it finishes (and if it's in an infinite loop your system's simply locked up.)  I think this is how Firefox behaves now.  Real multitasking gives each app (that has work to do) a fixed timeslice (which the option to give up the timeslice early), avoiding these pauses and freezes even in the face of misbehaving software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It should n't resort in a slowdown and in fact should gain a nice speedup from user standpoint .
          Consider the present situation -- Firefox runs some kind of event handler , reacting to your clicks , handling javascript , plugins , html redraws , plugins , etc .
within a single process .
Consider :           1 .
There 's going to be some amount of overhead in keeping track of all these items , scheduling them , and so on .
          2 .
Tabs are logically independent .
          So , potentially the tabs will not be interdepndent , and relatively easy to seperate ; You 'd have the overhead of multiple processes ( which is low under most OSes -- they play memory management tricks so an executable is only in RAM once even if it 's being run multiple times , low scheduling overhead , etc ) , but the internal scheduling and state-tracking overhead in Firefox could be less time-consuming.. This would likely be a crapshoot .
          BUT , there could easily be an * effective * speedup , misbehaving javascript , bloated css , and so on , instead of having the whole browser slug out or freeze , it 'll be one tab while the other tabs and the interface are fine -- I like to load some tabs in the background so this 'd be great .
          I would say it 's like going from the horrors of cooperative task switching ( which Apple mis-named " multitasking " in MacOS 7-9 , and Microsoft mis-named " cooperative multitasking " in Windows 1.x-ME ) to true multitasking .
Cooperative task switching relies on an app to specifically make a kernel call to end it 's time slice ; if the app burns lots of CPU time without making a kernel call , your system 's dead in the water until it finishes ( and if it 's in an infinite loop your system 's simply locked up .
) I think this is how Firefox behaves now .
Real multitasking gives each app ( that has work to do ) a fixed timeslice ( which the option to give up the timeslice early ) , avoiding these pauses and freezes even in the face of misbehaving software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>     It shouldn't resort in a slowdown and in fact should gain a nice speedup from user standpoint.
          Consider the present situation -- Firefox runs some kind of event handler, reacting to your clicks, handling javascript, plugins, html redraws, plugins, etc.
within a single process.
Consider:
          1.
There's going to be some amount of overhead in keeping track of all these items, scheduling them, and so on.
          2.
Tabs are logically independent.
          So, potentially the tabs will not be interdepndent, and relatively easy to seperate;  You'd have the overhead of multiple processes (which is low under most OSes -- they play memory management tricks so an executable is only in RAM once even if it's being run multiple times, low scheduling overhead, etc), but the internal scheduling and state-tracking overhead in Firefox could be less time-consuming..  This would likely be a crapshoot.
          BUT, there could easily be an *effective* speedup, misbehaving javascript, bloated css, and so on, instead of having the whole browser slug out or freeze, it'll be one tab while the other tabs and the interface are fine  -- I like to load some tabs in the background so this'd be great.
          I would say it's like going from the horrors of cooperative task switching  (which Apple mis-named "multitasking" in MacOS 7-9, and Microsoft mis-named "cooperative multitasking" in Windows 1.x-ME) to true multitasking.
Cooperative task switching relies on an app to specifically make a kernel call to end it's time slice; if the app burns lots of CPU time without making a kernel call, your system's dead in the water until it finishes (and if it's in an infinite loop your system's simply locked up.
)  I think this is how Firefox behaves now.
Real multitasking gives each app (that has work to do) a fixed timeslice (which the option to give up the timeslice early), avoiding these pauses and freezes even in the face of misbehaving software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28628097</id>
	<title>Re:Will this benefit the average user?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247046360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Some of them are already ticked that when they double-click on the Firefox icon, it takes longer to load than IE because of all the update-phone-home (the sort of thing for which we would all get annoyed at M$).</p></div><p>Let me help you with that:  Tools-&gt;Options-&gt;Advanced-&gt;Update-&gt;uncheck boxes</p><p>You're welcome.....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of them are already ticked that when they double-click on the Firefox icon , it takes longer to load than IE because of all the update-phone-home ( the sort of thing for which we would all get annoyed at M $ ) .Let me help you with that : Tools- &gt; Options- &gt; Advanced- &gt; Update- &gt; uncheck boxesYou 're welcome.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of them are already ticked that when they double-click on the Firefox icon, it takes longer to load than IE because of all the update-phone-home (the sort of thing for which we would all get annoyed at M$).Let me help you with that:  Tools-&gt;Options-&gt;Advanced-&gt;Update-&gt;uncheck boxesYou're welcome.....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627109</id>
	<title>What about cookies/isolation?</title>
	<author>Twillerror</author>
	<datestamp>1247085000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One problem we have is that we want to open many of the same applications more than once. Imagine wanting to login to slashdot with two different logins.</p><p>Right now in IE and Firefox each tab shares the same cookie space. So when you login with one tab you'll notice the cookie in the other tab getting "overwritten".</p><p>Now with multiple processes is this the case. When one tab "open another window" resutling in another tab are these two tabs in the same processes sharing cookies and the like?</p><p>The browser is general is a horrilbe state machine. It would be nice if Javascript would support some form of lighter weight cookie that could be access between page loads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One problem we have is that we want to open many of the same applications more than once .
Imagine wanting to login to slashdot with two different logins.Right now in IE and Firefox each tab shares the same cookie space .
So when you login with one tab you 'll notice the cookie in the other tab getting " overwritten " .Now with multiple processes is this the case .
When one tab " open another window " resutling in another tab are these two tabs in the same processes sharing cookies and the like ? The browser is general is a horrilbe state machine .
It would be nice if Javascript would support some form of lighter weight cookie that could be access between page loads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One problem we have is that we want to open many of the same applications more than once.
Imagine wanting to login to slashdot with two different logins.Right now in IE and Firefox each tab shares the same cookie space.
So when you login with one tab you'll notice the cookie in the other tab getting "overwritten".Now with multiple processes is this the case.
When one tab "open another window" resutling in another tab are these two tabs in the same processes sharing cookies and the like?The browser is general is a horrilbe state machine.
It would be nice if Javascript would support some form of lighter weight cookie that could be access between page loads.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627201</id>
	<title>it's like...</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1247085360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Splitting applications into multiple processes... it's like the 1980's all over again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Splitting applications into multiple processes... it 's like the 1980 's all over again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Splitting applications into multiple processes... it's like the 1980's all over again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28633701</id>
	<title>Disapointed with Adobe and Flash</title>
	<author>knet99</author>
	<datestamp>1247134500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Adobe has managed to get Flash to be the de facto standard for most web pages on the Internet, yet I would not have needed Chrome or other browser with this process separation if it wasn't for Flash. It crashes my browser, and as a Mac OS X user, it slows down not only my web browser, but my whole machine almost to a halt.</p><p>I so wish that either Apple do a deal with Adobe so that they get source code and can fix it themselves, or that Apple secretly are writing a clone that will be part of Snow Leopard.</p><p>Hmm.... I wonder how many watt/h of energy Flash is wasting in total over the world, CPU's going up to max when could be in low power mode, forcing us to buy a faster CPU with multi cores just to browse the web. I think Adobe should pay some sort of energy tax<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>Or, as I imagine they don't make money from the flash plugin, make it OpenSource so that others can help them fix it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Adobe has managed to get Flash to be the de facto standard for most web pages on the Internet , yet I would not have needed Chrome or other browser with this process separation if it was n't for Flash .
It crashes my browser , and as a Mac OS X user , it slows down not only my web browser , but my whole machine almost to a halt.I so wish that either Apple do a deal with Adobe so that they get source code and can fix it themselves , or that Apple secretly are writing a clone that will be part of Snow Leopard.Hmm.... I wonder how many watt/h of energy Flash is wasting in total over the world , CPU 's going up to max when could be in low power mode , forcing us to buy a faster CPU with multi cores just to browse the web .
I think Adobe should pay some sort of energy tax ; ) Or , as I imagine they do n't make money from the flash plugin , make it OpenSource so that others can help them fix it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adobe has managed to get Flash to be the de facto standard for most web pages on the Internet, yet I would not have needed Chrome or other browser with this process separation if it wasn't for Flash.
It crashes my browser, and as a Mac OS X user, it slows down not only my web browser, but my whole machine almost to a halt.I so wish that either Apple do a deal with Adobe so that they get source code and can fix it themselves, or that Apple secretly are writing a clone that will be part of Snow Leopard.Hmm.... I wonder how many watt/h of energy Flash is wasting in total over the world, CPU's going up to max when could be in low power mode, forcing us to buy a faster CPU with multi cores just to browse the web.
I think Adobe should pay some sort of energy tax ;)Or, as I imagine they don't make money from the flash plugin, make it OpenSource so that others can help them fix it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625415</id>
	<title>Will this help with flash crashing my Ubuntu?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247079060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So will this also run those forks with niceness values that wont cause flash to make my Ubuntu machine unable to register mouse movements or keystrokes (effectively leaving a reboot as the only option) for poorly written flash applications?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So will this also run those forks with niceness values that wont cause flash to make my Ubuntu machine unable to register mouse movements or keystrokes ( effectively leaving a reboot as the only option ) for poorly written flash applications ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So will this also run those forks with niceness values that wont cause flash to make my Ubuntu machine unable to register mouse movements or keystrokes (effectively leaving a reboot as the only option) for poorly written flash applications?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626329</id>
	<title>Profile data sharing</title>
	<author>nyet</author>
	<datestamp>1247082240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would be nice if they fixed this related bug in the process... or... first?<p>

<a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=135137" title="mozilla.org">Profile data cannot be shared by multiple running instances.</a> [mozilla.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would be nice if they fixed this related bug in the process... or... first ?
Profile data can not be shared by multiple running instances .
[ mozilla.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would be nice if they fixed this related bug in the process... or... first?
Profile data cannot be shared by multiple running instances.
[mozilla.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626629</id>
	<title>Re:I think I prefer a single process</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1247083200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>eBay is currently testing a new article page layout. If you get to see it you will also see a link to an "info tour" about it. Said info tour is a Flash animation that reliably crashes both Firefox 3.5 and Safari 4 under OS X; I suspect that it hits a bug in the OS X Flash Player.</htmltext>
<tokenext>eBay is currently testing a new article page layout .
If you get to see it you will also see a link to an " info tour " about it .
Said info tour is a Flash animation that reliably crashes both Firefox 3.5 and Safari 4 under OS X ; I suspect that it hits a bug in the OS X Flash Player .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eBay is currently testing a new article page layout.
If you get to see it you will also see a link to an "info tour" about it.
Said info tour is a Flash animation that reliably crashes both Firefox 3.5 and Safari 4 under OS X; I suspect that it hits a bug in the OS X Flash Player.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28629127</id>
	<title>Re:About time</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1247051340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Competition is good, I guess.</p><p>A few years ago, people were claiming that it was Firefox that caused Microsoft to start updating IE again - amusing to now see it the other way round...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Competition is good , I guess.A few years ago , people were claiming that it was Firefox that caused Microsoft to start updating IE again - amusing to now see it the other way round.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Competition is good, I guess.A few years ago, people were claiming that it was Firefox that caused Microsoft to start updating IE again - amusing to now see it the other way round...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625069</id>
	<title>Why a process? Surely a thread would scale better?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247077920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Forking a process on unix-like systems if fairly lightweight but for Windows this will not scale well at all. Why not just have rendering worker threads? Have I missed something?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Forking a process on unix-like systems if fairly lightweight but for Windows this will not scale well at all .
Why not just have rendering worker threads ?
Have I missed something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forking a process on unix-like systems if fairly lightweight but for Windows this will not scale well at all.
Why not just have rendering worker threads?
Have I missed something?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625223</id>
	<title>Nice</title>
	<author>Craig Davison</author>
	<datestamp>1247078400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Competition from Chrome was a good thing: first the Javascript improvements, now separate processes for the plugins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Competition from Chrome was a good thing : first the Javascript improvements , now separate processes for the plugins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Competition from Chrome was a good thing: first the Javascript improvements, now separate processes for the plugins.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625269</id>
	<title>Re:Why a process? Surely a thread would scale bett</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247078580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Forking a process on unix-like systems if fairly lightweight but for Windows this will not scale well at all.</p></div><p>The Microsoft folks don't seem concerned about this, at least not concerned enough to implement it in IE. While I don't doubt that Windows processes are fairly heavyweight, I doubt that they're big enough to cause trouble until the user has hundreds of tabs open.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Why not just have rendering worker threads? Have I missed something?</p></div><p>Although working in multiple threads can increase performance in much the same way that multiple processes can, that's not the major benefit of the multi-process architecture. The big benefit to multiple processes is that if one of them dies for some reason, the other processes don't go down, and so the user can (mostly) continue to work. Threads can't do this, because all the threads are still part of a single process.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Forking a process on unix-like systems if fairly lightweight but for Windows this will not scale well at all.The Microsoft folks do n't seem concerned about this , at least not concerned enough to implement it in IE .
While I do n't doubt that Windows processes are fairly heavyweight , I doubt that they 're big enough to cause trouble until the user has hundreds of tabs open.Why not just have rendering worker threads ?
Have I missed something ? Although working in multiple threads can increase performance in much the same way that multiple processes can , that 's not the major benefit of the multi-process architecture .
The big benefit to multiple processes is that if one of them dies for some reason , the other processes do n't go down , and so the user can ( mostly ) continue to work .
Threads ca n't do this , because all the threads are still part of a single process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forking a process on unix-like systems if fairly lightweight but for Windows this will not scale well at all.The Microsoft folks don't seem concerned about this, at least not concerned enough to implement it in IE.
While I don't doubt that Windows processes are fairly heavyweight, I doubt that they're big enough to cause trouble until the user has hundreds of tabs open.Why not just have rendering worker threads?
Have I missed something?Although working in multiple threads can increase performance in much the same way that multiple processes can, that's not the major benefit of the multi-process architecture.
The big benefit to multiple processes is that if one of them dies for some reason, the other processes don't go down, and so the user can (mostly) continue to work.
Threads can't do this, because all the threads are still part of a single process.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625369</id>
	<title>Restart Firefox Only Once A Month??? LOL!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247078940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before I dumped Firefox months ago I would have to quit the piece of shit browser 2 to 3 times a day to clear out the crud that gets left behind with every minute of use.</p><p>The only people pathetic enough to put up with such a piece of junk app are people who still think they are being cool and impressing others with "I'm kewl, I use Firefox, not IE!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before I dumped Firefox months ago I would have to quit the piece of shit browser 2 to 3 times a day to clear out the crud that gets left behind with every minute of use.The only people pathetic enough to put up with such a piece of junk app are people who still think they are being cool and impressing others with " I 'm kewl , I use Firefox , not IE !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before I dumped Firefox months ago I would have to quit the piece of shit browser 2 to 3 times a day to clear out the crud that gets left behind with every minute of use.The only people pathetic enough to put up with such a piece of junk app are people who still think they are being cool and impressing others with "I'm kewl, I use Firefox, not IE!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626319</id>
	<title>Why is this a good thing again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247082240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I hear multi-process browsing the first thought is why?  Don't our browsers already use enough memory within a single instance of itself?</p><p>What is wrong with a multi-threaded application that can use multiple cores simultaneously?</p><p>With multi-processor you end up with a more complex memory model (domain sockets, shared memory..etc for inter-process communication) This can only increase the global complexity and chance for bugs within the system.</p><p>You end up with duplication of the same core code in memory with no reduction of synchronization complexity which necessairly means increased memory usage.</p><p>If there are structural problems with the browser such that it freezes<br>or is not reliable I would rather see these problems corrected.  If the code is that bad then I don't think its unreasonable to also assume its also insecure and expliotable.</p><p>Now that I'm here I also want to see the dizzying array of plugins go away - they are a reliability and security nightmare.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I hear multi-process browsing the first thought is why ?
Do n't our browsers already use enough memory within a single instance of itself ? What is wrong with a multi-threaded application that can use multiple cores simultaneously ? With multi-processor you end up with a more complex memory model ( domain sockets , shared memory..etc for inter-process communication ) This can only increase the global complexity and chance for bugs within the system.You end up with duplication of the same core code in memory with no reduction of synchronization complexity which necessairly means increased memory usage.If there are structural problems with the browser such that it freezesor is not reliable I would rather see these problems corrected .
If the code is that bad then I do n't think its unreasonable to also assume its also insecure and expliotable.Now that I 'm here I also want to see the dizzying array of plugins go away - they are a reliability and security nightmare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I hear multi-process browsing the first thought is why?
Don't our browsers already use enough memory within a single instance of itself?What is wrong with a multi-threaded application that can use multiple cores simultaneously?With multi-processor you end up with a more complex memory model (domain sockets, shared memory..etc for inter-process communication) This can only increase the global complexity and chance for bugs within the system.You end up with duplication of the same core code in memory with no reduction of synchronization complexity which necessairly means increased memory usage.If there are structural problems with the browser such that it freezesor is not reliable I would rather see these problems corrected.
If the code is that bad then I don't think its unreasonable to also assume its also insecure and expliotable.Now that I'm here I also want to see the dizzying array of plugins go away - they are a reliability and security nightmare.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627959</id>
	<title>Re:What about cookies/isolation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247045760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IE6 actually supports isolated processes with separate cookies when you launch another instance of IE. (Unlike Firefox, it doesn't detect and combine with the running instance.) My wife launches every new window from the start menu because she likes this behavior.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IE6 actually supports isolated processes with separate cookies when you launch another instance of IE .
( Unlike Firefox , it does n't detect and combine with the running instance .
) My wife launches every new window from the start menu because she likes this behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE6 actually supports isolated processes with separate cookies when you launch another instance of IE.
(Unlike Firefox, it doesn't detect and combine with the running instance.
) My wife launches every new window from the start menu because she likes this behavior.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626011</id>
	<title>Chrome was a success</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247081160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whether or not Chrome is adopted and used as a browser, the project was a success in spurring needed innovation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether or not Chrome is adopted and used as a browser , the project was a success in spurring needed innovation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether or not Chrome is adopted and used as a browser, the project was a success in spurring needed innovation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626085</id>
	<title>Re:Why a process? Surely a thread would scale bett</title>
	<author>lukas84</author>
	<datestamp>1247081400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or the multi-process Explorer.exe on Windows 7<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or the multi-process Explorer.exe on Windows 7 : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or the multi-process Explorer.exe on Windows 7 :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625663</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28628713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28632043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28632099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28628047
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28636015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625223
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28630071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28635803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28628097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626115
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625203
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625223
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625231
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28631847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28633701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28629177
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28629119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28628095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28629241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625443
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28633125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28661243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28631285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626923
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28639537
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28713123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28628925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28632161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28633287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28628745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28628077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28628025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28629127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28629645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625399
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28632203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28628255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28632221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1652207_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1652207.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625223
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625587
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1652207.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28628047
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28629177
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1652207.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624935
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1652207.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625047
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625335
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28630071
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625441
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1652207.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626271
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1652207.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624885
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28632161
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1652207.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624891
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1652207.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28629645
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28633287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28632043
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1652207.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627947
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28629241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627937
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1652207.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625095
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28633701
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625275
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626845
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627677
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625325
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28633125
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28661243
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625495
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626603
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625967
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625833
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28629119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625113
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625561
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626915
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28632203
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626345
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28628745
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626577
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627305
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627335
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28631847
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626601
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626929
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626893
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28635803
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625437
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28632099
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28629127
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625839
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625373
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1652207.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625069
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28628077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626115
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625269
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625663
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28636015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625231
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1652207.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626011
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1652207.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28624971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28628925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625399
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625369
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627987
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625203
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625591
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1652207.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625395
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28628255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28713123
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627053
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28628713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28626247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28628097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28628025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28628095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28632221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625869
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28639537
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1652207.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28625669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28627921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1652207.28631285
</commentlist>
</conversation>
