<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_14_1546253</id>
	<title>The Amazing World of Software Version Numbers</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1247587320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:harry@technologizer.com" rel="nofollow">Harry</a> writes <i>"In theory, software version numbers should be incredibly mundane. In reality, companies have long twisted them for marketing purposes, avoided ones they didn't like, and even replaced them with things other than numbers. I've prepared a <a href="http://technologizer.com/2009/07/14/version-numbers/">tribute to them with some facts and ruminations</a>, but there's a lot I don't know, and I'd appreciate help on the historical side of things. (Anyone know when the standard decimal point-based system came into use?)"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Harry writes " In theory , software version numbers should be incredibly mundane .
In reality , companies have long twisted them for marketing purposes , avoided ones they did n't like , and even replaced them with things other than numbers .
I 've prepared a tribute to them with some facts and ruminations , but there 's a lot I do n't know , and I 'd appreciate help on the historical side of things .
( Anyone know when the standard decimal point-based system came into use ?
) "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Harry writes "In theory, software version numbers should be incredibly mundane.
In reality, companies have long twisted them for marketing purposes, avoided ones they didn't like, and even replaced them with things other than numbers.
I've prepared a tribute to them with some facts and ruminations, but there's a lot I don't know, and I'd appreciate help on the historical side of things.
(Anyone know when the standard decimal point-based system came into use?
)"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28695149</id>
	<title>Re:Algol 60</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247604420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, using years instead of version numbers has been a very popular system versioning system for Calendars for at least a few millennium.</p><p>See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , using years instead of version numbers has been a very popular system versioning system for Calendars for at least a few millennium.See http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, using years instead of version numbers has been a very popular system versioning system for Calendars for at least a few millennium.See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693519</id>
	<title>Re:os x</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247596560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude, the Lion is the King of the freaking Jungle!</p><p>That will be the *last* version, because there is no cat better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , the Lion is the King of the freaking Jungle ! That will be the * last * version , because there is no cat better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, the Lion is the King of the freaking Jungle!That will be the *last* version, because there is no cat better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28703817</id>
	<title>Re:os x</title>
	<author>omnichad</author>
	<datestamp>1247674680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My prediction is that they'll do for bio-engineering, what they've done to the portable music player.  And of course, they'll invent a few cat species just to give them a few more version numbers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My prediction is that they 'll do for bio-engineering , what they 've done to the portable music player .
And of course , they 'll invent a few cat species just to give them a few more version numbers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My prediction is that they'll do for bio-engineering, what they've done to the portable music player.
And of course, they'll invent a few cat species just to give them a few more version numbers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693849</id>
	<title>Re:os x</title>
	<author>BlueKitties</author>
	<datestamp>1247598000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>More like Mac "OS "+2*"1" &gt;\_&gt;</htmltext>
<tokenext>More like Mac " OS " + 2 * " 1 " &gt; \ _ &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More like Mac "OS "+2*"1" &gt;\_&gt;</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28699393</id>
	<title>more info</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1247586360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget about these oddballs:</p><ol>
<li>Gobolinux's octal system</li><li>Ubuntu's year dot month system</li></ol><p>As well as the regular:</p><ol>
<li>X.Y.Z</li><li>YYYYMMDD</li><li>Build/checkout number from revision control</li><li>vendor brances/ubuntu's versions on a package</li></ol><p>And...</p><ol>
<li>Anything I forgot</li></ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget about these oddballs : Gobolinux 's octal systemUbuntu 's year dot month systemAs well as the regular : X.Y.ZYYYYMMDDBuild/checkout number from revision controlvendor brances/ubuntu 's versions on a packageAnd.. . Anything I forgot</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget about these oddballs:
Gobolinux's octal systemUbuntu's year dot month systemAs well as the regular:
X.Y.ZYYYYMMDDBuild/checkout number from revision controlvendor brances/ubuntu's versions on a packageAnd...
Anything I forgot</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693173</id>
	<title>I see he does not discuss SunOS/Solaris versions</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1247595240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Possibly because he fears that trying to explain them will cause a brain hemmorage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Possibly because he fears that trying to explain them will cause a brain hemmorage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Possibly because he fears that trying to explain them will cause a brain hemmorage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28697467</id>
	<title>The 80 in TRS-80 does /not/ refer to a year.</title>
	<author>spitefulcrow</author>
	<datestamp>1247571360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's for the Zilog Z80 CPU, which the TRS-80 used. Assuming NewDOS/80 was named after said system, it's not an example of an OS given a year instead of version number.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's for the Zilog Z80 CPU , which the TRS-80 used .
Assuming NewDOS/80 was named after said system , it 's not an example of an OS given a year instead of version number .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's for the Zilog Z80 CPU, which the TRS-80 used.
Assuming NewDOS/80 was named after said system, it's not an example of an OS given a year instead of version number.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693401</id>
	<title>Re:Oracle</title>
	<author>Haxzaw</author>
	<datestamp>1247596140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure about that.  I would imagine v 1.0 was the version they developed for the CIA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure about that .
I would imagine v 1.0 was the version they developed for the CIA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure about that.
I would imagine v 1.0 was the version they developed for the CIA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692297</id>
	<title>Decimal version numbers</title>
	<author>Todd Knarr</author>
	<datestamp>1247591760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, decimal version numbers in their current form go all the way back at least to MS-DOS, so that would be 1982 (if not earlier). It used X.Y version numbers, eg. 2.1, 3.0, 3.1, with the now-common interpretation of the major versio number meaning significant new features were added and the minor version meaning fixes or enhancements to existing features but nothing major new or changed. I'm pretty sure the convention wasn't new with DOS, it probably goes back even further to the mainframe world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , decimal version numbers in their current form go all the way back at least to MS-DOS , so that would be 1982 ( if not earlier ) .
It used X.Y version numbers , eg .
2.1 , 3.0 , 3.1 , with the now-common interpretation of the major versio number meaning significant new features were added and the minor version meaning fixes or enhancements to existing features but nothing major new or changed .
I 'm pretty sure the convention was n't new with DOS , it probably goes back even further to the mainframe world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, decimal version numbers in their current form go all the way back at least to MS-DOS, so that would be 1982 (if not earlier).
It used X.Y version numbers, eg.
2.1, 3.0, 3.1, with the now-common interpretation of the major versio number meaning significant new features were added and the minor version meaning fixes or enhancements to existing features but nothing major new or changed.
I'm pretty sure the convention wasn't new with DOS, it probably goes back even further to the mainframe world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692977</id>
	<title>My experience</title>
	<author>istartedi</author>
	<datestamp>1247594520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For my own stuff at one point, I automated the version
numbering based on dates.  I would set the first year
as the "epoch" for 1.0 and munge the day into the
minor number.  This was before I started working
in an environment with a revision control system.</p><p>Later, I would have my programs output their revision
numbers.  (There are Subversion hacks combined with your
makefiles that make this fairly easy).</p><p>Of course, in the corporate world there is always some
agreed-upon version number that has nothing to do with the
svnversion of your component.  In my code, for an application
named foo, I'd have the svnversion defined as FOO\_SVN\_VERSION and
the other number would be FOO\_MARKETING\_VERSION.</p><p>If you ran foo --help, you got something lik:</p><p> <b>Foo version 2.1, (C) 2007 Fubar Company.  Revision 2345.</b> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For my own stuff at one point , I automated the version numbering based on dates .
I would set the first year as the " epoch " for 1.0 and munge the day into the minor number .
This was before I started working in an environment with a revision control system.Later , I would have my programs output their revision numbers .
( There are Subversion hacks combined with your makefiles that make this fairly easy ) .Of course , in the corporate world there is always some agreed-upon version number that has nothing to do with the svnversion of your component .
In my code , for an application named foo , I 'd have the svnversion defined as FOO \ _SVN \ _VERSION and the other number would be FOO \ _MARKETING \ _VERSION.If you ran foo --help , you got something lik : Foo version 2.1 , ( C ) 2007 Fubar Company .
Revision 2345 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For my own stuff at one point, I automated the version
numbering based on dates.
I would set the first year
as the "epoch" for 1.0 and munge the day into the
minor number.
This was before I started working
in an environment with a revision control system.Later, I would have my programs output their revision
numbers.
(There are Subversion hacks combined with your
makefiles that make this fairly easy).Of course, in the corporate world there is always some
agreed-upon version number that has nothing to do with the
svnversion of your component.
In my code, for an application
named foo, I'd have the svnversion defined as FOO\_SVN\_VERSION and
the other number would be FOO\_MARKETING\_VERSION.If you ran foo --help, you got something lik: Foo version 2.1, (C) 2007 Fubar Company.
Revision 2345. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693605</id>
	<title>Starcraft maps</title>
	<author>AlpineR</author>
	<datestamp>1247596980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I release several games as custom maps in Starcraft. Many of them are refinements of earlier versions made by others. And all of them are released unprotected so that others may add their own refinements.</p><p>Version numbers get messy. I typically go to the next major number if I'm doing a serious overhaul of my own or somebody else's map. Then I increment the minor numbers for bug fixes, balance changes, and minor enhancements.</p><p>But then somebody else comes along, makes a minor (and often terrible) change and releases it as the next major version. Or they make major changes and release it as the next minor version. Then when I make a new version, it either clashes with those other versions or looks older than the versions released with big jumps.</p><p>I've tried adding descriptor names to my versions, a la Vista. So I have "Phantom BGH Gold 1.0" as my refinement of "Phantom BGH 2.4", but most people don't seem to get that. When my updates landed me at "Phantom BGH Gold 3.0" people at least paid attention that it might be newer, but they still complained that it was different than "Phantom BGH 2.4".</p><p>I also tried adding "Classic" to a game version which was a totally rewritten implementation of a game type with other versions in the 3.0 to 9.0 range. I intended the "Classic" to signify I was focusing on the core ideas of the game type, but so many people thought it meant "old". As if the first version ever released of that map was labeled "Classic", and a label of "New" means new forever.</p><p>TheNevermind</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I release several games as custom maps in Starcraft .
Many of them are refinements of earlier versions made by others .
And all of them are released unprotected so that others may add their own refinements.Version numbers get messy .
I typically go to the next major number if I 'm doing a serious overhaul of my own or somebody else 's map .
Then I increment the minor numbers for bug fixes , balance changes , and minor enhancements.But then somebody else comes along , makes a minor ( and often terrible ) change and releases it as the next major version .
Or they make major changes and release it as the next minor version .
Then when I make a new version , it either clashes with those other versions or looks older than the versions released with big jumps.I 've tried adding descriptor names to my versions , a la Vista .
So I have " Phantom BGH Gold 1.0 " as my refinement of " Phantom BGH 2.4 " , but most people do n't seem to get that .
When my updates landed me at " Phantom BGH Gold 3.0 " people at least paid attention that it might be newer , but they still complained that it was different than " Phantom BGH 2.4 " .I also tried adding " Classic " to a game version which was a totally rewritten implementation of a game type with other versions in the 3.0 to 9.0 range .
I intended the " Classic " to signify I was focusing on the core ideas of the game type , but so many people thought it meant " old " .
As if the first version ever released of that map was labeled " Classic " , and a label of " New " means new forever.TheNevermind</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I release several games as custom maps in Starcraft.
Many of them are refinements of earlier versions made by others.
And all of them are released unprotected so that others may add their own refinements.Version numbers get messy.
I typically go to the next major number if I'm doing a serious overhaul of my own or somebody else's map.
Then I increment the minor numbers for bug fixes, balance changes, and minor enhancements.But then somebody else comes along, makes a minor (and often terrible) change and releases it as the next major version.
Or they make major changes and release it as the next minor version.
Then when I make a new version, it either clashes with those other versions or looks older than the versions released with big jumps.I've tried adding descriptor names to my versions, a la Vista.
So I have "Phantom BGH Gold 1.0" as my refinement of "Phantom BGH 2.4", but most people don't seem to get that.
When my updates landed me at "Phantom BGH Gold 3.0" people at least paid attention that it might be newer, but they still complained that it was different than "Phantom BGH 2.4".I also tried adding "Classic" to a game version which was a totally rewritten implementation of a game type with other versions in the 3.0 to 9.0 range.
I intended the "Classic" to signify I was focusing on the core ideas of the game type, but so many people thought it meant "old".
As if the first version ever released of that map was labeled "Classic", and a label of "New" means new forever.TheNevermind</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693125</id>
	<title>Re:Missed</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1247595060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>No mention of TeX version numbering? (Asymptotically approaching pi?)</p></div></blockquote><p>You may have missed that the article contains three pages. The second page mentions the TeX version numbering (section "Is there a funniest version number of all time?")</p><blockquote><div><p>No mention of the Marathon series using the largest "version bump" ever? (From Marathon 2 to Marathon Infinity?)</p></div></blockquote><p>This one indeed seems to be missing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No mention of TeX version numbering ?
( Asymptotically approaching pi ?
) You may have missed that the article contains three pages .
The second page mentions the TeX version numbering ( section " Is there a funniest version number of all time ?
" ) No mention of the Marathon series using the largest " version bump " ever ?
( From Marathon 2 to Marathon Infinity ?
) This one indeed seems to be missing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No mention of TeX version numbering?
(Asymptotically approaching pi?
)You may have missed that the article contains three pages.
The second page mentions the TeX version numbering (section "Is there a funniest version number of all time?
")No mention of the Marathon series using the largest "version bump" ever?
(From Marathon 2 to Marathon Infinity?
)This one indeed seems to be missing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693411</id>
	<title>Re:Software version vs. sequels</title>
	<author>DarkProphet</author>
	<datestamp>1247596200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yup, there is a reason they are calling it Windows 7 instead of what it really is -- Vista SP3. Nobody wants to pay for a service pack.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup , there is a reason they are calling it Windows 7 instead of what it really is -- Vista SP3 .
Nobody wants to pay for a service pack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup, there is a reason they are calling it Windows 7 instead of what it really is -- Vista SP3.
Nobody wants to pay for a service pack.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28702035</id>
	<title>Re:w/r/t Windows</title>
	<author>Rysc</author>
	<datestamp>1247664420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you and the article do not mention is this:</p><p>Windows 9x and ME were versioned as well. I forget the exact numbers, but Wikipedia says:</p><p>Windows 4.00.950 aka Windows 95<br>Windows 4.10.1998 aka Windows 98<br>Windows 4.90.3000 aka Windows ME</p><p>And, the NT progression goes like this:</p><p>Windows NT 3.1<br>Windows NT 3.51<br>Windows NT 4.0<br>Windows NT 5.0 aka Windows 2000<br>Windows NT 5.1 aka Windows XP<br>Windows NT 6.0 aka Windows Vista<br>Windows NT 6.1 aka Windows 7</p><p>The article mentioned some of this, but not all of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you and the article do not mention is this : Windows 9x and ME were versioned as well .
I forget the exact numbers , but Wikipedia says : Windows 4.00.950 aka Windows 95Windows 4.10.1998 aka Windows 98Windows 4.90.3000 aka Windows MEAnd , the NT progression goes like this : Windows NT 3.1Windows NT 3.51Windows NT 4.0Windows NT 5.0 aka Windows 2000Windows NT 5.1 aka Windows XPWindows NT 6.0 aka Windows VistaWindows NT 6.1 aka Windows 7The article mentioned some of this , but not all of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you and the article do not mention is this:Windows 9x and ME were versioned as well.
I forget the exact numbers, but Wikipedia says:Windows 4.00.950 aka Windows 95Windows 4.10.1998 aka Windows 98Windows 4.90.3000 aka Windows MEAnd, the NT progression goes like this:Windows NT 3.1Windows NT 3.51Windows NT 4.0Windows NT 5.0 aka Windows 2000Windows NT 5.1 aka Windows XPWindows NT 6.0 aka Windows VistaWindows NT 6.1 aka Windows 7The article mentioned some of this, but not all of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692745</id>
	<title>binutils</title>
	<author>KuNgFo0</author>
	<datestamp>1247593680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think one of my favorites has always been the common "binutils" package in Linux.  Looks like the last release was binutils-2.19.51.0.11
I don't remember ever seeing anything but a 0 in that 4th number, but it's always been there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think one of my favorites has always been the common " binutils " package in Linux .
Looks like the last release was binutils-2.19.51.0.11 I do n't remember ever seeing anything but a 0 in that 4th number , but it 's always been there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think one of my favorites has always been the common "binutils" package in Linux.
Looks like the last release was binutils-2.19.51.0.11
I don't remember ever seeing anything but a 0 in that 4th number, but it's always been there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28696579</id>
	<title>Re:Oracle</title>
	<author>geezer nerd</author>
	<datestamp>1247567100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Years ago, it was very common for marketers to decree that the first version had to be released as Version 2, as "everyone knows that Version 1 of anything is always full of bugs." I encountered this notion several times in my career.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Years ago , it was very common for marketers to decree that the first version had to be released as Version 2 , as " everyone knows that Version 1 of anything is always full of bugs .
" I encountered this notion several times in my career .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Years ago, it was very common for marketers to decree that the first version had to be released as Version 2, as "everyone knows that Version 1 of anything is always full of bugs.
" I encountered this notion several times in my career.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694107</id>
	<title>OS 2200, level 48</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1247599080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
OS 2200, for UNISYS mainframes, is somewhere around Level 48 today.  The original demo release was April 4, 1967.  Level 23 was reached around 1970, level 32 around 1978, and level 48 in 2007.  Builds have numbers like "26.51.465".
</p><p>
Yes, there really is an operating system over 40 years old in current production use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OS 2200 , for UNISYS mainframes , is somewhere around Level 48 today .
The original demo release was April 4 , 1967 .
Level 23 was reached around 1970 , level 32 around 1978 , and level 48 in 2007 .
Builds have numbers like " 26.51.465 " .
Yes , there really is an operating system over 40 years old in current production use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
OS 2200, for UNISYS mainframes, is somewhere around Level 48 today.
The original demo release was April 4, 1967.
Level 23 was reached around 1970, level 32 around 1978, and level 48 in 2007.
Builds have numbers like "26.51.465".
Yes, there really is an operating system over 40 years old in current production use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692901</id>
	<title>What about Oracle???</title>
	<author>HockeyPuck</author>
	<datestamp>1247594280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can you omit Oracle?  The first version was 2.0.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can you omit Oracle ?
The first version was 2.0 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can you omit Oracle?
The first version was 2.0.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28700379</id>
	<title>Re:Don't forget TIFF</title>
	<author>piers\_downunder</author>
	<datestamp>1247595660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually 42 is the "magic" number used to identify the file as a TIFF, not a version number at all. In fact the creators of the TIFF specification specifically avoided using version numbers, as versioning tends to complicate the implementation of a baseline TIFF reader.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually 42 is the " magic " number used to identify the file as a TIFF , not a version number at all .
In fact the creators of the TIFF specification specifically avoided using version numbers , as versioning tends to complicate the implementation of a baseline TIFF reader .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually 42 is the "magic" number used to identify the file as a TIFF, not a version number at all.
In fact the creators of the TIFF specification specifically avoided using version numbers, as versioning tends to complicate the implementation of a baseline TIFF reader.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694117</id>
	<title>Re:w/r/t Windows</title>
	<author>InsaneProcessor</author>
	<datestamp>1247599140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have it all wrong.

There were two completely different Window development trees.<br> <br>

Windows 3.xx, 95, 98, me were all variations of a windows that sat on top of DOS and were not run in large memories and not very protected (secure).<br> <br>Windows NT 3.x, 4.x, 5 (2000 and XP) 6(vista) and then 7 (which really should be 6 but they decided to bump it up because of the failure of vista).</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have it all wrong .
There were two completely different Window development trees .
Windows 3.xx , 95 , 98 , me were all variations of a windows that sat on top of DOS and were not run in large memories and not very protected ( secure ) .
Windows NT 3.x , 4.x , 5 ( 2000 and XP ) 6 ( vista ) and then 7 ( which really should be 6 but they decided to bump it up because of the failure of vista ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have it all wrong.
There were two completely different Window development trees.
Windows 3.xx, 95, 98, me were all variations of a windows that sat on top of DOS and were not run in large memories and not very protected (secure).
Windows NT 3.x, 4.x, 5 (2000 and XP) 6(vista) and then 7 (which really should be 6 but they decided to bump it up because of the failure of vista).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694521</id>
	<title>Re:w/r/t Windows</title>
	<author>Wisconsingod</author>
	<datestamp>1247601060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(I was the performance test engineer for Vista update services during the initial release of Vista)</p></div><p>Oh, so many responses come to mind... <br>
<br>
Burn him at the stake!!!<br>
or<br>
What a resume killer...<br>
or<br>
that peg on the ladder is right between Dilbert and the Garbage man</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( I was the performance test engineer for Vista update services during the initial release of Vista ) Oh , so many responses come to mind.. . Burn him at the stake ! ! !
or What a resume killer.. . or that peg on the ladder is right between Dilbert and the Garbage man</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(I was the performance test engineer for Vista update services during the initial release of Vista)Oh, so many responses come to mind... 

Burn him at the stake!!!
or
What a resume killer...
or
that peg on the ladder is right between Dilbert and the Garbage man
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693069</id>
	<title>Re:0.97 0.98 0.99 ???</title>
	<author>odflyg</author>
	<datestamp>1247594880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's actually not rare at all. For example Firefox went (briefly) to 0.10 after the 0.9 series. It merely depends on whether you think of the version as a decimal number with a fraction or as two (or more) numbers, separated by a dot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's actually not rare at all .
For example Firefox went ( briefly ) to 0.10 after the 0.9 series .
It merely depends on whether you think of the version as a decimal number with a fraction or as two ( or more ) numbers , separated by a dot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's actually not rare at all.
For example Firefox went (briefly) to 0.10 after the 0.9 series.
It merely depends on whether you think of the version as a decimal number with a fraction or as two (or more) numbers, separated by a dot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28696351</id>
	<title>YYYYMMDD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247565960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article seemed to miss a form of version numbers: YYYYMMDD. Sometimes the suffix "-1" or "-2" are used when more than one release is made on that day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article seemed to miss a form of version numbers : YYYYMMDD .
Sometimes the suffix " -1 " or " -2 " are used when more than one release is made on that day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article seemed to miss a form of version numbers: YYYYMMDD.
Sometimes the suffix "-1" or "-2" are used when more than one release is made on that day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28696813</id>
	<title>Re:Different people, different numbering schemes.</title>
	<author>UnknownSoldier</author>
	<datestamp>1247568420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; As far as I'm concerned, it starts at 1.0, not 0.1 or 0.0.0.1 or whatever else.</p><p>The confusion arises from trying to do 2 orthogonal things with a version control number.</p><p>a) The version number represents the \_percentage\_ of functionality.  Thus 1.0 is \_wrong\_.</p><p>b) The version number represents the \_numbers\_ of times you have made \_changes\_ (bugfixes). Think of it like the revision # on a book. Thus 1.0 is \_correct\_.</p><p>Version numbers mean different things, depending who you are talking to:</p><p>a) The Developer the day and the revision numer</p><p>b) A simple number to the user so he is reminded what year he last bought the software  (Like a Car)</p><p>c) Something sexy for marketing. Hence the completely non-linear sequence of: Ver 1, 2, 3, Version Gold, Year, Version GT, Version XP, Version#, etc.. version naming schemes.</p><p>&gt; zero-based arrays are no excuse for now starting every numbering sequence with a zero</p><p>Zero is \_relative\_.  Version 0 is \_in\_ your \_head\_.  Revision 1 is the first version typed up on the computer.  Version 0.5 is 50\% towards being fully functional.</p><p>--<br><b>This isn't Rocket Science, only Computer Science !</b><nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; As far as I 'm concerned , it starts at 1.0 , not 0.1 or 0.0.0.1 or whatever else.The confusion arises from trying to do 2 orthogonal things with a version control number.a ) The version number represents the \ _percentage \ _ of functionality .
Thus 1.0 is \ _wrong \ _.b ) The version number represents the \ _numbers \ _ of times you have made \ _changes \ _ ( bugfixes ) .
Think of it like the revision # on a book .
Thus 1.0 is \ _correct \ _.Version numbers mean different things , depending who you are talking to : a ) The Developer the day and the revision numerb ) A simple number to the user so he is reminded what year he last bought the software ( Like a Car ) c ) Something sexy for marketing .
Hence the completely non-linear sequence of : Ver 1 , 2 , 3 , Version Gold , Year , Version GT , Version XP , Version # , etc.. version naming schemes. &gt; zero-based arrays are no excuse for now starting every numbering sequence with a zeroZero is \ _relative \ _ .
Version 0 is \ _in \ _ your \ _head \ _ .
Revision 1 is the first version typed up on the computer .
Version 0.5 is 50 \ % towards being fully functional.--This is n't Rocket Science , only Computer Science !
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; As far as I'm concerned, it starts at 1.0, not 0.1 or 0.0.0.1 or whatever else.The confusion arises from trying to do 2 orthogonal things with a version control number.a) The version number represents the \_percentage\_ of functionality.
Thus 1.0 is \_wrong\_.b) The version number represents the \_numbers\_ of times you have made \_changes\_ (bugfixes).
Think of it like the revision # on a book.
Thus 1.0 is \_correct\_.Version numbers mean different things, depending who you are talking to:a) The Developer the day and the revision numerb) A simple number to the user so he is reminded what year he last bought the software  (Like a Car)c) Something sexy for marketing.
Hence the completely non-linear sequence of: Ver 1, 2, 3, Version Gold, Year, Version GT, Version XP, Version#, etc.. version naming schemes.&gt; zero-based arrays are no excuse for now starting every numbering sequence with a zeroZero is \_relative\_.
Version 0 is \_in\_ your \_head\_.
Revision 1 is the first version typed up on the computer.
Version 0.5 is 50\% towards being fully functional.--This isn't Rocket Science, only Computer Science !
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693739</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693739</id>
	<title>Re:Different people, different numbering schemes.</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1247597520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I realize it's personal preference, but it irks me seeing applications with a version number less than 1.  Yeah, it's fine to say "it's version 0.5 because it doesn't have all the features", but it's <b>never</b> going to have all the features you want or planned.</p><p>The way I see it, by definition, the first time you hit Compile, you're creating "The First Version" - version 1.0.  As far as I'm concerned, it starts at 1.0, not 0.1 or 0.0.0.1 or whatever else.  If it takes all the way to version 2.0 to get "all the features" you originally planned or wanted, fine, the application is now at version 2, why is that a problem?  It seems like a lot of applications, especially in the open source world, insist on always having a version number less than one.  A lot of times when I see that I feel that if the developer isn't confident enough to call their application "The First Version", there's no way I'm going to use it.  That's probably putting more weight on version numbers than is intended, but version numbers are all about perception anyway (just ask Netscape 5).</p><p>And no, zero-based arrays are no excuse for now starting every numbering sequence with a zero.  The word "first" is the ordinal form of the number one, not zero.  By definition then, "The First Version" is version 1.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I realize it 's personal preference , but it irks me seeing applications with a version number less than 1 .
Yeah , it 's fine to say " it 's version 0.5 because it does n't have all the features " , but it 's never going to have all the features you want or planned.The way I see it , by definition , the first time you hit Compile , you 're creating " The First Version " - version 1.0 .
As far as I 'm concerned , it starts at 1.0 , not 0.1 or 0.0.0.1 or whatever else .
If it takes all the way to version 2.0 to get " all the features " you originally planned or wanted , fine , the application is now at version 2 , why is that a problem ?
It seems like a lot of applications , especially in the open source world , insist on always having a version number less than one .
A lot of times when I see that I feel that if the developer is n't confident enough to call their application " The First Version " , there 's no way I 'm going to use it .
That 's probably putting more weight on version numbers than is intended , but version numbers are all about perception anyway ( just ask Netscape 5 ) .And no , zero-based arrays are no excuse for now starting every numbering sequence with a zero .
The word " first " is the ordinal form of the number one , not zero .
By definition then , " The First Version " is version 1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I realize it's personal preference, but it irks me seeing applications with a version number less than 1.
Yeah, it's fine to say "it's version 0.5 because it doesn't have all the features", but it's never going to have all the features you want or planned.The way I see it, by definition, the first time you hit Compile, you're creating "The First Version" - version 1.0.
As far as I'm concerned, it starts at 1.0, not 0.1 or 0.0.0.1 or whatever else.
If it takes all the way to version 2.0 to get "all the features" you originally planned or wanted, fine, the application is now at version 2, why is that a problem?
It seems like a lot of applications, especially in the open source world, insist on always having a version number less than one.
A lot of times when I see that I feel that if the developer isn't confident enough to call their application "The First Version", there's no way I'm going to use it.
That's probably putting more weight on version numbers than is intended, but version numbers are all about perception anyway (just ask Netscape 5).And no, zero-based arrays are no excuse for now starting every numbering sequence with a zero.
The word "first" is the ordinal form of the number one, not zero.
By definition then, "The First Version" is version 1.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692231</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692255</id>
	<title>0.97 0.98 0.99 ???</title>
	<author>Rik Sweeney</author>
	<datestamp>1247591580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember when MAME was hovering around the 0.97 mark and the user forums were asking if this meant that in 3 version's time MAME would hit version 1.0. The answer came back as no because that would mean that it was complete and MAME is nowhere near completed. Instead it went from 0.99 to 0.100.</p><p>(That's a period denoting the end of the sentence, not part of the version number in case anyone was confused.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember when MAME was hovering around the 0.97 mark and the user forums were asking if this meant that in 3 version 's time MAME would hit version 1.0 .
The answer came back as no because that would mean that it was complete and MAME is nowhere near completed .
Instead it went from 0.99 to 0.100 .
( That 's a period denoting the end of the sentence , not part of the version number in case anyone was confused .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember when MAME was hovering around the 0.97 mark and the user forums were asking if this meant that in 3 version's time MAME would hit version 1.0.
The answer came back as no because that would mean that it was complete and MAME is nowhere near completed.
Instead it went from 0.99 to 0.100.
(That's a period denoting the end of the sentence, not part of the version number in case anyone was confused.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694351</id>
	<title>Re:0.97 0.98 0.99 ???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247600160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're confused because you're speaking of 0.99 and 0.100 as if they are numbers, when they are version numbers and should be read like chapter numbers.</p><p>After all, "book 1, page 9 comes before book 1, page 10" sounds reasonable to us.  It should be no less reasonable to short-hand it as 1-9, 1-10, or as version numbers to, 1.9, 1.10.  The only thing that possibly gets in our way is the computer sorting of these things.  Computers simply need a new sort logarithm that recognizes version numbers, or at the very least, can sort them when they are in a table (or FTP list) as the main sort method.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're confused because you 're speaking of 0.99 and 0.100 as if they are numbers , when they are version numbers and should be read like chapter numbers.After all , " book 1 , page 9 comes before book 1 , page 10 " sounds reasonable to us .
It should be no less reasonable to short-hand it as 1-9 , 1-10 , or as version numbers to , 1.9 , 1.10 .
The only thing that possibly gets in our way is the computer sorting of these things .
Computers simply need a new sort logarithm that recognizes version numbers , or at the very least , can sort them when they are in a table ( or FTP list ) as the main sort method .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're confused because you're speaking of 0.99 and 0.100 as if they are numbers, when they are version numbers and should be read like chapter numbers.After all, "book 1, page 9 comes before book 1, page 10" sounds reasonable to us.
It should be no less reasonable to short-hand it as 1-9, 1-10, or as version numbers to, 1.9, 1.10.
The only thing that possibly gets in our way is the computer sorting of these things.
Computers simply need a new sort logarithm that recognizes version numbers, or at the very least, can sort them when they are in a table (or FTP list) as the main sort method.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28696285</id>
	<title>Re:Different people, different numbering schemes.</title>
	<author>marcosdumay</author>
	<datestamp>1247565780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"A lot of times when I see that I feel that if the developer isn't confident enough to call their application "The First Version", there's no way I'm going to use it."</p></div> </blockquote><p>Go ahead and don't use it. That zero is normaly there to indicate that the software is being tested, and isn't useable right now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" A lot of times when I see that I feel that if the developer is n't confident enough to call their application " The First Version " , there 's no way I 'm going to use it .
" Go ahead and do n't use it .
That zero is normaly there to indicate that the software is being tested , and is n't useable right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"A lot of times when I see that I feel that if the developer isn't confident enough to call their application "The First Version", there's no way I'm going to use it.
" Go ahead and don't use it.
That zero is normaly there to indicate that the software is being tested, and isn't useable right now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693739</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692719</id>
	<title>Android's Alphabetical Desserts</title>
	<author>Kelson</author>
	<datestamp>1247593560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure what the previous versions were called, but Google's Android OS recently released <b>C</b>upcake.  <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5314130/google-plans-three-more-android-updates-this-year-named-after-decreasingly-popular-desserts" title="gizmodo.com">Next up</a> [gizmodo.com] is apparently <b>D</b>onut, then <b>E</b>clair, then <b>F</b>lan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure what the previous versions were called , but Google 's Android OS recently released Cupcake .
Next up [ gizmodo.com ] is apparently Donut , then Eclair , then Flan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure what the previous versions were called, but Google's Android OS recently released Cupcake.
Next up [gizmodo.com] is apparently Donut, then Eclair, then Flan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28695011</id>
	<title>Re:w/r/t Windows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247603760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(I was the performance test engineer for Vista update services during the initial release of Vista)</p></div><p>You're declaring this on Slashdot?  Do you also walk down the streets of LA at 2AM yelling about how much money you have in your pockets?</p><p>Talk about living dangerously.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( I was the performance test engineer for Vista update services during the initial release of Vista ) You 're declaring this on Slashdot ?
Do you also walk down the streets of LA at 2AM yelling about how much money you have in your pockets ? Talk about living dangerously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(I was the performance test engineer for Vista update services during the initial release of Vista)You're declaring this on Slashdot?
Do you also walk down the streets of LA at 2AM yelling about how much money you have in your pockets?Talk about living dangerously.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692511</id>
	<title>0.9 to 0.10</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247592660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Version numbers like this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... -&gt; 0.8 -&gt; 0.9 -&gt; 0.10 -&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... are the worst bunch of them all.</p><p>Those who number their software like this might argue that the numbers are mutually exclusive, "that's a major number, that's a minor number, that's a whatever the hell number".  Look, I see numbers and I see decimal points, so I expect them to follow some kind of order.  And 0.10 is not greater than 0.9.  I don't want to read a paragraph long explanation or justification about your version numbers.  It's a fucking version number.  There should be no need to read a man page to understand them.</p><p>If you're going to use decimal or decimal-like notation, the next version should be 1.0.  If it's not ready for a "1.0 release", then just tack on another number 0.91 or 0.9.1.  Is that too much?  Seriously, is that so hard?  Why cause unnecessary confusion among users by going to 0.10?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Version numbers like this ... - &gt; 0.8 - &gt; 0.9 - &gt; 0.10 - &gt; ... are the worst bunch of them all.Those who number their software like this might argue that the numbers are mutually exclusive , " that 's a major number , that 's a minor number , that 's a whatever the hell number " .
Look , I see numbers and I see decimal points , so I expect them to follow some kind of order .
And 0.10 is not greater than 0.9 .
I do n't want to read a paragraph long explanation or justification about your version numbers .
It 's a fucking version number .
There should be no need to read a man page to understand them.If you 're going to use decimal or decimal-like notation , the next version should be 1.0 .
If it 's not ready for a " 1.0 release " , then just tack on another number 0.91 or 0.9.1 .
Is that too much ?
Seriously , is that so hard ?
Why cause unnecessary confusion among users by going to 0.10 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Version numbers like this ... -&gt; 0.8 -&gt; 0.9 -&gt; 0.10 -&gt; ... are the worst bunch of them all.Those who number their software like this might argue that the numbers are mutually exclusive, "that's a major number, that's a minor number, that's a whatever the hell number".
Look, I see numbers and I see decimal points, so I expect them to follow some kind of order.
And 0.10 is not greater than 0.9.
I don't want to read a paragraph long explanation or justification about your version numbers.
It's a fucking version number.
There should be no need to read a man page to understand them.If you're going to use decimal or decimal-like notation, the next version should be 1.0.
If it's not ready for a "1.0 release", then just tack on another number 0.91 or 0.9.1.
Is that too much?
Seriously, is that so hard?
Why cause unnecessary confusion among users by going to 0.10?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692187</id>
	<title>FFx2</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247591280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>All I know is with Firefox on 3.5 and Windows on 7.0, Windows must be twice as good as Firefox. AOL of course trumps everyone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All I know is with Firefox on 3.5 and Windows on 7.0 , Windows must be twice as good as Firefox .
AOL of course trumps everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I know is with Firefox on 3.5 and Windows on 7.0, Windows must be twice as good as Firefox.
AOL of course trumps everyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694389</id>
	<title>GNU's on top of it</title>
	<author>Xtifr</author>
	<datestamp>1247600400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See the "-v" option to gnu ls(1).  If your other applications can't cope, that's because they're broken and/or inferior.</p><p>Anyway, you have the same problem when you go from version 9 to version 10.  If you're simply using a text sort, emacs v22 will come just before the <em>ancient</em> v3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See the " -v " option to gnu ls ( 1 ) .
If your other applications ca n't cope , that 's because they 're broken and/or inferior.Anyway , you have the same problem when you go from version 9 to version 10 .
If you 're simply using a text sort , emacs v22 will come just before the ancient v3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See the "-v" option to gnu ls(1).
If your other applications can't cope, that's because they're broken and/or inferior.Anyway, you have the same problem when you go from version 9 to version 10.
If you're simply using a text sort, emacs v22 will come just before the ancient v3.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692251</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693061</id>
	<title>Mac OS 7.5.1 was my first...</title>
	<author>Cormophyte</author>
	<datestamp>1247594820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...personal encounter with a second decimal point in a version number. Although I was just a high school kid at the time I can still remember all the geeks on the other side of the Mac/PC divide claiming it was aberrant and wrong.</p><p>Thus my general disrespect for proponents of the Windows operating system was born.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...personal encounter with a second decimal point in a version number .
Although I was just a high school kid at the time I can still remember all the geeks on the other side of the Mac/PC divide claiming it was aberrant and wrong.Thus my general disrespect for proponents of the Windows operating system was born .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...personal encounter with a second decimal point in a version number.
Although I was just a high school kid at the time I can still remember all the geeks on the other side of the Mac/PC divide claiming it was aberrant and wrong.Thus my general disrespect for proponents of the Windows operating system was born.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692535</id>
	<title>Version numbers is about communication...</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1247592720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Version numbers is about communication and it doesn't matter one bit how fancy your system is if it's not communicated and understood by the intended recipiants. That can be things like API compatibility, binary compatibility, scope of UI/feature/fix changes or just the time of year (Ubuntu version numbers, anyone?) - there's really only one cardinal sin, and that's releasing something with an version number that doesn't correspond to the expectations. I don't mean version number nazis that insist you can't have an RC if you know it'll need another patch, but real mismatches that mislead users. Everything else is either bonus or useless fluff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Version numbers is about communication and it does n't matter one bit how fancy your system is if it 's not communicated and understood by the intended recipiants .
That can be things like API compatibility , binary compatibility , scope of UI/feature/fix changes or just the time of year ( Ubuntu version numbers , anyone ?
) - there 's really only one cardinal sin , and that 's releasing something with an version number that does n't correspond to the expectations .
I do n't mean version number nazis that insist you ca n't have an RC if you know it 'll need another patch , but real mismatches that mislead users .
Everything else is either bonus or useless fluff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Version numbers is about communication and it doesn't matter one bit how fancy your system is if it's not communicated and understood by the intended recipiants.
That can be things like API compatibility, binary compatibility, scope of UI/feature/fix changes or just the time of year (Ubuntu version numbers, anyone?
) - there's really only one cardinal sin, and that's releasing something with an version number that doesn't correspond to the expectations.
I don't mean version number nazis that insist you can't have an RC if you know it'll need another patch, but real mismatches that mislead users.
Everything else is either bonus or useless fluff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693417</id>
	<title>Re:os x</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247596200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lion will be used to end OS X.<br>Hail to the king, baby!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lion will be used to end OS X.Hail to the king , baby !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lion will be used to end OS X.Hail to the king, baby!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693497</id>
	<title>Re:Oracle</title>
	<author>Bigbutt</author>
	<datestamp>1247596500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first dBase was dBase II (from Ashton-Tate) to indicate it was more stable than the non-existant dBase I (Vulcan perhaps<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) ).</p><p>[John]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first dBase was dBase II ( from Ashton-Tate ) to indicate it was more stable than the non-existant dBase I ( Vulcan perhaps : ) ) .
[ John ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first dBase was dBase II (from Ashton-Tate) to indicate it was more stable than the non-existant dBase I (Vulcan perhaps :) ).
[John]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692875</id>
	<title>Re:0.9 to 0.10</title>
	<author>Ragzouken</author>
	<datestamp>1247594100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most people are able to read a sentence such as 'The full stop delimits different version numbers rather than acting as a decimal point.' and understand completely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people are able to read a sentence such as 'The full stop delimits different version numbers rather than acting as a decimal point .
' and understand completely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people are able to read a sentence such as 'The full stop delimits different version numbers rather than acting as a decimal point.
' and understand completely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28695159</id>
	<title>Ubuntu Year.Month</title>
	<author>WoollyMittens</author>
	<datestamp>1247604480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I rather like Ubuntu's YY.MM numbering. It's objective and totally clear.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I rather like Ubuntu 's YY.MM numbering .
It 's objective and totally clear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I rather like Ubuntu's YY.MM numbering.
It's objective and totally clear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693013</id>
	<title>Web 2.0?</title>
	<author>maudface</author>
	<datestamp>1247594640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm both shocked and appalled that the article made no mention of Web 2.0 as the absolute *worst* abuse of version numbers.</p><p>Oh well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm both shocked and appalled that the article made no mention of Web 2.0 as the absolute * worst * abuse of version numbers.Oh well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm both shocked and appalled that the article made no mention of Web 2.0 as the absolute *worst* abuse of version numbers.Oh well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693037</id>
	<title>Re:0.9 to 0.10</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247594760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>But they're not decimal numbers, they're version numbers.  They just happen to use the same delimiter as a decimal number (in the Anglo Saxon world, anyway).  The concept of multipart version numbers 1.2.3.4 wouldn't make any sense if they were decimals.

One could argue that using dots as the delimiter is the cause of the confusion, but then IPv4 also uses dots and no-one seems to get confused with them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But they 're not decimal numbers , they 're version numbers .
They just happen to use the same delimiter as a decimal number ( in the Anglo Saxon world , anyway ) .
The concept of multipart version numbers 1.2.3.4 would n't make any sense if they were decimals .
One could argue that using dots as the delimiter is the cause of the confusion , but then IPv4 also uses dots and no-one seems to get confused with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But they're not decimal numbers, they're version numbers.
They just happen to use the same delimiter as a decimal number (in the Anglo Saxon world, anyway).
The concept of multipart version numbers 1.2.3.4 wouldn't make any sense if they were decimals.
One could argue that using dots as the delimiter is the cause of the confusion, but then IPv4 also uses dots and no-one seems to get confused with them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28695997</id>
	<title>Protel/Altium</title>
	<author>labnet</author>
	<datestamp>1247564700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Australia (and Asia, and incresingly the worlds) most popular schematic and PCB design software has had a colourful upgrade path.</p><p>It was originally just called Protel (DOS days) (Now Protel for DOS)<br>then...<br>Protel 98<br>Protel 99<br>Protel 99SE<br>Protel DXP<br>Altium Designer 6.0<br>Altium Designer 2004<br>Altium Designer Summer 08 (Winter in northerm hemisphere even though its developed in Australia)<br>Altium Designer Winter 09</p><p>gotta love marketing..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Australia ( and Asia , and incresingly the worlds ) most popular schematic and PCB design software has had a colourful upgrade path.It was originally just called Protel ( DOS days ) ( Now Protel for DOS ) then...Protel 98Protel 99Protel 99SEProtel DXPAltium Designer 6.0Altium Designer 2004Altium Designer Summer 08 ( Winter in northerm hemisphere even though its developed in Australia ) Altium Designer Winter 09gotta love marketing. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Australia (and Asia, and incresingly the worlds) most popular schematic and PCB design software has had a colourful upgrade path.It was originally just called Protel (DOS days) (Now Protel for DOS)then...Protel 98Protel 99Protel 99SEProtel DXPAltium Designer 6.0Altium Designer 2004Altium Designer Summer 08 (Winter in northerm hemisphere even though its developed in Australia)Altium Designer Winter 09gotta love marketing..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693707</id>
	<title>Roots in Military / Space Procurement?</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1247597400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would bet that you could trace the origins of software version numbers even through the 1960s, because they had two blocks of Apollo spacecraft, block 1 and block 2.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would bet that you could trace the origins of software version numbers even through the 1960s , because they had two blocks of Apollo spacecraft , block 1 and block 2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would bet that you could trace the origins of software version numbers even through the 1960s, because they had two blocks of Apollo spacecraft, block 1 and block 2.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692477</id>
	<title>Clipper Summer 87</title>
	<author>coolmoose25</author>
	<datestamp>1247592420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nothing will beat the Clipper version system... Everytime I used the Summer 87 edition, my mind would conjure up images of a schooner slicing through the chop in Nantucket Sound, with a bikini clad blonde bombshell sunning herself on the bow... ahhhhh...
<br> <br>
And then someone who hadn't bathed in 3 or 4 days would lean over me at my IBM PC XT computer and ask me for help in compressing an index.  Daydream explodes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing will beat the Clipper version system... Everytime I used the Summer 87 edition , my mind would conjure up images of a schooner slicing through the chop in Nantucket Sound , with a bikini clad blonde bombshell sunning herself on the bow... ahhhhh.. . And then someone who had n't bathed in 3 or 4 days would lean over me at my IBM PC XT computer and ask me for help in compressing an index .
Daydream explodes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing will beat the Clipper version system... Everytime I used the Summer 87 edition, my mind would conjure up images of a schooner slicing through the chop in Nantucket Sound, with a bikini clad blonde bombshell sunning herself on the bow... ahhhhh...
 
And then someone who hadn't bathed in 3 or 4 days would lean over me at my IBM PC XT computer and ask me for help in compressing an index.
Daydream explodes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693207</id>
	<title>Re:os x</title>
	<author>YourExperiment</author>
	<datestamp>1247595420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>However, that list consists primarily of names which don't quite seem to fit. I can't imagine the next version of OS X being named "Kodkod", for instance. Another entry on the list that seems unlikely to me is "Domestic Cat".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , that list consists primarily of names which do n't quite seem to fit .
I ca n't imagine the next version of OS X being named " Kodkod " , for instance .
Another entry on the list that seems unlikely to me is " Domestic Cat " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, that list consists primarily of names which don't quite seem to fit.
I can't imagine the next version of OS X being named "Kodkod", for instance.
Another entry on the list that seems unlikely to me is "Domestic Cat".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692963</id>
	<title>Re:w/r/t Windows</title>
	<author>Sooner Boomer</author>
	<datestamp>1247594460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Gibbering about windows a bit; his list of why Windows 7 is, well, 7 is wrong. It should be:<br>Windows 1.0<br>Windows 2.0<br>Windows 3.0</p></div></blockquote><p>Just to be pedantic, there were also important sub-versions in this list you've omitted, ie.: Windows 2.1/286, Windows 2.1/386 see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows\_2.1x" title="wikipedia.org">link</a> [wikipedia.org] for details.  These we more than just the networking add-on you got with 3.0 &gt; 3.11 .</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gibbering about windows a bit ; his list of why Windows 7 is , well , 7 is wrong .
It should be : Windows 1.0Windows 2.0Windows 3.0Just to be pedantic , there were also important sub-versions in this list you 've omitted , ie .
: Windows 2.1/286 , Windows 2.1/386 see link [ wikipedia.org ] for details .
These we more than just the networking add-on you got with 3.0 &gt; 3.11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gibbering about windows a bit; his list of why Windows 7 is, well, 7 is wrong.
It should be:Windows 1.0Windows 2.0Windows 3.0Just to be pedantic, there were also important sub-versions in this list you've omitted, ie.
: Windows 2.1/286, Windows 2.1/386 see link [wikipedia.org] for details.
These we more than just the networking add-on you got with 3.0 &gt; 3.11 .
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693285</id>
	<title>Re:FFx2</title>
	<author>rrohbeck</author>
	<datestamp>1247595780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ha! Our software now uses repository revision numbers, currently around 11200. Too bad the numbering restarted when we converted from cvs to svn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ha !
Our software now uses repository revision numbers , currently around 11200 .
Too bad the numbering restarted when we converted from cvs to svn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ha!
Our software now uses repository revision numbers, currently around 11200.
Too bad the numbering restarted when we converted from cvs to svn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28696723</id>
	<title>I use svn revision numbers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247567820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use svn revision numbers...</p><p>And you are right, I'm not from marketing</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use svn revision numbers...And you are right , I 'm not from marketing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use svn revision numbers...And you are right, I'm not from marketing</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693549</id>
	<title>Windows Fantasy 7</title>
	<author>Requiem18th</author>
	<datestamp>1247596680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm I the only one to notice that windows jumped from version 3 to 7 much like the american adaptations of Final Fantasy?</p><p>Look forward to Windows 7: Crisis Core, If you survive Windows 7: Dirge of Clippy</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm I the only one to notice that windows jumped from version 3 to 7 much like the american adaptations of Final Fantasy ? Look forward to Windows 7 : Crisis Core , If you survive Windows 7 : Dirge of Clippy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm I the only one to notice that windows jumped from version 3 to 7 much like the american adaptations of Final Fantasy?Look forward to Windows 7: Crisis Core, If you survive Windows 7: Dirge of Clippy</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692849</id>
	<title>I grew up with</title>
	<author>kenp2002</author>
	<datestamp>1247593980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A.B.C.D</p><p>A: Major Release, violates backwards compatability</p><p>B: Feature Add Increment. Indicates new features from prior release</p><p>C: Bug Fix Release Increment.</p><p>D: Build Identifier usually YEARMONTHDATE</p><p>e.g.<br>1.1.0.080215<br>1.2.12.090714 (12th minor update to feature set 2 for release 1 built on July 14th 2009)<br>1.3.1.091224 (First minor update for feature set 3 built on Dec 24th 2009.)</p><p>Since most software tends to follow quarterly or monthly release schedules you rarely get more then 18 minor revisions if they are building weekly on a quarterly schedule or more then 4 on a monthly schedule.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A.B.C.DA : Major Release , violates backwards compatabilityB : Feature Add Increment .
Indicates new features from prior releaseC : Bug Fix Release Increment.D : Build Identifier usually YEARMONTHDATEe.g.1.1.0.0802151.2.12.090714 ( 12th minor update to feature set 2 for release 1 built on July 14th 2009 ) 1.3.1.091224 ( First minor update for feature set 3 built on Dec 24th 2009 .
) Since most software tends to follow quarterly or monthly release schedules you rarely get more then 18 minor revisions if they are building weekly on a quarterly schedule or more then 4 on a monthly schedule .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A.B.C.DA: Major Release, violates backwards compatabilityB: Feature Add Increment.
Indicates new features from prior releaseC: Bug Fix Release Increment.D: Build Identifier usually YEARMONTHDATEe.g.1.1.0.0802151.2.12.090714 (12th minor update to feature set 2 for release 1 built on July 14th 2009)1.3.1.091224 (First minor update for feature set 3 built on Dec 24th 2009.
)Since most software tends to follow quarterly or monthly release schedules you rarely get more then 18 minor revisions if they are building weekly on a quarterly schedule or more then 4 on a monthly schedule.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694685</id>
	<title>Re:os x</title>
	<author>Chabo</author>
	<datestamp>1247601840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They'll have to hurry, before Ubuntu takes a cat name from under their feet; 10.04 is the "L" release, which might take up "Lion" or "Lynx"!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'll have to hurry , before Ubuntu takes a cat name from under their feet ; 10.04 is the " L " release , which might take up " Lion " or " Lynx " !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'll have to hurry, before Ubuntu takes a cat name from under their feet; 10.04 is the "L" release, which might take up "Lion" or "Lynx"!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692973</id>
	<title>Simple rules to remember</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247594520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Version 1 - Buggy as all heck - maybe 20\% of users get it working.<br>Version 2 - Major bugs fixed - leading edge users adopt and love.<br>Version 3 - The sweet spot<br>Version 4 - Major enhancements - most don't work.  Core functionality still works<br>Version 5 and above - Bloatware</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Version 1 - Buggy as all heck - maybe 20 \ % of users get it working.Version 2 - Major bugs fixed - leading edge users adopt and love.Version 3 - The sweet spotVersion 4 - Major enhancements - most do n't work .
Core functionality still worksVersion 5 and above - Bloatware</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Version 1 - Buggy as all heck - maybe 20\% of users get it working.Version 2 - Major bugs fixed - leading edge users adopt and love.Version 3 - The sweet spotVersion 4 - Major enhancements - most don't work.
Core functionality still worksVersion 5 and above - Bloatware</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28696219</id>
	<title>Re:XP and Pentium</title>
	<author>Kocureq</author>
	<datestamp>1247565540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Right, that's been the case with Intel, where they couldn't stop other companies making their own 486 DX 4 + whatever "extra" marks you could add</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , that 's been the case with Intel , where they could n't stop other companies making their own 486 DX 4 + whatever " extra " marks you could add</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, that's been the case with Intel, where they couldn't stop other companies making their own 486 DX 4 + whatever "extra" marks you could add</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692179</id>
	<title>w/r/t Windows</title>
	<author>gcnaddict</author>
	<datestamp>1247591280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Windows 7 is NT version 6.1, but that's because of appcompat reasons only.
<br> <br>Microsoft frequently jumps build numbers before milestones (7000 for Beta 1 of Win7, 7600 for RTM)
<br> <br>Microsoft often picks arbitrary numbers for revision builds (used to be buildnum.0, now it's buildnum.16384 as the starting point. Example: Vista RTM is 6000.16386, meaning there were three compiles of build 6000)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 is NT version 6.1 , but that 's because of appcompat reasons only .
Microsoft frequently jumps build numbers before milestones ( 7000 for Beta 1 of Win7 , 7600 for RTM ) Microsoft often picks arbitrary numbers for revision builds ( used to be buildnum.0 , now it 's buildnum.16384 as the starting point .
Example : Vista RTM is 6000.16386 , meaning there were three compiles of build 6000 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7 is NT version 6.1, but that's because of appcompat reasons only.
Microsoft frequently jumps build numbers before milestones (7000 for Beta 1 of Win7, 7600 for RTM)
 Microsoft often picks arbitrary numbers for revision builds (used to be buildnum.0, now it's buildnum.16384 as the starting point.
Example: Vista RTM is 6000.16386, meaning there were three compiles of build 6000)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28699803</id>
	<title>Re:Metals</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247589780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or it could signify the edition.  I believe Netscape 3 Gold meant "Netscape 3, with the HTML editor and other crap".</p><p>See also: WinNT Workstation/Server (and later WinNT editions).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or it could signify the edition .
I believe Netscape 3 Gold meant " Netscape 3 , with the HTML editor and other crap " .See also : WinNT Workstation/Server ( and later WinNT editions ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or it could signify the edition.
I believe Netscape 3 Gold meant "Netscape 3, with the HTML editor and other crap".See also: WinNT Workstation/Server (and later WinNT editions).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28695597</id>
	<title>Re:how about backing up?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247563200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Winamp comes to mind.. there was 2, then 3, then 5.  5 was for 2+3, since they went back to the 2 code base and tacked on some of the 3 features.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Winamp comes to mind.. there was 2 , then 3 , then 5 .
5 was for 2 + 3 , since they went back to the 2 code base and tacked on some of the 3 features .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Winamp comes to mind.. there was 2, then 3, then 5.
5 was for 2+3, since they went back to the 2 code base and tacked on some of the 3 features.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692765</id>
	<title>Re:Decimal version numbers</title>
	<author>egcagrac0</author>
	<datestamp>1247593680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple II side had DOS 3.2 and DOS 3.3.  There were huge differences (23\% more disk capacity on the same media), but the user saw relatively few changes in UI (IIRC).  I'd have to check my references, but I'm pretty sure that these were out by 1978.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple II side had DOS 3.2 and DOS 3.3 .
There were huge differences ( 23 \ % more disk capacity on the same media ) , but the user saw relatively few changes in UI ( IIRC ) .
I 'd have to check my references , but I 'm pretty sure that these were out by 1978 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple II side had DOS 3.2 and DOS 3.3.
There were huge differences (23\% more disk capacity on the same media), but the user saw relatively few changes in UI (IIRC).
I'd have to check my references, but I'm pretty sure that these were out by 1978.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694093</id>
	<title>Reason vs Politics</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1247599020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Engineers usually have a legit reason to brand a public version number... the next release, and the number indicates the level of importance. So far, so good.</p><p>But then marketing and politics get into play.. and if you're in the business, these are good things to know. Sometimes it's just marketing... the DECT cordless phone standard somehow mutated version 1.6 into version 6... I guess that sounds more grown up in the marketplace. But it's also the first time they were using "DECT" as a buzzword in their marketing. No harm, no foul.</p><p>Other times, it's keeping up with the joneses. Some have a method to their madness.. I use lots of Sony Media Software tools... you pay once for any major version, all of the minor versions in that release are free updates.. not just bug fixes, sometimes including new features. New one comes out, you can decide to upgrade or not... if you skip a version, you still get an upgrade price on the one after that. I'm really happy with the way these guys do business.</p><p>At other times, something as stupid as a version number can become a billion-dollar weapon. This only happens when idiots are involved in contract law, I think, but it's happened. My classic example: MacOS and the open Mac platform. I was designing this kind of hardware in 1996-1997, the PReP, I mean CHRP, er, umm, I mean PPCP standard for Mac compatibility. This was largely at the urging of Apple's CHRP (um.. whatever) group, whom we (PIOS Computer AG, Hildesheim, Germany) met with in January of '97.</p><p>So, like Power Computing, UMAX, IBM, Motorola, and others, we're off making a standard PowerPC platform machine. Maybe it should have been clear, after meeting at Apple and seeing that a Mot Starmax they had on-hand was the fastest Mac every recorded... at this side of an Amiga 3000 running a Mac emulator (a previous project of mine... the A3K, not the Mac emulator). Jobsie wouldn't like this, would he?</p><p>So Jobs comes back, and like magic, at the Mac Conference in September, they announce MacOS 8... which is MacOS 7.6.something with a new name. And guess what... Motorola and IBM, the two big, old-school, real serious companies with more lawyers than PIOS Computer had employees (by some orders of magnitude, I suspect) had left a huge, ugly, gaping hole in the contracts they negotiated with Apple for MacOS... Apple gets to renegotiate the contract, completely and totally, on major revisions of the OS. But they get to decide the definiton of a major release of the OS!</p><p>They didn't really cancel MacOS licensing then.. I don't think even IBM and Motorola were stupid enough to have allowed that. But it was only a small functional difference... Apple was going to licence MacOS based on the CPU in the box.. the faster, the more expensive. My little startup had produced the first full systems shipping at 300MHz (there may have been "accelerator boards" before then, but we integrated the system... we bought motherboards from UMAX and designed our own CPU cards)... that would have been something like $500 per MacOS version to license, despite the fact you could buy it off-the-shelf for like $75.</p><p>I think this is also a good lesson for any engineer allowing lawyers to do things that have major impact on their future business course. Nothing I could have done about this, but after losing something like $100 million on the while Mac Clone thing, one would hope Motorola learned that hard-bought lesson. I do note they have "literally hundreds" of engineers working on Android-based cell phone stuff. Yeah, that ought to be a bit safer...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Engineers usually have a legit reason to brand a public version number... the next release , and the number indicates the level of importance .
So far , so good.But then marketing and politics get into play.. and if you 're in the business , these are good things to know .
Sometimes it 's just marketing... the DECT cordless phone standard somehow mutated version 1.6 into version 6... I guess that sounds more grown up in the marketplace .
But it 's also the first time they were using " DECT " as a buzzword in their marketing .
No harm , no foul.Other times , it 's keeping up with the joneses .
Some have a method to their madness.. I use lots of Sony Media Software tools... you pay once for any major version , all of the minor versions in that release are free updates.. not just bug fixes , sometimes including new features .
New one comes out , you can decide to upgrade or not... if you skip a version , you still get an upgrade price on the one after that .
I 'm really happy with the way these guys do business.At other times , something as stupid as a version number can become a billion-dollar weapon .
This only happens when idiots are involved in contract law , I think , but it 's happened .
My classic example : MacOS and the open Mac platform .
I was designing this kind of hardware in 1996-1997 , the PReP , I mean CHRP , er , umm , I mean PPCP standard for Mac compatibility .
This was largely at the urging of Apple 's CHRP ( um.. whatever ) group , whom we ( PIOS Computer AG , Hildesheim , Germany ) met with in January of '97.So , like Power Computing , UMAX , IBM , Motorola , and others , we 're off making a standard PowerPC platform machine .
Maybe it should have been clear , after meeting at Apple and seeing that a Mot Starmax they had on-hand was the fastest Mac every recorded... at this side of an Amiga 3000 running a Mac emulator ( a previous project of mine... the A3K , not the Mac emulator ) .
Jobsie would n't like this , would he ? So Jobs comes back , and like magic , at the Mac Conference in September , they announce MacOS 8... which is MacOS 7.6.something with a new name .
And guess what... Motorola and IBM , the two big , old-school , real serious companies with more lawyers than PIOS Computer had employees ( by some orders of magnitude , I suspect ) had left a huge , ugly , gaping hole in the contracts they negotiated with Apple for MacOS... Apple gets to renegotiate the contract , completely and totally , on major revisions of the OS .
But they get to decide the definiton of a major release of the OS ! They did n't really cancel MacOS licensing then.. I do n't think even IBM and Motorola were stupid enough to have allowed that .
But it was only a small functional difference... Apple was going to licence MacOS based on the CPU in the box.. the faster , the more expensive .
My little startup had produced the first full systems shipping at 300MHz ( there may have been " accelerator boards " before then , but we integrated the system... we bought motherboards from UMAX and designed our own CPU cards ) ... that would have been something like $ 500 per MacOS version to license , despite the fact you could buy it off-the-shelf for like $ 75.I think this is also a good lesson for any engineer allowing lawyers to do things that have major impact on their future business course .
Nothing I could have done about this , but after losing something like $ 100 million on the while Mac Clone thing , one would hope Motorola learned that hard-bought lesson .
I do note they have " literally hundreds " of engineers working on Android-based cell phone stuff .
Yeah , that ought to be a bit safer.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Engineers usually have a legit reason to brand a public version number... the next release, and the number indicates the level of importance.
So far, so good.But then marketing and politics get into play.. and if you're in the business, these are good things to know.
Sometimes it's just marketing... the DECT cordless phone standard somehow mutated version 1.6 into version 6... I guess that sounds more grown up in the marketplace.
But it's also the first time they were using "DECT" as a buzzword in their marketing.
No harm, no foul.Other times, it's keeping up with the joneses.
Some have a method to their madness.. I use lots of Sony Media Software tools... you pay once for any major version, all of the minor versions in that release are free updates.. not just bug fixes, sometimes including new features.
New one comes out, you can decide to upgrade or not... if you skip a version, you still get an upgrade price on the one after that.
I'm really happy with the way these guys do business.At other times, something as stupid as a version number can become a billion-dollar weapon.
This only happens when idiots are involved in contract law, I think, but it's happened.
My classic example: MacOS and the open Mac platform.
I was designing this kind of hardware in 1996-1997, the PReP, I mean CHRP, er, umm, I mean PPCP standard for Mac compatibility.
This was largely at the urging of Apple's CHRP (um.. whatever) group, whom we (PIOS Computer AG, Hildesheim, Germany) met with in January of '97.So, like Power Computing, UMAX, IBM, Motorola, and others, we're off making a standard PowerPC platform machine.
Maybe it should have been clear, after meeting at Apple and seeing that a Mot Starmax they had on-hand was the fastest Mac every recorded... at this side of an Amiga 3000 running a Mac emulator (a previous project of mine... the A3K, not the Mac emulator).
Jobsie wouldn't like this, would he?So Jobs comes back, and like magic, at the Mac Conference in September, they announce MacOS 8... which is MacOS 7.6.something with a new name.
And guess what... Motorola and IBM, the two big, old-school, real serious companies with more lawyers than PIOS Computer had employees (by some orders of magnitude, I suspect) had left a huge, ugly, gaping hole in the contracts they negotiated with Apple for MacOS... Apple gets to renegotiate the contract, completely and totally, on major revisions of the OS.
But they get to decide the definiton of a major release of the OS!They didn't really cancel MacOS licensing then.. I don't think even IBM and Motorola were stupid enough to have allowed that.
But it was only a small functional difference... Apple was going to licence MacOS based on the CPU in the box.. the faster, the more expensive.
My little startup had produced the first full systems shipping at 300MHz (there may have been "accelerator boards" before then, but we integrated the system... we bought motherboards from UMAX and designed our own CPU cards)... that would have been something like $500 per MacOS version to license, despite the fact you could buy it off-the-shelf for like $75.I think this is also a good lesson for any engineer allowing lawyers to do things that have major impact on their future business course.
Nothing I could have done about this, but after losing something like $100 million on the while Mac Clone thing, one would hope Motorola learned that hard-bought lesson.
I do note they have "literally hundreds" of engineers working on Android-based cell phone stuff.
Yeah, that ought to be a bit safer...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28697265</id>
	<title>Re:Oracle</title>
	<author>crowne</author>
	<datestamp>1247570400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oracles version numbers are notoriously bat-shit crazy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Oracle9i Enterprise Edition Release 9.2.0.1.0</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oracles version numbers are notoriously bat-shit crazy ... Oracle9i Enterprise Edition Release 9.2.0.1.0</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oracles version numbers are notoriously bat-shit crazy ... Oracle9i Enterprise Edition Release 9.2.0.1.0</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694205</id>
	<title>Algor 23.1</title>
	<author>jbeaupre</author>
	<datestamp>1247599560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Algor rolled out version v23.1 in February.  <a href="http://algor.com/software\_services/whatsnew.enu.htm" title="algor.com">http://algor.com/software\_services/whatsnew.enu.htm</a> [algor.com]  V24 will likely be out later this year.  There's must be software packages with even higher numbers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Algor rolled out version v23.1 in February .
http : //algor.com/software \ _services/whatsnew.enu.htm [ algor.com ] V24 will likely be out later this year .
There 's must be software packages with even higher numbers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Algor rolled out version v23.1 in February.
http://algor.com/software\_services/whatsnew.enu.htm [algor.com]  V24 will likely be out later this year.
There's must be software packages with even higher numbers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692921</id>
	<title>Re:Missed</title>
	<author>kigrwik</author>
	<datestamp>1247594280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No mention of TeX version numbering? (Asymptotically approaching pi?)</p></div><p>Err.... You *did* realize there were three pages in the article ? TeX is at the bottom of page 2.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No mention of TeX version numbering ?
( Asymptotically approaching pi ? ) Err... .
You * did * realize there were three pages in the article ?
TeX is at the bottom of page 2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No mention of TeX version numbering?
(Asymptotically approaching pi?)Err....
You *did* realize there were three pages in the article ?
TeX is at the bottom of page 2.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28695205</id>
	<title>When did version numbers come into use?</title>
	<author>aynoknman</author>
	<datestamp>1247604720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the article:<br>
"I wish I could tell you actually, I'm hoping that someone reading this will be able to. I do know that the FORTRAN II programming language came along in 1958,"<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiglath-Pileser\_II" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Tiglath Pileser II</a> [wikipedia.org] was King of Assyria from 967 BCE to 935 BCE (due to a peculiar way Assyrians had of counting).
<br>
Of course if you want to include Windows ME and CE, then you may want to consider <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumuzid,\_the\_Shepherd" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Dumuzid, the Shepherd</a> [wikipedia.org], "who is not to be confused with Dumuzid, the Fisherman". He was was the 5th pre-dynastic king on the Sumerian king list (before ca. 2900 BCE)</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : " I wish I could tell you actually , I 'm hoping that someone reading this will be able to .
I do know that the FORTRAN II programming language came along in 1958 , " Tiglath Pileser II [ wikipedia.org ] was King of Assyria from 967 BCE to 935 BCE ( due to a peculiar way Assyrians had of counting ) .
Of course if you want to include Windows ME and CE , then you may want to consider Dumuzid , the Shepherd [ wikipedia.org ] , " who is not to be confused with Dumuzid , the Fisherman " .
He was was the 5th pre-dynastic king on the Sumerian king list ( before ca .
2900 BCE )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article:
"I wish I could tell you actually, I'm hoping that someone reading this will be able to.
I do know that the FORTRAN II programming language came along in 1958,"
Tiglath Pileser II [wikipedia.org] was King of Assyria from 967 BCE to 935 BCE (due to a peculiar way Assyrians had of counting).
Of course if you want to include Windows ME and CE, then you may want to consider Dumuzid, the Shepherd [wikipedia.org], "who is not to be confused with Dumuzid, the Fisherman".
He was was the 5th pre-dynastic king on the Sumerian king list (before ca.
2900 BCE)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693813</id>
	<title>TeX 3 and SmallEiffel</title>
	<author>fatp</author>
	<datestamp>1247597820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Two interesting versioning scheme that I think of:<br><br>TeX 3: Updates have been indicated by adding an extra digit at the end of the decimal, so that the version number asymptotically approaches &amp;#207;&amp;#8364;. This is a reflection of the fact that TeX is now very stable, and only minor updates are anticipated. The current version of TeX is 3.1415926 (Directly copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeX)<br><br>SmallEiffel (predecessor of SmartEiffel, which used a boring versioning scheme): Version numbering uses negative numbers. The first distributed version was numbered -0.99 ("minus 0.99"), the second one -0.98, the third -0.97, and so on. Version number 0.0 should be an opportunity for celebration<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)  (Directly copied from http://pauillac.inria.fr/cdrom/www/SmallEiffel/man/SmallEiffelFAQ.html#Q02 )</htmltext>
<tokenext>Two interesting versioning scheme that I think of : TeX 3 : Updates have been indicated by adding an extra digit at the end of the decimal , so that the version number asymptotically approaches      .
This is a reflection of the fact that TeX is now very stable , and only minor updates are anticipated .
The current version of TeX is 3.1415926 ( Directly copied from http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeX ) SmallEiffel ( predecessor of SmartEiffel , which used a boring versioning scheme ) : Version numbering uses negative numbers .
The first distributed version was numbered -0.99 ( " minus 0.99 " ) , the second one -0.98 , the third -0.97 , and so on .
Version number 0.0 should be an opportunity for celebration : - ) ( Directly copied from http : //pauillac.inria.fr/cdrom/www/SmallEiffel/man/SmallEiffelFAQ.html # Q02 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two interesting versioning scheme that I think of:TeX 3: Updates have been indicated by adding an extra digit at the end of the decimal, so that the version number asymptotically approaches Ï€.
This is a reflection of the fact that TeX is now very stable, and only minor updates are anticipated.
The current version of TeX is 3.1415926 (Directly copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeX)SmallEiffel (predecessor of SmartEiffel, which used a boring versioning scheme): Version numbering uses negative numbers.
The first distributed version was numbered -0.99 ("minus 0.99"), the second one -0.98, the third -0.97, and so on.
Version number 0.0 should be an opportunity for celebration :-)  (Directly copied from http://pauillac.inria.fr/cdrom/www/SmallEiffel/man/SmallEiffelFAQ.html#Q02 )</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693721</id>
	<title>Re:os x</title>
	<author>A12m0v</author>
	<datestamp>1247597460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They can always go fictional!</p><p>I'm waiting for OS X ThunderCat, should be snappier than the bloated Garfield!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They can always go fictional ! I 'm waiting for OS X ThunderCat , should be snappier than the bloated Garfield !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can always go fictional!I'm waiting for OS X ThunderCat, should be snappier than the bloated Garfield!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692491</id>
	<title>Three Stelps</title>
	<author>JobyOne</author>
	<datestamp>1247592480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Step 1: v0.1 Beta<br>
Step 2: ???<br>
Step 3: PROFIT!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Step 1 : v0.1 Beta Step 2 : ? ? ?
Step 3 : PROFIT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Step 1: v0.1 Beta
Step 2: ???
Step 3: PROFIT!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28701739</id>
	<title>Re:Windows Fantasy 7</title>
	<author>ggeens</author>
	<datestamp>1247661300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No, there was a Windows NT 4.0, and it wasn't just in name... it had
some major architectural changes over NT 3.5.</p></div><p>Windows NT started with 3.0 (to keep up with the DOS-based Windows 3.0). There
were several revisions up to NT 3.51 (Including a lot of ports to new architectures).
</p><p>NT 4.0 included a major revision of the kernel, as well as the Win95 look and feel.
(Technically, there is only a 4.0 release, but the service packs are in fact revisions to
the OS.)
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>After that,
brother, I'm with you. Windows 2000 was NT 4.something with tweaks to match the
look and feel of Windows 98SE/ME/MOUSE/whatever.</p></div><p>I've worked quite a lot with both NT4.0 and 2000. There is quite a lot of difference
between them.
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>XP didn't at the time seem like much more than Win2K with
additional surface tweaks.</p></div><p>XP is really a minor update from 2000 (apart from the GUI stuff). It introduces a lot
of compatibility stuff for the Windows 95 series. (This allowed Microsoft to end the 95/98/ME
line.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Vista.. better
forgotten. They changes the look of it again.. I'm not convinced there's all
that much new under the hood, much less anything good.</p></div><p>Vista is a major rewrite from XP. Most of the problems with Vista are actually caused
by this.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , there was a Windows NT 4.0 , and it was n't just in name... it had some major architectural changes over NT 3.5.Windows NT started with 3.0 ( to keep up with the DOS-based Windows 3.0 ) .
There were several revisions up to NT 3.51 ( Including a lot of ports to new architectures ) .
NT 4.0 included a major revision of the kernel , as well as the Win95 look and feel .
( Technically , there is only a 4.0 release , but the service packs are in fact revisions to the OS .
) After that , brother , I 'm with you .
Windows 2000 was NT 4.something with tweaks to match the look and feel of Windows 98SE/ME/MOUSE/whatever.I 've worked quite a lot with both NT4.0 and 2000 .
There is quite a lot of difference between them .
XP did n't at the time seem like much more than Win2K with additional surface tweaks.XP is really a minor update from 2000 ( apart from the GUI stuff ) .
It introduces a lot of compatibility stuff for the Windows 95 series .
( This allowed Microsoft to end the 95/98/ME line.Vista.. better forgotten .
They changes the look of it again.. I 'm not convinced there 's all that much new under the hood , much less anything good.Vista is a major rewrite from XP .
Most of the problems with Vista are actually caused by this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, there was a Windows NT 4.0, and it wasn't just in name... it had
some major architectural changes over NT 3.5.Windows NT started with 3.0 (to keep up with the DOS-based Windows 3.0).
There
were several revisions up to NT 3.51 (Including a lot of ports to new architectures).
NT 4.0 included a major revision of the kernel, as well as the Win95 look and feel.
(Technically, there is only a 4.0 release, but the service packs are in fact revisions to
the OS.
)
After that,
brother, I'm with you.
Windows 2000 was NT 4.something with tweaks to match the
look and feel of Windows 98SE/ME/MOUSE/whatever.I've worked quite a lot with both NT4.0 and 2000.
There is quite a lot of difference
between them.
XP didn't at the time seem like much more than Win2K with
additional surface tweaks.XP is really a minor update from 2000 (apart from the GUI stuff).
It introduces a lot
of compatibility stuff for the Windows 95 series.
(This allowed Microsoft to end the 95/98/ME
line.Vista.. better
forgotten.
They changes the look of it again.. I'm not convinced there's all
that much new under the hood, much less anything good.Vista is a major rewrite from XP.
Most of the problems with Vista are actually caused
by this.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692251</id>
	<title>I don't know what to do about 1.10 and beyond</title>
	<author>Saint Stephen</author>
	<datestamp>1247591580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If one only increments the major number when you break backward compatibility, then you can get 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, etc.  But I think that looks awful!  It doesn't sort right in text anymore, and 1.01.5 isn't going to make any friends.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If one only increments the major number when you break backward compatibility , then you can get 1.10 , 1.11 , 1.12 , etc .
But I think that looks awful !
It does n't sort right in text anymore , and 1.01.5 is n't going to make any friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If one only increments the major number when you break backward compatibility, then you can get 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, etc.
But I think that looks awful!
It doesn't sort right in text anymore, and 1.01.5 isn't going to make any friends.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28698007</id>
	<title>Re:os x</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247575080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about Manx for OS X 10.10?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about Manx for OS X 10.10 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about Manx for OS X 10.10?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692715</id>
	<title>Another unusual case: 2 numbers for 1 version</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1247593560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another interesting version number case occured during the gcc/egcs split: The egcs releases had <em>two</em> version numbers for the same release: One starting with 1.0.0, numbering the egcs releases, and the other one, IIRC starting with 2.91.0, giving a "gcc version number" to indicate that it was still considered to belong into the gcc family. After egcs officially bacame gcc again, the first releases had the form 2.95.x before the 3.0.0 release came out (starting from which the numbering followed the normal schemes again).</p><p>As an additional twist, before it was decided to name the next release 3.0.0, the internal development code had the version 2.96.0, which also was used for a Red Hat gcc release. There never was an official gcc-2.96 release, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another interesting version number case occured during the gcc/egcs split : The egcs releases had two version numbers for the same release : One starting with 1.0.0 , numbering the egcs releases , and the other one , IIRC starting with 2.91.0 , giving a " gcc version number " to indicate that it was still considered to belong into the gcc family .
After egcs officially bacame gcc again , the first releases had the form 2.95.x before the 3.0.0 release came out ( starting from which the numbering followed the normal schemes again ) .As an additional twist , before it was decided to name the next release 3.0.0 , the internal development code had the version 2.96.0 , which also was used for a Red Hat gcc release .
There never was an official gcc-2.96 release , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another interesting version number case occured during the gcc/egcs split: The egcs releases had two version numbers for the same release: One starting with 1.0.0, numbering the egcs releases, and the other one, IIRC starting with 2.91.0, giving a "gcc version number" to indicate that it was still considered to belong into the gcc family.
After egcs officially bacame gcc again, the first releases had the form 2.95.x before the 3.0.0 release came out (starting from which the numbering followed the normal schemes again).As an additional twist, before it was decided to name the next release 3.0.0, the internal development code had the version 2.96.0, which also was used for a Red Hat gcc release.
There never was an official gcc-2.96 release, though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692275</id>
	<title>Irrational numbers</title>
	<author>pzs</author>
	<datestamp>1247591700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The proper way to use version numbers is to continually improve the precision of an irrational number, as in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeX#History" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Tex</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The proper way to use version numbers is to continually improve the precision of an irrational number , as in Tex [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The proper way to use version numbers is to continually improve the precision of an irrational number, as in Tex [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692955</id>
	<title>Re:0.97 0.98 0.99 ???</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1247594460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, the difference is in seeing the dot as decimal point (i.e. 0.99 = 99/100, 0.100 = 1/10) vs. seeing the dot as just separating two integers (this second view is more obvious in those projects which use three numbers, like 2.11.1, where the dots cannot be mistaken as decimal point any more).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the difference is in seeing the dot as decimal point ( i.e .
0.99 = 99/100 , 0.100 = 1/10 ) vs. seeing the dot as just separating two integers ( this second view is more obvious in those projects which use three numbers , like 2.11.1 , where the dots can not be mistaken as decimal point any more ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the difference is in seeing the dot as decimal point (i.e.
0.99 = 99/100, 0.100 = 1/10) vs. seeing the dot as just separating two integers (this second view is more obvious in those projects which use three numbers, like 2.11.1, where the dots cannot be mistaken as decimal point any more).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692623</id>
	<title>It's all about compatibility</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247593140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm used to the major.minor.patchlevel scheme. But the choice of what's patch/major/minor shouldn't be arbitrary.</p><p>Patchlevel is just for bugfixes. So for libraries, they should just be able to drop the new one in,<br>or relink (static libs). For programs, the user shouldn't see any difference (besides missing bugs,<br>or better performance).</p><p>A Minor version bump implies that there's a new feature. So for libs, someone using this feature<br>can't make do with an older Minor version. Otherwise, this is a drop-in replacement, just like<br>patchlevel</p><p>A Major version bump implies binary incompatibility. For a library, this implies that your users<br>need to re-compile against it, and possibly change the way they call it. For a program, the network<br>and disk storage formats have changed, and they may not be able use it with data from older versions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm used to the major.minor.patchlevel scheme .
But the choice of what 's patch/major/minor should n't be arbitrary.Patchlevel is just for bugfixes .
So for libraries , they should just be able to drop the new one in,or relink ( static libs ) .
For programs , the user should n't see any difference ( besides missing bugs,or better performance ) .A Minor version bump implies that there 's a new feature .
So for libs , someone using this featureca n't make do with an older Minor version .
Otherwise , this is a drop-in replacement , just likepatchlevelA Major version bump implies binary incompatibility .
For a library , this implies that your usersneed to re-compile against it , and possibly change the way they call it .
For a program , the networkand disk storage formats have changed , and they may not be able use it with data from older versions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm used to the major.minor.patchlevel scheme.
But the choice of what's patch/major/minor shouldn't be arbitrary.Patchlevel is just for bugfixes.
So for libraries, they should just be able to drop the new one in,or relink (static libs).
For programs, the user shouldn't see any difference (besides missing bugs,or better performance).A Minor version bump implies that there's a new feature.
So for libs, someone using this featurecan't make do with an older Minor version.
Otherwise, this is a drop-in replacement, just likepatchlevelA Major version bump implies binary incompatibility.
For a library, this implies that your usersneed to re-compile against it, and possibly change the way they call it.
For a program, the networkand disk storage formats have changed, and they may not be able use it with data from older versions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28699641</id>
	<title>WfW ?  Gimme a break</title>
	<author>peas\_n\_carrots</author>
	<datestamp>1247588400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FTA - "Runner up for best version number: 3.11. As in 1993&#226;(TM)s Windows for Workgroups 3,11, one of the best versions of any operating system ever released."<br> <br>
The author instantly lost credibility in my mind.  While WfW 3.11 may have been a breakthrough for PC architectures, it's pathetic compared to any other GUI OS from that era.  And the only reason it was so great on the PC is because the only other "OS", DOS, was such weak sauce.<br> <br>
But other than that, it was an entertaining article.</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA - " Runner up for best version number : 3.11 .
As in 1993   ( TM ) s Windows for Workgroups 3,11 , one of the best versions of any operating system ever released .
" The author instantly lost credibility in my mind .
While WfW 3.11 may have been a breakthrough for PC architectures , it 's pathetic compared to any other GUI OS from that era .
And the only reason it was so great on the PC is because the only other " OS " , DOS , was such weak sauce .
But other than that , it was an entertaining article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA - "Runner up for best version number: 3.11.
As in 1993â(TM)s Windows for Workgroups 3,11, one of the best versions of any operating system ever released.
" 
The author instantly lost credibility in my mind.
While WfW 3.11 may have been a breakthrough for PC architectures, it's pathetic compared to any other GUI OS from that era.
And the only reason it was so great on the PC is because the only other "OS", DOS, was such weak sauce.
But other than that, it was an entertaining article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693699</id>
	<title>At Business Objects...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247597340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When Business Objects released version 11 of its software, the Marketing team got a hold of it and dubbed the version XI, for "Extreme Insight".  Since then, they haven't let the XI go, so the next release became XI R2.  The next release was planned to be XI R3, but then Business Objects got bought by SAP, which already has a product called R3.  So the release was rebranded as XI 3.0, which is really version 14 of the suite.  Perfectly clear, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When Business Objects released version 11 of its software , the Marketing team got a hold of it and dubbed the version XI , for " Extreme Insight " .
Since then , they have n't let the XI go , so the next release became XI R2 .
The next release was planned to be XI R3 , but then Business Objects got bought by SAP , which already has a product called R3 .
So the release was rebranded as XI 3.0 , which is really version 14 of the suite .
Perfectly clear , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Business Objects released version 11 of its software, the Marketing team got a hold of it and dubbed the version XI, for "Extreme Insight".
Since then, they haven't let the XI go, so the next release became XI R2.
The next release was planned to be XI R3, but then Business Objects got bought by SAP, which already has a product called R3.
So the release was rebranded as XI 3.0, which is really version 14 of the suite.
Perfectly clear, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28700209</id>
	<title>Oblig: TeX version numbering</title>
	<author>kybred</author>
	<datestamp>1247593740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Donald Knuth's version numbering for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software\_versioning#TeX" title="wikipedia.org">TeX</a> [wikipedia.org] is:<p><div class="quote"><p>Since version 3, updates have been indicated by adding an extra digit at the end, so that the version number asymptotically approaches &#207;. The current version is 3.1415926.</p></div><p>
He can get away with that; most of us can't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Donald Knuth 's version numbering for TeX [ wikipedia.org ] is : Since version 3 , updates have been indicated by adding an extra digit at the end , so that the version number asymptotically approaches   .
The current version is 3.1415926 .
He can get away with that ; most of us ca n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Donald Knuth's version numbering for TeX [wikipedia.org] is:Since version 3, updates have been indicated by adding an extra digit at the end, so that the version number asymptotically approaches Ï.
The current version is 3.1415926.
He can get away with that; most of us can't.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693917</id>
	<title>Re:os x</title>
	<author>laejoh</author>
	<datestamp>1247598360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Think outside the box (or even better, go matrix like, there is no box!) and start all over with OS Y.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Think outside the box ( or even better , go matrix like , there is no box !
) and start all over with OS Y .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think outside the box (or even better, go matrix like, there is no box!
) and start all over with OS Y.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692551</id>
	<title>Missed FOSS forks as abstract versioning</title>
	<author>jeffliott</author>
	<datestamp>1247592780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article mentions bits about the lack of marketing pressure in the FOSS world keep the version numbers sane. Since many FOSS programs have often been forked for direction/feature/standards reasons, and this is the same kinds of changes meriting new version identifiers in commercial software, perhaps that premise is flawed. Sure, those projects might make significant changes and increment the major version number, but the ability to fork and work on the features and changes you want is the source of the wonderfully full FOSS ecosystem. Commercial software companies might learn a thing or two from this. There are tons of forked projects where the original and many of the forked versions are still being used. Not sure how to monetize that process though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article mentions bits about the lack of marketing pressure in the FOSS world keep the version numbers sane .
Since many FOSS programs have often been forked for direction/feature/standards reasons , and this is the same kinds of changes meriting new version identifiers in commercial software , perhaps that premise is flawed .
Sure , those projects might make significant changes and increment the major version number , but the ability to fork and work on the features and changes you want is the source of the wonderfully full FOSS ecosystem .
Commercial software companies might learn a thing or two from this .
There are tons of forked projects where the original and many of the forked versions are still being used .
Not sure how to monetize that process though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article mentions bits about the lack of marketing pressure in the FOSS world keep the version numbers sane.
Since many FOSS programs have often been forked for direction/feature/standards reasons, and this is the same kinds of changes meriting new version identifiers in commercial software, perhaps that premise is flawed.
Sure, those projects might make significant changes and increment the major version number, but the ability to fork and work on the features and changes you want is the source of the wonderfully full FOSS ecosystem.
Commercial software companies might learn a thing or two from this.
There are tons of forked projects where the original and many of the forked versions are still being used.
Not sure how to monetize that process though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28695735</id>
	<title>Re:os x</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247563740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually I'm more concerned with Debian running out of Toy Story characters...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I 'm more concerned with Debian running out of Toy Story characters.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I'm more concerned with Debian running out of Toy Story characters...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693033</id>
	<title>StarOffice vs OpenOffice.org</title>
	<author>Bigby</author>
	<datestamp>1247594760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The author of the article states that he doesn't know why we are on StarOffice 9 yet OpenOffice 3, when they are the same suite.  Let me help.</p><p>StarDivision created StarOffice.  They eventually sold StarOffice to Sun.  When Sun released StarOffice 5.2, they open sourced it.  This created OpenOffice.  OpenOffice then had trademark issues and changed it's name to OpenOffice.org.</p><p>OOo released 1.  Sun rebranded it as StarOffice 6.<br>OOo released 1.1.  Sun rebranded it as StarOffice 7.<br>OOo released 2.  Sun rebranded it as StarOffice 8.<br>OOo released 3.  Sun rebranded it as StarOffice 9.</p><p>By "rebranded", I mean they added some stuff with addition to rebranding.</p><p>This is similar to Apache Tomcat and IBM WebSphere and JBoss, except in this case the rebranding adds far more to the base product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The author of the article states that he does n't know why we are on StarOffice 9 yet OpenOffice 3 , when they are the same suite .
Let me help.StarDivision created StarOffice .
They eventually sold StarOffice to Sun .
When Sun released StarOffice 5.2 , they open sourced it .
This created OpenOffice .
OpenOffice then had trademark issues and changed it 's name to OpenOffice.org.OOo released 1 .
Sun rebranded it as StarOffice 6.OOo released 1.1 .
Sun rebranded it as StarOffice 7.OOo released 2 .
Sun rebranded it as StarOffice 8.OOo released 3 .
Sun rebranded it as StarOffice 9.By " rebranded " , I mean they added some stuff with addition to rebranding.This is similar to Apache Tomcat and IBM WebSphere and JBoss , except in this case the rebranding adds far more to the base product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The author of the article states that he doesn't know why we are on StarOffice 9 yet OpenOffice 3, when they are the same suite.
Let me help.StarDivision created StarOffice.
They eventually sold StarOffice to Sun.
When Sun released StarOffice 5.2, they open sourced it.
This created OpenOffice.
OpenOffice then had trademark issues and changed it's name to OpenOffice.org.OOo released 1.
Sun rebranded it as StarOffice 6.OOo released 1.1.
Sun rebranded it as StarOffice 7.OOo released 2.
Sun rebranded it as StarOffice 8.OOo released 3.
Sun rebranded it as StarOffice 9.By "rebranded", I mean they added some stuff with addition to rebranding.This is similar to Apache Tomcat and IBM WebSphere and JBoss, except in this case the rebranding adds far more to the base product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692903</id>
	<title>Re:w/r/t Windows</title>
	<author>subanark</author>
	<datestamp>1247594280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually the reason the minor version number started at 16386 is that the part of the upper bits for the version number are used to indicate branch. In this case the release bit is set to 1, if this was a 'test' build then it would be set to 0. Another bit (which isn't set) is used for the corporate branch, which includes security updates that aren't as fully vetted and changes to core components requested by corporate partners. Additionally, the lower 16 bits of the build (6000) is used to indicate service pack (at least that was the plan right before release). This change to how service packs were handled was done in the last month, and yes Microsoft fudged the version number towards the end so it would be 6000 (although it was close to that at the end).</p><p>(I was the performance test engineer for Vista update services during the initial release of Vista)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually the reason the minor version number started at 16386 is that the part of the upper bits for the version number are used to indicate branch .
In this case the release bit is set to 1 , if this was a 'test ' build then it would be set to 0 .
Another bit ( which is n't set ) is used for the corporate branch , which includes security updates that are n't as fully vetted and changes to core components requested by corporate partners .
Additionally , the lower 16 bits of the build ( 6000 ) is used to indicate service pack ( at least that was the plan right before release ) .
This change to how service packs were handled was done in the last month , and yes Microsoft fudged the version number towards the end so it would be 6000 ( although it was close to that at the end ) .
( I was the performance test engineer for Vista update services during the initial release of Vista )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually the reason the minor version number started at 16386 is that the part of the upper bits for the version number are used to indicate branch.
In this case the release bit is set to 1, if this was a 'test' build then it would be set to 0.
Another bit (which isn't set) is used for the corporate branch, which includes security updates that aren't as fully vetted and changes to core components requested by corporate partners.
Additionally, the lower 16 bits of the build (6000) is used to indicate service pack (at least that was the plan right before release).
This change to how service packs were handled was done in the last month, and yes Microsoft fudged the version number towards the end so it would be 6000 (although it was close to that at the end).
(I was the performance test engineer for Vista update services during the initial release of Vista)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692179</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692473</id>
	<title>Whatever happened to...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247592420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>XBox 2 through 359?<br>Nintendo 2 through 63?<br>Windows 99 through 1999?<br>Kenny A through F?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>XBox 2 through 359 ? Nintendo 2 through 63 ? Windows 99 through 1999 ? Kenny A through F ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XBox 2 through 359?Nintendo 2 through 63?Windows 99 through 1999?Kenny A through F?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28703789</id>
	<title>Re:Software version vs. sequels</title>
	<author>omnichad</author>
	<datestamp>1247674500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, Super Mario Brothers 2 is just a rebranded Doki Doki Panic.  Not even a sequel.  The real sequel released in Japan is known in the US as the Lost Levels.<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doki\_Doki\_Panic" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doki\_Doki\_Panic</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , Super Mario Brothers 2 is just a rebranded Doki Doki Panic .
Not even a sequel .
The real sequel released in Japan is known in the US as the Lost Levels .
    http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doki \ _Doki \ _Panic [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, Super Mario Brothers 2 is just a rebranded Doki Doki Panic.
Not even a sequel.
The real sequel released in Japan is known in the US as the Lost Levels.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doki\_Doki\_Panic [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692585</id>
	<title>Missed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247592960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No mention of TeX version numbering? (Asymptotically approaching pi?)
<p>
No mention of the Marathon series using the largest "version bump" ever? (From Marathon 2 to Marathon Infinity?)
</p><p>
And this probably isn't true 100\% of the time, but most of the time, those aren't decimal points; it's not three-point-one-one, it's three-point-eleven; 3.2 is before 3.11, not after.  And that's the only way multi-point versioning makes any sense, like 2.6.26.
</p><p>
Lame article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No mention of TeX version numbering ?
( Asymptotically approaching pi ?
) No mention of the Marathon series using the largest " version bump " ever ?
( From Marathon 2 to Marathon Infinity ?
) And this probably is n't true 100 \ % of the time , but most of the time , those are n't decimal points ; it 's not three-point-one-one , it 's three-point-eleven ; 3.2 is before 3.11 , not after .
And that 's the only way multi-point versioning makes any sense , like 2.6.26 .
Lame article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No mention of TeX version numbering?
(Asymptotically approaching pi?
)

No mention of the Marathon series using the largest "version bump" ever?
(From Marathon 2 to Marathon Infinity?
)

And this probably isn't true 100\% of the time, but most of the time, those aren't decimal points; it's not three-point-one-one, it's three-point-eleven; 3.2 is before 3.11, not after.
And that's the only way multi-point versioning makes any sense, like 2.6.26.
Lame article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692835</id>
	<title>Re:Oracle</title>
	<author>kigrwik</author>
	<datestamp>1247593920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't let the fact that DB2 is an IBM product restrain you from mocking Oracle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't let the fact that DB2 is an IBM product restrain you from mocking Oracle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't let the fact that DB2 is an IBM product restrain you from mocking Oracle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693851</id>
	<title>Re:w/r/t Windows</title>
	<author>xsarpedonx</author>
	<datestamp>1247598000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"I was the performance test engineer for Vista update services during the initial release of Vista"

Shouldn't you have posted this anonymously?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I was the performance test engineer for Vista update services during the initial release of Vista " Should n't you have posted this anonymously ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I was the performance test engineer for Vista update services during the initial release of Vista"

Shouldn't you have posted this anonymously?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692997</id>
	<title>Winamp</title>
	<author>ghee22</author>
	<datestamp>1247594580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My favorite version # memory is Winamp 5.  The best of Winamp 2 + Winamp 3 combined.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My favorite version # memory is Winamp 5 .
The best of Winamp 2 + Winamp 3 combined .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My favorite version # memory is Winamp 5.
The best of Winamp 2 + Winamp 3 combined.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692927</id>
	<title>Explain Actiontec's (Verizon FIOS) version system</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247594340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dare anyone to deconstruct the Actiontec MI424WR router versioning scheme:</p><p>Currently firmware version is 4.0.16.1.56.0.10.11.6</p><p>http://opensource.actiontec.com/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dare anyone to deconstruct the Actiontec MI424WR router versioning scheme : Currently firmware version is 4.0.16.1.56.0.10.11.6http : //opensource.actiontec.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dare anyone to deconstruct the Actiontec MI424WR router versioning scheme:Currently firmware version is 4.0.16.1.56.0.10.11.6http://opensource.actiontec.com/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692503</id>
	<title>Personally just go with a year.month.day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247592600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I prefer to just go with a year.mo.da system.  Mark it as beta if needed.  Its very easy to see when an application got updated or released then or to see if it needs updating and it makes sense to a layperson</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer to just go with a year.mo.da system .
Mark it as beta if needed .
Its very easy to see when an application got updated or released then or to see if it needs updating and it makes sense to a layperson</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer to just go with a year.mo.da system.
Mark it as beta if needed.
Its very easy to see when an application got updated or released then or to see if it needs updating and it makes sense to a layperson</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692497</id>
	<title>Re:FFx2</title>
	<author>martas</author>
	<datestamp>1247592540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>so windows 98 is 14 times better than win 7? and of course, win 2000 is by far the best. (actually, that last part I believe. windows 2000 was like windows NT, but with graphics that didn't make you want to pull out your cerebral cortex through your nose.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>so windows 98 is 14 times better than win 7 ?
and of course , win 2000 is by far the best .
( actually , that last part I believe .
windows 2000 was like windows NT , but with graphics that did n't make you want to pull out your cerebral cortex through your nose .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so windows 98 is 14 times better than win 7?
and of course, win 2000 is by far the best.
(actually, that last part I believe.
windows 2000 was like windows NT, but with graphics that didn't make you want to pull out your cerebral cortex through your nose.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28696263</id>
	<title>Build numbers count, version numbers don't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247565720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've lead many development teams.  Marketing almost always selects what goes into a x.y release and developers choose what goes in every x.y.z release.</p><p>Since marketing and sales was so involved in all the development stuff, my team started using build numbers.  Build numbers were:<br>a) guaranteed to be unique<br>b) always increased for a product version<br>c) left room for older version builds to have fix builds when the new development was on a new branch</p><p>For my teams, x.y.z releases that changed just the 'z' part were library compatible.  You could swap a shared library or DLL and not have any issue. Any new public conf/ini settings may not have the final default setting. New extensions may require odd settings to have them enabled. Most clients won't be told about a new extension.</p><p>When the 'y' part changed, internally built libraries may or may not have changed.  If you knew the internals, you could safely swap certain DLLs.</p><p>If the 'x' part changed, 3rd party commercial tools may or may not have changed.  A fresh install is highly recommended for the application.</p><p>System version numbers meant nothing to me other than a bonus check.  Follow the build number.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've lead many development teams .
Marketing almost always selects what goes into a x.y release and developers choose what goes in every x.y.z release.Since marketing and sales was so involved in all the development stuff , my team started using build numbers .
Build numbers were : a ) guaranteed to be uniqueb ) always increased for a product versionc ) left room for older version builds to have fix builds when the new development was on a new branchFor my teams , x.y.z releases that changed just the 'z ' part were library compatible .
You could swap a shared library or DLL and not have any issue .
Any new public conf/ini settings may not have the final default setting .
New extensions may require odd settings to have them enabled .
Most clients wo n't be told about a new extension.When the 'y ' part changed , internally built libraries may or may not have changed .
If you knew the internals , you could safely swap certain DLLs.If the 'x ' part changed , 3rd party commercial tools may or may not have changed .
A fresh install is highly recommended for the application.System version numbers meant nothing to me other than a bonus check .
Follow the build number .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've lead many development teams.
Marketing almost always selects what goes into a x.y release and developers choose what goes in every x.y.z release.Since marketing and sales was so involved in all the development stuff, my team started using build numbers.
Build numbers were:a) guaranteed to be uniqueb) always increased for a product versionc) left room for older version builds to have fix builds when the new development was on a new branchFor my teams, x.y.z releases that changed just the 'z' part were library compatible.
You could swap a shared library or DLL and not have any issue.
Any new public conf/ini settings may not have the final default setting.
New extensions may require odd settings to have them enabled.
Most clients won't be told about a new extension.When the 'y' part changed, internally built libraries may or may not have changed.
If you knew the internals, you could safely swap certain DLLs.If the 'x' part changed, 3rd party commercial tools may or may not have changed.
A fresh install is highly recommended for the application.System version numbers meant nothing to me other than a bonus check.
Follow the build number.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28696415</id>
	<title>Re:Doom II Version 1.666</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247566200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, just reading your post brought me back to the good old days when things seemed so much more innocent.</p><p>I was just thinking how it's funny that video games and rap have followed a similar trajectory following technology and social currents.</p><p>Back when I was a kid-</p><p>Rap- i said a hip hop the hippie the hippie to the hip hip hop, a you dont stop the rock it to the bang bang boogie -Sugarhill "Gang"</p><p>Games- Doom had floating eyeballs. Wolfenstein had nazis. Even the versions of street fighter that had gratuitous fountains of "blood" seem tame today.</p><p>Now this is what we have-</p><p>Rap- I could be waitin, camped out in yo' car, in the backseat with some fuckin chickenwire, soon as you hit the backstreet I jump up like Jack-in-the-Box, strangle the shit out yo' ass -dmx</p><p>Games- You can get women pregnant.</p><p>I'm scared to think of what we'll have in ten years.</p><p>-b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , just reading your post brought me back to the good old days when things seemed so much more innocent.I was just thinking how it 's funny that video games and rap have followed a similar trajectory following technology and social currents.Back when I was a kid-Rap- i said a hip hop the hippie the hippie to the hip hip hop , a you dont stop the rock it to the bang bang boogie -Sugarhill " Gang " Games- Doom had floating eyeballs .
Wolfenstein had nazis .
Even the versions of street fighter that had gratuitous fountains of " blood " seem tame today.Now this is what we have-Rap- I could be waitin , camped out in yo ' car , in the backseat with some fuckin chickenwire , soon as you hit the backstreet I jump up like Jack-in-the-Box , strangle the shit out yo ' ass -dmxGames- You can get women pregnant.I 'm scared to think of what we 'll have in ten years.-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, just reading your post brought me back to the good old days when things seemed so much more innocent.I was just thinking how it's funny that video games and rap have followed a similar trajectory following technology and social currents.Back when I was a kid-Rap- i said a hip hop the hippie the hippie to the hip hip hop, a you dont stop the rock it to the bang bang boogie -Sugarhill "Gang"Games- Doom had floating eyeballs.
Wolfenstein had nazis.
Even the versions of street fighter that had gratuitous fountains of "blood" seem tame today.Now this is what we have-Rap- I could be waitin, camped out in yo' car, in the backseat with some fuckin chickenwire, soon as you hit the backstreet I jump up like Jack-in-the-Box, strangle the shit out yo' ass -dmxGames- You can get women pregnant.I'm scared to think of what we'll have in ten years.-b</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692983</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693451</id>
	<title>Re:Read it</title>
	<author>Haxzaw</author>
	<datestamp>1247596320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thank you for playing, now please leave your geek card with the nerd at the door on your way out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you for playing , now please leave your geek card with the nerd at the door on your way out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you for playing, now please leave your geek card with the nerd at the door on your way out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694377</id>
	<title>In 1972, at IBM</title>
	<author>CaptainOfSpray</author>
	<datestamp>1247600340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We were using x.y.z, at first in a fairly undefined manner, and then sometime around 1973-1974 an edict came down from Armonk that defined the rules as follows:<br>

The scheme is version.release.level, where <br>
Version - major functional upgrade, permits change in price and/or change in name and product ordering number <br>
Release - useful new function(s), no change in price or name of product number<br>
Level - bug roll-up, minor new function<br> <br>

There were also differences in how many hoops the developers had to jump through to get the product/version/release out the door, so very soon lots of teams were shipping major new function as Levels - guess how much the bean counters liked that!</htmltext>
<tokenext>We were using x.y.z , at first in a fairly undefined manner , and then sometime around 1973-1974 an edict came down from Armonk that defined the rules as follows : The scheme is version.release.level , where Version - major functional upgrade , permits change in price and/or change in name and product ordering number Release - useful new function ( s ) , no change in price or name of product number Level - bug roll-up , minor new function There were also differences in how many hoops the developers had to jump through to get the product/version/release out the door , so very soon lots of teams were shipping major new function as Levels - guess how much the bean counters liked that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We were using x.y.z, at first in a fairly undefined manner, and then sometime around 1973-1974 an edict came down from Armonk that defined the rules as follows:

The scheme is version.release.level, where 
Version - major functional upgrade, permits change in price and/or change in name and product ordering number 
Release - useful new function(s), no change in price or name of product number
Level - bug roll-up, minor new function 

There were also differences in how many hoops the developers had to jump through to get the product/version/release out the door, so very soon lots of teams were shipping major new function as Levels - guess how much the bean counters liked that!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28696215</id>
	<title>Re:FFx2</title>
	<author>marcosdumay</author>
	<datestamp>1247565540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Too bad LaTeX will never reach even the Firefox level<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad LaTeX will never reach even the Firefox level : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad LaTeX will never reach even the Firefox level :(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28702477</id>
	<title>Re:Algol 60</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247667300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The article states,</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Did Windows 95 start the idea of using years instead of version numbers?</p><p>Nope -- it's a far older conceit than that. The earliest example I'm aware of is Fortran 66<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>I believe Algol 60 predated that by a good 6 years, and Algol 58 by an additional two.  While Algol 58 didn't see as wide usage, Algol 60 was, to many, the definitive version of that language.</p><p>See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALGOL" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALGOL</a> [wikipedia.org] </p></div><p>These are all predated by Wheel -3500. That's right, people used version numbers less than zero, some time ago.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article states,Did Windows 95 start the idea of using years instead of version numbers ? Nope -- it 's a far older conceit than that .
The earliest example I 'm aware of is Fortran 66 ...I believe Algol 60 predated that by a good 6 years , and Algol 58 by an additional two .
While Algol 58 did n't see as wide usage , Algol 60 was , to many , the definitive version of that language.See http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALGOL [ wikipedia.org ] These are all predated by Wheel -3500 .
That 's right , people used version numbers less than zero , some time ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article states,Did Windows 95 start the idea of using years instead of version numbers?Nope -- it's a far older conceit than that.
The earliest example I'm aware of is Fortran 66 ...I believe Algol 60 predated that by a good 6 years, and Algol 58 by an additional two.
While Algol 58 didn't see as wide usage, Algol 60 was, to many, the definitive version of that language.See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALGOL [wikipedia.org] These are all predated by Wheel -3500.
That's right, people used version numbers less than zero, some time ago.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28695307</id>
	<title>What about hardware? The weirdness is universal.</title>
	<author>BenEnglishAtHome</author>
	<datestamp>1247605140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I first became aware of version numbers in hardware.  Specifically, the Nikon F competed against the Canon F1.  So Nikon introduced the F2.  Then Canon came up with a new model that should logically be called the F2...only they couldn't name it the same as the Nikon.  So they called it the "New F1".  Nikon proceeded to come out with F-series machine up through F6.  Canon abandoned the nomenclature and, with the next big design leap, introduced the EOS line.  I always thought that stuff was fascinating.</p><p>All engineering logic gets tossed when it gets in the way of marketing, apparently.  It doesn't matter if it's software or hardware, that's a near-universal truth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I first became aware of version numbers in hardware .
Specifically , the Nikon F competed against the Canon F1 .
So Nikon introduced the F2 .
Then Canon came up with a new model that should logically be called the F2...only they could n't name it the same as the Nikon .
So they called it the " New F1 " .
Nikon proceeded to come out with F-series machine up through F6 .
Canon abandoned the nomenclature and , with the next big design leap , introduced the EOS line .
I always thought that stuff was fascinating.All engineering logic gets tossed when it gets in the way of marketing , apparently .
It does n't matter if it 's software or hardware , that 's a near-universal truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I first became aware of version numbers in hardware.
Specifically, the Nikon F competed against the Canon F1.
So Nikon introduced the F2.
Then Canon came up with a new model that should logically be called the F2...only they couldn't name it the same as the Nikon.
So they called it the "New F1".
Nikon proceeded to come out with F-series machine up through F6.
Canon abandoned the nomenclature and, with the next big design leap, introduced the EOS line.
I always thought that stuff was fascinating.All engineering logic gets tossed when it gets in the way of marketing, apparently.
It doesn't matter if it's software or hardware, that's a near-universal truth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693337</id>
	<title>Re:os x</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247595900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They still can use lolcats, because by then it's all a joke anyway. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They still can use lolcats , because by then it 's all a joke anyway .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They still can use lolcats, because by then it's all a joke anyway.
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693881</id>
	<title>Re:w/r/t Windows</title>
	<author>iamhigh</author>
	<datestamp>1247598180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(I was the performance test engineer for Vista update services during the initial release of Vista)</p></div><p>I can't believe you admit that your position had to do with the performance of Vista, anywhere, much less on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.!!!!!!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( I was the performance test engineer for Vista update services during the initial release of Vista ) I ca n't believe you admit that your position had to do with the performance of Vista , anywhere , much less on /. ! ! ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(I was the performance test engineer for Vista update services during the initial release of Vista)I can't believe you admit that your position had to do with the performance of Vista, anywhere, much less on /.!!!!!!
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692853</id>
	<title>Re:w/r/t Windows</title>
	<author>Anonymous Cowpat</author>
	<datestamp>1247593980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gibbering about windows a bit; his list of why Windows 7 is, well, 7 is wrong. It should be:<br>Windows 1.0<br>Windows 2.0<br>Windows 3.0<br>Windows 95\98\ME<br>Windows XP<br>Windows Vista<br>Windows 7</p><p>There was a seperate branch of:<br>Windows NT4<br>Windows 2000<br>Windows XP</p><p>XP, of course, being the point where desktop windows &amp; workstation\server windows got joined into one product line (based on NT). Didn't everyone know this already?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gibbering about windows a bit ; his list of why Windows 7 is , well , 7 is wrong .
It should be : Windows 1.0Windows 2.0Windows 3.0Windows 95 \ 98 \ MEWindows XPWindows VistaWindows 7There was a seperate branch of : Windows NT4Windows 2000Windows XPXP , of course , being the point where desktop windows &amp; workstation \ server windows got joined into one product line ( based on NT ) .
Did n't everyone know this already ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gibbering about windows a bit; his list of why Windows 7 is, well, 7 is wrong.
It should be:Windows 1.0Windows 2.0Windows 3.0Windows 95\98\MEWindows XPWindows VistaWindows 7There was a seperate branch of:Windows NT4Windows 2000Windows XPXP, of course, being the point where desktop windows &amp; workstation\server windows got joined into one product line (based on NT).
Didn't everyone know this already?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692179</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694285</id>
	<title>Re:Windows Fantasy 7</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1247599860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, there was a Windows NT 4.0, and it wasn't just in name... it had some major architectural changes over NT 3.5.</p><p>After that, brother, I'm with you. Windows 2000 was NT 4.something with tweaks to match the look and feel of Windows 98SE/ME/MOUSE/whatever. That wasn't a bad thing... it was as stable, give or take, as NT 4... I just had a problem with having to pay for a service pack. Maybe this is Windows 5.. or 4.something in actual fact?</p><p>XP didn't at the time seem like much more than Win2K with additional surface tweaks. I skipped that for a few years, but eventually go sucked in based on needed add-ons.. new apps used new API frameworks only released for XP. And by then, it was stable, too.</p><p>Vista.. better forgotten. They changes the look of it again.. I'm not convinced there's all that much new under the hood, much less anything good. They sure seem to change a bunch of code, for these releases or SPs or whatver.. still doesn't explain why the Windows shell sucks so badly.. my Amiga 3000 is faster at desktop disc navigation. Hell, AmigaOS running in emulation over top of Windows is faster at this stuff. So is Linux, of course. I think maybe I'd have more respect for Microsoft if they stopped fixing the look of the thing for one and instead tried to make it more usable. I mean, I'm on a four-core Q6600 CPU with 4GB DDR2 RAM, 3TB in the box, 6TB on USB, Gigabit ethernet to the house... thousands of times faster than that Amiga (also on the same network).... why should it ever, for any possible reason, take 30-60 seconds for me to see "My Computer" in the graphical shell? That's not hardware performance, that's retarded OS code.  I'm sure it's the echo of horrible Windows 3.1 design decisions that oddly more modern OSs like AmigaOS (essentially stopped in 1994) and Linux (a hodge-podge of good ideas from the 70s and 80s)  didn't screw up from the start.</p><p>Well, with all the various and sundry new APIs, why not fix the fundamentals? There's this programming construct, called a "thread". No, you didn't have one in Windows in the 80s, but they do exist, and there's no reason to run everything through a single per task window event queue anymore, either. Machines have had real asynchronous behavior for decades, now.</p><p>Yeah, I know this isn't the place... but sometimes, you just have to use Windows. A version that didn't suck in such fundamental ways would actually earn that (N+1) designation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , there was a Windows NT 4.0 , and it was n't just in name... it had some major architectural changes over NT 3.5.After that , brother , I 'm with you .
Windows 2000 was NT 4.something with tweaks to match the look and feel of Windows 98SE/ME/MOUSE/whatever .
That was n't a bad thing... it was as stable , give or take , as NT 4... I just had a problem with having to pay for a service pack .
Maybe this is Windows 5.. or 4.something in actual fact ? XP did n't at the time seem like much more than Win2K with additional surface tweaks .
I skipped that for a few years , but eventually go sucked in based on needed add-ons.. new apps used new API frameworks only released for XP .
And by then , it was stable , too.Vista.. better forgotten .
They changes the look of it again.. I 'm not convinced there 's all that much new under the hood , much less anything good .
They sure seem to change a bunch of code , for these releases or SPs or whatver.. still does n't explain why the Windows shell sucks so badly.. my Amiga 3000 is faster at desktop disc navigation .
Hell , AmigaOS running in emulation over top of Windows is faster at this stuff .
So is Linux , of course .
I think maybe I 'd have more respect for Microsoft if they stopped fixing the look of the thing for one and instead tried to make it more usable .
I mean , I 'm on a four-core Q6600 CPU with 4GB DDR2 RAM , 3TB in the box , 6TB on USB , Gigabit ethernet to the house... thousands of times faster than that Amiga ( also on the same network ) .... why should it ever , for any possible reason , take 30-60 seconds for me to see " My Computer " in the graphical shell ?
That 's not hardware performance , that 's retarded OS code .
I 'm sure it 's the echo of horrible Windows 3.1 design decisions that oddly more modern OSs like AmigaOS ( essentially stopped in 1994 ) and Linux ( a hodge-podge of good ideas from the 70s and 80s ) did n't screw up from the start.Well , with all the various and sundry new APIs , why not fix the fundamentals ?
There 's this programming construct , called a " thread " .
No , you did n't have one in Windows in the 80s , but they do exist , and there 's no reason to run everything through a single per task window event queue anymore , either .
Machines have had real asynchronous behavior for decades , now.Yeah , I know this is n't the place... but sometimes , you just have to use Windows .
A version that did n't suck in such fundamental ways would actually earn that ( N + 1 ) designation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, there was a Windows NT 4.0, and it wasn't just in name... it had some major architectural changes over NT 3.5.After that, brother, I'm with you.
Windows 2000 was NT 4.something with tweaks to match the look and feel of Windows 98SE/ME/MOUSE/whatever.
That wasn't a bad thing... it was as stable, give or take, as NT 4... I just had a problem with having to pay for a service pack.
Maybe this is Windows 5.. or 4.something in actual fact?XP didn't at the time seem like much more than Win2K with additional surface tweaks.
I skipped that for a few years, but eventually go sucked in based on needed add-ons.. new apps used new API frameworks only released for XP.
And by then, it was stable, too.Vista.. better forgotten.
They changes the look of it again.. I'm not convinced there's all that much new under the hood, much less anything good.
They sure seem to change a bunch of code, for these releases or SPs or whatver.. still doesn't explain why the Windows shell sucks so badly.. my Amiga 3000 is faster at desktop disc navigation.
Hell, AmigaOS running in emulation over top of Windows is faster at this stuff.
So is Linux, of course.
I think maybe I'd have more respect for Microsoft if they stopped fixing the look of the thing for one and instead tried to make it more usable.
I mean, I'm on a four-core Q6600 CPU with 4GB DDR2 RAM, 3TB in the box, 6TB on USB, Gigabit ethernet to the house... thousands of times faster than that Amiga (also on the same network).... why should it ever, for any possible reason, take 30-60 seconds for me to see "My Computer" in the graphical shell?
That's not hardware performance, that's retarded OS code.
I'm sure it's the echo of horrible Windows 3.1 design decisions that oddly more modern OSs like AmigaOS (essentially stopped in 1994) and Linux (a hodge-podge of good ideas from the 70s and 80s)  didn't screw up from the start.Well, with all the various and sundry new APIs, why not fix the fundamentals?
There's this programming construct, called a "thread".
No, you didn't have one in Windows in the 80s, but they do exist, and there's no reason to run everything through a single per task window event queue anymore, either.
Machines have had real asynchronous behavior for decades, now.Yeah, I know this isn't the place... but sometimes, you just have to use Windows.
A version that didn't suck in such fundamental ways would actually earn that (N+1) designation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693549</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28704719</id>
	<title>Re:w/r/t Windows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247679480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could this be a result of Windows 7 still being a release candidate rather than the official release, or am I just horribly off base?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could this be a result of Windows 7 still being a release candidate rather than the official release , or am I just horribly off base ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could this be a result of Windows 7 still being a release candidate rather than the official release, or am I just horribly off base?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692179</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693499</id>
	<title>Re:Missed</title>
	<author>gEvil (beta)</author>
	<datestamp>1247596500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Err.... You *did* realize there were three pages in the article ? TeX is at the bottom of page 2.</i> <br>
<br>
??? Maybe someone can explain to me how this 'page numbering' system works.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Err.... You * did * realize there were three pages in the article ?
TeX is at the bottom of page 2 .
? ? ? Maybe someone can explain to me how this 'page numbering ' system works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Err.... You *did* realize there were three pages in the article ?
TeX is at the bottom of page 2.
??? Maybe someone can explain to me how this 'page numbering' system works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692547</id>
	<title>Re:they should be kept practical and useful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247592780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Ubuntu using the year and month for version numbers is a great idea, then at a glance you can see when the distro was released, after any application or operating system makes it to a 1.0 release it should be done this way = YY.MM</i></p><p>ATI's Catalyst drivers are similar, although I've seen them manage to slip in a YY.13 at least once.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ubuntu using the year and month for version numbers is a great idea , then at a glance you can see when the distro was released , after any application or operating system makes it to a 1.0 release it should be done this way = YY.MMATI 's Catalyst drivers are similar , although I 've seen them manage to slip in a YY.13 at least once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ubuntu using the year and month for version numbers is a great idea, then at a glance you can see when the distro was released, after any application or operating system makes it to a 1.0 release it should be done this way = YY.MMATI's Catalyst drivers are similar, although I've seen them manage to slip in a YY.13 at least once.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28703195</id>
	<title>RBBS</title>
	<author>justthinkit</author>
	<datestamp>1247671260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>RBBS was the first PC software to get updated to a teen version number.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBBS-PC" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Wiki</a> [wikipedia.org] says it hit version 17.4 in 1992.</htmltext>
<tokenext>RBBS was the first PC software to get updated to a teen version number .
Wiki [ wikipedia.org ] says it hit version 17.4 in 1992 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RBBS was the first PC software to get updated to a teen version number.
Wiki [wikipedia.org] says it hit version 17.4 in 1992.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692863</id>
	<title>Re:os x</title>
	<author>je ne sais quoi</author>
	<datestamp>1247594040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh, I don't know, there's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felidae#Extant\_species" title="wikipedia.org">lots of cat species</a> [wikipedia.org].  I myself an breathlessly awaiting Mac OS X version Iberian Lynx, which will be one better than Asiatic Lion.   Perhaps that doesn't have quite the same ring to it though.  They could also do extinct species, like sabertooth, which would be a decent name.<br> <br>In all honesty, I do wonder why they haven't done a Lion version yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , I do n't know , there 's lots of cat species [ wikipedia.org ] .
I myself an breathlessly awaiting Mac OS X version Iberian Lynx , which will be one better than Asiatic Lion .
Perhaps that does n't have quite the same ring to it though .
They could also do extinct species , like sabertooth , which would be a decent name .
In all honesty , I do wonder why they have n't done a Lion version yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, I don't know, there's lots of cat species [wikipedia.org].
I myself an breathlessly awaiting Mac OS X version Iberian Lynx, which will be one better than Asiatic Lion.
Perhaps that doesn't have quite the same ring to it though.
They could also do extinct species, like sabertooth, which would be a decent name.
In all honesty, I do wonder why they haven't done a Lion version yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692445</id>
	<title>os x</title>
	<author>psyklopz</author>
	<datestamp>1247592300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article mentions OS X and the fact that they will be running out of cat names pretty soon.</p><p>My prediction:  as soon as they run out of cat names, they'll go to 'OS 11'</p><p>Steve Jobs will market it by saying 'this one goes to eleven...  It's one better, isn't it?'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article mentions OS X and the fact that they will be running out of cat names pretty soon.My prediction : as soon as they run out of cat names , they 'll go to 'OS 11'Steve Jobs will market it by saying 'this one goes to eleven... It 's one better , is n't it ?
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article mentions OS X and the fact that they will be running out of cat names pretty soon.My prediction:  as soon as they run out of cat names, they'll go to 'OS 11'Steve Jobs will market it by saying 'this one goes to eleven...  It's one better, isn't it?
'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692127</id>
	<title>First V0.1</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247591040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Upgrade me at your peril!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Upgrade me at your peril !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Upgrade me at your peril!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28695919</id>
	<title>The correct way...</title>
	<author>BatGnat</author>
	<datestamp>1247564520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The correct way to version your software (according to M$) is:<br>
1.0, 1.x, 2.0, 2.x, 3.0, 3.1<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,3.11 , 95, 95 osr2, 98, 98se, ME : if it runs on DOS.
<br> OR <br>
3.0, 3.1, 3.5, 4.0, 2000, XP, 2003, Vista, 2008, 7 : if it NT based.<br> <br>
See it is all so clear....(did I miss any?)<br> <br>
What I don't like is when they release a product using the "Some program for windows v3", does that mean it only runs on win 3, or is it v3 of the software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The correct way to version your software ( according to M $ ) is : 1.0 , 1.x , 2.0 , 2.x , 3.0 , 3.1 ,3.11 , 95 , 95 osr2 , 98 , 98se , ME : if it runs on DOS .
OR 3.0 , 3.1 , 3.5 , 4.0 , 2000 , XP , 2003 , Vista , 2008 , 7 : if it NT based .
See it is all so clear.... ( did I miss any ?
) What I do n't like is when they release a product using the " Some program for windows v3 " , does that mean it only runs on win 3 , or is it v3 of the software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The correct way to version your software (according to M$) is:
1.0, 1.x, 2.0, 2.x, 3.0, 3.1 ,3.11 , 95, 95 osr2, 98, 98se, ME : if it runs on DOS.
OR 
3.0, 3.1, 3.5, 4.0, 2000, XP, 2003, Vista, 2008, 7 : if it NT based.
See it is all so clear....(did I miss any?
) 
What I don't like is when they release a product using the "Some program for windows v3", does that mean it only runs on win 3, or is it v3 of the software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693039</id>
	<title>16384 = 2^14</title>
	<author>DeadCatX2</author>
	<datestamp>1247594760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's only somewhat arbitrary</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's only somewhat arbitrary</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's only somewhat arbitrary</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692179</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693081</id>
	<title>KDE is the worst</title>
	<author>haifastudent</author>
	<datestamp>1247594880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>KDE 4.0, Amarok 2.0, and now Koffice 2.0 were all developer releases. KDEHater had a great writeup here:<br><a href="http://kdehater.blogspot.com/2009/06/koffice-two-point-oh-no.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://kdehater.blogspot.com/2009/06/koffice-two-point-oh-no.html</a> [blogspot.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>KDE 4.0 , Amarok 2.0 , and now Koffice 2.0 were all developer releases .
KDEHater had a great writeup here : http : //kdehater.blogspot.com/2009/06/koffice-two-point-oh-no.html [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>KDE 4.0, Amarok 2.0, and now Koffice 2.0 were all developer releases.
KDEHater had a great writeup here:http://kdehater.blogspot.com/2009/06/koffice-two-point-oh-no.html [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692633</id>
	<title>Good timing</title>
	<author>SCHecklerX</author>
	<datestamp>1247593200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just this past week, in order to maintain some rpm repositories from multiple sources, I needed to discard versions of a package older than the most recent.  What a pain (think about it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... mixed alphanumeric, usually numeric, but needing to sort numeric on arbitrary decimal and - boundaries).</p><p>Luckily I discovered the Sort::Version perl module.  *whew*!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just this past week , in order to maintain some rpm repositories from multiple sources , I needed to discard versions of a package older than the most recent .
What a pain ( think about it ... mixed alphanumeric , usually numeric , but needing to sort numeric on arbitrary decimal and - boundaries ) .Luckily I discovered the Sort : : Version perl module .
* whew * !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just this past week, in order to maintain some rpm repositories from multiple sources, I needed to discard versions of a package older than the most recent.
What a pain (think about it ... mixed alphanumeric, usually numeric, but needing to sort numeric on arbitrary decimal and - boundaries).Luckily I discovered the Sort::Version perl module.
*whew*!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692147</id>
	<title>What now?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247591160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...standard decimal point-based system...</p></div></blockquote><p>What is this <i>standard</i> you are referring to?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...standard decimal point-based system...What is this standard you are referring to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...standard decimal point-based system...What is this standard you are referring to?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692919</id>
	<title>how about backing up?</title>
	<author>hurfy</author>
	<datestamp>1247594280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has anyone seen another program admit they screwed up and go backwards?</p><p>I purchased the old shareware database program PC-File (and still use it!) Not sure of the 1st versions, i don't think it had a number. 2nd one i got was version 5 and was a good program that could have used a few tweaks but was fast and simple. Version 6 changed drasticly and many functions got slow as it tried to go to a pretty UI. Version 7 tried to fix version 7 but was still sluggish. The next version released was.....version 5.5! They tried to fix up the old one by adding a couple needed features but missed a couple others. I think he sold out or moved on at that point and it faded away.</p><p>It was simple and fast enough that i used it for looking up names and other info from a barcode in real time into a database as fast as i could scan in labels on a 386<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) Ok, i did need 10M of ram so it could use a ramdisk since the HD couldn't keep up.</p><p>Didn't see him include 5,6,7,5.5 in the article<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone seen another program admit they screwed up and go backwards ? I purchased the old shareware database program PC-File ( and still use it !
) Not sure of the 1st versions , i do n't think it had a number .
2nd one i got was version 5 and was a good program that could have used a few tweaks but was fast and simple .
Version 6 changed drasticly and many functions got slow as it tried to go to a pretty UI .
Version 7 tried to fix version 7 but was still sluggish .
The next version released was.....version 5.5 !
They tried to fix up the old one by adding a couple needed features but missed a couple others .
I think he sold out or moved on at that point and it faded away.It was simple and fast enough that i used it for looking up names and other info from a barcode in real time into a database as fast as i could scan in labels on a 386 : ) Ok , i did need 10M of ram so it could use a ramdisk since the HD could n't keep up.Did n't see him include 5,6,7,5.5 in the article : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone seen another program admit they screwed up and go backwards?I purchased the old shareware database program PC-File (and still use it!
) Not sure of the 1st versions, i don't think it had a number.
2nd one i got was version 5 and was a good program that could have used a few tweaks but was fast and simple.
Version 6 changed drasticly and many functions got slow as it tried to go to a pretty UI.
Version 7 tried to fix version 7 but was still sluggish.
The next version released was.....version 5.5!
They tried to fix up the old one by adding a couple needed features but missed a couple others.
I think he sold out or moved on at that point and it faded away.It was simple and fast enough that i used it for looking up names and other info from a barcode in real time into a database as fast as i could scan in labels on a 386 :) Ok, i did need 10M of ram so it could use a ramdisk since the HD couldn't keep up.Didn't see him include 5,6,7,5.5 in the article :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692281</id>
	<title>I thought it was just me...</title>
	<author>American Expat</author>
	<datestamp>1247591700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been working for ISVs for nearly 25 years, and for some reason have developed a "thing" about prime build numbers. It got to be a running gag at a couple of places I worked, to the point where at one place the buildmaster would bump the build number to the next prime number for the "gold" build.<br> <br>
Nice to know I'm not the only one with build number quirks..</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been working for ISVs for nearly 25 years , and for some reason have developed a " thing " about prime build numbers .
It got to be a running gag at a couple of places I worked , to the point where at one place the buildmaster would bump the build number to the next prime number for the " gold " build .
Nice to know I 'm not the only one with build number quirks. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been working for ISVs for nearly 25 years, and for some reason have developed a "thing" about prime build numbers.
It got to be a running gag at a couple of places I worked, to the point where at one place the buildmaster would bump the build number to the next prime number for the "gold" build.
Nice to know I'm not the only one with build number quirks..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693603</id>
	<title>Doesn't explain everything.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247596980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Explain 6000.16385, then.
<br> <br>That's the build I got for review purposes from Microsoft, and based on what I know, gncaddict is correct.16384 started as zero, followed by increments per revision. 16385 was handed to press, and 16386 was signed off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Explain 6000.16385 , then .
That 's the build I got for review purposes from Microsoft , and based on what I know , gncaddict is correct.16384 started as zero , followed by increments per revision .
16385 was handed to press , and 16386 was signed off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Explain 6000.16385, then.
That's the build I got for review purposes from Microsoft, and based on what I know, gncaddict is correct.16384 started as zero, followed by increments per revision.
16385 was handed to press, and 16386 was signed off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692643</id>
	<title>Re:they should be kept practical and useful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247593200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No! Please do not use YY ever. YYYY is the only proper format (at least until 9999). Remind the "Year-2000-problem", for instance!<br>(By the way: I wish everyone would use ISO-8601 as their date format.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No !
Please do not use YY ever .
YYYY is the only proper format ( at least until 9999 ) .
Remind the " Year-2000-problem " , for instance !
( By the way : I wish everyone would use ISO-8601 as their date format .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No!
Please do not use YY ever.
YYYY is the only proper format (at least until 9999).
Remind the "Year-2000-problem", for instance!
(By the way: I wish everyone would use ISO-8601 as their date format.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693423</id>
	<title>JSR 277</title>
	<author>curunir</author>
	<datestamp>1247596260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This whole subject has sparked a huge debate in the Java community over the proposed specification for Java modules (basically OSGi, but with language support and entirely incompatible.) Google for "JSR 277 controversy" and you'll find plenty of forum threads and articles with everyone arguing for their own version numbering scheme. The developers of the spec claim to have done a fairly exhaustive survey of real-world version numbering, but then seem to have chosen to standardize the version numbering used at Sun, which has caused a bit of an uproar. The only thing that has been agreed upon is that there really isn't one versioning scheme that everyone can agree on.</p><p>The main issue, as I understand it, is finding a versioning scheme that allows for automatic sorting to allow fuzzy dependencies (i.e. version 3.5 or later.) In theory, this sounds like a great thing and one that should be easy to accomplish. And it is simple for any one versioning scheme. But when you hit real-world usage, things start to get complex.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This whole subject has sparked a huge debate in the Java community over the proposed specification for Java modules ( basically OSGi , but with language support and entirely incompatible .
) Google for " JSR 277 controversy " and you 'll find plenty of forum threads and articles with everyone arguing for their own version numbering scheme .
The developers of the spec claim to have done a fairly exhaustive survey of real-world version numbering , but then seem to have chosen to standardize the version numbering used at Sun , which has caused a bit of an uproar .
The only thing that has been agreed upon is that there really is n't one versioning scheme that everyone can agree on.The main issue , as I understand it , is finding a versioning scheme that allows for automatic sorting to allow fuzzy dependencies ( i.e .
version 3.5 or later .
) In theory , this sounds like a great thing and one that should be easy to accomplish .
And it is simple for any one versioning scheme .
But when you hit real-world usage , things start to get complex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This whole subject has sparked a huge debate in the Java community over the proposed specification for Java modules (basically OSGi, but with language support and entirely incompatible.
) Google for "JSR 277 controversy" and you'll find plenty of forum threads and articles with everyone arguing for their own version numbering scheme.
The developers of the spec claim to have done a fairly exhaustive survey of real-world version numbering, but then seem to have chosen to standardize the version numbering used at Sun, which has caused a bit of an uproar.
The only thing that has been agreed upon is that there really isn't one versioning scheme that everyone can agree on.The main issue, as I understand it, is finding a versioning scheme that allows for automatic sorting to allow fuzzy dependencies (i.e.
version 3.5 or later.
) In theory, this sounds like a great thing and one that should be easy to accomplish.
And it is simple for any one versioning scheme.
But when you hit real-world usage, things start to get complex.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693771</id>
	<title>new branch of bistromathics</title>
	<author>still cynical</author>
	<datestamp>1247597700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In software versions, all the numbers are awful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In software versions , all the numbers are awful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In software versions, all the numbers are awful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692221</id>
	<title>First Post 5.0</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247591460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Better late than never!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Better late than never !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better late than never!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28696039</id>
	<title>Re:I grew up with</title>
	<author>linhux</author>
	<datestamp>1247564820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless you're building Vista or a full Linux distro you should be building several times per day, and certainly not on a weekly basis. Preferably on each commit. My team produces tens of builds on a busy workday. Naturally, testing should be done automatically as well, as a part of the team's standard continuous integration system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you 're building Vista or a full Linux distro you should be building several times per day , and certainly not on a weekly basis .
Preferably on each commit .
My team produces tens of builds on a busy workday .
Naturally , testing should be done automatically as well , as a part of the team 's standard continuous integration system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you're building Vista or a full Linux distro you should be building several times per day, and certainly not on a weekly basis.
Preferably on each commit.
My team produces tens of builds on a busy workday.
Naturally, testing should be done automatically as well, as a part of the team's standard continuous integration system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692849</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692417</id>
	<title>Software version vs. sequels</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247592180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Software versioning gets really confusing with game programming, specifically versions vs. sequels.  Zelda II and Mario II are sequels of the original - very different games.  However, Quake 3 is more like a version difference from Quake 2, even though technically it's a "sequel".  Windows 7 is definitely a version difference even though it wants to be a sequel.  The difference?  Because they are different, people understand why they should pay for sequels, while they want the less-different version upgrades for less/free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Software versioning gets really confusing with game programming , specifically versions vs. sequels. Zelda II and Mario II are sequels of the original - very different games .
However , Quake 3 is more like a version difference from Quake 2 , even though technically it 's a " sequel " .
Windows 7 is definitely a version difference even though it wants to be a sequel .
The difference ?
Because they are different , people understand why they should pay for sequels , while they want the less-different version upgrades for less/free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Software versioning gets really confusing with game programming, specifically versions vs. sequels.  Zelda II and Mario II are sequels of the original - very different games.
However, Quake 3 is more like a version difference from Quake 2, even though technically it's a "sequel".
Windows 7 is definitely a version difference even though it wants to be a sequel.
The difference?
Because they are different, people understand why they should pay for sequels, while they want the less-different version upgrades for less/free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28700697</id>
	<title>Oldest versions:</title>
	<author>Subm</author>
	<datestamp>1247600040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oldest version numbers:<br> <br>

<b>Linear A</b>: Linear A is one of two linear scripts used in ancient Crete before Mycenaean Greek Linear B... Linear A seems to have been used as a complete syllabary around 1900 - 1800 BC,<br> <br>

<b>Linear B</b>: Linear B is a script that was used for writing Mycenaean Greek, an early form of Greek. It predated the Greek alphabet by several centuries (ca. 13th but perhaps as early as late 15th century BC).<br> <br>

<b>Linear C</b>: (Redirected from Linear C [<i>Already the marketers were messing with the version numbers!</i>]) The Cypro-Minoan syllabary (abbreviated CM) is an undeciphered syllabic script used on the island of Cyprus during the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1550-1050 BC).<br> <br>

Beat that!<br> <br>

Can you imagine in 1800 BC how much of a pain the upgrade cycle must have been when everyone had to update their clay tablets?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oldest version numbers : Linear A : Linear A is one of two linear scripts used in ancient Crete before Mycenaean Greek Linear B... Linear A seems to have been used as a complete syllabary around 1900 - 1800 BC , Linear B : Linear B is a script that was used for writing Mycenaean Greek , an early form of Greek .
It predated the Greek alphabet by several centuries ( ca .
13th but perhaps as early as late 15th century BC ) .
Linear C : ( Redirected from Linear C [ Already the marketers were messing with the version numbers !
] ) The Cypro-Minoan syllabary ( abbreviated CM ) is an undeciphered syllabic script used on the island of Cyprus during the Late Bronze Age ( ca .
1550-1050 BC ) .
Beat that !
Can you imagine in 1800 BC how much of a pain the upgrade cycle must have been when everyone had to update their clay tablets ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oldest version numbers: 

Linear A: Linear A is one of two linear scripts used in ancient Crete before Mycenaean Greek Linear B... Linear A seems to have been used as a complete syllabary around 1900 - 1800 BC, 

Linear B: Linear B is a script that was used for writing Mycenaean Greek, an early form of Greek.
It predated the Greek alphabet by several centuries (ca.
13th but perhaps as early as late 15th century BC).
Linear C: (Redirected from Linear C [Already the marketers were messing with the version numbers!
]) The Cypro-Minoan syllabary (abbreviated CM) is an undeciphered syllabic script used on the island of Cyprus during the Late Bronze Age (ca.
1550-1050 BC).
Beat that!
Can you imagine in 1800 BC how much of a pain the upgrade cycle must have been when everyone had to update their clay tablets?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694253</id>
	<title>Re:At Business Objects...</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1247599740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SAP also have a product called XI.  I think it stands for eXchange Infrastructure.  That or they're Spinal Tap fans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SAP also have a product called XI .
I think it stands for eXchange Infrastructure .
That or they 're Spinal Tap fans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SAP also have a product called XI.
I think it stands for eXchange Infrastructure.
That or they're Spinal Tap fans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692767</id>
	<title>XP and Pentium</title>
	<author>Trevin</author>
	<datestamp>1247593740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One reason marketers have given products names instead of numbers, which isn't mentioned in the article, is that courts have ruled that companies can't trademark numbers (though I can't find a source reference).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One reason marketers have given products names instead of numbers , which is n't mentioned in the article , is that courts have ruled that companies ca n't trademark numbers ( though I ca n't find a source reference ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One reason marketers have given products names instead of numbers, which isn't mentioned in the article, is that courts have ruled that companies can't trademark numbers (though I can't find a source reference).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692983</id>
	<title>Doom II Version 1.666</title>
	<author>linebackn</author>
	<datestamp>1247594580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of my favorite version numbers was the version of the first Doom II executable (which used a different version number than the game itself as it shared the exact same executable with Doom I, Doom I shareware, and Doom II). The initial release of Doom II was "Doom II Version 1.666"".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of my favorite version numbers was the version of the first Doom II executable ( which used a different version number than the game itself as it shared the exact same executable with Doom I , Doom I shareware , and Doom II ) .
The initial release of Doom II was " Doom II Version 1.666 " " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of my favorite version numbers was the version of the first Doom II executable (which used a different version number than the game itself as it shared the exact same executable with Doom I, Doom I shareware, and Doom II).
The initial release of Doom II was "Doom II Version 1.666"".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692349</id>
	<title>Don't forget TIFF</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247591940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All TIFF files have a version number of 42, chosen, according to the developer docs, for that number's deep philosophical significance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All TIFF files have a version number of 42 , chosen , according to the developer docs , for that number 's deep philosophical significance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All TIFF files have a version number of 42, chosen, according to the developer docs, for that number's deep philosophical significance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693531</id>
	<title>That's Odd</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247596620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We use odd numbers only for our major releases. When I finally asked about that, I was told, "Someone didn't like odd-numbered releases." And that's why I love my job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We use odd numbers only for our major releases .
When I finally asked about that , I was told , " Someone did n't like odd-numbered releases .
" And that 's why I love my job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We use odd numbers only for our major releases.
When I finally asked about that, I was told, "Someone didn't like odd-numbered releases.
" And that's why I love my job.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692581</id>
	<title>Re:they should be kept practical and useful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247592960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>when we all know the OS was originally built with ALL the features and all they did was cripple it in steps and named them as such, so in essence the "basic" should cost the most because more work went in to it to remove the features and extra testing went to to make sure it still worked good enough to market...</p></div></blockquote><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Wealth\_of\_Nations" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Welcome to 1776</a> [wikipedia.org]. Prices are based on what the market will bear; any relationships to the original cost of work and materials is incidental.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>when we all know the OS was originally built with ALL the features and all they did was cripple it in steps and named them as such , so in essence the " basic " should cost the most because more work went in to it to remove the features and extra testing went to to make sure it still worked good enough to market...Welcome to 1776 [ wikipedia.org ] .
Prices are based on what the market will bear ; any relationships to the original cost of work and materials is incidental .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when we all know the OS was originally built with ALL the features and all they did was cripple it in steps and named them as such, so in essence the "basic" should cost the most because more work went in to it to remove the features and extra testing went to to make sure it still worked good enough to market...Welcome to 1776 [wikipedia.org].
Prices are based on what the market will bear; any relationships to the original cost of work and materials is incidental.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28700681</id>
	<title>Re:0.9 to 0.10</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247599800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, I don't want to read your three-paragraph long diatribes of how you don't understand version numbers.  Get used to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , I do n't want to read your three-paragraph long diatribes of how you do n't understand version numbers .
Get used to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, I don't want to read your three-paragraph long diatribes of how you don't understand version numbers.
Get used to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692993</id>
	<title>We're not entirely innocent.</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1247594580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Never trust/buy a x.0 version"<br>Sounds familiar? Of course. And with good reason, a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.0 version more often than not was a "it compiles, ship it" version. If you were smart, you waited for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.2. Kinda like you wait for SP2 today.</p><p>What did companies do? They offered a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.0 version for a week or two, immediately followed by the "final final"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.2 version. I wouldn't be surprised if we could soon only buy SP2 versions of some new OS.</p><p>The first signs are already there. Or did you get a WinXP version that didn't include a SP1?</p><p>In contrast, you'll be hard pressed to find anything (but core parts) for Linux that isn't available in a "0.x" version. A 1.0 for Linux is some kind of event, usually coming long, long after it has become stable and useable. IMO, when judging Linux programs, shift that dot to the right by a digit and you're where you would be in commercial software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Never trust/buy a x.0 version " Sounds familiar ?
Of course .
And with good reason , a .0 version more often than not was a " it compiles , ship it " version .
If you were smart , you waited for .2 .
Kinda like you wait for SP2 today.What did companies do ?
They offered a .0 version for a week or two , immediately followed by the " final final " .2 version .
I would n't be surprised if we could soon only buy SP2 versions of some new OS.The first signs are already there .
Or did you get a WinXP version that did n't include a SP1 ? In contrast , you 'll be hard pressed to find anything ( but core parts ) for Linux that is n't available in a " 0.x " version .
A 1.0 for Linux is some kind of event , usually coming long , long after it has become stable and useable .
IMO , when judging Linux programs , shift that dot to the right by a digit and you 're where you would be in commercial software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Never trust/buy a x.0 version"Sounds familiar?
Of course.
And with good reason, a .0 version more often than not was a "it compiles, ship it" version.
If you were smart, you waited for .2.
Kinda like you wait for SP2 today.What did companies do?
They offered a .0 version for a week or two, immediately followed by the "final final" .2 version.
I wouldn't be surprised if we could soon only buy SP2 versions of some new OS.The first signs are already there.
Or did you get a WinXP version that didn't include a SP1?In contrast, you'll be hard pressed to find anything (but core parts) for Linux that isn't available in a "0.x" version.
A 1.0 for Linux is some kind of event, usually coming long, long after it has become stable and useable.
IMO, when judging Linux programs, shift that dot to the right by a digit and you're where you would be in commercial software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692331</id>
	<title>they should be kept practical and useful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247591940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ubuntu using the year and month for version numbers is a great idea, then at a glance you can see when the distro was released, after any application or operating system makes it to a 1.0 release it should be done this way = YY.MM <br> <br> The crap that microsoft does is just exactly what i see in versions, versions like home basic, premium, ultimate just sounds like marketing cruft, when we all know the OS was originally built with ALL the features and all they did was cripple it in steps and named them as such, so in essence the "basic" should cost the most because more work went in to it to remove the features and extra testing went to to make sure it still worked good enough to market...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ubuntu using the year and month for version numbers is a great idea , then at a glance you can see when the distro was released , after any application or operating system makes it to a 1.0 release it should be done this way = YY.MM The crap that microsoft does is just exactly what i see in versions , versions like home basic , premium , ultimate just sounds like marketing cruft , when we all know the OS was originally built with ALL the features and all they did was cripple it in steps and named them as such , so in essence the " basic " should cost the most because more work went in to it to remove the features and extra testing went to to make sure it still worked good enough to market.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ubuntu using the year and month for version numbers is a great idea, then at a glance you can see when the distro was released, after any application or operating system makes it to a 1.0 release it should be done this way = YY.MM   The crap that microsoft does is just exactly what i see in versions, versions like home basic, premium, ultimate just sounds like marketing cruft, when we all know the OS was originally built with ALL the features and all they did was cripple it in steps and named them as such, so in essence the "basic" should cost the most because more work went in to it to remove the features and extra testing went to to make sure it still worked good enough to market...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28696317</id>
	<title>What about Winamp?</title>
	<author>Kocureq</author>
	<datestamp>1247565840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Winamp was a small, great, fast and reliable MP3 player. It was, up to version 2.95. Then they started version 3, which was waaay slower, with new eye candy and crossfader. Nobody actually used it, so they got the UI of version 3, tried to catch up with version 2's speed and reliability and made it Winamp 5 (2+3 = 5).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Winamp was a small , great , fast and reliable MP3 player .
It was , up to version 2.95 .
Then they started version 3 , which was waaay slower , with new eye candy and crossfader .
Nobody actually used it , so they got the UI of version 3 , tried to catch up with version 2 's speed and reliability and made it Winamp 5 ( 2 + 3 = 5 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Winamp was a small, great, fast and reliable MP3 player.
It was, up to version 2.95.
Then they started version 3, which was waaay slower, with new eye candy and crossfader.
Nobody actually used it, so they got the UI of version 3, tried to catch up with version 2's speed and reliability and made it Winamp 5 (2+3 = 5).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693077</id>
	<title>Algol 60</title>
	<author>pz</author>
	<datestamp>1247594880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article states,</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Did Windows 95 start the idea of using years instead of version numbers?</p><p>Nope -- it's a far older conceit than that. The earliest example I'm aware of is Fortran 66<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>I believe Algol 60 predated that by a good 6 years, and Algol 58 by an additional two.  While Algol 58 didn't see as wide usage, Algol 60 was, to many, the definitive version of that language.</p><p>See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALGOL" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALGOL</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article states,Did Windows 95 start the idea of using years instead of version numbers ? Nope -- it 's a far older conceit than that .
The earliest example I 'm aware of is Fortran 66 ...I believe Algol 60 predated that by a good 6 years , and Algol 58 by an additional two .
While Algol 58 did n't see as wide usage , Algol 60 was , to many , the definitive version of that language.See http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALGOL [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article states,Did Windows 95 start the idea of using years instead of version numbers?Nope -- it's a far older conceit than that.
The earliest example I'm aware of is Fortran 66 ...I believe Algol 60 predated that by a good 6 years, and Algol 58 by an additional two.
While Algol 58 didn't see as wide usage, Algol 60 was, to many, the definitive version of that language.See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALGOL [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692683</id>
	<title>Re:they should be kept practical and useful</title>
	<author>El\_Muerte\_TDS</author>
	<datestamp>1247593440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>YY.MM might work for software bundles, like operating systems. But version numbers are of great importance for internal use, thus:</p><p>major.minor.micro.somethingForDevs</p><p>major -&gt; major + 1 = major products differences... a lot of new stuff... don't blindly install this stuff (or, this requires clients to renew their license)<br>minor -&gt; minor + 1 = might need configuration changes, 3rd party software linking to this might break<br>micro -&gt; micro + 1 = just bugfixes, everything should still work as before (without the bug of course)</p><p>somethingForTheDevs = build number, revision number, build date; something you can use as internal identifier</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>YY.MM might work for software bundles , like operating systems .
But version numbers are of great importance for internal use , thus : major.minor.micro.somethingForDevsmajor - &gt; major + 1 = major products differences... a lot of new stuff... do n't blindly install this stuff ( or , this requires clients to renew their license ) minor - &gt; minor + 1 = might need configuration changes , 3rd party software linking to this might breakmicro - &gt; micro + 1 = just bugfixes , everything should still work as before ( without the bug of course ) somethingForTheDevs = build number , revision number , build date ; something you can use as internal identifier</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YY.MM might work for software bundles, like operating systems.
But version numbers are of great importance for internal use, thus:major.minor.micro.somethingForDevsmajor -&gt; major + 1 = major products differences... a lot of new stuff... don't blindly install this stuff (or, this requires clients to renew their license)minor -&gt; minor + 1 = might need configuration changes, 3rd party software linking to this might breakmicro -&gt; micro + 1 = just bugfixes, everything should still work as before (without the bug of course)somethingForTheDevs = build number, revision number, build date; something you can use as internal identifier</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692809</id>
	<title>Re:they should be kept practical and useful</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1247593860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, because I'm sure we will all end up using Ubuntu a thousand years into the future.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , because I 'm sure we will all end up using Ubuntu a thousand years into the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, because I'm sure we will all end up using Ubuntu a thousand years into the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693461</id>
	<title>Re:I grew up with</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247596320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Had one project that followed that.</p><p>At least until someone got the bright idea of doing this</p><p>A.B.C.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.E.D</p><p>Where E is some letter a to z.</p><p>The project manager kept adding on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.1's until the build guy said "enough you overflowed the buffer that holds our version number".  Then it hit the filed and people would ask "do i need A.B.C.1.1 or A.B.C.1.1.1.t".  Oh that was fun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Had one project that followed that.At least until someone got the bright idea of doing thisA.B.C.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.E.DWhere E is some letter a to z.The project manager kept adding on .1 's until the build guy said " enough you overflowed the buffer that holds our version number " .
Then it hit the filed and people would ask " do i need A.B.C.1.1 or A.B.C.1.1.1.t " .
Oh that was fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Had one project that followed that.At least until someone got the bright idea of doing thisA.B.C.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.E.DWhere E is some letter a to z.The project manager kept adding on .1's until the build guy said "enough you overflowed the buffer that holds our version number".
Then it hit the filed and people would ask "do i need A.B.C.1.1 or A.B.C.1.1.1.t".
Oh that was fun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692849</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692277</id>
	<title>Re:First V0.1</title>
	<author>homes32</author>
	<datestamp>1247591700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>don't forget to upgrade to:<br>
V0.1 Basic - you don't really want this cuz we crippled it so you would buy our more expensive packages <br>
V0.1 Premium - just enough of a taste to make you horny for more features in our Platinum package<br>
V0.1 Professional -  we stripped out some the the cool stuff and added some features for buisness that you will never use<br>
V0.1 Platinum - this is the best one yet! you get everything!(almost) it will even make you coffee and pancakes and walk your dog!<br>
V0.1 So awesome we can't even tell you the name edition! - we don't know what the hell this is, our marketing guys have been hitting the sauce pretty hard lately.</htmltext>
<tokenext>do n't forget to upgrade to : V0.1 Basic - you do n't really want this cuz we crippled it so you would buy our more expensive packages V0.1 Premium - just enough of a taste to make you horny for more features in our Platinum package V0.1 Professional - we stripped out some the the cool stuff and added some features for buisness that you will never use V0.1 Platinum - this is the best one yet !
you get everything !
( almost ) it will even make you coffee and pancakes and walk your dog !
V0.1 So awesome we ca n't even tell you the name edition !
- we do n't know what the hell this is , our marketing guys have been hitting the sauce pretty hard lately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>don't forget to upgrade to:
V0.1 Basic - you don't really want this cuz we crippled it so you would buy our more expensive packages 
V0.1 Premium - just enough of a taste to make you horny for more features in our Platinum package
V0.1 Professional -  we stripped out some the the cool stuff and added some features for buisness that you will never use
V0.1 Platinum - this is the best one yet!
you get everything!
(almost) it will even make you coffee and pancakes and walk your dog!
V0.1 So awesome we can't even tell you the name edition!
- we don't know what the hell this is, our marketing guys have been hitting the sauce pretty hard lately.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28712253</id>
	<title>Re:Different people, different numbering schemes.</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1247676540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And no, zero-based arrays are no excuse for now starting every numbering sequence with a zero. The word "first" is the ordinal form of the number one, not zero. By definition then, "The First Version" is version 1.</p></div><p>Just because your language does things this way doesn't mean that it's a law of nature. The word "first" is not magically linked with "one", it's an adjective meaning that "there are 0 above it", it's only put with one rather than zero because that's the way our language handles things.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And no , zero-based arrays are no excuse for now starting every numbering sequence with a zero .
The word " first " is the ordinal form of the number one , not zero .
By definition then , " The First Version " is version 1.Just because your language does things this way does n't mean that it 's a law of nature .
The word " first " is not magically linked with " one " , it 's an adjective meaning that " there are 0 above it " , it 's only put with one rather than zero because that 's the way our language handles things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And no, zero-based arrays are no excuse for now starting every numbering sequence with a zero.
The word "first" is the ordinal form of the number one, not zero.
By definition then, "The First Version" is version 1.Just because your language does things this way doesn't mean that it's a law of nature.
The word "first" is not magically linked with "one", it's an adjective meaning that "there are 0 above it", it's only put with one rather than zero because that's the way our language handles things.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693739</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692263</id>
	<title>Re:FFx2</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247591640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot MacOS 10.</p><p>And of course, Emacs 22.3</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot MacOS 10.And of course , Emacs 22.3</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot MacOS 10.And of course, Emacs 22.3</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692639</id>
	<title>Re:0.97 0.98 0.99 ???</title>
	<author>je ne sais quoi</author>
	<datestamp>1247593200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The worst project I know of for this is e17.  It hasn't been released yet, but they started with e16 and started adding decimal places until they got to version 0.16.9999, then they skipped the 9999 and just started counting again, so what I have installed on my PC is version 0.16.9999.050 or so and then they lost track of version numbers all together and just started using svn to update everything.  Now they've changed yet again and they're using snapshots based on dates, which is a little more reasonable.  But then again, e17 was begun in 2000, so it's been "in development" for 9 years now and things are bound to get a little confused (even though it's been used in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOS\_(operating\_system)" title="wikipedia.org">commercial OSes</a> [wikipedia.org] already).  It is getting done slowly, but by the time they "release" it, it's going to be so far out of date it's not even funny.  They've already had to redo the default theme because it looked dated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The worst project I know of for this is e17 .
It has n't been released yet , but they started with e16 and started adding decimal places until they got to version 0.16.9999 , then they skipped the 9999 and just started counting again , so what I have installed on my PC is version 0.16.9999.050 or so and then they lost track of version numbers all together and just started using svn to update everything .
Now they 've changed yet again and they 're using snapshots based on dates , which is a little more reasonable .
But then again , e17 was begun in 2000 , so it 's been " in development " for 9 years now and things are bound to get a little confused ( even though it 's been used in commercial OSes [ wikipedia.org ] already ) .
It is getting done slowly , but by the time they " release " it , it 's going to be so far out of date it 's not even funny .
They 've already had to redo the default theme because it looked dated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The worst project I know of for this is e17.
It hasn't been released yet, but they started with e16 and started adding decimal places until they got to version 0.16.9999, then they skipped the 9999 and just started counting again, so what I have installed on my PC is version 0.16.9999.050 or so and then they lost track of version numbers all together and just started using svn to update everything.
Now they've changed yet again and they're using snapshots based on dates, which is a little more reasonable.
But then again, e17 was begun in 2000, so it's been "in development" for 9 years now and things are bound to get a little confused (even though it's been used in commercial OSes [wikipedia.org] already).
It is getting done slowly, but by the time they "release" it, it's going to be so far out of date it's not even funny.
They've already had to redo the default theme because it looked dated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693757</id>
	<title>openSUSE version numbers</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1247597580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>openSUSE has its version numbers due to marketing, or at least somewhat.<br>SLE goes 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. openSUSE goes around that. In general the version just befor a new SLE is X.0, the ones after that X.1 S.2 and so on, till they start with the Y.0.</p><p>The whole process of development is continues.</p><p>The strange thing is that many people still think that the X.0 is beta and will wait for X.1. I have seen differences that are huge between e.g. X.1 and X.2 and minor differences between X.3 and Y.0 and it has been confirmed by SUSE people that the numbering in itself means nothing in a technical sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>openSUSE has its version numbers due to marketing , or at least somewhat.SLE goes 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12. openSUSE goes around that .
In general the version just befor a new SLE is X.0 , the ones after that X.1 S.2 and so on , till they start with the Y.0.The whole process of development is continues.The strange thing is that many people still think that the X.0 is beta and will wait for X.1 .
I have seen differences that are huge between e.g .
X.1 and X.2 and minor differences between X.3 and Y.0 and it has been confirmed by SUSE people that the numbering in itself means nothing in a technical sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>openSUSE has its version numbers due to marketing, or at least somewhat.SLE goes 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. openSUSE goes around that.
In general the version just befor a new SLE is X.0, the ones after that X.1 S.2 and so on, till they start with the Y.0.The whole process of development is continues.The strange thing is that many people still think that the X.0 is beta and will wait for X.1.
I have seen differences that are huge between e.g.
X.1 and X.2 and minor differences between X.3 and Y.0 and it has been confirmed by SUSE people that the numbering in itself means nothing in a technical sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693105</id>
	<title>What&#226;(TM)s the highest version number ever?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247595000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know what is the highest version number ever, but I know that it is bigger than 23.</p><p>The latest stable release of the unix programm "less" is 429.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what is the highest version number ever , but I know that it is bigger than 23.The latest stable release of the unix programm " less " is 429 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what is the highest version number ever, but I know that it is bigger than 23.The latest stable release of the unix programm "less" is 429.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694397</id>
	<title>What ever happened to AOL 1.0?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247600460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Was 2.0 twice as good?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was 2.0 twice as good ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was 2.0 twice as good?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28700153</id>
	<title>Re:os x</title>
	<author>kybred</author>
	<datestamp>1247593080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm looking forward to these OS X releases:

<p>Heathcliff</p><p>Garfield</p><p>Mr. Bigglesworth</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm looking forward to these OS X releases : HeathcliffGarfieldMr .
Bigglesworth</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm looking forward to these OS X releases:

HeathcliffGarfieldMr.
Bigglesworth</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694497</id>
	<title>Metals</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1247600940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gold, Platinum, Platinum Plus were all substitutes for proper versioning in the 1980s and probably 1990s. This is parodied by many a perl script,</p><p>$ua-&gt;agent("Schmozilla/v9.14 Platinum"); # give it time, it'll get there</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gold , Platinum , Platinum Plus were all substitutes for proper versioning in the 1980s and probably 1990s .
This is parodied by many a perl script , $ ua- &gt; agent ( " Schmozilla/v9.14 Platinum " ) ; # give it time , it 'll get there</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gold, Platinum, Platinum Plus were all substitutes for proper versioning in the 1980s and probably 1990s.
This is parodied by many a perl script,$ua-&gt;agent("Schmozilla/v9.14 Platinum"); # give it time, it'll get there</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693025</id>
	<title>Ruby programmers seem not to get it</title>
	<author>superdana</author>
	<datestamp>1247594700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is one of the most irritating things about working in Ruby. Most of the people writing gems don't seem to have ever learned version numbering conventions, so it's not at all uncommon to have a point release (e.g., 1.1.2 -&gt; 1.1.3) that breaks API compatibility. The Merb folks have been the worst offenders, in my experience.<br>
The most irritating thing about this is that the documentation for the gem system has an entire section devoted to version numbers. It very clearly explains the major/minor/bug fix convention. Evidently nobody has read it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one of the most irritating things about working in Ruby .
Most of the people writing gems do n't seem to have ever learned version numbering conventions , so it 's not at all uncommon to have a point release ( e.g. , 1.1.2 - &gt; 1.1.3 ) that breaks API compatibility .
The Merb folks have been the worst offenders , in my experience .
The most irritating thing about this is that the documentation for the gem system has an entire section devoted to version numbers .
It very clearly explains the major/minor/bug fix convention .
Evidently nobody has read it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one of the most irritating things about working in Ruby.
Most of the people writing gems don't seem to have ever learned version numbering conventions, so it's not at all uncommon to have a point release (e.g., 1.1.2 -&gt; 1.1.3) that breaks API compatibility.
The Merb folks have been the worst offenders, in my experience.
The most irritating thing about this is that the documentation for the gem system has an entire section devoted to version numbers.
It very clearly explains the major/minor/bug fix convention.
Evidently nobody has read it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28699427</id>
	<title>Just a number</title>
	<author>cfriedt</author>
	<datestamp>1247586600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Honestly, branches and forks aside (or not), software revisions should be marked with an integer. I vaguely remember that Linus wanted to start doing the same for the kernel.

Similarly, for those who like to append the date as a revision number - smarten up and start using the YYYYMMDD format - it's an integer that always sorts in the correct order, at least until the year 9999 + 1.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , branches and forks aside ( or not ) , software revisions should be marked with an integer .
I vaguely remember that Linus wanted to start doing the same for the kernel .
Similarly , for those who like to append the date as a revision number - smarten up and start using the YYYYMMDD format - it 's an integer that always sorts in the correct order , at least until the year 9999 + 1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, branches and forks aside (or not), software revisions should be marked with an integer.
I vaguely remember that Linus wanted to start doing the same for the kernel.
Similarly, for those who like to append the date as a revision number - smarten up and start using the YYYYMMDD format - it's an integer that always sorts in the correct order, at least until the year 9999 + 1.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28700977</id>
	<title>Re:I don't know what to do about 1.10 and beyond</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247648760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The solution: 1.A, 1.B, 1.C... 1.Z.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The solution : 1.A , 1.B , 1.C... 1.Z .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The solution: 1.A, 1.B, 1.C... 1.Z.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692251</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693377</id>
	<title>Matlab Does it All</title>
	<author>cabbi</author>
	<datestamp>1247596080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Matlab is my favorite for bizaar version numbers.  I have for example Maltab Version 7.0.1.24704 (R14) Service Pack 1.</p><p>Not only does it have the standard Major.minor.bugfix numeric structure, but it has a marketed Release number (R14) AND it has a Microsoft style Service Pack number AND it has an automated build number!?!</p><p>Makes you wonder how they all relate to one another.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Matlab is my favorite for bizaar version numbers .
I have for example Maltab Version 7.0.1.24704 ( R14 ) Service Pack 1.Not only does it have the standard Major.minor.bugfix numeric structure , but it has a marketed Release number ( R14 ) AND it has a Microsoft style Service Pack number AND it has an automated build number ! ?
! Makes you wonder how they all relate to one another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Matlab is my favorite for bizaar version numbers.
I have for example Maltab Version 7.0.1.24704 (R14) Service Pack 1.Not only does it have the standard Major.minor.bugfix numeric structure, but it has a marketed Release number (R14) AND it has a Microsoft style Service Pack number AND it has an automated build number!?
!Makes you wonder how they all relate to one another.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692553</id>
	<title>Word for Windows version numbers</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1247592780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure if the step in Word for Windows version numbers really was because of WordPerfect. Prior to 6.0, Microsoft had two independent Word release series: The original Word running on DOS, which already had reached version 5, and Word for Windows, which only had reached version 2. With Word 6, the DOS and Windows version numbers got synchronized; since 5 was the latest DOS version number, it made sense to use 6 next.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure if the step in Word for Windows version numbers really was because of WordPerfect .
Prior to 6.0 , Microsoft had two independent Word release series : The original Word running on DOS , which already had reached version 5 , and Word for Windows , which only had reached version 2 .
With Word 6 , the DOS and Windows version numbers got synchronized ; since 5 was the latest DOS version number , it made sense to use 6 next .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure if the step in Word for Windows version numbers really was because of WordPerfect.
Prior to 6.0, Microsoft had two independent Word release series: The original Word running on DOS, which already had reached version 5, and Word for Windows, which only had reached version 2.
With Word 6, the DOS and Windows version numbers got synchronized; since 5 was the latest DOS version number, it made sense to use 6 next.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28700689</id>
	<title>every build engineer has ..</title>
	<author>chef\_raekwon</author>
	<datestamp>1247599920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>likely responded to this, and so shall I.</p><p>as part of the scm world -- i like to be true to a real dotted quad notation when referring to build versions.  i've never really built code that is deployed to the public world<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. only code used on company production servers for public consumption (mostly java based web sites, and middleware)</p><p>1.2.3.4 =  Major level 1, Minor level 2, Patch 3, Build 4.</p><p>Major = major release. no longer compatible with previous versions.<br>Minor = minor release, still compatible with previous versions (with same Major)<br>Patch = the number of patch builds required to get to latest production patched code<br>Build = the daily build number. increments by 1 until dev/qa is complete, and code is released to Staging servers.</p><p>build numbers stop, once patching starts.  the patching denotes the patch to last known good build.</p><p>ie -- dev/qa releases should always be num.num.zero,buildnum. (1.2.0.40)<br>once released to staging - and if a patch is required -- the rev increments as such for the first patch - 1.2.1.40. second patch 1.2.2.40, and so on.<br>once in production -- wait until next release.</p><p>if code is released to the public, and not running on a company's servers -- always drop the build number.  so, if you're delivering 1.2.2.40 binaries to the public, cut it down to 1.2.2 and deliver your rpm/pkg/deb, etc to the world.</p><p>if this confuses you, im available for hire at your location.  references available upon request.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>likely responded to this , and so shall I.as part of the scm world -- i like to be true to a real dotted quad notation when referring to build versions .
i 've never really built code that is deployed to the public world .. only code used on company production servers for public consumption ( mostly java based web sites , and middleware ) 1.2.3.4 = Major level 1 , Minor level 2 , Patch 3 , Build 4.Major = major release .
no longer compatible with previous versions.Minor = minor release , still compatible with previous versions ( with same Major ) Patch = the number of patch builds required to get to latest production patched codeBuild = the daily build number .
increments by 1 until dev/qa is complete , and code is released to Staging servers.build numbers stop , once patching starts .
the patching denotes the patch to last known good build.ie -- dev/qa releases should always be num.num.zero,buildnum .
( 1.2.0.40 ) once released to staging - and if a patch is required -- the rev increments as such for the first patch - 1.2.1.40. second patch 1.2.2.40 , and so on.once in production -- wait until next release.if code is released to the public , and not running on a company 's servers -- always drop the build number .
so , if you 're delivering 1.2.2.40 binaries to the public , cut it down to 1.2.2 and deliver your rpm/pkg/deb , etc to the world.if this confuses you , im available for hire at your location .
references available upon request .
: p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>likely responded to this, and so shall I.as part of the scm world -- i like to be true to a real dotted quad notation when referring to build versions.
i've never really built code that is deployed to the public world .. only code used on company production servers for public consumption (mostly java based web sites, and middleware)1.2.3.4 =  Major level 1, Minor level 2, Patch 3, Build 4.Major = major release.
no longer compatible with previous versions.Minor = minor release, still compatible with previous versions (with same Major)Patch = the number of patch builds required to get to latest production patched codeBuild = the daily build number.
increments by 1 until dev/qa is complete, and code is released to Staging servers.build numbers stop, once patching starts.
the patching denotes the patch to last known good build.ie -- dev/qa releases should always be num.num.zero,buildnum.
(1.2.0.40)once released to staging - and if a patch is required -- the rev increments as such for the first patch - 1.2.1.40. second patch 1.2.2.40, and so on.once in production -- wait until next release.if code is released to the public, and not running on a company's servers -- always drop the build number.
so, if you're delivering 1.2.2.40 binaries to the public, cut it down to 1.2.2 and deliver your rpm/pkg/deb, etc to the world.if this confuses you, im available for hire at your location.
references available upon request.
:p</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28695657</id>
	<title>Here's how I interpret them numbers...</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1247563380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A.B.C.D</p><p>A: Major Release, really freaking hard. Will probably deprive you of sleep for a day or two. Start with backups, and test the backups before you bother.</p><p>B: Minor Release. Probably will not hork your computer, but will randomly do so.</p><p>C: Some number that I pretty much ignore.</p><p>D: LOL Wut?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A.B.C.DA : Major Release , really freaking hard .
Will probably deprive you of sleep for a day or two .
Start with backups , and test the backups before you bother.B : Minor Release .
Probably will not hork your computer , but will randomly do so.C : Some number that I pretty much ignore.D : LOL Wut ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A.B.C.DA: Major Release, really freaking hard.
Will probably deprive you of sleep for a day or two.
Start with backups, and test the backups before you bother.B: Minor Release.
Probably will not hork your computer, but will randomly do so.C: Some number that I pretty much ignore.D: LOL Wut?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692849</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28696241</id>
	<title>First Post 5.2 SP2 Build 23543 FixPack11 HotFix#3</title>
	<author>JAlexoi</author>
	<datestamp>1247565660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>First Post 5.2 SP2 Build 23543 FixPack11 HotFix#3243</b>

<br>The usable version</htmltext>
<tokenext>First Post 5.2 SP2 Build 23543 FixPack11 HotFix # 3243 The usable version</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First Post 5.2 SP2 Build 23543 FixPack11 HotFix#3243

The usable version</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693547</id>
	<title>Highest Version Known</title>
	<author>nullman</author>
	<datestamp>1247596680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article, "...the highest version number I know of belongs to Broderbund's The Print Shop 23..."</p><p>Emacs' next version will be 23.  Let the race begin!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article , " ...the highest version number I know of belongs to Broderbund 's The Print Shop 23... " Emacs ' next version will be 23 .
Let the race begin !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article, "...the highest version number I know of belongs to Broderbund's The Print Shop 23..."Emacs' next version will be 23.
Let the race begin!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692653</id>
	<title>Re:0.97 0.98 0.99 ???</title>
	<author>Aqualung812</author>
	<datestamp>1247593260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is pretty silly, IMHO.  I always thought 0.99 &gt; 0.100.   If they didn't want to go to 1.0, sounds like they needed to start going<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.97001,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.097002, etc...</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is pretty silly , IMHO .
I always thought 0.99 &gt; 0.100 .
If they did n't want to go to 1.0 , sounds like they needed to start going .97001 , .097002 , etc.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is pretty silly, IMHO.
I always thought 0.99 &gt; 0.100.
If they didn't want to go to 1.0, sounds like they needed to start going .97001, .097002, etc...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692529</id>
	<title>Oracle</title>
	<author>Major Blud</author>
	<datestamp>1247592660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My favorite has always been Oracle.  The first commercial release of their flagship DB was version 2.0.  There wasn't a version 1 because they wanted the product to sound more mature.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My favorite has always been Oracle .
The first commercial release of their flagship DB was version 2.0 .
There was n't a version 1 because they wanted the product to sound more mature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My favorite has always been Oracle.
The first commercial release of their flagship DB was version 2.0.
There wasn't a version 1 because they wanted the product to sound more mature.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692607</id>
	<title>Read it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247593020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, that's 4 minutes of my life I'll never get back.

Chrissssst... I'm a geek and even I thought that was dull.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , that 's 4 minutes of my life I 'll never get back .
Chrissssst... I 'm a geek and even I thought that was dull .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, that's 4 minutes of my life I'll never get back.
Chrissssst... I'm a geek and even I thought that was dull.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693169</id>
	<title>Re:Irrational numbers</title>
	<author>Bigby</author>
	<datestamp>1247595240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This was brought up in the article.  It is a great way to do it if you are only adding bug fixes (like in the case of TeX).  The goal of TeX is to be bug-free just like the goal of the version is to be &#207;.  You can keep getting closer and closer and never really get there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This was brought up in the article .
It is a great way to do it if you are only adding bug fixes ( like in the case of TeX ) .
The goal of TeX is to be bug-free just like the goal of the version is to be   .
You can keep getting closer and closer and never really get there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was brought up in the article.
It is a great way to do it if you are only adding bug fixes (like in the case of TeX).
The goal of TeX is to be bug-free just like the goal of the version is to be Ï.
You can keep getting closer and closer and never really get there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692231</id>
	<title>Different people, different numbering schemes.</title>
	<author>mrjb</author>
	<datestamp>1247591520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally I use the following numbering scheme:
<br> <br>
major.minor.revisionXY
<br> <br>
where the major number is 0 before the software is feature complete (based on original roadmap), 1 means feature complete, and this tends to increment when a full rewrite is done; minor are various milestones, and 'revision' are bugfix releases.
<br> <br>
XY may be 'alpha','alpha2','alpha3', 'beta','rc1'.
<br> <br>
So if you see a version number 0.9.3beta, you'll know it is an almost feature complete version, third bugfix but otherwise untested (beta) release. I tend to use 'alpha' if I *KNOW* there are serious bugs in the software (even if this technically not what alpha is supposed to mean).
<br> <br>
But everyone is free to use various numbering schemes. Odd numbers for unstable releases? Go ahead, but personally I just find that a bit odd.
<br> <br>
If you want a simpler version number scheme, just show the build number (or version control revision number) in your software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I use the following numbering scheme : major.minor.revisionXY where the major number is 0 before the software is feature complete ( based on original roadmap ) , 1 means feature complete , and this tends to increment when a full rewrite is done ; minor are various milestones , and 'revision ' are bugfix releases .
XY may be 'alpha','alpha2','alpha3 ' , 'beta','rc1' .
So if you see a version number 0.9.3beta , you 'll know it is an almost feature complete version , third bugfix but otherwise untested ( beta ) release .
I tend to use 'alpha ' if I * KNOW * there are serious bugs in the software ( even if this technically not what alpha is supposed to mean ) .
But everyone is free to use various numbering schemes .
Odd numbers for unstable releases ?
Go ahead , but personally I just find that a bit odd .
If you want a simpler version number scheme , just show the build number ( or version control revision number ) in your software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I use the following numbering scheme:
 
major.minor.revisionXY
 
where the major number is 0 before the software is feature complete (based on original roadmap), 1 means feature complete, and this tends to increment when a full rewrite is done; minor are various milestones, and 'revision' are bugfix releases.
XY may be 'alpha','alpha2','alpha3', 'beta','rc1'.
So if you see a version number 0.9.3beta, you'll know it is an almost feature complete version, third bugfix but otherwise untested (beta) release.
I tend to use 'alpha' if I *KNOW* there are serious bugs in the software (even if this technically not what alpha is supposed to mean).
But everyone is free to use various numbering schemes.
Odd numbers for unstable releases?
Go ahead, but personally I just find that a bit odd.
If you want a simpler version number scheme, just show the build number (or version control revision number) in your software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693993</id>
	<title>Re:w/r/t Windows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247598600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(I was the performance test engineer for Vista update services during the initial release of Vista)</p></div><p>You poor poor soul...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( I was the performance test engineer for Vista update services during the initial release of Vista ) You poor poor soul.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(I was the performance test engineer for Vista update services during the initial release of Vista)You poor poor soul...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28700201</id>
	<title>Re:What now?</title>
	<author>cusco</author>
	<datestamp>1247593620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow.  This is the longest that I have EVER seen a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. discussion actually stay on topic.  Ever.  And I was reading for a couple of years before I ever created the first account (which I lost), and then another year or two before I created this one.  I guess the trick is to make the subject unutterably boring.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
This is the longest that I have EVER seen a / .
discussion actually stay on topic .
Ever. And I was reading for a couple of years before I ever created the first account ( which I lost ) , and then another year or two before I created this one .
I guess the trick is to make the subject unutterably boring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
This is the longest that I have EVER seen a /.
discussion actually stay on topic.
Ever.  And I was reading for a couple of years before I ever created the first account (which I lost), and then another year or two before I created this one.
I guess the trick is to make the subject unutterably boring.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28705609</id>
	<title>Linus Torvalds version numbers...</title>
	<author>descubes</author>
	<datestamp>1247682900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just upgraded to Linux version e9e961c9a818a2f24711af493b907a8e40a69efc, I was using 79fbe134832ebb70a49d8802cfeb2401dc35bb38 before.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just upgraded to Linux version e9e961c9a818a2f24711af493b907a8e40a69efc , I was using 79fbe134832ebb70a49d8802cfeb2401dc35bb38 before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just upgraded to Linux version e9e961c9a818a2f24711af493b907a8e40a69efc, I was using 79fbe134832ebb70a49d8802cfeb2401dc35bb38 before.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693301</id>
	<title>Re:0.97 0.98 0.99 ???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247595840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh I get it.... Polly, No-Meal...</p><p>http://www.spinnerdisc.com/einstein3.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh I get it.... Polly , No-Meal...http : //www.spinnerdisc.com/einstein3.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh I get it.... Polly, No-Meal...http://www.spinnerdisc.com/einstein3.html</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694943</id>
	<title>Re:What now?</title>
	<author>Ant P.</author>
	<datestamp>1247603220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is this <em>decimal<em>? I've used mixed decimal/hexadecimal major/minor numbers in the past. Just because I can.</em></em></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is this decimal ?
I 've used mixed decimal/hexadecimal major/minor numbers in the past .
Just because I can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is this decimal?
I've used mixed decimal/hexadecimal major/minor numbers in the past.
Just because I can.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28754901</id>
	<title>Re:First Post 5.0</title>
	<author>craagz</author>
	<datestamp>1248096240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Winamp jumped from version 3 to Version 5 saying, the version 5 is so good they had to skip 4. I liked it very much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Winamp jumped from version 3 to Version 5 saying , the version 5 is so good they had to skip 4 .
I liked it very much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Winamp jumped from version 3 to Version 5 saying, the version 5 is so good they had to skip 4.
I liked it very much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694713</id>
	<title>Please tell me more.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247602020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>(I was the performance test engineer for Vista update services during the initial release of Vista)</p></div></blockquote><p>What is your postal address?  I would like to send you a large sack by mail.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( I was the performance test engineer for Vista update services during the initial release of Vista ) What is your postal address ?
I would like to send you a large sack by mail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(I was the performance test engineer for Vista update services during the initial release of Vista)What is your postal address?
I would like to send you a large sack by mail.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693259</id>
	<title>Version 13</title>
	<author>Chrutil</author>
	<datestamp>1247595660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article asks "has anyone ever been brave enough to sell a version 13 of anything?"<br>
There was AutoCAD Release 13 back in the day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article asks " has anyone ever been brave enough to sell a version 13 of anything ?
" There was AutoCAD Release 13 back in the day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article asks "has anyone ever been brave enough to sell a version 13 of anything?
"
There was AutoCAD Release 13 back in the day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28695149
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28700153
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28703789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692983
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28696415
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28700379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28695735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693993
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28701739
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28696241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28703817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28700977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28712253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28702035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28698007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28699803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28704719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28696579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28695657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28696039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28695597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28697265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692875
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693037
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28700681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28702477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28695011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28696219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693851
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28696813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28754901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28696215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28696285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28700201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1546253_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1546253.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692927
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1546253.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28703789
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1546253.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694253
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1546253.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693105
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1546253.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28702477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28695149
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1546253.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692529
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693401
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692835
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28697265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693497
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28696579
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1546253.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692643
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692581
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1546253.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28700201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694943
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1546253.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28696215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692263
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1546253.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692473
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1546253.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692445
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28703817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28695735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692863
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28698007
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694685
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693207
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693417
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693519
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28700153
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1546253.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693173
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1546253.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28696241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28754901
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1546253.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692653
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694351
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693301
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693069
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1546253.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693169
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1546253.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28695159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1546253.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692277
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1546253.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692765
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1546253.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692875
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693037
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28700681
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1546253.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692585
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692921
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693125
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1546253.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692251
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28700977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694389
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1546253.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28695997
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1546253.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693451
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1546253.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28695597
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1546253.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692767
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28696219
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1546253.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692231
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693739
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28712253
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28696285
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28696813
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1546253.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694093
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1546253.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693549
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694285
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28701739
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1546253.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28699803
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1546253.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692853
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28702035
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694117
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28704719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692903
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693881
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28695011
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693851
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693993
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694713
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28694521
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693603
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1546253.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28695657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28696039
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1546253.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692983
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28696415
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1546253.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692349
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28700379
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1546253.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28692997
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1546253.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1546253.28693813
</commentlist>
</conversation>
