<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_20_1756215</id>
	<title>IBM's Answer To Windows 7 Is Ubuntu Linux</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1256039820000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"It looks like IBM isn't much of a friend of Microsoft's anymore. Today IBM announced an <a href="http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2009/10/ibm-and-ubuntu-roll-linux-for.html">extension of its Microsoft-Free PC effort</a> together with Canonical Ubuntu Linux. This is the same thing that was announced a few weeks back <a href="http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2009/09/ibm-markets-linux-netbook-for.html">for Africa</a> (a program that began a year ago), and now it's available in the US. The big push is that IBM claims it will cost up to $2,000 for a business to move to Windows 7. They argue that moving to Linux is cheaper."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " It looks like IBM is n't much of a friend of Microsoft 's anymore .
Today IBM announced an extension of its Microsoft-Free PC effort together with Canonical Ubuntu Linux .
This is the same thing that was announced a few weeks back for Africa ( a program that began a year ago ) , and now it 's available in the US .
The big push is that IBM claims it will cost up to $ 2,000 for a business to move to Windows 7 .
They argue that moving to Linux is cheaper .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "It looks like IBM isn't much of a friend of Microsoft's anymore.
Today IBM announced an extension of its Microsoft-Free PC effort together with Canonical Ubuntu Linux.
This is the same thing that was announced a few weeks back for Africa (a program that began a year ago), and now it's available in the US.
The big push is that IBM claims it will cost up to $2,000 for a business to move to Windows 7.
They argue that moving to Linux is cheaper.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29830559</id>
	<title>Re:Misguided</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256131080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Go and spend 24 hours or so on Ubuntu's forums before you try and tell me it is stable.</p></div><p> <i>That's</i> your argument against Ubuntu?  Do you know just how many forums are dedicated to solving various Windows fuckups?</p></div><p>And you know Microsoft's OS market share is only about 90-95 times bigger then Ubuntu... Obviously there are gonna be more forums.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Go and spend 24 hours or so on Ubuntu 's forums before you try and tell me it is stable .
That 's your argument against Ubuntu ?
Do you know just how many forums are dedicated to solving various Windows fuckups ? And you know Microsoft 's OS market share is only about 90-95 times bigger then Ubuntu... Obviously there are gon na be more forums .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go and spend 24 hours or so on Ubuntu's forums before you try and tell me it is stable.
That's your argument against Ubuntu?
Do you know just how many forums are dedicated to solving various Windows fuckups?And you know Microsoft's OS market share is only about 90-95 times bigger then Ubuntu... Obviously there are gonna be more forums.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29822011</id>
	<title>Re:Misguided</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256132340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. In fact I couldn't agree more. People are used to (lets even say addicted) to the interface of M$ and on psychological level they won't give up so easy on that drug. However there will come the time when every1 that had the chance to overcome this will see the benefits that the OpenSource have to offer.<br>It just happens I am working on Ubuntu in my company right now.. there are windows users as well.. (here we choose what fits us best).. Well I can say with confidence - I have no single issue since I tuned up my laptop with Ubuntu.. and here comes the surprise - guess how many work hours we spend weekly to solve Windows "minor" issues. Like anti-virus, anti-spam, anti-$, and anti-stress problems.</p><p>Well It also happens I am a sysadmin and maybe I feel better in the environment of the consoles, but heyy.. I also have colleges that are also running Ubuntu and the only thing I had to do for them is install XMMS because they liked it.</p><p>After I believe there is time for the wind of change to blow little harder - Good Job on IBM.. In fact I hope more will follow. I don't want to pay for License for (from my perspective) the crappy and viril addicted OS of M$. And thx god (Im non-believer - it is just an expression) there is better choice (for me).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
In fact I could n't agree more .
People are used to ( lets even say addicted ) to the interface of M $ and on psychological level they wo n't give up so easy on that drug .
However there will come the time when every1 that had the chance to overcome this will see the benefits that the OpenSource have to offer.It just happens I am working on Ubuntu in my company right now.. there are windows users as well.. ( here we choose what fits us best ) .. Well I can say with confidence - I have no single issue since I tuned up my laptop with Ubuntu.. and here comes the surprise - guess how many work hours we spend weekly to solve Windows " minor " issues .
Like anti-virus , anti-spam , anti- $ , and anti-stress problems.Well It also happens I am a sysadmin and maybe I feel better in the environment of the consoles , but heyy.. I also have colleges that are also running Ubuntu and the only thing I had to do for them is install XMMS because they liked it.After I believe there is time for the wind of change to blow little harder - Good Job on IBM.. In fact I hope more will follow .
I do n't want to pay for License for ( from my perspective ) the crappy and viril addicted OS of M $ .
And thx god ( Im non-believer - it is just an expression ) there is better choice ( for me ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
In fact I couldn't agree more.
People are used to (lets even say addicted) to the interface of M$ and on psychological level they won't give up so easy on that drug.
However there will come the time when every1 that had the chance to overcome this will see the benefits that the OpenSource have to offer.It just happens I am working on Ubuntu in my company right now.. there are windows users as well.. (here we choose what fits us best).. Well I can say with confidence - I have no single issue since I tuned up my laptop with Ubuntu.. and here comes the surprise - guess how many work hours we spend weekly to solve Windows "minor" issues.
Like anti-virus, anti-spam, anti-$, and anti-stress problems.Well It also happens I am a sysadmin and maybe I feel better in the environment of the consoles, but heyy.. I also have colleges that are also running Ubuntu and the only thing I had to do for them is install XMMS because they liked it.After I believe there is time for the wind of change to blow little harder - Good Job on IBM.. In fact I hope more will follow.
I don't want to pay for License for (from my perspective) the crappy and viril addicted OS of M$.
And thx god (Im non-believer - it is just an expression) there is better choice (for me).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817637</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>SleepingWaterBear</author>
	<datestamp>1256047980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't know of anything similar in the Linux Desktop Environment to Windows Access Control or the other programs that are out there. Does anyone else?</p></div><p>The reason you don't know of Linux programs that let you lock down the desktop is that no such program is needed.  A default Linux install will allow you to control access to files and programs on a user by user, or user group basis without the need for extra software.  It will take a little bit more expertise than using some program with a gui on windows might, but it also allows much greater control of precisely what user can do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know of anything similar in the Linux Desktop Environment to Windows Access Control or the other programs that are out there .
Does anyone else ? The reason you do n't know of Linux programs that let you lock down the desktop is that no such program is needed .
A default Linux install will allow you to control access to files and programs on a user by user , or user group basis without the need for extra software .
It will take a little bit more expertise than using some program with a gui on windows might , but it also allows much greater control of precisely what user can do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know of anything similar in the Linux Desktop Environment to Windows Access Control or the other programs that are out there.
Does anyone else?The reason you don't know of Linux programs that let you lock down the desktop is that no such program is needed.
A default Linux install will allow you to control access to files and programs on a user by user, or user group basis without the need for extra software.
It will take a little bit more expertise than using some program with a gui on windows might, but it also allows much greater control of precisely what user can do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29836593</id>
	<title>Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over</title>
	<author>thtrgremlin</author>
	<datestamp>1256232660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is silly. There is HUGE competition in FlOSS. If your motive is good software, then getting good software is what you are working for. FlOSS isn't any more silly or less competitive for that matter than those that work for fiat money. People work to make better software to make the software better. In the same respect, people don't remodel their homes to ensure that contractors make a good living, they pay the contractor so that they can get a better home. If you lived with a contractor than the contractor could have the same motive as you and currency wouldn't be a rule of the game in that respect. There is still competition because not everyone is a contractor and each individual needs to consider their responsibilities and priorities.<br> <br>Lets just say that every person and every programmer need a word processor just like every contractor and non-contractor need homes. Rather than starting from scratch, lets say there are several descent FlOSS word processors out there, but none that perfectly meet the needs of a programmer. The programmer now has a motive to consider whether they should take some of their free time and help one of those projects tend towards perfect. It may seem as simple as finding the project that is closest to their idea of perfect, but there are many things to consider. Project age, developer turn over, community cohesion, coding guidelines, and much more. He could even find motive in getting several of his favorite projects to share some of the best features with each other. Maybe he will pick a favorite and then start his own project to address some small issue that just effects him.<br> <br>He may consider these things or could instead could compare that to the cost of a proprietary solution and compare the difference in needs met between the proprietary solution and existing FlOSS solution. So maybe $250 for a proprietary solution, or putting in five hours of expert programming skill and experience to add a few things to an existing project... which ends up becoming fun and you forget where the time went and you accidental put in 100 hours. There are many ways you could balance it, and some may say great, others may say you are under valuing your time, but cool you contributed to something that will make the world a better place, whatever.<br> <br>If there is even a debate consider instead a company with 10,000 employees with computers. Lets say for the sake of argument Microsoft will Sell you Word for the generous discount of $50 per user, and $20 every 2 years for upgrades. Compare that to Floss that almost, but does not, meet your long term needs. So we got $500,000 start up cost, plus the need to set aside about $25,000 a quarter towards upgrades.<br> <br>So the choice is give your money to another company and hope they spend it wisely and that the software grows with your business, or take responsibility for the resources that power your company and hire a team of programmers to develop what you need on top of the existing infrastructure of FlOSS. Of course if you don't know what your software does for you, I expect it would be difficult to manage a team of programmers, but buying or using any software would be a challenge whatever way you go.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is silly .
There is HUGE competition in FlOSS .
If your motive is good software , then getting good software is what you are working for .
FlOSS is n't any more silly or less competitive for that matter than those that work for fiat money .
People work to make better software to make the software better .
In the same respect , people do n't remodel their homes to ensure that contractors make a good living , they pay the contractor so that they can get a better home .
If you lived with a contractor than the contractor could have the same motive as you and currency would n't be a rule of the game in that respect .
There is still competition because not everyone is a contractor and each individual needs to consider their responsibilities and priorities .
Lets just say that every person and every programmer need a word processor just like every contractor and non-contractor need homes .
Rather than starting from scratch , lets say there are several descent FlOSS word processors out there , but none that perfectly meet the needs of a programmer .
The programmer now has a motive to consider whether they should take some of their free time and help one of those projects tend towards perfect .
It may seem as simple as finding the project that is closest to their idea of perfect , but there are many things to consider .
Project age , developer turn over , community cohesion , coding guidelines , and much more .
He could even find motive in getting several of his favorite projects to share some of the best features with each other .
Maybe he will pick a favorite and then start his own project to address some small issue that just effects him .
He may consider these things or could instead could compare that to the cost of a proprietary solution and compare the difference in needs met between the proprietary solution and existing FlOSS solution .
So maybe $ 250 for a proprietary solution , or putting in five hours of expert programming skill and experience to add a few things to an existing project... which ends up becoming fun and you forget where the time went and you accidental put in 100 hours .
There are many ways you could balance it , and some may say great , others may say you are under valuing your time , but cool you contributed to something that will make the world a better place , whatever .
If there is even a debate consider instead a company with 10,000 employees with computers .
Lets say for the sake of argument Microsoft will Sell you Word for the generous discount of $ 50 per user , and $ 20 every 2 years for upgrades .
Compare that to Floss that almost , but does not , meet your long term needs .
So we got $ 500,000 start up cost , plus the need to set aside about $ 25,000 a quarter towards upgrades .
So the choice is give your money to another company and hope they spend it wisely and that the software grows with your business , or take responsibility for the resources that power your company and hire a team of programmers to develop what you need on top of the existing infrastructure of FlOSS .
Of course if you do n't know what your software does for you , I expect it would be difficult to manage a team of programmers , but buying or using any software would be a challenge whatever way you go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is silly.
There is HUGE competition in FlOSS.
If your motive is good software, then getting good software is what you are working for.
FlOSS isn't any more silly or less competitive for that matter than those that work for fiat money.
People work to make better software to make the software better.
In the same respect, people don't remodel their homes to ensure that contractors make a good living, they pay the contractor so that they can get a better home.
If you lived with a contractor than the contractor could have the same motive as you and currency wouldn't be a rule of the game in that respect.
There is still competition because not everyone is a contractor and each individual needs to consider their responsibilities and priorities.
Lets just say that every person and every programmer need a word processor just like every contractor and non-contractor need homes.
Rather than starting from scratch, lets say there are several descent FlOSS word processors out there, but none that perfectly meet the needs of a programmer.
The programmer now has a motive to consider whether they should take some of their free time and help one of those projects tend towards perfect.
It may seem as simple as finding the project that is closest to their idea of perfect, but there are many things to consider.
Project age, developer turn over, community cohesion, coding guidelines, and much more.
He could even find motive in getting several of his favorite projects to share some of the best features with each other.
Maybe he will pick a favorite and then start his own project to address some small issue that just effects him.
He may consider these things or could instead could compare that to the cost of a proprietary solution and compare the difference in needs met between the proprietary solution and existing FlOSS solution.
So maybe $250 for a proprietary solution, or putting in five hours of expert programming skill and experience to add a few things to an existing project... which ends up becoming fun and you forget where the time went and you accidental put in 100 hours.
There are many ways you could balance it, and some may say great, others may say you are under valuing your time, but cool you contributed to something that will make the world a better place, whatever.
If there is even a debate consider instead a company with 10,000 employees with computers.
Lets say for the sake of argument Microsoft will Sell you Word for the generous discount of $50 per user, and $20 every 2 years for upgrades.
Compare that to Floss that almost, but does not, meet your long term needs.
So we got $500,000 start up cost, plus the need to set aside about $25,000 a quarter towards upgrades.
So the choice is give your money to another company and hope they spend it wisely and that the software grows with your business, or take responsibility for the resources that power your company and hire a team of programmers to develop what you need on top of the existing infrastructure of FlOSS.
Of course if you don't know what your software does for you, I expect it would be difficult to manage a team of programmers, but buying or using any software would be a challenge whatever way you go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816807</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819577</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256061420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>you really think they are going to want to essentially re-learn everything?</p></div><p>I remember hearing that same argument in the early 90s about why WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 could not be replaced. Guess what? They were replaced. Funny how people can learn new software when they have to.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>you really think they are going to want to essentially re-learn everything ? I remember hearing that same argument in the early 90s about why WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 could not be replaced .
Guess what ?
They were replaced .
Funny how people can learn new software when they have to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you really think they are going to want to essentially re-learn everything?I remember hearing that same argument in the early 90s about why WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 could not be replaced.
Guess what?
They were replaced.
Funny how people can learn new software when they have to.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29826169</id>
	<title>Re:Misguided</title>
	<author>heteromonomer</author>
	<datestamp>1256151900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't agree with some of the parent but he does make good points. Definitely not deserving of the troll mod he got. But then this is what happens if you say something against any linux</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't agree with some of the parent but he does make good points .
Definitely not deserving of the troll mod he got .
But then this is what happens if you say something against any linux</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't agree with some of the parent but he does make good points.
Definitely not deserving of the troll mod he got.
But then this is what happens if you say something against any linux</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817241</id>
	<title>Re:IBM's answer to Windows 3.1 was OS/2 Warp...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256045820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it was more Windows 3.1 was an answer to a (still at the time unfinished) OS/2. Microsoft got out of the arrangement, and used the knowledge to produce windows 3.1</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it was more Windows 3.1 was an answer to a ( still at the time unfinished ) OS/2 .
Microsoft got out of the arrangement , and used the knowledge to produce windows 3.1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it was more Windows 3.1 was an answer to a (still at the time unfinished) OS/2.
Microsoft got out of the arrangement, and used the knowledge to produce windows 3.1</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818761</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1256055000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I wonder how IBM arrived at the result of $2000.</i></p><p>Actually I wonder how slashdot arrived at it's headline. The way it's written it sounds like the entire business could be moved over for $2000 (ie not per PC). Now that'd be a bargain wouldn't it?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how IBM arrived at the result of $ 2000.Actually I wonder how slashdot arrived at it 's headline .
The way it 's written it sounds like the entire business could be moved over for $ 2000 ( ie not per PC ) .
Now that 'd be a bargain would n't it ?
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how IBM arrived at the result of $2000.Actually I wonder how slashdot arrived at it's headline.
The way it's written it sounds like the entire business could be moved over for $2000 (ie not per PC).
Now that'd be a bargain wouldn't it?
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29821347</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous</title>
	<author>1s44c</author>
	<datestamp>1256127060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>I wonder how IBM arrived at the result of $2000</p></div></blockquote><p>Because that's how much it would cost to have an Indian replace their job if they cant adapt.</p></div><p>$2000 for the replacement Indian for a year. $200,000 in fixing the damage after the company finds the Indian was totally unskilled and has also stolen the company client database.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how IBM arrived at the result of $ 2000Because that 's how much it would cost to have an Indian replace their job if they cant adapt. $ 2000 for the replacement Indian for a year .
$ 200,000 in fixing the damage after the company finds the Indian was totally unskilled and has also stolen the company client database .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how IBM arrived at the result of $2000Because that's how much it would cost to have an Indian replace their job if they cant adapt.$2000 for the replacement Indian for a year.
$200,000 in fixing the damage after the company finds the Indian was totally unskilled and has also stolen the company client database.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29821357</id>
	<title>Chromes OS is worth giving free...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256127180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Better give the Chrome OS for free. See more details http://sreesiv.blogspot.com/2009/10/if-my-guess-is-correct.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Better give the Chrome OS for free .
See more details http : //sreesiv.blogspot.com/2009/10/if-my-guess-is-correct.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better give the Chrome OS for free.
See more details http://sreesiv.blogspot.com/2009/10/if-my-guess-is-correct.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820693</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe IBM can't count???</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1256118780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ubuntu is not buddying with IBM, IBM is buddying with Ubuntu.<br>
The cost is probably an exaggeration like the ones made by marketing department all over the world. However, adding up 300$ of licence (for 7 Ultimate), about 200$ of upgrade, a few hundreds of formation and install, probably 200 or 300 to get some other software up to date (I'm thinking Office, professional version of Visual Studio, Exchange, Outlook), I'm sure we can get to the 2000 figure. More realistically, companies will pay the 200$ of the upgrade from XP pro and that's it. That is still 200$ per computer without clear benefit. Ubuntu becomes a sexy option at this point.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ubuntu is not buddying with IBM , IBM is buddying with Ubuntu .
The cost is probably an exaggeration like the ones made by marketing department all over the world .
However , adding up 300 $ of licence ( for 7 Ultimate ) , about 200 $ of upgrade , a few hundreds of formation and install , probably 200 or 300 to get some other software up to date ( I 'm thinking Office , professional version of Visual Studio , Exchange , Outlook ) , I 'm sure we can get to the 2000 figure .
More realistically , companies will pay the 200 $ of the upgrade from XP pro and that 's it .
That is still 200 $ per computer without clear benefit .
Ubuntu becomes a sexy option at this point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ubuntu is not buddying with IBM, IBM is buddying with Ubuntu.
The cost is probably an exaggeration like the ones made by marketing department all over the world.
However, adding up 300$ of licence (for 7 Ultimate), about 200$ of upgrade, a few hundreds of formation and install, probably 200 or 300 to get some other software up to date (I'm thinking Office, professional version of Visual Studio, Exchange, Outlook), I'm sure we can get to the 2000 figure.
More realistically, companies will pay the 200$ of the upgrade from XP pro and that's it.
That is still 200$ per computer without clear benefit.
Ubuntu becomes a sexy option at this point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29821343</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe IBM can't count???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256127060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wouldn't a company changing to Linux from Windows need to re-train staff just as much or more than if they were to just shift up a Windows version? And for a non-startup company, is there not the possibility of previously used Windows based software now not being available and new alternatives having to be used (and users re-trained in this area also)? These debates always get so narrow-minded<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... as if OS and software releases are really only for the tech savvy and we just all pretend that everyone out there will pick things up as easily as we would.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't a company changing to Linux from Windows need to re-train staff just as much or more than if they were to just shift up a Windows version ?
And for a non-startup company , is there not the possibility of previously used Windows based software now not being available and new alternatives having to be used ( and users re-trained in this area also ) ?
These debates always get so narrow-minded ... as if OS and software releases are really only for the tech savvy and we just all pretend that everyone out there will pick things up as easily as we would .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't a company changing to Linux from Windows need to re-train staff just as much or more than if they were to just shift up a Windows version?
And for a non-startup company, is there not the possibility of previously used Windows based software now not being available and new alternatives having to be used (and users re-trained in this area also)?
These debates always get so narrow-minded ... as if OS and software releases are really only for the tech savvy and we just all pretend that everyone out there will pick things up as easily as we would.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820523</id>
	<title>Re:IBM should jump first?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256116740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You met the sales guys. Those are all talk. Im sure the guys actually doing stuff (devs, consultants) are much more likely to run on sane platforms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You met the sales guys .
Those are all talk .
Im sure the guys actually doing stuff ( devs , consultants ) are much more likely to run on sane platforms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You met the sales guys.
Those are all talk.
Im sure the guys actually doing stuff (devs, consultants) are much more likely to run on sane platforms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29842635</id>
	<title>Ubuntu in business</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1256229300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Ubuntu is nowhere near ready for prime time</i></p><p>Ubuntu is already being used by businesses.</p><p><i>Go and spend 24 hours or so on Ubuntu's forums before you try and tell me it is stable.</i></p><p>Because I plan on installing Ubuntu on my Mac I have spent more than 100 hours in the the Ubuntu forums, <a href="http://photo.net/search/?cx=000753226439295166877\%3A0gyn0h9z85o&amp;cof=FORID\%3A11&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;q=Ubuntu+inurl\%3A\%2Fdigital-darkroom-forum\%2F&amp;qx=Ubuntu&amp;sa=Search+This+Forum#1205" title="photo.net">photo.net</a> [photo.net], and elsewhere.  In all this tyme I haven't run into any complaints about Ubuntu not being stable.  I have however run into incompatibilities, and the fixes for them.  Then again maybe it's just because of what I'm looking for, <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=ubuntu+macbook+pro3\%2C1+9.04+or+jaunty+install&amp;hl=en&amp;lr=lang\_en&amp;tbo=1&amp;tbs=cdr\%3A1\%2Ccd\_min\%3A6\%2F01\%2F2009\%2Ccd\_max\%3A" title="google.com">how to install Ubuntu on my Mac</a> [google.com].  I've been researching how to before I do it so I can make a plan which includes any problems that may come up.</p><p><i>Instead of Windows, they went with OS/2, which bombed, at least in mainstream terms.</i></p><p>It wasn't IBM's bomb.  IBM and MS was working on OS/2 together when MS pulled out and did Windows instead.</p><p><i>Ubuntu is the proverbial dog with fleas, of Linux distributions.</i> </p><p>Then why has Ubuntu been the <a href="http://distrowatch.com/stats.php?section=popularity" title="distrowatch.com">most popular Linux distro</a> [distrowatch.com] this past year?  Of course that link is just for those who visit Distro Watch.  Starry Hope asks <a href="http://www.starryhope.com/articles/2009/ubuntu-still-popular/" title="starryhope.com">Ubuntu: Still Popular?</a> [starryhope.com]  Using metrics from various sites it concludes Ubuntu is still popular.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ubuntu is nowhere near ready for prime timeUbuntu is already being used by businesses.Go and spend 24 hours or so on Ubuntu 's forums before you try and tell me it is stable.Because I plan on installing Ubuntu on my Mac I have spent more than 100 hours in the the Ubuntu forums , photo.net [ photo.net ] , and elsewhere .
In all this tyme I have n't run into any complaints about Ubuntu not being stable .
I have however run into incompatibilities , and the fixes for them .
Then again maybe it 's just because of what I 'm looking for , how to install Ubuntu on my Mac [ google.com ] .
I 've been researching how to before I do it so I can make a plan which includes any problems that may come up.Instead of Windows , they went with OS/2 , which bombed , at least in mainstream terms.It was n't IBM 's bomb .
IBM and MS was working on OS/2 together when MS pulled out and did Windows instead.Ubuntu is the proverbial dog with fleas , of Linux distributions .
Then why has Ubuntu been the most popular Linux distro [ distrowatch.com ] this past year ?
Of course that link is just for those who visit Distro Watch .
Starry Hope asks Ubuntu : Still Popular ?
[ starryhope.com ] Using metrics from various sites it concludes Ubuntu is still popular .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ubuntu is nowhere near ready for prime timeUbuntu is already being used by businesses.Go and spend 24 hours or so on Ubuntu's forums before you try and tell me it is stable.Because I plan on installing Ubuntu on my Mac I have spent more than 100 hours in the the Ubuntu forums, photo.net [photo.net], and elsewhere.
In all this tyme I haven't run into any complaints about Ubuntu not being stable.
I have however run into incompatibilities, and the fixes for them.
Then again maybe it's just because of what I'm looking for, how to install Ubuntu on my Mac [google.com].
I've been researching how to before I do it so I can make a plan which includes any problems that may come up.Instead of Windows, they went with OS/2, which bombed, at least in mainstream terms.It wasn't IBM's bomb.
IBM and MS was working on OS/2 together when MS pulled out and did Windows instead.Ubuntu is the proverbial dog with fleas, of Linux distributions.
Then why has Ubuntu been the most popular Linux distro [distrowatch.com] this past year?
Of course that link is just for those who visit Distro Watch.
Starry Hope asks Ubuntu: Still Popular?
[starryhope.com]  Using metrics from various sites it concludes Ubuntu is still popular.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819669</id>
	<title>Yah sure, swell.</title>
	<author>randyleepublic</author>
	<datestamp>1256062200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One thing no one seems to make a decent replacement for: Exchange/Outlook.

What's so fucking tough?  I don't know, but none of the so-called replacements don't suck even worse than Microsoft.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing no one seems to make a decent replacement for : Exchange/Outlook .
What 's so fucking tough ?
I do n't know , but none of the so-called replacements do n't suck even worse than Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing no one seems to make a decent replacement for: Exchange/Outlook.
What's so fucking tough?
I don't know, but none of the so-called replacements don't suck even worse than Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817127</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256045220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Your point is only valid if you want to prevent a use from changing his wallpaper, screen savers and the like.</p></div><p>I don't think that's entirely true, I can think of an exception or two.  Particularly where the workstation may be used in financial dealings with publicly-listed companies.  In some cases you do not want people to fiddle with the settings of applications, to - for example - change the location of an audit log.  Well, <i>you</i> might want to, but the financial regulator might raise an eyebrow over it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your point is only valid if you want to prevent a use from changing his wallpaper , screen savers and the like.I do n't think that 's entirely true , I can think of an exception or two .
Particularly where the workstation may be used in financial dealings with publicly-listed companies .
In some cases you do not want people to fiddle with the settings of applications , to - for example - change the location of an audit log .
Well , you might want to , but the financial regulator might raise an eyebrow over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your point is only valid if you want to prevent a use from changing his wallpaper, screen savers and the like.I don't think that's entirely true, I can think of an exception or two.
Particularly where the workstation may be used in financial dealings with publicly-listed companies.
In some cases you do not want people to fiddle with the settings of applications, to - for example - change the location of an audit log.
Well, you might want to, but the financial regulator might raise an eyebrow over it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818171</id>
	<title>Re:About that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256051280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Xubuntu can do 128mb of RAM and 4gb of HDD space easily.<br>Heck, you can make it work with 64mb of RAM and 2gb of HDD space... though that ain't exactly easy.</p><p>And of course, I've ran a functional Debian installation at 32mb RAM and 512mb HDD space.</p><p>You can go even smaller, but those are special case systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Xubuntu can do 128mb of RAM and 4gb of HDD space easily.Heck , you can make it work with 64mb of RAM and 2gb of HDD space... though that ai n't exactly easy.And of course , I 've ran a functional Debian installation at 32mb RAM and 512mb HDD space.You can go even smaller , but those are special case systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Xubuntu can do 128mb of RAM and 4gb of HDD space easily.Heck, you can make it work with 64mb of RAM and 2gb of HDD space... though that ain't exactly easy.And of course, I've ran a functional Debian installation at 32mb RAM and 512mb HDD space.You can go even smaller, but those are special case systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817217</id>
	<title>Re:Irrelevant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256045760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...there's no low to mid range POS software that runs on *nix.</p><p>True.  "Piece Of Shit" software is a Microsoft specialty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ...there 's no low to mid range POS software that runs on * nix.True .
" Piece Of Shit " software is a Microsoft specialty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; ...there's no low to mid range POS software that runs on *nix.True.
"Piece Of Shit" software is a Microsoft specialty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820961</id>
	<title>One tiny kick in Steve Ballmers balls...</title>
	<author>V!NCENT</author>
	<datestamp>1256122380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... but a giant leap for mankind!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... but a giant leap for mankind !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... but a giant leap for mankind!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818111</id>
	<title>MS and IBM haven't been friends for a long time.</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1256050980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>IBM isn't much of a friend of Microsoft's anymore.</i></p><p>IBM hasn't been a big fan of MS's since MS caught IBM's fumble in the PS/2-OS/2 disaster.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IBM is n't much of a friend of Microsoft 's anymore.IBM has n't been a big fan of MS 's since MS caught IBM 's fumble in the PS/2-OS/2 disaster.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IBM isn't much of a friend of Microsoft's anymore.IBM hasn't been a big fan of MS's since MS caught IBM's fumble in the PS/2-OS/2 disaster.-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818699</id>
	<title>Misguided</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1256054580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the elephant plans to back Canonical, it had better be willing to put up some serious development money in the process.  Ubuntu is nowhere near ready for prime time, and I don't care what its' fans try and say.  Go and spend 24 hours or so on Ubuntu's forums before you try and tell me it is stable.</p><p>Sometimes I wonder how IBM has managed to stay in business for 110 years; they really don't display sound intuition where identifying/backing winners in the marketplace is concerned.</p><p>Instead of Windows, they went with OS/2, which bombed, at least in mainstream terms.  Now they're backing Linux, when the truly intelligent thing for them to do would be to get hold of FreeBSD and build their own offering on top of that, a la Apple.  At the very least, they could go for LFS or something else with a cleaner base.</p><p>Ubuntu is the proverbial dog with fleas, of Linux distributions.  Before all its' freetard fans start baying at me about how popular it is, my refutation for that is simple; Windows is very popular too.  Your point?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>Linux in mainstream terms is a lost cause.  Canonical might not be smart enough to have figured that out yet, but I would have expected IBM to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the elephant plans to back Canonical , it had better be willing to put up some serious development money in the process .
Ubuntu is nowhere near ready for prime time , and I do n't care what its ' fans try and say .
Go and spend 24 hours or so on Ubuntu 's forums before you try and tell me it is stable.Sometimes I wonder how IBM has managed to stay in business for 110 years ; they really do n't display sound intuition where identifying/backing winners in the marketplace is concerned.Instead of Windows , they went with OS/2 , which bombed , at least in mainstream terms .
Now they 're backing Linux , when the truly intelligent thing for them to do would be to get hold of FreeBSD and build their own offering on top of that , a la Apple .
At the very least , they could go for LFS or something else with a cleaner base.Ubuntu is the proverbial dog with fleas , of Linux distributions .
Before all its ' freetard fans start baying at me about how popular it is , my refutation for that is simple ; Windows is very popular too .
Your point ?
; ) Linux in mainstream terms is a lost cause .
Canonical might not be smart enough to have figured that out yet , but I would have expected IBM to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the elephant plans to back Canonical, it had better be willing to put up some serious development money in the process.
Ubuntu is nowhere near ready for prime time, and I don't care what its' fans try and say.
Go and spend 24 hours or so on Ubuntu's forums before you try and tell me it is stable.Sometimes I wonder how IBM has managed to stay in business for 110 years; they really don't display sound intuition where identifying/backing winners in the marketplace is concerned.Instead of Windows, they went with OS/2, which bombed, at least in mainstream terms.
Now they're backing Linux, when the truly intelligent thing for them to do would be to get hold of FreeBSD and build their own offering on top of that, a la Apple.
At the very least, they could go for LFS or something else with a cleaner base.Ubuntu is the proverbial dog with fleas, of Linux distributions.
Before all its' freetard fans start baying at me about how popular it is, my refutation for that is simple; Windows is very popular too.
Your point?
;)Linux in mainstream terms is a lost cause.
Canonical might not be smart enough to have figured that out yet, but I would have expected IBM to be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820927</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1256122140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a program is specifically designed for such a purpose, then it should be designed to not let users change such settings...<br>Alternatively, you can always make the config owned by root.<br>That said, audit logs should be done at a different level - not in the program itself, since the user has control of that program... If the program talks to a backend server, the logging should be done there for instance, or at the kernel level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a program is specifically designed for such a purpose , then it should be designed to not let users change such settings...Alternatively , you can always make the config owned by root.That said , audit logs should be done at a different level - not in the program itself , since the user has control of that program... If the program talks to a backend server , the logging should be done there for instance , or at the kernel level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a program is specifically designed for such a purpose, then it should be designed to not let users change such settings...Alternatively, you can always make the config owned by root.That said, audit logs should be done at a different level - not in the program itself, since the user has control of that program... If the program talks to a backend server, the logging should be done there for instance, or at the kernel level.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820329</id>
	<title>$2,000</title>
	<author>hendridm</author>
	<datestamp>1256157420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$2,000 to upgrade any business to Windows 7 seems like a bargain.  Sadly, in the end, you'll still be running Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 2,000 to upgrade any business to Windows 7 seems like a bargain .
Sadly , in the end , you 'll still be running Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$2,000 to upgrade any business to Windows 7 seems like a bargain.
Sadly, in the end, you'll still be running Windows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29822565</id>
	<title>Lenovo still recommends Windows 7</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256135700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just went to IBM's website, which links to Lenovo. <a href="http://www.lenovo.com/US" title="lenovo.com" rel="nofollow">Lenovo still recommends Windows 7</a> [lenovo.com].</p><p>What does this mean?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just went to IBM 's website , which links to Lenovo .
Lenovo still recommends Windows 7 [ lenovo.com ] .What does this mean ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just went to IBM's website, which links to Lenovo.
Lenovo still recommends Windows 7 [lenovo.com].What does this mean?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818983</id>
	<title>Re:About that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256056440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ubuntu needs that much to run a base install with all the trimmings (lots of free software).  Win 7 needs that just for the OS and nothing else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ubuntu needs that much to run a base install with all the trimmings ( lots of free software ) .
Win 7 needs that just for the OS and nothing else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ubuntu needs that much to run a base install with all the trimmings (lots of free software).
Win 7 needs that just for the OS and nothing else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819845</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256064420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From one IBMer to another, you sir are part of the problem.  Did you know that there have been a registered 30,000 installs of the Linux client since April 2008 *(according to the internal installation tracker).  According to the desktop registration tool there are roughly 14,960 active personal machines.  Clearly you are behind the times.  I hope you can either adapt and figure out what so many of your co-workers have.  Otherwise, I wish you luck in your job search after the next batch of layoffs.</p><p>I for one have been happily running linux on my primary machine since 2004.</p><p>And yes my group has moved the majority of users to OpenOffice and Lotus Notes for Linux.  Both have been working admirably.  It's amazing what can happen when management tells everyone to play nice with open standards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From one IBMer to another , you sir are part of the problem .
Did you know that there have been a registered 30,000 installs of the Linux client since April 2008 * ( according to the internal installation tracker ) .
According to the desktop registration tool there are roughly 14,960 active personal machines .
Clearly you are behind the times .
I hope you can either adapt and figure out what so many of your co-workers have .
Otherwise , I wish you luck in your job search after the next batch of layoffs.I for one have been happily running linux on my primary machine since 2004.And yes my group has moved the majority of users to OpenOffice and Lotus Notes for Linux .
Both have been working admirably .
It 's amazing what can happen when management tells everyone to play nice with open standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From one IBMer to another, you sir are part of the problem.
Did you know that there have been a registered 30,000 installs of the Linux client since April 2008 *(according to the internal installation tracker).
According to the desktop registration tool there are roughly 14,960 active personal machines.
Clearly you are behind the times.
I hope you can either adapt and figure out what so many of your co-workers have.
Otherwise, I wish you luck in your job search after the next batch of layoffs.I for one have been happily running linux on my primary machine since 2004.And yes my group has moved the majority of users to OpenOffice and Lotus Notes for Linux.
Both have been working admirably.
It's amazing what can happen when management tells everyone to play nice with open standards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818467</id>
	<title>IBM should jump first?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256053020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why isn't IBM jumping first, and take the lead to move the whole IBM to Linux desktop? You know, the do-what-you-are-preaching concept? Last week, 5 IBM people came to our office to pitch for a 3 million contract, and I saw every single person (technical and sales) is running Windows Vista, with the latest MS Office. The only thing I recognized as IBM-made is Lotus Notes, which we also use here.
</p><p>About 8 years ago, it was the same thing with Sun. We had a bunch of Sun people came to our office (another company), and they kept bitching about MS Windows and MS Office, while at the same time preaching Linux and Star Office. And guess what they were running? Yeah, you got it. At one point, I had enough of their bitching, I told them with a straight face: "Why don't you guys install Linux and Star Office, and send me that fucking slide in open format?" They looked at me as if I was from Mars, then I turned on my laptop, and it was running Linux.
</p><p>One suggestion to the big guys: don't preach, do it. Then everyone will follow, you have enough clout to take the lead.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is n't IBM jumping first , and take the lead to move the whole IBM to Linux desktop ?
You know , the do-what-you-are-preaching concept ?
Last week , 5 IBM people came to our office to pitch for a 3 million contract , and I saw every single person ( technical and sales ) is running Windows Vista , with the latest MS Office .
The only thing I recognized as IBM-made is Lotus Notes , which we also use here .
About 8 years ago , it was the same thing with Sun .
We had a bunch of Sun people came to our office ( another company ) , and they kept bitching about MS Windows and MS Office , while at the same time preaching Linux and Star Office .
And guess what they were running ?
Yeah , you got it .
At one point , I had enough of their bitching , I told them with a straight face : " Why do n't you guys install Linux and Star Office , and send me that fucking slide in open format ?
" They looked at me as if I was from Mars , then I turned on my laptop , and it was running Linux .
One suggestion to the big guys : do n't preach , do it .
Then everyone will follow , you have enough clout to take the lead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why isn't IBM jumping first, and take the lead to move the whole IBM to Linux desktop?
You know, the do-what-you-are-preaching concept?
Last week, 5 IBM people came to our office to pitch for a 3 million contract, and I saw every single person (technical and sales) is running Windows Vista, with the latest MS Office.
The only thing I recognized as IBM-made is Lotus Notes, which we also use here.
About 8 years ago, it was the same thing with Sun.
We had a bunch of Sun people came to our office (another company), and they kept bitching about MS Windows and MS Office, while at the same time preaching Linux and Star Office.
And guess what they were running?
Yeah, you got it.
At one point, I had enough of their bitching, I told them with a straight face: "Why don't you guys install Linux and Star Office, and send me that fucking slide in open format?
" They looked at me as if I was from Mars, then I turned on my laptop, and it was running Linux.
One suggestion to the big guys: don't preach, do it.
Then everyone will follow, you have enough clout to take the lead.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819127</id>
	<title>any independent verificartion?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256057580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not trying to be a jerk or anything, but every URL on that site goes back to the same site, and I cant find any<br>other places with this news....does anyone have another URL that verifies this news?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not trying to be a jerk or anything , but every URL on that site goes back to the same site , and I cant find anyother places with this news....does anyone have another URL that verifies this news ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not trying to be a jerk or anything, but every URL on that site goes back to the same site, and I cant find anyother places with this news....does anyone have another URL that verifies this news?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817685</id>
	<title>Re:A company like IBM doesn't need Microsoft</title>
	<author>jd2112</author>
	<datestamp>1256048340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If Microsoft introduces an incompatible change in Windows 8 (so that, for example a given version of IE can no longer be installed, or a driver for a widely deployed device stops working), it can force a company into unbounded costs of updating their software and hardware.<br> <br>
Microsoft already thoght of this and included the XP compatibility mode (basically Virtual PC with a preloaded XP image) to address exactly this issue.I would imagine that they will continue to move legacy code out of Windows and improve the XP mode integration (Parallels-like desktop integration for example)</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Microsoft introduces an incompatible change in Windows 8 ( so that , for example a given version of IE can no longer be installed , or a driver for a widely deployed device stops working ) , it can force a company into unbounded costs of updating their software and hardware .
Microsoft already thoght of this and included the XP compatibility mode ( basically Virtual PC with a preloaded XP image ) to address exactly this issue.I would imagine that they will continue to move legacy code out of Windows and improve the XP mode integration ( Parallels-like desktop integration for example )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Microsoft introduces an incompatible change in Windows 8 (so that, for example a given version of IE can no longer be installed, or a driver for a widely deployed device stops working), it can force a company into unbounded costs of updating their software and hardware.
Microsoft already thoght of this and included the XP compatibility mode (basically Virtual PC with a preloaded XP image) to address exactly this issue.I would imagine that they will continue to move legacy code out of Windows and improve the XP mode integration (Parallels-like desktop integration for example)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818921</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>EvanED</author>
	<datestamp>1256055840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Locking everything down is really easy: just don't give the user root/sudo permissions.</i></p><p>You have a strange definition of everything. There are still a lot of user-specific settings too you know.</p><p>Locking down stuff like wallpapers and whatnot is rather overdone by IT depts, but there are occasionally good reasons for stuff like that, for instance on customer-facing computers. Removing sudo rights does diddly squat for those settings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Locking everything down is really easy : just do n't give the user root/sudo permissions.You have a strange definition of everything .
There are still a lot of user-specific settings too you know.Locking down stuff like wallpapers and whatnot is rather overdone by IT depts , but there are occasionally good reasons for stuff like that , for instance on customer-facing computers .
Removing sudo rights does diddly squat for those settings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Locking everything down is really easy: just don't give the user root/sudo permissions.You have a strange definition of everything.
There are still a lot of user-specific settings too you know.Locking down stuff like wallpapers and whatnot is rather overdone by IT depts, but there are occasionally good reasons for stuff like that, for instance on customer-facing computers.
Removing sudo rights does diddly squat for those settings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819453</id>
	<title>Re:Office 2003 to 2007 vs. to OOo?</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1256060160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's also about backward compatibility, not just a new feature set and/or GUI.</p><p>I agree 100\% with SparafucileMan. When TCO calculated, rarely do I see the human element factored in. Time = Money. Having to re-train and educated what is and is not possible with half-assed Open Sourced Software often ends up being a huge time-sink. And if you provide contracted IT support, the last thing you want to do is piss off your employer (Client/Customer).</p><p>Besides. Closed Sourced Software companies often provide a nice knowledge support site and a tech support number you can call ASAP. With Open Source Software, you're pretty much on your own and at the mercy of individual support groups. Again, Time = Money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's also about backward compatibility , not just a new feature set and/or GUI.I agree 100 \ % with SparafucileMan .
When TCO calculated , rarely do I see the human element factored in .
Time = Money .
Having to re-train and educated what is and is not possible with half-assed Open Sourced Software often ends up being a huge time-sink .
And if you provide contracted IT support , the last thing you want to do is piss off your employer ( Client/Customer ) .Besides .
Closed Sourced Software companies often provide a nice knowledge support site and a tech support number you can call ASAP .
With Open Source Software , you 're pretty much on your own and at the mercy of individual support groups .
Again , Time = Money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's also about backward compatibility, not just a new feature set and/or GUI.I agree 100\% with SparafucileMan.
When TCO calculated, rarely do I see the human element factored in.
Time = Money.
Having to re-train and educated what is and is not possible with half-assed Open Sourced Software often ends up being a huge time-sink.
And if you provide contracted IT support, the last thing you want to do is piss off your employer (Client/Customer).Besides.
Closed Sourced Software companies often provide a nice knowledge support site and a tech support number you can call ASAP.
With Open Source Software, you're pretty much on your own and at the mercy of individual support groups.
Again, Time = Money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818531</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1256053440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's not BS here.  Access controls in Linux and Windows achieve about the same thing.
<br> <br>
"A default Linux install will allow you to control access to files and programs on a user by user, or user group basis without the need for extra software."
<br> <br>
As will all Windows versions that use NTFS.
<br> <br>
"It will take a little bit more expertise than using some program with a gui on windows might, but it also allows much greater control of precisely what user can do."
<br> <br>
This is the part that confuses me...Linux and Windows handle user permissions pretty much the same way, so how could Linux offer greater control?  (I think Windows is a bit more granular in the permissions that you can set, but I think most of them can still be accomplished in Linux.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's not BS here .
Access controls in Linux and Windows achieve about the same thing .
" A default Linux install will allow you to control access to files and programs on a user by user , or user group basis without the need for extra software .
" As will all Windows versions that use NTFS .
" It will take a little bit more expertise than using some program with a gui on windows might , but it also allows much greater control of precisely what user can do .
" This is the part that confuses me...Linux and Windows handle user permissions pretty much the same way , so how could Linux offer greater control ?
( I think Windows is a bit more granular in the permissions that you can set , but I think most of them can still be accomplished in Linux .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's not BS here.
Access controls in Linux and Windows achieve about the same thing.
"A default Linux install will allow you to control access to files and programs on a user by user, or user group basis without the need for extra software.
"
 
As will all Windows versions that use NTFS.
"It will take a little bit more expertise than using some program with a gui on windows might, but it also allows much greater control of precisely what user can do.
"
 
This is the part that confuses me...Linux and Windows handle user permissions pretty much the same way, so how could Linux offer greater control?
(I think Windows is a bit more granular in the permissions that you can set, but I think most of them can still be accomplished in Linux.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819693</id>
	<title>Market capitalization</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1256062500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is <i>not</i> off-topic.
</p><p>I happened to notice today that Apple surpassed IBM in market capitalization (the total value of their stock) about a month ago.  Apple has been on a tear for the last five years, growing about 24x.  Even though IBM has a valued brand, a deep patent portfolio, committed customers and a broad portfolio they haven't kept up with that pace.  I think that the last technology company Apple has to surpass in company value is Microsoft - and they're closing in.  Apple's executing well not just in PC Hardware (where they've cornered the market on premium PCs at over 80\%), but in media where they've pretty much taken all of the market for online distribution of music (and they're working on video), and in cellular phones where they're a serious threat to Blackberry.  So Apple is not just in a wider base of markets than IBM and Microsoft - they're winning in all the markets they're in.  They're <b>executing well</b>.
</p><p>Microsoft wants to be Apple but Zune, Plays For Now and the Microsoft Danger FaceKick isn't going to gain them new customers in the new markets they need to win.  The have <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/01/06/microsofts\_masterplan\_to\_screw\_phone/" title="theregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">a considerable</a> [theregister.co.uk] <a href="http://catb.org/~esr/halloween/" title="catb.org" rel="nofollow">negative</a> [catb.org] <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860\_3-10375496-56.html" title="cnet.com" rel="nofollow">partnering</a> [cnet.com] <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-19882\_3-10373757-250.html" title="cnet.com" rel="nofollow">history</a> [cnet.com] to overcome.  If Steve Jobs got a good stock incentive to come back and rescue Apple in 1996 he should die the world's richest man.  Since I'm talking about how smart he is, here's a quote:
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"There's an old Wayne Gretzky quote that I love. 'I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been.' And we've always tried to do that at Apple. Since the very very beginning. And we always will."</p></div><p>IBM could do these things and the fine article is an indication that they're slowly interested in doing so.  I wish them well - I prefer committed open source to Apple's exploitation of BSD's liberal terms, though I have to admit it's more of a personal bias than a difference in utility.  I don't think IBM can pull this off without outside help.  The Boys From Boca thing was, as far as I can tell from subsequent history, a one-off incident of accidental genius.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not off-topic .
I happened to notice today that Apple surpassed IBM in market capitalization ( the total value of their stock ) about a month ago .
Apple has been on a tear for the last five years , growing about 24x .
Even though IBM has a valued brand , a deep patent portfolio , committed customers and a broad portfolio they have n't kept up with that pace .
I think that the last technology company Apple has to surpass in company value is Microsoft - and they 're closing in .
Apple 's executing well not just in PC Hardware ( where they 've cornered the market on premium PCs at over 80 \ % ) , but in media where they 've pretty much taken all of the market for online distribution of music ( and they 're working on video ) , and in cellular phones where they 're a serious threat to Blackberry .
So Apple is not just in a wider base of markets than IBM and Microsoft - they 're winning in all the markets they 're in .
They 're executing well .
Microsoft wants to be Apple but Zune , Plays For Now and the Microsoft Danger FaceKick is n't going to gain them new customers in the new markets they need to win .
The have a considerable [ theregister.co.uk ] negative [ catb.org ] partnering [ cnet.com ] history [ cnet.com ] to overcome .
If Steve Jobs got a good stock incentive to come back and rescue Apple in 1996 he should die the world 's richest man .
Since I 'm talking about how smart he is , here 's a quote : " There 's an old Wayne Gretzky quote that I love .
'I skate to where the puck is going to be , not where it has been .
' And we 've always tried to do that at Apple .
Since the very very beginning .
And we always will .
" IBM could do these things and the fine article is an indication that they 're slowly interested in doing so .
I wish them well - I prefer committed open source to Apple 's exploitation of BSD 's liberal terms , though I have to admit it 's more of a personal bias than a difference in utility .
I do n't think IBM can pull this off without outside help .
The Boys From Boca thing was , as far as I can tell from subsequent history , a one-off incident of accidental genius .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not off-topic.
I happened to notice today that Apple surpassed IBM in market capitalization (the total value of their stock) about a month ago.
Apple has been on a tear for the last five years, growing about 24x.
Even though IBM has a valued brand, a deep patent portfolio, committed customers and a broad portfolio they haven't kept up with that pace.
I think that the last technology company Apple has to surpass in company value is Microsoft - and they're closing in.
Apple's executing well not just in PC Hardware (where they've cornered the market on premium PCs at over 80\%), but in media where they've pretty much taken all of the market for online distribution of music (and they're working on video), and in cellular phones where they're a serious threat to Blackberry.
So Apple is not just in a wider base of markets than IBM and Microsoft - they're winning in all the markets they're in.
They're executing well.
Microsoft wants to be Apple but Zune, Plays For Now and the Microsoft Danger FaceKick isn't going to gain them new customers in the new markets they need to win.
The have a considerable [theregister.co.uk] negative [catb.org] partnering [cnet.com] history [cnet.com] to overcome.
If Steve Jobs got a good stock incentive to come back and rescue Apple in 1996 he should die the world's richest man.
Since I'm talking about how smart he is, here's a quote:
"There's an old Wayne Gretzky quote that I love.
'I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been.
' And we've always tried to do that at Apple.
Since the very very beginning.
And we always will.
"IBM could do these things and the fine article is an indication that they're slowly interested in doing so.
I wish them well - I prefer committed open source to Apple's exploitation of BSD's liberal terms, though I have to admit it's more of a personal bias than a difference in utility.
I don't think IBM can pull this off without outside help.
The Boys From Boca thing was, as far as I can tell from subsequent history, a one-off incident of accidental genius.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29822967</id>
	<title>Re:About that...</title>
	<author>gauauu</author>
	<datestamp>1256137560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Windows 7 needs 1 GB RAM and 16GB Disk. </i></p><p>Really?  Cause I installed it just this week on an 8GB disk on my netbook.  Had no problems whatsoever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 needs 1 GB RAM and 16GB Disk .
Really ? Cause I installed it just this week on an 8GB disk on my netbook .
Had no problems whatsoever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7 needs 1 GB RAM and 16GB Disk.
Really?  Cause I installed it just this week on an 8GB disk on my netbook.
Had no problems whatsoever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816997</id>
	<title>Maybe IBM can't count???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256044620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$2,000 US to upgrade per machine? I don't know what in the heck IBM is talking about. I've been running Windows 7 on a two year old $500 laptop without any issues since Beta. They are easily over exagerating that cost, in my opinion, and frankly it turns me off of Ubuntu to see them buddying up with IBM in this way.</p><p>*On an interesting side note, I wonder if they calculated all the man hours and reworking of customized code that most shops would have to put in to go from a Microsoft shop to all Linux - I seriously doubt it.<br>**Do we even want to get into the compatability issues with COTS that still plagues Linux?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 2,000 US to upgrade per machine ?
I do n't know what in the heck IBM is talking about .
I 've been running Windows 7 on a two year old $ 500 laptop without any issues since Beta .
They are easily over exagerating that cost , in my opinion , and frankly it turns me off of Ubuntu to see them buddying up with IBM in this way .
* On an interesting side note , I wonder if they calculated all the man hours and reworking of customized code that most shops would have to put in to go from a Microsoft shop to all Linux - I seriously doubt it .
* * Do we even want to get into the compatability issues with COTS that still plagues Linux ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$2,000 US to upgrade per machine?
I don't know what in the heck IBM is talking about.
I've been running Windows 7 on a two year old $500 laptop without any issues since Beta.
They are easily over exagerating that cost, in my opinion, and frankly it turns me off of Ubuntu to see them buddying up with IBM in this way.
*On an interesting side note, I wonder if they calculated all the man hours and reworking of customized code that most shops would have to put in to go from a Microsoft shop to all Linux - I seriously doubt it.
**Do we even want to get into the compatability issues with COTS that still plagues Linux?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29856795</id>
	<title>Re:IBM should jump first?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256401020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well said. That really is the point. If you use it then thats the statement!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well said .
That really is the point .
If you use it then thats the statement !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well said.
That really is the point.
If you use it then thats the statement!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29823723</id>
	<title>not ready for prime time fud</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1256141460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>Linux has been at it for 15 years and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. sound is still broken out of the box on Ubuntu<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. Not exactly ready for prime time</i>"<br> <br>

I'm watching streaming media right now and the sound plays no problem. I've never had problems getting sound working 'out of the box'. If Ubuntu is 'Not exactly ready for prime time', then why is IBM involving itself in a project with Canonical? IBM not exactly known for neglecting the purpose of making money.<br> <br>

'<i> <a href="http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2009/10/ibm-and-ubuntu-roll-linux-for.html" title="internetnews.com">IBM and Canonical</a> [internetnews.com] are now announcing the launch of Linux and cloud-based desktop software in the U.S</i>'</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Linux has been at it for 15 years and .. sound is still broken out of the box on Ubuntu .. Not exactly ready for prime time " I 'm watching streaming media right now and the sound plays no problem .
I 've never had problems getting sound working 'out of the box' .
If Ubuntu is 'Not exactly ready for prime time ' , then why is IBM involving itself in a project with Canonical ?
IBM not exactly known for neglecting the purpose of making money .
' IBM and Canonical [ internetnews.com ] are now announcing the launch of Linux and cloud-based desktop software in the U.S'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Linux has been at it for 15 years and .. sound is still broken out of the box on Ubuntu .. Not exactly ready for prime time" 

I'm watching streaming media right now and the sound plays no problem.
I've never had problems getting sound working 'out of the box'.
If Ubuntu is 'Not exactly ready for prime time', then why is IBM involving itself in a project with Canonical?
IBM not exactly known for neglecting the purpose of making money.
' IBM and Canonical [internetnews.com] are now announcing the launch of Linux and cloud-based desktop software in the U.S'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818293</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1256052000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A Live CD in a kiosk mode is extremely easy to implement,. and people can't break it.</p><p>You can uninstall any apps you don't want people to run. You can create a fairly custom desktop shell, or not even use a typical desktop shell. Linux provides vastly more flexibility when it comes to a locked down experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A Live CD in a kiosk mode is extremely easy to implement, .
and people ca n't break it.You can uninstall any apps you do n't want people to run .
You can create a fairly custom desktop shell , or not even use a typical desktop shell .
Linux provides vastly more flexibility when it comes to a locked down experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A Live CD in a kiosk mode is extremely easy to implement,.
and people can't break it.You can uninstall any apps you don't want people to run.
You can create a fairly custom desktop shell, or not even use a typical desktop shell.
Linux provides vastly more flexibility when it comes to a locked down experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818007</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1256050320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think one of the hindrances for businesses to move to Linux on the desktop is the lack of programs for Linux that allow the complete lock-down of the desktop.</p></div><p>Lack of?  It comes with every base distro, even floppy disk versions!</p><p>You should probably check <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chmod" title="wikipedia.org">man chmod</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Even <a href="http://www.linux.ucla.edu/~leiz/pictures/misc/wtf/i\_know\_chmod.jpg" title="ucla.edu">this</a> [ucla.edu] fine outstanding developer knows chmod!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think one of the hindrances for businesses to move to Linux on the desktop is the lack of programs for Linux that allow the complete lock-down of the desktop.Lack of ?
It comes with every base distro , even floppy disk versions ! You should probably check man chmod [ wikipedia.org ] Even this [ ucla.edu ] fine outstanding developer knows chmod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think one of the hindrances for businesses to move to Linux on the desktop is the lack of programs for Linux that allow the complete lock-down of the desktop.Lack of?
It comes with every base distro, even floppy disk versions!You should probably check man chmod [wikipedia.org]Even this [ucla.edu] fine outstanding developer knows chmod!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816837</id>
	<title>IBM's answer to Windows 3.1 was OS/2 Warp...</title>
	<author>Anita Coney</author>
	<datestamp>1256043960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.... which IBM wouldn't even sell in its own computers.  I wish 'em luck in their new endeavor.  They'll need it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.... which IBM would n't even sell in its own computers .
I wish 'em luck in their new endeavor .
They 'll need it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.... which IBM wouldn't even sell in its own computers.
I wish 'em luck in their new endeavor.
They'll need it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820969</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe IBM can't count???</title>
	<author>mistbooster</author>
	<datestamp>1256122440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>lets see... purchasing the OS, purchasing the "new" office pack. possible minor hardware upgrades, re configuring the router/firewall. installing new antivirus, remote softwares and new software based firewalls, installing and configuring a email software, teaching people how to use the system as a whole. with win 7 easily racks up to 30+ man hours on the instal side.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/machine. then you add the teaching part another 6-10 hours easily. and wages for people who usually do those things. vary from 18-41US$ depending on what you ask for him to do. so 2000US$ is low estimate on IBM's part. now when you do the same with linux. the installation progress is less painfull considering. most of the XP gen. antivirus and firewall softwares work without a hitch on linux. and ubuntu comes packed with a complete open office which has only few things working differently than in MS office. those alone save hours. not to mention the intial purchase costs less. then theres the email software. comes packed with ubuntu also. so more time saved there. no hardware upgrades needed, router configurations can be transfered from pc to pc in ubuntu based systems. and with current linux builds if you know how to use xp or vista, doesnt take more than 1-2 hours of poking around to get you familiar with the GUI.

i can easily see why IBM prefers unix and/or linux based systems these days.</htmltext>
<tokenext>lets see... purchasing the OS , purchasing the " new " office pack .
possible minor hardware upgrades , re configuring the router/firewall .
installing new antivirus , remote softwares and new software based firewalls , installing and configuring a email software , teaching people how to use the system as a whole .
with win 7 easily racks up to 30 + man hours on the instal side .
/machine. then you add the teaching part another 6-10 hours easily .
and wages for people who usually do those things .
vary from 18-41US $ depending on what you ask for him to do .
so 2000US $ is low estimate on IBM 's part .
now when you do the same with linux .
the installation progress is less painfull considering .
most of the XP gen. antivirus and firewall softwares work without a hitch on linux .
and ubuntu comes packed with a complete open office which has only few things working differently than in MS office .
those alone save hours .
not to mention the intial purchase costs less .
then theres the email software .
comes packed with ubuntu also .
so more time saved there .
no hardware upgrades needed , router configurations can be transfered from pc to pc in ubuntu based systems .
and with current linux builds if you know how to use xp or vista , doesnt take more than 1-2 hours of poking around to get you familiar with the GUI .
i can easily see why IBM prefers unix and/or linux based systems these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lets see... purchasing the OS, purchasing the "new" office pack.
possible minor hardware upgrades, re configuring the router/firewall.
installing new antivirus, remote softwares and new software based firewalls, installing and configuring a email software, teaching people how to use the system as a whole.
with win 7 easily racks up to 30+ man hours on the instal side.
/machine. then you add the teaching part another 6-10 hours easily.
and wages for people who usually do those things.
vary from 18-41US$ depending on what you ask for him to do.
so 2000US$ is low estimate on IBM's part.
now when you do the same with linux.
the installation progress is less painfull considering.
most of the XP gen. antivirus and firewall softwares work without a hitch on linux.
and ubuntu comes packed with a complete open office which has only few things working differently than in MS office.
those alone save hours.
not to mention the intial purchase costs less.
then theres the email software.
comes packed with ubuntu also.
so more time saved there.
no hardware upgrades needed, router configurations can be transfered from pc to pc in ubuntu based systems.
and with current linux builds if you know how to use xp or vista, doesnt take more than 1-2 hours of poking around to get you familiar with the GUI.
i can easily see why IBM prefers unix and/or linux based systems these days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29822369</id>
	<title>Re:Misguided</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256134680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Go and spend 24 hours or so on Ubuntu's forums before you try and tell me it is stable.</p></div><p> <i>That's</i> your argument against Ubuntu?  Do you know just how many forums are dedicated to solving various Windows fuckups?</p></div><p>Not to mention; how many people post on forums saying "everythings working great, don't need help on anything, just letting you all know. Got it the first shot too."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Go and spend 24 hours or so on Ubuntu 's forums before you try and tell me it is stable .
That 's your argument against Ubuntu ?
Do you know just how many forums are dedicated to solving various Windows fuckups ? Not to mention ; how many people post on forums saying " everythings working great , do n't need help on anything , just letting you all know .
Got it the first shot too .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go and spend 24 hours or so on Ubuntu's forums before you try and tell me it is stable.
That's your argument against Ubuntu?
Do you know just how many forums are dedicated to solving various Windows fuckups?Not to mention; how many people post on forums saying "everythings working great, don't need help on anything, just letting you all know.
Got it the first shot too.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819223</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256058480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>can't have used anything more <b>then</b> a default install<br>impersonate another user rather <b>then</b> privilege escalation)</p></div><p>I think you mean THAN.
<br> <br>Seriously; look it up. It's English, which you appear to be speaking.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>ca n't have used anything more then a default installimpersonate another user rather then privilege escalation ) I think you mean THAN .
Seriously ; look it up .
It 's English , which you appear to be speaking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can't have used anything more then a default installimpersonate another user rather then privilege escalation)I think you mean THAN.
Seriously; look it up.
It's English, which you appear to be speaking.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819951</id>
	<title>Notes and Ubuntu a paradise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256065800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lols IBM gives you a decent Ubuntu and the Shitacular Notes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lols IBM gives you a decent Ubuntu and the Shitacular Notes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lols IBM gives you a decent Ubuntu and the Shitacular Notes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820581</id>
	<title>Re:Irrelevant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256117520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>openbravo POS point-of-sale</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>openbravo POS point-of-sale</tokentext>
<sentencetext>openbravo POS point-of-sale</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816937</id>
	<title>A company like IBM doesn't need Microsoft</title>
	<author>iamacat</author>
	<datestamp>1256044380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Microsoft introduces an incompatible change in Windows 8 (so that, for example a given version of IE can no longer be installed, or a driver for a widely deployed device stops working), it can force a company into unbounded costs of updating their software and hardware. On the other hand, once initial migration to Ubuntu is done, only an effort of a dozen developers would be needed to compile Firefox 1.0 with new libraries, update a driver to work with 2.6 kernel and so on. While for an individual it may be acceptable - and cheaper - to buy new peripherals and applications - IBM can trivially afford custom development costs to keep an operating system running exactly the same way they want it.</p><p>It doesn't make sense for any large business with non-trivial needs to run an operating system for which they can not control future direction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Microsoft introduces an incompatible change in Windows 8 ( so that , for example a given version of IE can no longer be installed , or a driver for a widely deployed device stops working ) , it can force a company into unbounded costs of updating their software and hardware .
On the other hand , once initial migration to Ubuntu is done , only an effort of a dozen developers would be needed to compile Firefox 1.0 with new libraries , update a driver to work with 2.6 kernel and so on .
While for an individual it may be acceptable - and cheaper - to buy new peripherals and applications - IBM can trivially afford custom development costs to keep an operating system running exactly the same way they want it.It does n't make sense for any large business with non-trivial needs to run an operating system for which they can not control future direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Microsoft introduces an incompatible change in Windows 8 (so that, for example a given version of IE can no longer be installed, or a driver for a widely deployed device stops working), it can force a company into unbounded costs of updating their software and hardware.
On the other hand, once initial migration to Ubuntu is done, only an effort of a dozen developers would be needed to compile Firefox 1.0 with new libraries, update a driver to work with 2.6 kernel and so on.
While for an individual it may be acceptable - and cheaper - to buy new peripherals and applications - IBM can trivially afford custom development costs to keep an operating system running exactly the same way they want it.It doesn't make sense for any large business with non-trivial needs to run an operating system for which they can not control future direction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819643</id>
	<title>A Dozen Developers</title>
	<author>Gary W. Longsine</author>
	<datestamp>1256062020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You clearly have never worked inside a large company, or if you did, you didn't pay attention.  They have better things to do with their precious developer talent than recompile Firefox and Linux kernels all the time.  Stuff like writing Visual Basic applications to assure that they will forever be tied to Windows, leaps immediately to mind.  Oh, wait...</htmltext>
<tokenext>You clearly have never worked inside a large company , or if you did , you did n't pay attention .
They have better things to do with their precious developer talent than recompile Firefox and Linux kernels all the time .
Stuff like writing Visual Basic applications to assure that they will forever be tied to Windows , leaps immediately to mind .
Oh , wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You clearly have never worked inside a large company, or if you did, you didn't pay attention.
They have better things to do with their precious developer talent than recompile Firefox and Linux kernels all the time.
Stuff like writing Visual Basic applications to assure that they will forever be tied to Windows, leaps immediately to mind.
Oh, wait...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820953</id>
	<title>My response to WIndows 7:</title>
	<author>miffo.swe</author>
	<datestamp>1256122380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A small and very insignificant *yawn*. I have never been so jaded about a new Windows version as i am now. Vista had some new bits in it that while they sucked was fun to discover and evaluate. Windows 7 is as interesting as any old servicepack or gray rock. No amount of paid journalism can change that once people start to use it themselves and discover what it really is. Linux isnt Microsofts biggest enemy, Microsoft is their own enemy and i cant think of a more dangerous adversary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A small and very insignificant * yawn * .
I have never been so jaded about a new Windows version as i am now .
Vista had some new bits in it that while they sucked was fun to discover and evaluate .
Windows 7 is as interesting as any old servicepack or gray rock .
No amount of paid journalism can change that once people start to use it themselves and discover what it really is .
Linux isnt Microsofts biggest enemy , Microsoft is their own enemy and i cant think of a more dangerous adversary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A small and very insignificant *yawn*.
I have never been so jaded about a new Windows version as i am now.
Vista had some new bits in it that while they sucked was fun to discover and evaluate.
Windows 7 is as interesting as any old servicepack or gray rock.
No amount of paid journalism can change that once people start to use it themselves and discover what it really is.
Linux isnt Microsofts biggest enemy, Microsoft is their own enemy and i cant think of a more dangerous adversary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819897</id>
	<title>Re:Why Microsoft isn't worried about this</title>
	<author>davaguco</author>
	<datestamp>1256065140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have to agree with this. I tried to switch to some Linux and Open Office distribution a few years ago, and the kind of things I had to learn to do to get that machine running, and then to fix several driver problems, were a bit too much for anybody without a lot of technical expertise.

I have several friends that are in love with Linux and Open Office, but they all happen to be software engineers, and when I complain about something not being user-friendly, they tell me that it's really very easy, you just have to "mount this drive and then<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...." do you really think users are going to consider introducing linux commands, ever?

If you believe users should know this stuff, then you just don't live in the real world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to agree with this .
I tried to switch to some Linux and Open Office distribution a few years ago , and the kind of things I had to learn to do to get that machine running , and then to fix several driver problems , were a bit too much for anybody without a lot of technical expertise .
I have several friends that are in love with Linux and Open Office , but they all happen to be software engineers , and when I complain about something not being user-friendly , they tell me that it 's really very easy , you just have to " mount this drive and then .... " do you really think users are going to consider introducing linux commands , ever ?
If you believe users should know this stuff , then you just do n't live in the real world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to agree with this.
I tried to switch to some Linux and Open Office distribution a few years ago, and the kind of things I had to learn to do to get that machine running, and then to fix several driver problems, were a bit too much for anybody without a lot of technical expertise.
I have several friends that are in love with Linux and Open Office, but they all happen to be software engineers, and when I complain about something not being user-friendly, they tell me that it's really very easy, you just have to "mount this drive and then ...." do you really think users are going to consider introducing linux commands, ever?
If you believe users should know this stuff, then you just don't live in the real world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820379</id>
	<title>Re:Irrelevant</title>
	<author>jamarsa</author>
	<datestamp>1256158140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In my case there is POS software. Mine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my case there is POS software .
Mine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my case there is POS software.
Mine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29838417</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1256240100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I wonder how IBM arrived at the result of $2000. Because I'm pretty sure that out of the 150k people that I work with that 3/4 of them will take months to adjust to Linux and be completely pissed off the entire time. At an internal rate of $100-$150 per person per hour... uh... lol, right.</i></p><p>And upgrading to Window 7 will not have any of those costs?</p><p><i>This is what most of the company uses: Outlook, Word, Excel, Powerpoint. Project. File shares. Blackberry/Phone. Online web conferences. PDF. That's about it.</i></p><p>Almost all of the task these programs do Ubuntu has the software that can do it as well.  Outlook?  Even when I used Windows I used Eudora then switched to Thunderbird, which I also use on my Linux PC and Mac.  Word, Excel, Powerpoint, and Project?  I'm not sure about Project but Open Office, which I also used with Windows, does the rest of these.</p><p><i>And don't give me crap about open office solutions. It took most of these people 10 or 20 years to just get by with Office, you really think they are going to want to essentially re-learn everything?</i></p><p>And users don't have to go through crap when Office is upgraded?  BS!</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how IBM arrived at the result of $ 2000 .
Because I 'm pretty sure that out of the 150k people that I work with that 3/4 of them will take months to adjust to Linux and be completely pissed off the entire time .
At an internal rate of $ 100- $ 150 per person per hour... uh... lol , right.And upgrading to Window 7 will not have any of those costs ? This is what most of the company uses : Outlook , Word , Excel , Powerpoint .
Project. File shares .
Blackberry/Phone. Online web conferences .
PDF. That 's about it.Almost all of the task these programs do Ubuntu has the software that can do it as well .
Outlook ? Even when I used Windows I used Eudora then switched to Thunderbird , which I also use on my Linux PC and Mac .
Word , Excel , Powerpoint , and Project ?
I 'm not sure about Project but Open Office , which I also used with Windows , does the rest of these.And do n't give me crap about open office solutions .
It took most of these people 10 or 20 years to just get by with Office , you really think they are going to want to essentially re-learn everything ? And users do n't have to go through crap when Office is upgraded ?
BS ! Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how IBM arrived at the result of $2000.
Because I'm pretty sure that out of the 150k people that I work with that 3/4 of them will take months to adjust to Linux and be completely pissed off the entire time.
At an internal rate of $100-$150 per person per hour... uh... lol, right.And upgrading to Window 7 will not have any of those costs?This is what most of the company uses: Outlook, Word, Excel, Powerpoint.
Project. File shares.
Blackberry/Phone. Online web conferences.
PDF. That's about it.Almost all of the task these programs do Ubuntu has the software that can do it as well.
Outlook?  Even when I used Windows I used Eudora then switched to Thunderbird, which I also use on my Linux PC and Mac.
Word, Excel, Powerpoint, and Project?
I'm not sure about Project but Open Office, which I also used with Windows, does the rest of these.And don't give me crap about open office solutions.
It took most of these people 10 or 20 years to just get by with Office, you really think they are going to want to essentially re-learn everything?And users don't have to go through crap when Office is upgraded?
BS!

Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818343</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1256052240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In my experience, Linux is rather a lot easier to lock down than Windows.  If you don't see a lot of third-party custom applications designed to help you do it, it's probably because they aren't necessary.  That functionality is all built in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my experience , Linux is rather a lot easier to lock down than Windows .
If you do n't see a lot of third-party custom applications designed to help you do it , it 's probably because they are n't necessary .
That functionality is all built in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my experience, Linux is rather a lot easier to lock down than Windows.
If you don't see a lot of third-party custom applications designed to help you do it, it's probably because they aren't necessary.
That functionality is all built in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819439</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>tobiasly</author>
	<datestamp>1256060100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There are indeed a lack of external programs to lock down the desktop.  That's because that kind of thing is built into Linux.</p></div><p>Haha... this reminds me of a coworker in our security department who was arguing to me that Internet Explorer is more secure than Firefox, because IE "works with all of our malware scanners, attack detection proxies, javascript lockdown tools etc." In other words, IE has spawned an entire cottage industry of add-on tools to try to make it secure, whereas those third party tools aren't available for Firefox, so it "can't be secured" as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are indeed a lack of external programs to lock down the desktop .
That 's because that kind of thing is built into Linux.Haha... this reminds me of a coworker in our security department who was arguing to me that Internet Explorer is more secure than Firefox , because IE " works with all of our malware scanners , attack detection proxies , javascript lockdown tools etc .
" In other words , IE has spawned an entire cottage industry of add-on tools to try to make it secure , whereas those third party tools are n't available for Firefox , so it " ca n't be secured " as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are indeed a lack of external programs to lock down the desktop.
That's because that kind of thing is built into Linux.Haha... this reminds me of a coworker in our security department who was arguing to me that Internet Explorer is more secure than Firefox, because IE "works with all of our malware scanners, attack detection proxies, javascript lockdown tools etc.
" In other words, IE has spawned an entire cottage industry of add-on tools to try to make it secure, whereas those third party tools aren't available for Firefox, so it "can't be secured" as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819425</id>
	<title>Windows 7 runs on an Intel Atom 1.6Ghz w/ GMA950</title>
	<author>OrangeTide</author>
	<datestamp>1256059980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Windows 7 can run on a $70 Atom board, and run reasonably (using the 230 and 330, not the crappier laptop versions), then I fail to see why it costs $2k in hardware to switch.</p><p>I'm all for more Linux in the world, but let's be honest here. IBM has had a stake in migrating businesses to Linux for quite some time now. We have to follow the money when IBM says something, and realize that in many ways they are serving their own self-interests.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Windows 7 can run on a $ 70 Atom board , and run reasonably ( using the 230 and 330 , not the crappier laptop versions ) , then I fail to see why it costs $ 2k in hardware to switch.I 'm all for more Linux in the world , but let 's be honest here .
IBM has had a stake in migrating businesses to Linux for quite some time now .
We have to follow the money when IBM says something , and realize that in many ways they are serving their own self-interests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Windows 7 can run on a $70 Atom board, and run reasonably (using the 230 and 330, not the crappier laptop versions), then I fail to see why it costs $2k in hardware to switch.I'm all for more Linux in the world, but let's be honest here.
IBM has had a stake in migrating businesses to Linux for quite some time now.
We have to follow the money when IBM says something, and realize that in many ways they are serving their own self-interests.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29821617</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous</title>
	<author>MoreDruid</author>
	<datestamp>1256129340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IBM is probably using their Lotus product internally so they are not tied to the Microsoft Office suite (but tied to their own proprietary stuff). So those retraining costs for them are nil because there is nothing to retrain for (well maybe for Visio).</htmltext>
<tokenext>IBM is probably using their Lotus product internally so they are not tied to the Microsoft Office suite ( but tied to their own proprietary stuff ) .
So those retraining costs for them are nil because there is nothing to retrain for ( well maybe for Visio ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IBM is probably using their Lotus product internally so they are not tied to the Microsoft Office suite (but tied to their own proprietary stuff).
So those retraining costs for them are nil because there is nothing to retrain for (well maybe for Visio).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817033</id>
	<title>Ridiculous</title>
	<author>SparafucileMan</author>
	<datestamp>1256044740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder how IBM arrived at the result of $2000. Because I'm pretty sure that out of the 150k people that I work with that 3/4 of them will take months to adjust to Linux and be completely pissed off the entire time. At an internal rate of $100-$150 per person per hour... uh... lol, right.</p><p>This is what most of the company uses: Outlook, Word, Excel, Powerpoint. Project. File shares. Blackberry/Phone. Online web conferences. PDF. That's about it. Everything else is either a back-end system specific to the business or a program (i.e, drafting, manufacturing, etc) for the specific business at hand.</p><p>And don't give me crap about open office solutions. It took most of these people 10 or 20 years to just get by with Office, you really think they are going to want to essentially re-learn everything? $2000 is only relevant if the people are actually fairly computer savy, which pretty much everyone everywhere is not nor do they care to bother.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how IBM arrived at the result of $ 2000 .
Because I 'm pretty sure that out of the 150k people that I work with that 3/4 of them will take months to adjust to Linux and be completely pissed off the entire time .
At an internal rate of $ 100- $ 150 per person per hour... uh... lol , right.This is what most of the company uses : Outlook , Word , Excel , Powerpoint .
Project. File shares .
Blackberry/Phone. Online web conferences .
PDF. That 's about it .
Everything else is either a back-end system specific to the business or a program ( i.e , drafting , manufacturing , etc ) for the specific business at hand.And do n't give me crap about open office solutions .
It took most of these people 10 or 20 years to just get by with Office , you really think they are going to want to essentially re-learn everything ?
$ 2000 is only relevant if the people are actually fairly computer savy , which pretty much everyone everywhere is not nor do they care to bother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how IBM arrived at the result of $2000.
Because I'm pretty sure that out of the 150k people that I work with that 3/4 of them will take months to adjust to Linux and be completely pissed off the entire time.
At an internal rate of $100-$150 per person per hour... uh... lol, right.This is what most of the company uses: Outlook, Word, Excel, Powerpoint.
Project. File shares.
Blackberry/Phone. Online web conferences.
PDF. That's about it.
Everything else is either a back-end system specific to the business or a program (i.e, drafting, manufacturing, etc) for the specific business at hand.And don't give me crap about open office solutions.
It took most of these people 10 or 20 years to just get by with Office, you really think they are going to want to essentially re-learn everything?
$2000 is only relevant if the people are actually fairly computer savy, which pretty much everyone everywhere is not nor do they care to bother.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818437</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1256052840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you have an actual reason to do that to a Linux system, you can chmod -x everything in gconf.  I actually have a system that I did this to, because it's got a single user account that's used by random members of the public off the street at the rate of a couple dozen users a day.  If somebody does manage to dork up the settings, I just hit Ctrl-Alt-Backspace and let gdm do the autologin thing again, and everything is back to normal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have an actual reason to do that to a Linux system , you can chmod -x everything in gconf .
I actually have a system that I did this to , because it 's got a single user account that 's used by random members of the public off the street at the rate of a couple dozen users a day .
If somebody does manage to dork up the settings , I just hit Ctrl-Alt-Backspace and let gdm do the autologin thing again , and everything is back to normal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have an actual reason to do that to a Linux system, you can chmod -x everything in gconf.
I actually have a system that I did this to, because it's got a single user account that's used by random members of the public off the street at the rate of a couple dozen users a day.
If somebody does manage to dork up the settings, I just hit Ctrl-Alt-Backspace and let gdm do the autologin thing again, and everything is back to normal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817177</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818903</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1256055780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These employees, who would take <em>months</em> on the transition between two sets of software with extremely similar feature sets...</p><p>How productive are they again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These employees , who would take months on the transition between two sets of software with extremely similar feature sets...How productive are they again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These employees, who would take months on the transition between two sets of software with extremely similar feature sets...How productive are they again?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29828849</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe IBM can't count???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256120220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're assuming there is any system admin installing anything, or that there is any retraining.  At IBM, where I work, there is not.  We are given a hardware upgrade every 4 years that comes with a pre-installed image, and install all our own software, configure our own machines (and pray not to have problems, since there is very little deskside support available) and learn to use our own software on our own time.</p><p>Agreed, there is time spent by the consultant / analyst doing his own machine refresh, and some time from the deskside support in developing and installing the original image, but there's no way it's anywhere near $2000.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're assuming there is any system admin installing anything , or that there is any retraining .
At IBM , where I work , there is not .
We are given a hardware upgrade every 4 years that comes with a pre-installed image , and install all our own software , configure our own machines ( and pray not to have problems , since there is very little deskside support available ) and learn to use our own software on our own time.Agreed , there is time spent by the consultant / analyst doing his own machine refresh , and some time from the deskside support in developing and installing the original image , but there 's no way it 's anywhere near $ 2000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're assuming there is any system admin installing anything, or that there is any retraining.
At IBM, where I work, there is not.
We are given a hardware upgrade every 4 years that comes with a pre-installed image, and install all our own software, configure our own machines (and pray not to have problems, since there is very little deskside support available) and learn to use our own software on our own time.Agreed, there is time spent by the consultant / analyst doing his own machine refresh, and some time from the deskside support in developing and installing the original image, but there's no way it's anywhere near $2000.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817057</id>
	<title>Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256044860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>... Windows 7 requires less from your hardware...</p></div><p>'<i>Less than</i>' what...? Vista??? GMAFB. Modern Linux distros @ default installation settings run just fine in 1/4 of the hardware a similar MS setup requires.</p><p>Back to Redmond, shill...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... Windows 7 requires less from your hardware...'Less than ' what... ?
Vista ? ? ? GMAFB .
Modern Linux distros @ default installation settings run just fine in 1/4 of the hardware a similar MS setup requires.Back to Redmond , shill.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... Windows 7 requires less from your hardware...'Less than' what...?
Vista??? GMAFB.
Modern Linux distros @ default installation settings run just fine in 1/4 of the hardware a similar MS setup requires.Back to Redmond, shill...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29823387</id>
	<title>Re:A company like IBM doesn't need Microsoft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256139840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right... because Vista is installed and running at a majority of businesses today... oh... wait.. no it isn't...</p><p>So I guess it's as not as bad as you try to disingenuously make it out to be.</p><p>The normal lifecycle of software will cause more than just "IE" or "Firefox" to go out of date given enough time.The way you try to spin it, it sure SOUNDS like a great thing that you can get a particular newer version of an app working on a older OS with "just a handful of developers" (even though in practice most mid-sized/small companies would never seriously attempt to do such a thing, simply because software development in and of itself is not their core business) , when you start to multiply the number of apps needing to be retrofitted, it is obviously more cost effective to simply upgrade the OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right... because Vista is installed and running at a majority of businesses today... oh... wait.. no it is n't...So I guess it 's as not as bad as you try to disingenuously make it out to be.The normal lifecycle of software will cause more than just " IE " or " Firefox " to go out of date given enough time.The way you try to spin it , it sure SOUNDS like a great thing that you can get a particular newer version of an app working on a older OS with " just a handful of developers " ( even though in practice most mid-sized/small companies would never seriously attempt to do such a thing , simply because software development in and of itself is not their core business ) , when you start to multiply the number of apps needing to be retrofitted , it is obviously more cost effective to simply upgrade the OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right... because Vista is installed and running at a majority of businesses today... oh... wait.. no it isn't...So I guess it's as not as bad as you try to disingenuously make it out to be.The normal lifecycle of software will cause more than just "IE" or "Firefox" to go out of date given enough time.The way you try to spin it, it sure SOUNDS like a great thing that you can get a particular newer version of an app working on a older OS with "just a handful of developers" (even though in practice most mid-sized/small companies would never seriously attempt to do such a thing, simply because software development in and of itself is not their core business) , when you start to multiply the number of apps needing to be retrofitted, it is obviously more cost effective to simply upgrade the OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819957</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>gblfxt</author>
	<datestamp>1256065860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've found ill-trained admins tend to lock things down unnecessarily.  Usually the end results of getting them "on the cheap".  Looks good on a stupid management.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've found ill-trained admins tend to lock things down unnecessarily .
Usually the end results of getting them " on the cheap " .
Looks good on a stupid management .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've found ill-trained admins tend to lock things down unnecessarily.
Usually the end results of getting them "on the cheap".
Looks good on a stupid management.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817177</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816975</id>
	<title>Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256044500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>less from hardware than what? cheaper than what? huh? who?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>less from hardware than what ?
cheaper than what ?
huh ? who ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>less from hardware than what?
cheaper than what?
huh? who?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817233</id>
	<title>About that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256045820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uhh . . . <br> Ubuntu needs 256 MB RAM and ~8 GB (they say four, but from personal experience, you need at least 8) of Hard drive space. <br>
Windows 7 needs 1 GB RAM and 16GB Disk.

<br> <br>
Source: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows\_7" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows\_7</a> [wikipedia.org] <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu\_(operating\_system)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu\_(operating\_system)</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhh .
. .
Ubuntu needs 256 MB RAM and ~ 8 GB ( they say four , but from personal experience , you need at least 8 ) of Hard drive space .
Windows 7 needs 1 GB RAM and 16GB Disk .
Source : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows \ _7 [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu \ _ ( operating \ _system ) [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhh .
. .
Ubuntu needs 256 MB RAM and ~8 GB (they say four, but from personal experience, you need at least 8) of Hard drive space.
Windows 7 needs 1 GB RAM and 16GB Disk.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows\_7 [wikipedia.org] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu\_(operating\_system) [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819037</id>
	<title>Optometrists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256056800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once there is some Open source software for linux that is made for eye doctors, let me know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once there is some Open source software for linux that is made for eye doctors , let me know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once there is some Open source software for linux that is made for eye doctors, let me know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817671</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1256048220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is both redundant to other posts and can probably be construed as a troll, but have you used Linux? You can control *everything* completely.</p><p>I may be missing your question a bit because I don't have a specific program to suggest for access control but that's because the entire structure of a Linux operating system is built with easy access control. Just put program binaries in the correct folders and configure permissions and executable paths to give particular groups of users the access you want. Linux file systems are built to have this kind of control by default.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is both redundant to other posts and can probably be construed as a troll , but have you used Linux ?
You can control * everything * completely.I may be missing your question a bit because I do n't have a specific program to suggest for access control but that 's because the entire structure of a Linux operating system is built with easy access control .
Just put program binaries in the correct folders and configure permissions and executable paths to give particular groups of users the access you want .
Linux file systems are built to have this kind of control by default .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is both redundant to other posts and can probably be construed as a troll, but have you used Linux?
You can control *everything* completely.I may be missing your question a bit because I don't have a specific program to suggest for access control but that's because the entire structure of a Linux operating system is built with easy access control.
Just put program binaries in the correct folders and configure permissions and executable paths to give particular groups of users the access you want.
Linux file systems are built to have this kind of control by default.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29822161</id>
	<title>Re:It isn't just licensing costs...</title>
	<author>c</author>
	<datestamp>1256133300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; &gt; Using the wrong OS can get a company shut down and the officers<br>&gt; &gt; of the company put in jail.</p><p>&gt; Ahhhh, the sweet sweet smell of Microsoft FUD.</p><p>What? I thought he was talking about the dangers of a BSA raid happening when a company isn't able to accurately keep track of Microsoft Windows licenses?</p><p>c.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Using the wrong OS can get a company shut down and the officers &gt; &gt; of the company put in jail. &gt; Ahhhh , the sweet sweet smell of Microsoft FUD.What ?
I thought he was talking about the dangers of a BSA raid happening when a company is n't able to accurately keep track of Microsoft Windows licenses ? c .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; &gt; Using the wrong OS can get a company shut down and the officers&gt; &gt; of the company put in jail.&gt; Ahhhh, the sweet sweet smell of Microsoft FUD.What?
I thought he was talking about the dangers of a BSA raid happening when a company isn't able to accurately keep track of Microsoft Windows licenses?c.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817639</id>
	<title>Re:IBM's answer to Windows 3.1 was OS/2 Warp...</title>
	<author>Stormwatch</author>
	<datestamp>1256047980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I recall that, and I always found it weird. It's like they didn't really care about OS/2's success.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I recall that , and I always found it weird .
It 's like they did n't really care about OS/2 's success .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recall that, and I always found it weird.
It's like they didn't really care about OS/2's success.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29824171</id>
	<title>Re:A company like IBM doesn't need Microsoft</title>
	<author>iamacat</author>
	<datestamp>1256143680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Since there are still companies running DOS as part of their systems, I doubt Microsoft can force people to upgrade.</p></div><p>Oh yeah? I can walk into Fry's and buy a copy of DOS for my new machine with 500GB hard drive, USB keyboard/mouse/mass storage and EFI firmware? Or do I just install 64 bit Vista/Windows 7 and run my DOS apps in a command prompt?</p><p>I think I like my chances of running Slackware 1.0 or FreeDOS apps better, especially if I am a company in the position to pay for a couple of consultants for a few months.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since there are still companies running DOS as part of their systems , I doubt Microsoft can force people to upgrade.Oh yeah ?
I can walk into Fry 's and buy a copy of DOS for my new machine with 500GB hard drive , USB keyboard/mouse/mass storage and EFI firmware ?
Or do I just install 64 bit Vista/Windows 7 and run my DOS apps in a command prompt ? I think I like my chances of running Slackware 1.0 or FreeDOS apps better , especially if I am a company in the position to pay for a couple of consultants for a few months .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since there are still companies running DOS as part of their systems, I doubt Microsoft can force people to upgrade.Oh yeah?
I can walk into Fry's and buy a copy of DOS for my new machine with 500GB hard drive, USB keyboard/mouse/mass storage and EFI firmware?
Or do I just install 64 bit Vista/Windows 7 and run my DOS apps in a command prompt?I think I like my chances of running Slackware 1.0 or FreeDOS apps better, especially if I am a company in the position to pay for a couple of consultants for a few months.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817177</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>hofmny</author>
	<datestamp>1256045460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used to work for a company that locked things down so much, that if you wanted to increase the speed of your mouse, you had to call the IT department, LOL. <br> <br>
This is a bit obsessive, but it's their prerogative.
Either its not that easy to prevent a user from accessing the mouse control screen in Gnome or KDE, or most administrators are "Windows Trained" and wouldn't know the steps to lock it down (most just run a 3rd party app that does it for them anyway).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to work for a company that locked things down so much , that if you wanted to increase the speed of your mouse , you had to call the IT department , LOL .
This is a bit obsessive , but it 's their prerogative .
Either its not that easy to prevent a user from accessing the mouse control screen in Gnome or KDE , or most administrators are " Windows Trained " and would n't know the steps to lock it down ( most just run a 3rd party app that does it for them anyway ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to work for a company that locked things down so much, that if you wanted to increase the speed of your mouse, you had to call the IT department, LOL.
This is a bit obsessive, but it's their prerogative.
Either its not that easy to prevent a user from accessing the mouse control screen in Gnome or KDE, or most administrators are "Windows Trained" and wouldn't know the steps to lock it down (most just run a 3rd party app that does it for them anyway).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29827039</id>
	<title>Re:IBM should jump first?</title>
	<author>evil-merodach</author>
	<datestamp>1256155500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I may be wrong but my understanding is that IBM has done this; they have given every employee the option of running Windows or Linux.

Most people are already familiar with Windows so they take the perceived path of least resistance.

Me? I woulda stuck with OS/2.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I may be wrong but my understanding is that IBM has done this ; they have given every employee the option of running Windows or Linux .
Most people are already familiar with Windows so they take the perceived path of least resistance .
Me ? I woulda stuck with OS/2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I may be wrong but my understanding is that IBM has done this; they have given every employee the option of running Windows or Linux.
Most people are already familiar with Windows so they take the perceived path of least resistance.
Me? I woulda stuck with OS/2.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817455</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1256046900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I wonder how IBM arrived at the result of $2000</p></div></blockquote><p>

Because that's how much it would cost to have an Indian replace their job if they cant adapt.<br> <br>

Western societies have lost the ability to compete, rather then sink or swim they'd rather sue the water for being there in the first place.<br> <br>

Most of the people I know would be able to adapt to Ubuntu and Open Office in no time, the problem is fear, once you get people to get over their fear teaching them a new system is easy. There is also an advantage to doing this migration in a herd. For an individual it may take months to learn a new system completely but when all their co-workers are learning it as well the less bright workers often receive the benefits of the brighter workers (just like they do now with windows). There is always one non-IT person in a team that can point out "this is how you do that" to other team members.<br> <br>

The only people who will have problems with Linux are the people who currently have problems with Windows. In (Australian) schools how to use computers and office suites have been taught to every student for the last 12 years as being able to use them is considered a necessary skill in today's society. My generation (I'm 27) was the last generation to produce a significant number of people who couldn't use a PC, even then it's hard to find a 30 yr old who cant use a computer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how IBM arrived at the result of $ 2000 Because that 's how much it would cost to have an Indian replace their job if they cant adapt .
Western societies have lost the ability to compete , rather then sink or swim they 'd rather sue the water for being there in the first place .
Most of the people I know would be able to adapt to Ubuntu and Open Office in no time , the problem is fear , once you get people to get over their fear teaching them a new system is easy .
There is also an advantage to doing this migration in a herd .
For an individual it may take months to learn a new system completely but when all their co-workers are learning it as well the less bright workers often receive the benefits of the brighter workers ( just like they do now with windows ) .
There is always one non-IT person in a team that can point out " this is how you do that " to other team members .
The only people who will have problems with Linux are the people who currently have problems with Windows .
In ( Australian ) schools how to use computers and office suites have been taught to every student for the last 12 years as being able to use them is considered a necessary skill in today 's society .
My generation ( I 'm 27 ) was the last generation to produce a significant number of people who could n't use a PC , even then it 's hard to find a 30 yr old who cant use a computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how IBM arrived at the result of $2000

Because that's how much it would cost to have an Indian replace their job if they cant adapt.
Western societies have lost the ability to compete, rather then sink or swim they'd rather sue the water for being there in the first place.
Most of the people I know would be able to adapt to Ubuntu and Open Office in no time, the problem is fear, once you get people to get over their fear teaching them a new system is easy.
There is also an advantage to doing this migration in a herd.
For an individual it may take months to learn a new system completely but when all their co-workers are learning it as well the less bright workers often receive the benefits of the brighter workers (just like they do now with windows).
There is always one non-IT person in a team that can point out "this is how you do that" to other team members.
The only people who will have problems with Linux are the people who currently have problems with Windows.
In (Australian) schools how to use computers and office suites have been taught to every student for the last 12 years as being able to use them is considered a necessary skill in today's society.
My generation (I'm 27) was the last generation to produce a significant number of people who couldn't use a PC, even then it's hard to find a 30 yr old who cant use a computer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29827727</id>
	<title>What happened to Munich desktop conversion</title>
	<author>hankypooh</author>
	<datestamp>1256158500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What happened to the much hyped Munich desktop conversion from windows? About 5 years ago?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What happened to the much hyped Munich desktop conversion from windows ?
About 5 years ago ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happened to the much hyped Munich desktop conversion from windows?
About 5 years ago?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818653</id>
	<title>Re:A company like IBM doesn't need Microsoft</title>
	<author>Cl1mh4224rd</author>
	<datestamp>1256054280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On the other hand, once initial migration to Ubuntu is done, only an effort of a dozen developers would be needed to compile Firefox 1.0 with new libraries [...]</p></div><p>Is that supposed to be a good thing? I can't tell...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , once initial migration to Ubuntu is done , only an effort of a dozen developers would be needed to compile Firefox 1.0 with new libraries [ ... ] Is that supposed to be a good thing ?
I ca n't tell.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, once initial migration to Ubuntu is done, only an effort of a dozen developers would be needed to compile Firefox 1.0 with new libraries [...]Is that supposed to be a good thing?
I can't tell...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29821513</id>
	<title>absolute acaiberry</title>
	<author>stuartfile</author>
	<datestamp>1256128440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Window 7 now become big thing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.IBM getting involve in this matter . Result will come out is nothing



<a href="http://blog.itechtalk.com/2009/absolute-acai-berry-review-does-absolute-acai-berry-work" title="itechtalk.com" rel="nofollow">absolute acaiberry </a> [itechtalk.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Window 7 now become big thing .IBM getting involve in this matter .
Result will come out is nothing absolute acaiberry [ itechtalk.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Window 7 now become big thing .IBM getting involve in this matter .
Result will come out is nothing



absolute acaiberry  [itechtalk.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819915</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256065440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you kidding me? I tried to use Office 2007 at work today, and went nearly ballistic once I realized how they had unnecessarily broken all my previous experience with office software. I downloaded OpenOffice immediately. That and new language packs are $25. Unacceptable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you kidding me ?
I tried to use Office 2007 at work today , and went nearly ballistic once I realized how they had unnecessarily broken all my previous experience with office software .
I downloaded OpenOffice immediately .
That and new language packs are $ 25 .
Unacceptable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you kidding me?
I tried to use Office 2007 at work today, and went nearly ballistic once I realized how they had unnecessarily broken all my previous experience with office software.
I downloaded OpenOffice immediately.
That and new language packs are $25.
Unacceptable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29832527</id>
	<title>Re:About that...</title>
	<author>Homburg</author>
	<datestamp>1256242920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just noticed you specified a "workstation," and perhaps it's not bollocks that you would want 2 gigs for a workstation, if by that you mean a development machine. I've just run Eclipse in addition to Firefox, Evolution, and Openoffice (and the desktop environment and a few other background things like pidgin), and my memory usage is now touching 1 gig; compiling anything sizeable at the same time as running these apps might well lead to enough swapping to be annoying.</p><p>However, with Firefox, Evolution, and Openoffice, my memory usage is around 700 megs, so there's no way you need at least 2 gigs for non-development desktop usage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just noticed you specified a " workstation , " and perhaps it 's not bollocks that you would want 2 gigs for a workstation , if by that you mean a development machine .
I 've just run Eclipse in addition to Firefox , Evolution , and Openoffice ( and the desktop environment and a few other background things like pidgin ) , and my memory usage is now touching 1 gig ; compiling anything sizeable at the same time as running these apps might well lead to enough swapping to be annoying.However , with Firefox , Evolution , and Openoffice , my memory usage is around 700 megs , so there 's no way you need at least 2 gigs for non-development desktop usage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just noticed you specified a "workstation," and perhaps it's not bollocks that you would want 2 gigs for a workstation, if by that you mean a development machine.
I've just run Eclipse in addition to Firefox, Evolution, and Openoffice (and the desktop environment and a few other background things like pidgin), and my memory usage is now touching 1 gig; compiling anything sizeable at the same time as running these apps might well lead to enough swapping to be annoying.However, with Firefox, Evolution, and Openoffice, my memory usage is around 700 megs, so there's no way you need at least 2 gigs for non-development desktop usage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819939</id>
	<title>Re:Irrelevant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256065680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Assume POS refers to "point of sale" the options are Adempiere, Compiere, TinyERP, and Postbooks, all of which are cross-platform and run on Linux as well as windows.  Actually, I take that back, I only know for a fact the Postbooks provides POS, but ther other three ERP softwares might, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Assume POS refers to " point of sale " the options are Adempiere , Compiere , TinyERP , and Postbooks , all of which are cross-platform and run on Linux as well as windows .
Actually , I take that back , I only know for a fact the Postbooks provides POS , but ther other three ERP softwares might , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assume POS refers to "point of sale" the options are Adempiere, Compiere, TinyERP, and Postbooks, all of which are cross-platform and run on Linux as well as windows.
Actually, I take that back, I only know for a fact the Postbooks provides POS, but ther other three ERP softwares might, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816943</id>
	<title>Not "YearoftheLinuxDesktop"</title>
	<author>capnkr</author>
	<datestamp>1256044380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>More like "Year of the Linux Desktop Being Used to Reach the Cloud"? Which, I guess, will be good for the 'general' Linux desktop end user anyway. Fallout from this might prove beneficial in things like wider vendor support, more recognition, maybe some driver work in areas where attention is needed <i>(cough Intel GMA500...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/cough)</i>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More like " Year of the Linux Desktop Being Used to Reach the Cloud " ?
Which , I guess , will be good for the 'general ' Linux desktop end user anyway .
Fallout from this might prove beneficial in things like wider vendor support , more recognition , maybe some driver work in areas where attention is needed ( cough Intel GMA500... /cough ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More like "Year of the Linux Desktop Being Used to Reach the Cloud"?
Which, I guess, will be good for the 'general' Linux desktop end user anyway.
Fallout from this might prove beneficial in things like wider vendor support, more recognition, maybe some driver work in areas where attention is needed (cough Intel GMA500... /cough).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29824311</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe IBM can't count???</title>
	<author>KnownIssues</author>
	<datestamp>1256144280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Making a claim that it could cast "as much as $2,000" sounds to me like about as useless a number as you can have--unless the point is manipulation of the uninformed consumer. If someone told you that buying a new car could cost "as much as $100,000", wouldn't that scare you from buying a car? Hey, it's true; it <i>could</i> cost that much. Let's ignore the fact it almost certainly won't.</p><p>Did you know a new house could cost as much as $5 million? Your lunch could cost as much $50. Your broadband throughput could be as much as 12Mbps. Sorry, I digress.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Making a claim that it could cast " as much as $ 2,000 " sounds to me like about as useless a number as you can have--unless the point is manipulation of the uninformed consumer .
If someone told you that buying a new car could cost " as much as $ 100,000 " , would n't that scare you from buying a car ?
Hey , it 's true ; it could cost that much .
Let 's ignore the fact it almost certainly wo n't.Did you know a new house could cost as much as $ 5 million ?
Your lunch could cost as much $ 50 .
Your broadband throughput could be as much as 12Mbps .
Sorry , I digress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Making a claim that it could cast "as much as $2,000" sounds to me like about as useless a number as you can have--unless the point is manipulation of the uninformed consumer.
If someone told you that buying a new car could cost "as much as $100,000", wouldn't that scare you from buying a car?
Hey, it's true; it could cost that much.
Let's ignore the fact it almost certainly won't.Did you know a new house could cost as much as $5 million?
Your lunch could cost as much $50.
Your broadband throughput could be as much as 12Mbps.
Sorry, I digress.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820227</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256156340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, you really don't know much about Windows, do you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , you really do n't know much about Windows , do you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, you really don't know much about Windows, do you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820317</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256157300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can also just issue a SET command from a CMD command line: The USERNAME variable is set based on who CMD is running as, as are the location of TEMP, the user's profile directory and a few other useful things.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can also just issue a SET command from a CMD command line : The USERNAME variable is set based on who CMD is running as , as are the location of TEMP , the user 's profile directory and a few other useful things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can also just issue a SET command from a CMD command line: The USERNAME variable is set based on who CMD is running as, as are the location of TEMP, the user's profile directory and a few other useful things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817927</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe IBM can't count???</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1256049780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your neglecting the cost of system administrators installing new software on every machine, and of retraining every employee to use the new software. Actually, you're counting the cost as zero for yourself; how much total time did it take you to install the initial Beta and subsequent updates, and to learn how to use it? Is your time really worth $0/hour? If so, I really pity you... $2000 is about 40 hours of the average employees time. I suspect your total time wasted was probably about half that, but if your time is worth $100/hour, the numbers still add up to $2000.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your neglecting the cost of system administrators installing new software on every machine , and of retraining every employee to use the new software .
Actually , you 're counting the cost as zero for yourself ; how much total time did it take you to install the initial Beta and subsequent updates , and to learn how to use it ?
Is your time really worth $ 0/hour ?
If so , I really pity you... $ 2000 is about 40 hours of the average employees time .
I suspect your total time wasted was probably about half that , but if your time is worth $ 100/hour , the numbers still add up to $ 2000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your neglecting the cost of system administrators installing new software on every machine, and of retraining every employee to use the new software.
Actually, you're counting the cost as zero for yourself; how much total time did it take you to install the initial Beta and subsequent updates, and to learn how to use it?
Is your time really worth $0/hour?
If so, I really pity you... $2000 is about 40 hours of the average employees time.
I suspect your total time wasted was probably about half that, but if your time is worth $100/hour, the numbers still add up to $2000.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818277</id>
	<title>Re:About that...</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1256051940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Ubuntu needs 256 MB RAM<br><br>If you want decent performance, for a workstation, you want at least 2GB of RAM, preferably more, especially if you tend to run multiple applications at once.<br><br>Your estimate of how much RAM Windows needs is also low by my reckoning.<br><br>Now, for a system that doesn't need a GUI and doesn't run a lot of applications (you know, a dedicated print server or firewall or what have you) you can get away with less.  A lot less.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Ubuntu needs 256 MB RAMIf you want decent performance , for a workstation , you want at least 2GB of RAM , preferably more , especially if you tend to run multiple applications at once.Your estimate of how much RAM Windows needs is also low by my reckoning.Now , for a system that does n't need a GUI and does n't run a lot of applications ( you know , a dedicated print server or firewall or what have you ) you can get away with less .
A lot less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Ubuntu needs 256 MB RAMIf you want decent performance, for a workstation, you want at least 2GB of RAM, preferably more, especially if you tend to run multiple applications at once.Your estimate of how much RAM Windows needs is also low by my reckoning.Now, for a system that doesn't need a GUI and doesn't run a lot of applications (you know, a dedicated print server or firewall or what have you) you can get away with less.
A lot less.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818697</id>
	<title>Umm.. IBM doesn't even make PCs...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256054580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless I missed something about buying Lenovo back from the Chinese...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless I missed something about buying Lenovo back from the Chinese.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless I missed something about buying Lenovo back from the Chinese...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816967</id>
	<title>Fuck Obama.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256044500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That fascist pig won't be happy until the government controls every single aspect of every single human endeavor on the planet.  WAAAAA, stop asking hard questions of the Anointed One!  He doesn't like it!  WAAA, Democrats control the White House, both houses of Congress, and the media, and they STILL haven't completed their health care takeover because they can't all agree on how best to screw the middle class.  WAAAA, we'll just blame Republicans even though we have a majority in the House and 60 members in the Senate.  WAAAAA!!!</p><p>I'm so enjoying watching that douchebag of an affirmative action experiment gone terribly wrong go down in flames.  It warms my heart to watch young first-time voters crushed to learn that their free government education has failed them and that President != Emperor of the Universe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That fascist pig wo n't be happy until the government controls every single aspect of every single human endeavor on the planet .
WAAAAA , stop asking hard questions of the Anointed One !
He does n't like it !
WAAA , Democrats control the White House , both houses of Congress , and the media , and they STILL have n't completed their health care takeover because they ca n't all agree on how best to screw the middle class .
WAAAA , we 'll just blame Republicans even though we have a majority in the House and 60 members in the Senate .
WAAAAA ! ! ! I 'm so enjoying watching that douchebag of an affirmative action experiment gone terribly wrong go down in flames .
It warms my heart to watch young first-time voters crushed to learn that their free government education has failed them and that President ! = Emperor of the Universe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That fascist pig won't be happy until the government controls every single aspect of every single human endeavor on the planet.
WAAAAA, stop asking hard questions of the Anointed One!
He doesn't like it!
WAAA, Democrats control the White House, both houses of Congress, and the media, and they STILL haven't completed their health care takeover because they can't all agree on how best to screw the middle class.
WAAAA, we'll just blame Republicans even though we have a majority in the House and 60 members in the Senate.
WAAAAA!!!I'm so enjoying watching that douchebag of an affirmative action experiment gone terribly wrong go down in flames.
It warms my heart to watch young first-time voters crushed to learn that their free government education has failed them and that President != Emperor of the Universe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819029</id>
	<title>Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over</title>
	<author>rliden</author>
	<datestamp>1256056680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny because about 30 years ago it was IBMs competition and lock in on its proprietary hardware (basically giving away their OS) that started this whole Microsoft thing.  Competition on proprietary hardware and vendor lock-in isn't much different than competition on proprietary software with vendor or platform lock-in.</p><p>I'm fine with IBM competing however they want (legally), but I doubt I'll ever see them as much different from Microsoft.  To me they're the same animal with a different skin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny because about 30 years ago it was IBMs competition and lock in on its proprietary hardware ( basically giving away their OS ) that started this whole Microsoft thing .
Competition on proprietary hardware and vendor lock-in is n't much different than competition on proprietary software with vendor or platform lock-in.I 'm fine with IBM competing however they want ( legally ) , but I doubt I 'll ever see them as much different from Microsoft .
To me they 're the same animal with a different skin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny because about 30 years ago it was IBMs competition and lock in on its proprietary hardware (basically giving away their OS) that started this whole Microsoft thing.
Competition on proprietary hardware and vendor lock-in isn't much different than competition on proprietary software with vendor or platform lock-in.I'm fine with IBM competing however they want (legally), but I doubt I'll ever see them as much different from Microsoft.
To me they're the same animal with a different skin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816807</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817663</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256048220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"I wonder how IBM arrived at the result of $2000."</i></p><p>From the actual press release: Independent market estimates range <b>up to $2,000</b> for the cost of migrating to the Windows 7 operating system for many PC users. New PC hardware requirements account for a significant portion of the added expense.</p><p>For those that care, the Actual IBM press release<br>http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/28649.wss</p><p>Disclosure: I do not work for IBM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I wonder how IBM arrived at the result of $ 2000 .
" From the actual press release : Independent market estimates range up to $ 2,000 for the cost of migrating to the Windows 7 operating system for many PC users .
New PC hardware requirements account for a significant portion of the added expense.For those that care , the Actual IBM press releasehttp : //www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/28649.wssDisclosure : I do not work for IBM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I wonder how IBM arrived at the result of $2000.
"From the actual press release: Independent market estimates range up to $2,000 for the cost of migrating to the Windows 7 operating system for many PC users.
New PC hardware requirements account for a significant portion of the added expense.For those that care, the Actual IBM press releasehttp://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/28649.wssDisclosure: I do not work for IBM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797</id>
	<title>Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256043840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think one of the hindrances for businesses to move to Linux on the desktop is the lack of programs for Linux that allow the complete lock-down of the desktop. In Windows, there are many applications that let you control which users can access different areas in the GUI, well beyond Windows Access Control.
<br>.<br>
I don't know of anything similar in the Linux Desktop Environment to Windows Access Control or the other programs that are out there. Does anyone else?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think one of the hindrances for businesses to move to Linux on the desktop is the lack of programs for Linux that allow the complete lock-down of the desktop .
In Windows , there are many applications that let you control which users can access different areas in the GUI , well beyond Windows Access Control .
. I do n't know of anything similar in the Linux Desktop Environment to Windows Access Control or the other programs that are out there .
Does anyone else ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think one of the hindrances for businesses to move to Linux on the desktop is the lack of programs for Linux that allow the complete lock-down of the desktop.
In Windows, there are many applications that let you control which users can access different areas in the GUI, well beyond Windows Access Control.
.
I don't know of anything similar in the Linux Desktop Environment to Windows Access Control or the other programs that are out there.
Does anyone else?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29821161</id>
	<title>$2k for the update?</title>
	<author>CrashandDie</author>
	<datestamp>1256125080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the summary:<blockquote><div><p>The big push is that IBM claims it will cost up to $2,000 for a business to move to Windows 7.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Oh really? Well,  if it only costs $2,000 to move to Windows 7, for my 38k users, that's a bargain, really.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the summary : The big push is that IBM claims it will cost up to $ 2,000 for a business to move to Windows 7 .
Oh really ?
Well , if it only costs $ 2,000 to move to Windows 7 , for my 38k users , that 's a bargain , really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the summary:The big push is that IBM claims it will cost up to $2,000 for a business to move to Windows 7.
Oh really?
Well,  if it only costs $2,000 to move to Windows 7, for my 38k users, that's a bargain, really.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29836839</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe IBM can't count???</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1256233680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>On an interesting side note, I wonder if they calculated all the man hours and reworking of customized code that most shops would have to put in to go from a Microsoft shop to all Linux</i></p><p>And upgrading Windows doesn't have those costs?  Then why did a bunch of people complain their XP software would not run on Vista?  Why are businesses still using, and why did MS extend service for, XP?  MS even released XP for netbooks.</p><p>All upgrades as well as switches have costs.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On an interesting side note , I wonder if they calculated all the man hours and reworking of customized code that most shops would have to put in to go from a Microsoft shop to all LinuxAnd upgrading Windows does n't have those costs ?
Then why did a bunch of people complain their XP software would not run on Vista ?
Why are businesses still using , and why did MS extend service for , XP ?
MS even released XP for netbooks.All upgrades as well as switches have costs .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On an interesting side note, I wonder if they calculated all the man hours and reworking of customized code that most shops would have to put in to go from a Microsoft shop to all LinuxAnd upgrading Windows doesn't have those costs?
Then why did a bunch of people complain their XP software would not run on Vista?
Why are businesses still using, and why did MS extend service for, XP?
MS even released XP for netbooks.All upgrades as well as switches have costs.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817369</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>alharaka</author>
	<datestamp>1256046360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First of all, I do not know how Windows Access Control translates into desktop management noticeable by end users in Windows, to draw the analogy you made to the Linux desktop.  I had to look it up just to make sure what you meant here.

<a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa374860(VS.85).aspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa374860(VS.85).aspx</a> [microsoft.com]

This explains ACL's and low-level permissions.  I will not go into details (because I am not an expert, and plenty on Slashdot can fill in for me here), but I think it is safe to say Ubuntu Linux, Linux, GNU/Linux (hello, flamewar), and most Unix variants have a pretty expressive permissions system.  As an advancing n00b, it is enough to keep me locked out of my systems when running in a user account that is not in wheel.  If you meant something like Local Group Policy and GPO's in an Active Directory environment (where I have to make my bread and butter), Linux has been making strides in this department.  You just need to Google like everyone else.

If you are looking for tools to lock down the Linux desktop(s), particularly GNOME in this example, there is already an active project using tools like gconf (mentioned in a post below), SELinux, and other security utilities to make a locked down kiosk account pretty easy.  It is called xguest.

<a href="http://docs.fedoraproject.org/selinux-user-guide/f11/en-US/sect-Security-Enhanced\_Linux-Confining\_Users-xguest\_Kiosk\_Mode.html" title="fedoraproject.org" rel="nofollow">http://docs.fedoraproject.org/selinux-user-guide/f11/en-US/sect-Security-Enhanced\_Linux-Confining\_Users-xguest\_Kiosk\_Mode.html</a> [fedoraproject.org]

I would love to hear what people have to say about it if they deploy it in the field.  It is serious enough for a Red Hat sales engineer to bring it up as a cheap alternative to Windows kiosks I must laboriously lock down with aforementioned local GP and GPO's.  SELinux is no joke either, since its development is derived from DoD/NSA research.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selinux" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selinux</a> [wikipedia.org]

That being said, the current Linux solutions, if you figure in NSA/DoD cooperation, are at least as bad as Microsoft products.  Only difference is that they are free.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , I do not know how Windows Access Control translates into desktop management noticeable by end users in Windows , to draw the analogy you made to the Linux desktop .
I had to look it up just to make sure what you meant here .
http : //msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa374860 ( VS.85 ) .aspx [ microsoft.com ] This explains ACL 's and low-level permissions .
I will not go into details ( because I am not an expert , and plenty on Slashdot can fill in for me here ) , but I think it is safe to say Ubuntu Linux , Linux , GNU/Linux ( hello , flamewar ) , and most Unix variants have a pretty expressive permissions system .
As an advancing n00b , it is enough to keep me locked out of my systems when running in a user account that is not in wheel .
If you meant something like Local Group Policy and GPO 's in an Active Directory environment ( where I have to make my bread and butter ) , Linux has been making strides in this department .
You just need to Google like everyone else .
If you are looking for tools to lock down the Linux desktop ( s ) , particularly GNOME in this example , there is already an active project using tools like gconf ( mentioned in a post below ) , SELinux , and other security utilities to make a locked down kiosk account pretty easy .
It is called xguest .
http : //docs.fedoraproject.org/selinux-user-guide/f11/en-US/sect-Security-Enhanced \ _Linux-Confining \ _Users-xguest \ _Kiosk \ _Mode.html [ fedoraproject.org ] I would love to hear what people have to say about it if they deploy it in the field .
It is serious enough for a Red Hat sales engineer to bring it up as a cheap alternative to Windows kiosks I must laboriously lock down with aforementioned local GP and GPO 's .
SELinux is no joke either , since its development is derived from DoD/NSA research .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selinux [ wikipedia.org ] That being said , the current Linux solutions , if you figure in NSA/DoD cooperation , are at least as bad as Microsoft products .
Only difference is that they are free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, I do not know how Windows Access Control translates into desktop management noticeable by end users in Windows, to draw the analogy you made to the Linux desktop.
I had to look it up just to make sure what you meant here.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa374860(VS.85).aspx [microsoft.com]

This explains ACL's and low-level permissions.
I will not go into details (because I am not an expert, and plenty on Slashdot can fill in for me here), but I think it is safe to say Ubuntu Linux, Linux, GNU/Linux (hello, flamewar), and most Unix variants have a pretty expressive permissions system.
As an advancing n00b, it is enough to keep me locked out of my systems when running in a user account that is not in wheel.
If you meant something like Local Group Policy and GPO's in an Active Directory environment (where I have to make my bread and butter), Linux has been making strides in this department.
You just need to Google like everyone else.
If you are looking for tools to lock down the Linux desktop(s), particularly GNOME in this example, there is already an active project using tools like gconf (mentioned in a post below), SELinux, and other security utilities to make a locked down kiosk account pretty easy.
It is called xguest.
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/selinux-user-guide/f11/en-US/sect-Security-Enhanced\_Linux-Confining\_Users-xguest\_Kiosk\_Mode.html [fedoraproject.org]

I would love to hear what people have to say about it if they deploy it in the field.
It is serious enough for a Red Hat sales engineer to bring it up as a cheap alternative to Windows kiosks I must laboriously lock down with aforementioned local GP and GPO's.
SELinux is no joke either, since its development is derived from DoD/NSA research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selinux [wikipedia.org]

That being said, the current Linux solutions, if you figure in NSA/DoD cooperation, are at least as bad as Microsoft products.
Only difference is that they are free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819225</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1256058540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your implication that this is something Windows lacks isn't really true. Windows permissions also control access to files and programs on a user-by-user basis. You can even do it from the command line (manually or in a script). What's more, you can easily do things like specifically exclude account X from running program Y without needing to create a group off all the users who *can* execute Y (which may be everybody other than X). The execute bit in NT permissions is surprisingly rarely used (it's enabled by default for everything, including plain text files) but it works as you'd expect. Remove it from a program (or add an entry on the Deny side with Execute checked) and that user (or group) cannot execute the program. Do the same thing to a library (.dll) and any program that relies on said library will fail. Do it to a directory and the user/group will be unable to see that directory's contents.</p><p>I simply do not get why people think that the built-in file &amp; folder security management for Windows is inferior to that of Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your implication that this is something Windows lacks is n't really true .
Windows permissions also control access to files and programs on a user-by-user basis .
You can even do it from the command line ( manually or in a script ) .
What 's more , you can easily do things like specifically exclude account X from running program Y without needing to create a group off all the users who * can * execute Y ( which may be everybody other than X ) .
The execute bit in NT permissions is surprisingly rarely used ( it 's enabled by default for everything , including plain text files ) but it works as you 'd expect .
Remove it from a program ( or add an entry on the Deny side with Execute checked ) and that user ( or group ) can not execute the program .
Do the same thing to a library ( .dll ) and any program that relies on said library will fail .
Do it to a directory and the user/group will be unable to see that directory 's contents.I simply do not get why people think that the built-in file &amp; folder security management for Windows is inferior to that of Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your implication that this is something Windows lacks isn't really true.
Windows permissions also control access to files and programs on a user-by-user basis.
You can even do it from the command line (manually or in a script).
What's more, you can easily do things like specifically exclude account X from running program Y without needing to create a group off all the users who *can* execute Y (which may be everybody other than X).
The execute bit in NT permissions is surprisingly rarely used (it's enabled by default for everything, including plain text files) but it works as you'd expect.
Remove it from a program (or add an entry on the Deny side with Execute checked) and that user (or group) cannot execute the program.
Do the same thing to a library (.dll) and any program that relies on said library will fail.
Do it to a directory and the user/group will be unable to see that directory's contents.I simply do not get why people think that the built-in file &amp; folder security management for Windows is inferior to that of Linux.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29891467</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe IBM can't count???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256648160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, he still had to buy new hardware, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , he still had to buy new hardware , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, he still had to buy new hardware, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819953</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>phoenix\_rizzen</author>
	<datestamp>1256065860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do a google search sometime for KDE and kiosk.  It's very easy to lock down a desktop system running KDE.  We use it in the local school system quite successfully.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do a google search sometime for KDE and kiosk .
It 's very easy to lock down a desktop system running KDE .
We use it in the local school system quite successfully .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do a google search sometime for KDE and kiosk.
It's very easy to lock down a desktop system running KDE.
We use it in the local school system quite successfully.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818957</id>
	<title>IBM, the NAZI company</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256056200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why am I not surprised that the liberal leftists who push Linux are partnering with the company that made the HOLOCAUST possible?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why am I not surprised that the liberal leftists who push Linux are partnering with the company that made the HOLOCAUST possible ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why am I not surprised that the liberal leftists who push Linux are partnering with the company that made the HOLOCAUST possible?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818019</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>hofmny</author>
	<datestamp>1256050380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Huh wah?? Obviously you must be from a parallel universe, rather uninformed or a clever troll. </i> <br> <br>
I agree with everything you say, but instead I get modded down into the dirt as your obvious statements falsely manifest as being so informative as to incite a Linux/Window war, which wasn't even the intention of my initial statement. You even incited the mods, good job.
<br> <br>
<i>Honestly the amount of fine grained control mixed with sudo (neither run-as or UAC are sudo, they impersonate another user rather then privilege escalation) you get with *nix environment is leaps and bounds ahead of Windows.</i> <br> <br>
The fact is, I only use Linux for servers and have been developing, administering, and project managing them for  years. I know locking down a Linux server is easier and better than Window box -- in command line mode. However, I was merely trying to get a  meaningful conversion started on locking down machines in a GUI environment, which I imagine is a different beast than GUI, which I am less knowlegable about.
<br> <br>

<i>Nice try, but I suggest you undertake a bit of a learning curve and you will be enlightened.</i> <br> <br>
I don't know how you even get good karma or not modded as troll for that comment. I am already a knowledgeable system administrator in Linux as well as a seasoned software developer. However, the Linux Desktop has always been having issues over the years to gain any serious ground through a myriad of development problems. Over the past 2 years, it has improved a lot. However, everyone learns how to lock down Linux using the command line. The GUI environments could be a different beast. Sure, you could create groups and modify the actual binaries for Gnome, or KDE. That is obvious to such "enlightened" people such as us. But there <b>needs</b> to be better ways in order for businesses to jump on board. I know, because I deal with the business types all day, and am partly one myself. Hence my comment for a dialog on this situation. It does seem there is hope, as some people have talked about xguest or gconfig. Other people state that it is easy to control using SELinux -- something I always turn off and avoid like the devil. From what I gather, SELinx may be the solution to securing a Linux Desktop, so I will investigate this avenue. Thanks to everyone that left informative and not trollish comments.<br>
So I guess the conversation was a success, as it spread great information about this topic, even though trolls like you somehow are able to get modded so high while my initial posts get buried.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh wah ? ?
Obviously you must be from a parallel universe , rather uninformed or a clever troll .
I agree with everything you say , but instead I get modded down into the dirt as your obvious statements falsely manifest as being so informative as to incite a Linux/Window war , which was n't even the intention of my initial statement .
You even incited the mods , good job .
Honestly the amount of fine grained control mixed with sudo ( neither run-as or UAC are sudo , they impersonate another user rather then privilege escalation ) you get with * nix environment is leaps and bounds ahead of Windows .
The fact is , I only use Linux for servers and have been developing , administering , and project managing them for years .
I know locking down a Linux server is easier and better than Window box -- in command line mode .
However , I was merely trying to get a meaningful conversion started on locking down machines in a GUI environment , which I imagine is a different beast than GUI , which I am less knowlegable about .
Nice try , but I suggest you undertake a bit of a learning curve and you will be enlightened .
I do n't know how you even get good karma or not modded as troll for that comment .
I am already a knowledgeable system administrator in Linux as well as a seasoned software developer .
However , the Linux Desktop has always been having issues over the years to gain any serious ground through a myriad of development problems .
Over the past 2 years , it has improved a lot .
However , everyone learns how to lock down Linux using the command line .
The GUI environments could be a different beast .
Sure , you could create groups and modify the actual binaries for Gnome , or KDE .
That is obvious to such " enlightened " people such as us .
But there needs to be better ways in order for businesses to jump on board .
I know , because I deal with the business types all day , and am partly one myself .
Hence my comment for a dialog on this situation .
It does seem there is hope , as some people have talked about xguest or gconfig .
Other people state that it is easy to control using SELinux -- something I always turn off and avoid like the devil .
From what I gather , SELinx may be the solution to securing a Linux Desktop , so I will investigate this avenue .
Thanks to everyone that left informative and not trollish comments .
So I guess the conversation was a success , as it spread great information about this topic , even though trolls like you somehow are able to get modded so high while my initial posts get buried .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh wah??
Obviously you must be from a parallel universe, rather uninformed or a clever troll.
I agree with everything you say, but instead I get modded down into the dirt as your obvious statements falsely manifest as being so informative as to incite a Linux/Window war, which wasn't even the intention of my initial statement.
You even incited the mods, good job.
Honestly the amount of fine grained control mixed with sudo (neither run-as or UAC are sudo, they impersonate another user rather then privilege escalation) you get with *nix environment is leaps and bounds ahead of Windows.
The fact is, I only use Linux for servers and have been developing, administering, and project managing them for  years.
I know locking down a Linux server is easier and better than Window box -- in command line mode.
However, I was merely trying to get a  meaningful conversion started on locking down machines in a GUI environment, which I imagine is a different beast than GUI, which I am less knowlegable about.
Nice try, but I suggest you undertake a bit of a learning curve and you will be enlightened.
I don't know how you even get good karma or not modded as troll for that comment.
I am already a knowledgeable system administrator in Linux as well as a seasoned software developer.
However, the Linux Desktop has always been having issues over the years to gain any serious ground through a myriad of development problems.
Over the past 2 years, it has improved a lot.
However, everyone learns how to lock down Linux using the command line.
The GUI environments could be a different beast.
Sure, you could create groups and modify the actual binaries for Gnome, or KDE.
That is obvious to such "enlightened" people such as us.
But there needs to be better ways in order for businesses to jump on board.
I know, because I deal with the business types all day, and am partly one myself.
Hence my comment for a dialog on this situation.
It does seem there is hope, as some people have talked about xguest or gconfig.
Other people state that it is easy to control using SELinux -- something I always turn off and avoid like the devil.
From what I gather, SELinx may be the solution to securing a Linux Desktop, so I will investigate this avenue.
Thanks to everyone that left informative and not trollish comments.
So I guess the conversation was a success, as it spread great information about this topic, even though trolls like you somehow are able to get modded so high while my initial posts get buried.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819033</id>
	<title>On the Heels of SCO terminating Darl McBride</title>
	<author>wmorse</author>
	<datestamp>1256056740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it just a coincidence, or is IBM displaying a new confidence now that the whole SCO v.s. Linux  adventure is over?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it just a coincidence , or is IBM displaying a new confidence now that the whole SCO v.s .
Linux adventure is over ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it just a coincidence, or is IBM displaying a new confidence now that the whole SCO v.s.
Linux  adventure is over?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819713</id>
	<title>Why Microsoft isn't worried about this</title>
	<author>jsac</author>
	<datestamp>1256062680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linux has been at it for 15 years and (as indicated by an earlier slashdot story this very day) sound is still broken out of the box on Ubuntu.</p><p>And you still can't reliably cut and paste between apps.</p><p>Not exactly ready for prime time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux has been at it for 15 years and ( as indicated by an earlier slashdot story this very day ) sound is still broken out of the box on Ubuntu.And you still ca n't reliably cut and paste between apps.Not exactly ready for prime time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux has been at it for 15 years and (as indicated by an earlier slashdot story this very day) sound is still broken out of the box on Ubuntu.And you still can't reliably cut and paste between apps.Not exactly ready for prime time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29822457</id>
	<title>Re:IBM should jump first?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256135160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're likely wrong.  Vista isn't offered to employees.  Any IBM loaded machines that have the Vista emblem are actually running XP.  While it may be true that not everyone is on Linux, Vista is not supported or distributed internally.  Perhaps these were their personal laptops or installs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're likely wrong .
Vista is n't offered to employees .
Any IBM loaded machines that have the Vista emblem are actually running XP .
While it may be true that not everyone is on Linux , Vista is not supported or distributed internally .
Perhaps these were their personal laptops or installs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're likely wrong.
Vista isn't offered to employees.
Any IBM loaded machines that have the Vista emblem are actually running XP.
While it may be true that not everyone is on Linux, Vista is not supported or distributed internally.
Perhaps these were their personal laptops or installs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29821913</id>
	<title>Would someone please tell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256131680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.... <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/08/14/1324238/Danish-FreeBSD-Dev-Sues-Lenovo-Over-Microsoft-Tax?art\_pos=5" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Lenovo</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.... Lenovo [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.... Lenovo [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29823447</id>
	<title>Linux POS?</title>
	<author>waa</author>
	<datestamp>1256140080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>Quasar?
<br>
<a href="http://linuxcanada.com/pos.shtml" title="linuxcanada.com">http://linuxcanada.com/pos.shtml</a> [linuxcanada.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quasar ?
http : //linuxcanada.com/pos.shtml [ linuxcanada.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quasar?
http://linuxcanada.com/pos.shtml [linuxcanada.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817011</id>
	<title>It isn't just licensing costs...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256044680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Devil's advocate here:</p><p>In a lot of places in the US, a company can get Windows expertise fairly cheaply.  However, Linux administrators who have worked with distributions on production critical hardware are relatively rare.  This cost difference may make the licensing for Microsoft products the least of a company's worries.</p><p>There is also Sarbanes Oxley.  Using the wrong OS can get a company shut down and the officers of the company put in jail. This sounds extreme, but if "due diligence" isn't followed as part of a business plan, this can happen.  Part of due diligence is making sure the OS is secure.  Thus FIPS and Common Criteria metrics.  This isn't to say that a Linux distribution doesn't meet these criteria -- RedHat and SuSE both meet these.  However, Ubuntu does not, and this can spell BIG trouble come audit time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Devil 's advocate here : In a lot of places in the US , a company can get Windows expertise fairly cheaply .
However , Linux administrators who have worked with distributions on production critical hardware are relatively rare .
This cost difference may make the licensing for Microsoft products the least of a company 's worries.There is also Sarbanes Oxley .
Using the wrong OS can get a company shut down and the officers of the company put in jail .
This sounds extreme , but if " due diligence " is n't followed as part of a business plan , this can happen .
Part of due diligence is making sure the OS is secure .
Thus FIPS and Common Criteria metrics .
This is n't to say that a Linux distribution does n't meet these criteria -- RedHat and SuSE both meet these .
However , Ubuntu does not , and this can spell BIG trouble come audit time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Devil's advocate here:In a lot of places in the US, a company can get Windows expertise fairly cheaply.
However, Linux administrators who have worked with distributions on production critical hardware are relatively rare.
This cost difference may make the licensing for Microsoft products the least of a company's worries.There is also Sarbanes Oxley.
Using the wrong OS can get a company shut down and the officers of the company put in jail.
This sounds extreme, but if "due diligence" isn't followed as part of a business plan, this can happen.
Part of due diligence is making sure the OS is secure.
Thus FIPS and Common Criteria metrics.
This isn't to say that a Linux distribution doesn't meet these criteria -- RedHat and SuSE both meet these.
However, Ubuntu does not, and this can spell BIG trouble come audit time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816857</id>
	<title>Business</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256044080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ubuntu works for me. Large community, fixed release schedule.<br>But whatever your choice, small to medium sized companies need to plan well ahead *before* they get locked in,<br>otherwise one day you'll be in your office and your MS exchange server will say "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that", then you're stuck with the thing forever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ubuntu works for me .
Large community , fixed release schedule.But whatever your choice , small to medium sized companies need to plan well ahead * before * they get locked in,otherwise one day you 'll be in your office and your MS exchange server will say " I 'm sorry , Dave .
I 'm afraid I ca n't do that " , then you 're stuck with the thing forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ubuntu works for me.
Large community, fixed release schedule.But whatever your choice, small to medium sized companies need to plan well ahead *before* they get locked in,otherwise one day you'll be in your office and your MS exchange server will say "I'm sorry, Dave.
I'm afraid I can't do that", then you're stuck with the thing forever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817975</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>fluffy99</author>
	<datestamp>1256050200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Honestly the amount of fine grained control mixed with sudo (neither run-as or UAC are sudo, they impersonate another user rather then privilege escalation)</p></div><p>We you referring to sudowin <a href="http://sourceforge.net/projects/sudowin/" title="sourceforge.net">http://sourceforge.net/projects/sudowin/</a> [sourceforge.net], which does maintain the user id and escalates privileges?  The linux sudo impersonates another user just like run-as (http://www.gratisoft.us/sudo/man/sudo.html).  Windows UAC controls privilege escalation.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>you get with *nix environment is leaps and bounds ahead of Windows. Admittedly group policy has some nice default templates, but as soon as you step an inch outside the norm (which is hard not to) be prepared for pain, so much so that the only place we employ GP is on our Terminal Services boxes. Even then a lot of the "Lock Down" is pretty much just obscuring things without actually adding any security.</p></div><p>I think you're Linux expertise is better than your Windows expertise.  Group Policies are very easy to use and work very well.  Even going outside the norm, you can do a hell of a lot writing custom gpo templates or scripts.  Most of the "lock downs" really do lock things down, but as you pointed out some are indeed security-through-obscurity like hiding some control panel options that the user can manually with a registry editor.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly the amount of fine grained control mixed with sudo ( neither run-as or UAC are sudo , they impersonate another user rather then privilege escalation ) We you referring to sudowin http : //sourceforge.net/projects/sudowin/ [ sourceforge.net ] , which does maintain the user id and escalates privileges ?
The linux sudo impersonates another user just like run-as ( http : //www.gratisoft.us/sudo/man/sudo.html ) .
Windows UAC controls privilege escalation.you get with * nix environment is leaps and bounds ahead of Windows .
Admittedly group policy has some nice default templates , but as soon as you step an inch outside the norm ( which is hard not to ) be prepared for pain , so much so that the only place we employ GP is on our Terminal Services boxes .
Even then a lot of the " Lock Down " is pretty much just obscuring things without actually adding any security.I think you 're Linux expertise is better than your Windows expertise .
Group Policies are very easy to use and work very well .
Even going outside the norm , you can do a hell of a lot writing custom gpo templates or scripts .
Most of the " lock downs " really do lock things down , but as you pointed out some are indeed security-through-obscurity like hiding some control panel options that the user can manually with a registry editor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly the amount of fine grained control mixed with sudo (neither run-as or UAC are sudo, they impersonate another user rather then privilege escalation)We you referring to sudowin http://sourceforge.net/projects/sudowin/ [sourceforge.net], which does maintain the user id and escalates privileges?
The linux sudo impersonates another user just like run-as (http://www.gratisoft.us/sudo/man/sudo.html).
Windows UAC controls privilege escalation.you get with *nix environment is leaps and bounds ahead of Windows.
Admittedly group policy has some nice default templates, but as soon as you step an inch outside the norm (which is hard not to) be prepared for pain, so much so that the only place we employ GP is on our Terminal Services boxes.
Even then a lot of the "Lock Down" is pretty much just obscuring things without actually adding any security.I think you're Linux expertise is better than your Windows expertise.
Group Policies are very easy to use and work very well.
Even going outside the norm, you can do a hell of a lot writing custom gpo templates or scripts.
Most of the "lock downs" really do lock things down, but as you pointed out some are indeed security-through-obscurity like hiding some control panel options that the user can manually with a registry editor.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819657</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous</title>
	<author>Peaceful\_Patriot</author>
	<datestamp>1256062080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And don't give me crap about open office solutions. It took most of these people 10 or 20 years to just get by with Office, you really think they are going to want to essentially re-learn everything? </p></div><p>Yeah, like Office 2007?
<br> <br> It's an incredible time sink and absolutely crazy that you can't enable a 'classic' interface so you don't spend 45 minutes doing some simple task that you could do with 2 clicks before.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And do n't give me crap about open office solutions .
It took most of these people 10 or 20 years to just get by with Office , you really think they are going to want to essentially re-learn everything ?
Yeah , like Office 2007 ?
It 's an incredible time sink and absolutely crazy that you ca n't enable a 'classic ' interface so you do n't spend 45 minutes doing some simple task that you could do with 2 clicks before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And don't give me crap about open office solutions.
It took most of these people 10 or 20 years to just get by with Office, you really think they are going to want to essentially re-learn everything?
Yeah, like Office 2007?
It's an incredible time sink and absolutely crazy that you can't enable a 'classic' interface so you don't spend 45 minutes doing some simple task that you could do with 2 clicks before.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29832595</id>
	<title>Re:It isn't just licensing costs...</title>
	<author>AliasMarlowe</author>
	<datestamp>1256244060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Using the wrong OS can get a company shut down</p></div><p>You're right: the London Stock Exchange had a near-death experience using Windows for its trading platform. They had to temporarily shut down when it seized up. That's why they decided to change to a faster and cheaper Linux-based trading platform.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Using the wrong OS can get a company shut downYou 're right : the London Stock Exchange had a near-death experience using Windows for its trading platform .
They had to temporarily shut down when it seized up .
That 's why they decided to change to a faster and cheaper Linux-based trading platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using the wrong OS can get a company shut downYou're right: the London Stock Exchange had a near-death experience using Windows for its trading platform.
They had to temporarily shut down when it seized up.
That's why they decided to change to a faster and cheaper Linux-based trading platform.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818439</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256052840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I assume they are looking at the marginal cost versus upgrading to a new, different, version of Windows which will also involve retraining, bitching, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I assume they are looking at the marginal cost versus upgrading to a new , different , version of Windows which will also involve retraining , bitching , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I assume they are looking at the marginal cost versus upgrading to a new, different, version of Windows which will also involve retraining, bitching, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818369</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>PReDiToR</author>
	<datestamp>1256052420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Box $ ls -al<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.program
<br>lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 2009-10-21 03:26<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.program -&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/root/program/settings.program
<br> <br>Works for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/home/user/.program/ too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Box $ ls -al .program lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 2009-10-21 03 : 26 .program - &gt; /root/program/settings.program Works for /home/user/.program/ too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Box $ ls -al .program
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 2009-10-21 03:26 .program -&gt; /root/program/settings.program
 Works for /home/user/.program/ too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29821431</id>
	<title>Re:IBM should jump first?</title>
	<author>Kamien</author>
	<datestamp>1256127600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're misinformed.
IBM is already jumping. You can have a Linux workstation (Open Client for Linux - for Red Hat/Fedora, Ubuntu, SLED) in IBM.
What's more the default office suite in IBM is Lotus Symphony now. MS Office is slowly going away.
BTW: I've never seen Windows Vista installed on any work PC in IBM.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're misinformed .
IBM is already jumping .
You can have a Linux workstation ( Open Client for Linux - for Red Hat/Fedora , Ubuntu , SLED ) in IBM .
What 's more the default office suite in IBM is Lotus Symphony now .
MS Office is slowly going away .
BTW : I 've never seen Windows Vista installed on any work PC in IBM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're misinformed.
IBM is already jumping.
You can have a Linux workstation (Open Client for Linux - for Red Hat/Fedora, Ubuntu, SLED) in IBM.
What's more the default office suite in IBM is Lotus Symphony now.
MS Office is slowly going away.
BTW: I've never seen Windows Vista installed on any work PC in IBM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819153</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1256057760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The backward-ness of your comment on sudo is hilarious.</p><p>The core of sudo is actually a very simple program - at installation it is SetUID root (but executable by users). When invoked, it reads the sudoers file to check whether the action is permitted (possibly checking a password, etc) and if so, simply execs the parameters it was passed. The relevant thing here is that sudo itself (and therefore any program executed by it) always runs as root. Remove the SetUID bit on sudo (or change its owner) and it's pointless.</p><p>How is this different from using Run As on Windows? Again you tell it the program to run, the user to run it as (default is Administrator), and provide credentials. There's no sudoers equivalent and the API to start a process is different, but the end result is the same - the program is run using the user ID of the high-permission user (root or Administrator).</p><p>UAC, by comparison, actually works differently - Vista/Win7/Server 2008 user accounts have two tokens, elevated and un-elevated. If you're a member of the Administrators group but not *the* Administrator account, then processes normally start using the un-elevated token. If you use UAC to start a process, that process gets the elevated token. Here's the difference, though - the elevated token is still for your account.</p><p>A quick way to test and compare: both Windows and *nix have the whoami command. Try the following:<br>At an un-elevated CMD prompt, use <b>whoami</b>. You should see something like [computer\_name]\[your\_user\_name]<br>Next, type <b>runas<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/noprofile<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/user:[computer\_name]\administrator cmd</b> and enter the password when prompted (on Vista/Win7, you'll need to have enabled the Admin account. You could alternatively use another user account on your computer). In the new window, try <b>whoami</b> again - it should come up like [computer\_name]\Administrator (or whatever account you specified).<br>Third, try opening a CMD prompt using UAC, then run <b>whoami</b> again. You'll get the same response as if you didn't use UAC.</p><p>On Linux or another Unix-like system, type <b>whoami</b> and you'll see your username (presumably not root).<br>Then try <b>sudo bash</b> followed by <b>whoami</b> (or even just <b>sudo whoami</b>) and it'll say root.<br>Using su will give the same result.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The backward-ness of your comment on sudo is hilarious.The core of sudo is actually a very simple program - at installation it is SetUID root ( but executable by users ) .
When invoked , it reads the sudoers file to check whether the action is permitted ( possibly checking a password , etc ) and if so , simply execs the parameters it was passed .
The relevant thing here is that sudo itself ( and therefore any program executed by it ) always runs as root .
Remove the SetUID bit on sudo ( or change its owner ) and it 's pointless.How is this different from using Run As on Windows ?
Again you tell it the program to run , the user to run it as ( default is Administrator ) , and provide credentials .
There 's no sudoers equivalent and the API to start a process is different , but the end result is the same - the program is run using the user ID of the high-permission user ( root or Administrator ) .UAC , by comparison , actually works differently - Vista/Win7/Server 2008 user accounts have two tokens , elevated and un-elevated .
If you 're a member of the Administrators group but not * the * Administrator account , then processes normally start using the un-elevated token .
If you use UAC to start a process , that process gets the elevated token .
Here 's the difference , though - the elevated token is still for your account.A quick way to test and compare : both Windows and * nix have the whoami command .
Try the following : At an un-elevated CMD prompt , use whoami .
You should see something like [ computer \ _name ] \ [ your \ _user \ _name ] Next , type runas /noprofile /user : [ computer \ _name ] \ administrator cmd and enter the password when prompted ( on Vista/Win7 , you 'll need to have enabled the Admin account .
You could alternatively use another user account on your computer ) .
In the new window , try whoami again - it should come up like [ computer \ _name ] \ Administrator ( or whatever account you specified ) .Third , try opening a CMD prompt using UAC , then run whoami again .
You 'll get the same response as if you did n't use UAC.On Linux or another Unix-like system , type whoami and you 'll see your username ( presumably not root ) .Then try sudo bash followed by whoami ( or even just sudo whoami ) and it 'll say root.Using su will give the same result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The backward-ness of your comment on sudo is hilarious.The core of sudo is actually a very simple program - at installation it is SetUID root (but executable by users).
When invoked, it reads the sudoers file to check whether the action is permitted (possibly checking a password, etc) and if so, simply execs the parameters it was passed.
The relevant thing here is that sudo itself (and therefore any program executed by it) always runs as root.
Remove the SetUID bit on sudo (or change its owner) and it's pointless.How is this different from using Run As on Windows?
Again you tell it the program to run, the user to run it as (default is Administrator), and provide credentials.
There's no sudoers equivalent and the API to start a process is different, but the end result is the same - the program is run using the user ID of the high-permission user (root or Administrator).UAC, by comparison, actually works differently - Vista/Win7/Server 2008 user accounts have two tokens, elevated and un-elevated.
If you're a member of the Administrators group but not *the* Administrator account, then processes normally start using the un-elevated token.
If you use UAC to start a process, that process gets the elevated token.
Here's the difference, though - the elevated token is still for your account.A quick way to test and compare: both Windows and *nix have the whoami command.
Try the following:At an un-elevated CMD prompt, use whoami.
You should see something like [computer\_name]\[your\_user\_name]Next, type runas /noprofile /user:[computer\_name]\administrator cmd and enter the password when prompted (on Vista/Win7, you'll need to have enabled the Admin account.
You could alternatively use another user account on your computer).
In the new window, try whoami again - it should come up like [computer\_name]\Administrator (or whatever account you specified).Third, try opening a CMD prompt using UAC, then run whoami again.
You'll get the same response as if you didn't use UAC.On Linux or another Unix-like system, type whoami and you'll see your username (presumably not root).Then try sudo bash followed by whoami (or even just sudo whoami) and it'll say root.Using su will give the same result.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29830607</id>
	<title>Fine, but...</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1256131320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...can I get it without Lotus Notes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...can I get it without Lotus Notes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...can I get it without Lotus Notes?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817045</id>
	<title>t's no secret that for IBM</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1256044800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linux is the shiv they want to give to MS.</p><p>Now if they would take some of that money and develop a market for game houses to make games for it we would have something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux is the shiv they want to give to MS.Now if they would take some of that money and develop a market for game houses to make games for it we would have something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux is the shiv they want to give to MS.Now if they would take some of that money and develop a market for game houses to make games for it we would have something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29821547</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe IBM can't count???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256128680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>20 hours of that was reading slashdot</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>20 hours of that was reading slashdot</tokentext>
<sentencetext>20 hours of that was reading slashdot</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817215</id>
	<title>Re:It isn't just licensing costs...</title>
	<author>ozmanjusri</author>
	<datestamp>1256045760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Using the wrong OS can get a company shut down and the officers of the company put in jail.</i>
<p>
Ahhhh, the sweet sweet smell of Microsoft FUD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Using the wrong OS can get a company shut down and the officers of the company put in jail .
Ahhhh , the sweet sweet smell of Microsoft FUD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using the wrong OS can get a company shut down and the officers of the company put in jail.
Ahhhh, the sweet sweet smell of Microsoft FUD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818549</id>
	<title>Slowly</title>
	<author>ndik</author>
	<datestamp>1256053560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Change takes time, especially when companies have been used to various programs such as Microsoft Word, Powerpoint, Excel and Outlook.

As SparafucileMan noted, it can take months before people are 'adjusted' to Linux systems. If you're wanting your workplace to operate under a *nix environment, bring it in slowly and teach people as you go, don't push it hard and fast.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Change takes time , especially when companies have been used to various programs such as Microsoft Word , Powerpoint , Excel and Outlook .
As SparafucileMan noted , it can take months before people are 'adjusted ' to Linux systems .
If you 're wanting your workplace to operate under a * nix environment , bring it in slowly and teach people as you go , do n't push it hard and fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Change takes time, especially when companies have been used to various programs such as Microsoft Word, Powerpoint, Excel and Outlook.
As SparafucileMan noted, it can take months before people are 'adjusted' to Linux systems.
If you're wanting your workplace to operate under a *nix environment, bring it in slowly and teach people as you go, don't push it hard and fast.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819263</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256058660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't be ridiculous yourself.  IBM wouldn't push people to go with OpenOffice.  They'll encourage businesses looking at switching to go with Lotus Notes/Symphony/Sametime to replace Outlook/Office/Communicator.</p><p>Also, File Shares and Online web conferences?  I'm not sure where you were going with that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be ridiculous yourself .
IBM would n't push people to go with OpenOffice .
They 'll encourage businesses looking at switching to go with Lotus Notes/Symphony/Sametime to replace Outlook/Office/Communicator.Also , File Shares and Online web conferences ?
I 'm not sure where you were going with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be ridiculous yourself.
IBM wouldn't push people to go with OpenOffice.
They'll encourage businesses looking at switching to go with Lotus Notes/Symphony/Sametime to replace Outlook/Office/Communicator.Also, File Shares and Online web conferences?
I'm not sure where you were going with that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817131</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256045220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And it's roll-your-own support with Linux. You have to rely on elitist coders, whereas with Microsoft you pay a fixed price but at least know where you stand with an actual business contract.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it 's roll-your-own support with Linux .
You have to rely on elitist coders , whereas with Microsoft you pay a fixed price but at least know where you stand with an actual business contract .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it's roll-your-own support with Linux.
You have to rely on elitist coders, whereas with Microsoft you pay a fixed price but at least know where you stand with an actual business contract.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820821</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>natxo asenjo</author>
	<datestamp>1256120940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://lmgtfy.org/?q=gnome+lock-down" title="lmgtfy.org" rel="nofollow">http://lmgtfy.org/?q=gnome+lock-down</a> [lmgtfy.org]</p><p>I am sure there is something similar for other desktop environments. Just use this info with cfengine/puppet and off you go.</p><p>Apparently the freeipa (http://freeipa.org) project are busy with something really integrated for policy settings, it should be soon ready (the authorization stuff is already there, so no nis for me thankyouverymuch).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //lmgtfy.org/ ? q = gnome + lock-down [ lmgtfy.org ] I am sure there is something similar for other desktop environments .
Just use this info with cfengine/puppet and off you go.Apparently the freeipa ( http : //freeipa.org ) project are busy with something really integrated for policy settings , it should be soon ready ( the authorization stuff is already there , so no nis for me thankyouverymuch ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://lmgtfy.org/?q=gnome+lock-down [lmgtfy.org]I am sure there is something similar for other desktop environments.
Just use this info with cfengine/puppet and off you go.Apparently the freeipa (http://freeipa.org) project are busy with something really integrated for policy settings, it should be soon ready (the authorization stuff is already there, so no nis for me thankyouverymuch).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820891</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1256121840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On linux, you could simply remove those applications you don't want people to use (through the package manager), and make sure any areas they can write (eg<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/home and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/tmp) are mounted noexec so they can't put arbitrary binaries there and execute them.</p><p>Alternatively, you could use file permissions on the binaries themselves if you want *some* users to have access and some not.</p><p>On windows, most of the methods to restrict what people can and cant run are quite easy to bypass, the restrictions - at least the default windows ones, are implemented in userspace (eg the application itself checks wether its allowed to be used when you run it), for instance cmd.exe runs and checks a registry key to see if your allowed to use it, then exits if your not... If you run other programs (eg command.com) they don't perform these checks and run anyway.<br>Also, many windows apps were designed for a single user environment, applications like word for instance which lets you embed arbitrary binary objects (which you can then execute) or execute arbitrary commands from macros, provide for some easy ways to bypass the restrictions.</p><p>On linux, if you want to restrict the *desktop environment* there are plenty of ways to do so but you are approaching it from a windows perspective, if you really want to restrict them don't give them a desktop environment at all, give them a window manager and a menu. If they log in and all they see is a list of applications in the middle of the screen there really isn't much else that they can do, there is no filesystem browser to let them wander around the system.</p><p>On windows you have a fixed set of tools, and the goal is to restrict access to parts of those tools, and the goal of the user is to gain access to the functionality which is still there but they're not allowed.<br>On linux you have a variable set of tools, and the goal is to pick the one which suits your needs... There won't be any additional functionality for users to try and gain access to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On linux , you could simply remove those applications you do n't want people to use ( through the package manager ) , and make sure any areas they can write ( eg /home and /tmp ) are mounted noexec so they ca n't put arbitrary binaries there and execute them.Alternatively , you could use file permissions on the binaries themselves if you want * some * users to have access and some not.On windows , most of the methods to restrict what people can and cant run are quite easy to bypass , the restrictions - at least the default windows ones , are implemented in userspace ( eg the application itself checks wether its allowed to be used when you run it ) , for instance cmd.exe runs and checks a registry key to see if your allowed to use it , then exits if your not... If you run other programs ( eg command.com ) they do n't perform these checks and run anyway.Also , many windows apps were designed for a single user environment , applications like word for instance which lets you embed arbitrary binary objects ( which you can then execute ) or execute arbitrary commands from macros , provide for some easy ways to bypass the restrictions.On linux , if you want to restrict the * desktop environment * there are plenty of ways to do so but you are approaching it from a windows perspective , if you really want to restrict them do n't give them a desktop environment at all , give them a window manager and a menu .
If they log in and all they see is a list of applications in the middle of the screen there really is n't much else that they can do , there is no filesystem browser to let them wander around the system.On windows you have a fixed set of tools , and the goal is to restrict access to parts of those tools , and the goal of the user is to gain access to the functionality which is still there but they 're not allowed.On linux you have a variable set of tools , and the goal is to pick the one which suits your needs... There wo n't be any additional functionality for users to try and gain access to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On linux, you could simply remove those applications you don't want people to use (through the package manager), and make sure any areas they can write (eg /home and /tmp) are mounted noexec so they can't put arbitrary binaries there and execute them.Alternatively, you could use file permissions on the binaries themselves if you want *some* users to have access and some not.On windows, most of the methods to restrict what people can and cant run are quite easy to bypass, the restrictions - at least the default windows ones, are implemented in userspace (eg the application itself checks wether its allowed to be used when you run it), for instance cmd.exe runs and checks a registry key to see if your allowed to use it, then exits if your not... If you run other programs (eg command.com) they don't perform these checks and run anyway.Also, many windows apps were designed for a single user environment, applications like word for instance which lets you embed arbitrary binary objects (which you can then execute) or execute arbitrary commands from macros, provide for some easy ways to bypass the restrictions.On linux, if you want to restrict the *desktop environment* there are plenty of ways to do so but you are approaching it from a windows perspective, if you really want to restrict them don't give them a desktop environment at all, give them a window manager and a menu.
If they log in and all they see is a list of applications in the middle of the screen there really isn't much else that they can do, there is no filesystem browser to let them wander around the system.On windows you have a fixed set of tools, and the goal is to restrict access to parts of those tools, and the goal of the user is to gain access to the functionality which is still there but they're not allowed.On linux you have a variable set of tools, and the goal is to pick the one which suits your needs... There won't be any additional functionality for users to try and gain access to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817741</id>
	<title>Re:It isn't just licensing costs...</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1256048640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Windows expertise fairly cheaply<br>
Like the sidekick cheap?<br>
or London stock exchange cheap?<br>
The deal you get on the back of a napkin during a nice lunch is soon gone with recovery and the PR mess of epic fail.<br>
The only thing cheap about MS is the first try as a student to get you hooked.<br>
Just like a smart drug dealer at the gates.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows expertise fairly cheaply Like the sidekick cheap ?
or London stock exchange cheap ?
The deal you get on the back of a napkin during a nice lunch is soon gone with recovery and the PR mess of epic fail .
The only thing cheap about MS is the first try as a student to get you hooked .
Just like a smart drug dealer at the gates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows expertise fairly cheaply
Like the sidekick cheap?
or London stock exchange cheap?
The deal you get on the back of a napkin during a nice lunch is soon gone with recovery and the PR mess of epic fail.
The only thing cheap about MS is the first try as a student to get you hooked.
Just like a smart drug dealer at the gates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29821303</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe IBM can't count???</title>
	<author>1s44c</author>
	<datestamp>1256126640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>$2,000 US to upgrade per machine? I don't know what in the heck IBM is talking about. I've been running Windows 7 on a two year old $500 laptop without any issues since Beta. They are easily over exagerating that cost...</p></div><p>500 Dollars user training and providing a helpdesk, at least 2000 Dollars lost productivity per user over the next year. A few hundred per user replacing and testing various bits of software and fixing the breakages. Changing OS's is expensive and disruptive and only looks cheap if you don't take the real costs into account.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 2,000 US to upgrade per machine ?
I do n't know what in the heck IBM is talking about .
I 've been running Windows 7 on a two year old $ 500 laptop without any issues since Beta .
They are easily over exagerating that cost...500 Dollars user training and providing a helpdesk , at least 2000 Dollars lost productivity per user over the next year .
A few hundred per user replacing and testing various bits of software and fixing the breakages .
Changing OS 's is expensive and disruptive and only looks cheap if you do n't take the real costs into account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$2,000 US to upgrade per machine?
I don't know what in the heck IBM is talking about.
I've been running Windows 7 on a two year old $500 laptop without any issues since Beta.
They are easily over exagerating that cost...500 Dollars user training and providing a helpdesk, at least 2000 Dollars lost productivity per user over the next year.
A few hundred per user replacing and testing various bits of software and fixing the breakages.
Changing OS's is expensive and disruptive and only looks cheap if you don't take the real costs into account.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818319</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256052120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You need to go hand out around a college or with younger employees .<br>The computer is superfluous , its the end destination that they care about.</p><p>you may have learned on punch cards and 12" mono green screens but the employees you are hiring did not.<br>think the joke about fixing your vcr says "have your kid fix it" ?</p><p>An OS is ( key in the black eyed peas ) "your so 2000 &amp; late"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You need to go hand out around a college or with younger employees .The computer is superfluous , its the end destination that they care about.you may have learned on punch cards and 12 " mono green screens but the employees you are hiring did not.think the joke about fixing your vcr says " have your kid fix it " ? An OS is ( key in the black eyed peas ) " your so 2000 &amp; late "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need to go hand out around a college or with younger employees .The computer is superfluous , its the end destination that they care about.you may have learned on punch cards and 12" mono green screens but the employees you are hiring did not.think the joke about fixing your vcr says "have your kid fix it" ?An OS is ( key in the black eyed peas ) "your so 2000 &amp; late"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818143</id>
	<title>Dear Slashdot:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256051160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many of these replies are part of a concentrated effort by Microsoft to discredit other operating systems in an attempt to dissuade anyone thinking about using them from doing so.  They do this in order to protect their interests by lying, telling half-truths and/or horribly distorted views of the truth.  They do this by spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) about other operating systems and programs.</p><p>They do this because they know their operating systems and programs are inferior.  They do this because they have geared their operating systems to the absolute lowest common denominator and refuse to cater to intelligent, knowledgeable computer users.  Therefore, they counter this by spreading as much FUD and disinformation as possible, causing even the more intelligent to begin to doubt and fuel their desire to go along with the herd instead of using sensible programs and operating systems.</p><p>This is not a fabrication or "tinfoil hat" scenario.  This is a scenario described to me by high-level Microsoft employees when I worked for a company that worked closely with Microsoft on several projects.  It is a slow, methodical, calculated scheme to keep Microsoft on top despite their lack of true technical ability.</p><p>Microsoft is a marketing and sales company, not a technical one.  Stop rewarding them for selling you snake oil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many of these replies are part of a concentrated effort by Microsoft to discredit other operating systems in an attempt to dissuade anyone thinking about using them from doing so .
They do this in order to protect their interests by lying , telling half-truths and/or horribly distorted views of the truth .
They do this by spreading Fear , Uncertainty , and Doubt ( FUD ) about other operating systems and programs.They do this because they know their operating systems and programs are inferior .
They do this because they have geared their operating systems to the absolute lowest common denominator and refuse to cater to intelligent , knowledgeable computer users .
Therefore , they counter this by spreading as much FUD and disinformation as possible , causing even the more intelligent to begin to doubt and fuel their desire to go along with the herd instead of using sensible programs and operating systems.This is not a fabrication or " tinfoil hat " scenario .
This is a scenario described to me by high-level Microsoft employees when I worked for a company that worked closely with Microsoft on several projects .
It is a slow , methodical , calculated scheme to keep Microsoft on top despite their lack of true technical ability.Microsoft is a marketing and sales company , not a technical one .
Stop rewarding them for selling you snake oil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many of these replies are part of a concentrated effort by Microsoft to discredit other operating systems in an attempt to dissuade anyone thinking about using them from doing so.
They do this in order to protect their interests by lying, telling half-truths and/or horribly distorted views of the truth.
They do this by spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) about other operating systems and programs.They do this because they know their operating systems and programs are inferior.
They do this because they have geared their operating systems to the absolute lowest common denominator and refuse to cater to intelligent, knowledgeable computer users.
Therefore, they counter this by spreading as much FUD and disinformation as possible, causing even the more intelligent to begin to doubt and fuel their desire to go along with the herd instead of using sensible programs and operating systems.This is not a fabrication or "tinfoil hat" scenario.
This is a scenario described to me by high-level Microsoft employees when I worked for a company that worked closely with Microsoft on several projects.
It is a slow, methodical, calculated scheme to keep Microsoft on top despite their lack of true technical ability.Microsoft is a marketing and sales company, not a technical one.
Stop rewarding them for selling you snake oil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816747</id>
	<title>IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256043600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you reduce the cost of software to zero and compete only on the hardware, you shut out some people from the market and trample others with your behemoth size.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you reduce the cost of software to zero and compete only on the hardware , you shut out some people from the market and trample others with your behemoth size .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you reduce the cost of software to zero and compete only on the hardware, you shut out some people from the market and trample others with your behemoth size.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816895</id>
	<title>Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256044200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IBM's retarded. What a garbage article. Windows 7 requires less from your hardware, and sorry Linux is not always cheaper (free is not cheap).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IBM 's retarded .
What a garbage article .
Windows 7 requires less from your hardware , and sorry Linux is not always cheaper ( free is not cheap ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IBM's retarded.
What a garbage article.
Windows 7 requires less from your hardware, and sorry Linux is not always cheaper (free is not cheap).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816747</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817693</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256048340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your doing it wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your doing it wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your doing it wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817087</id>
	<title>IBM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256045100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.. MS need to be careful.  IBM may be a beat up company but they still have a lot of power and can still hurt MS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.. MS need to be careful .
IBM may be a beat up company but they still have a lot of power and can still hurt MS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. MS need to be careful.
IBM may be a beat up company but they still have a lot of power and can still hurt MS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818789</id>
	<title>IBM's missing the picture</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256055120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Coworker of mine wanted to use Ubuntu as the main OS on his work machine. Installed it, got it up and running at home. Then when he brought it in and popped it into the docking station, it wouldn't work (X didn't seem to work, I didn't troubleshoot and neither did he) and so he just got a copy of Windows 7 and installed it instead.</p><p>Honestly in the business world you get to a point where your time is worth way too much to be wasting it on getting some product to work for you, when it should just work out of box without any special configuration. Ubuntu isn't there yet, not for business use anyway.</p><p>And also the cost as everybody has said is relative. Getting applications that work with the existing infrastructure costs money (integration and O&amp;M) and training users on how to use new software costs money too. Last time I checked the help desk people call when there's a problem isn't a volunteer service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Coworker of mine wanted to use Ubuntu as the main OS on his work machine .
Installed it , got it up and running at home .
Then when he brought it in and popped it into the docking station , it would n't work ( X did n't seem to work , I did n't troubleshoot and neither did he ) and so he just got a copy of Windows 7 and installed it instead.Honestly in the business world you get to a point where your time is worth way too much to be wasting it on getting some product to work for you , when it should just work out of box without any special configuration .
Ubuntu is n't there yet , not for business use anyway.And also the cost as everybody has said is relative .
Getting applications that work with the existing infrastructure costs money ( integration and O&amp;M ) and training users on how to use new software costs money too .
Last time I checked the help desk people call when there 's a problem is n't a volunteer service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coworker of mine wanted to use Ubuntu as the main OS on his work machine.
Installed it, got it up and running at home.
Then when he brought it in and popped it into the docking station, it wouldn't work (X didn't seem to work, I didn't troubleshoot and neither did he) and so he just got a copy of Windows 7 and installed it instead.Honestly in the business world you get to a point where your time is worth way too much to be wasting it on getting some product to work for you, when it should just work out of box without any special configuration.
Ubuntu isn't there yet, not for business use anyway.And also the cost as everybody has said is relative.
Getting applications that work with the existing infrastructure costs money (integration and O&amp;M) and training users on how to use new software costs money too.
Last time I checked the help desk people call when there's a problem isn't a volunteer service.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29824441</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe IBM can't count???</title>
	<author>KnownIssues</author>
	<datestamp>1256144880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems to me this $2000 amount, while it could very well be accurate, is being presented in a vacuum. Assuming this does include "soft costs" and isn't a completely artificially inflated amount for hardware, how does this amount compare to prior upgrades? How does this amount compare to open source alternatives? While the software might be free, the installation/training/maintenance costs certainly aren't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me this $ 2000 amount , while it could very well be accurate , is being presented in a vacuum .
Assuming this does include " soft costs " and is n't a completely artificially inflated amount for hardware , how does this amount compare to prior upgrades ?
How does this amount compare to open source alternatives ?
While the software might be free , the installation/training/maintenance costs certainly are n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me this $2000 amount, while it could very well be accurate, is being presented in a vacuum.
Assuming this does include "soft costs" and isn't a completely artificially inflated amount for hardware, how does this amount compare to prior upgrades?
How does this amount compare to open source alternatives?
While the software might be free, the installation/training/maintenance costs certainly aren't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817073</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256044980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fine-grained permissions are somewhat difficult. Locking everything down is really easy: just don't give the user root/sudo permissions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fine-grained permissions are somewhat difficult .
Locking everything down is really easy : just do n't give the user root/sudo permissions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fine-grained permissions are somewhat difficult.
Locking everything down is really easy: just don't give the user root/sudo permissions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820683</id>
	<title>Lotus Notes? PLEASE NO!</title>
	<author>piotru</author>
	<datestamp>1256118660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The basic idea is to have an Linux OS, with IBM smart client applications called Open Collaboration Client Solution software (OCCS)(Lotus Symphony and Notes) for enterprise apps."</p><p>Good Lord, hear my prayers and keep our Linux free from the dreadful and ugly Notes monster...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The basic idea is to have an Linux OS , with IBM smart client applications called Open Collaboration Client Solution software ( OCCS ) ( Lotus Symphony and Notes ) for enterprise apps .
" Good Lord , hear my prayers and keep our Linux free from the dreadful and ugly Notes monster.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The basic idea is to have an Linux OS, with IBM smart client applications called Open Collaboration Client Solution software (OCCS)(Lotus Symphony and Notes) for enterprise apps.
"Good Lord, hear my prayers and keep our Linux free from the dreadful and ugly Notes monster...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817799</id>
	<title>Re:Irrelevant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256048880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>LOL.  Mods with epic fail.  Linux fanbois came in here and saw "linux blah blah" and then "POS" and immediately their "OMG He's HATING ON LINUX" gene kicked in and they all cried into their pillows.  Yet, you really weren't flaming or bashing.  I love Linux fanbois on this site.  They get riled up faster than anything.  It all has to do with their insecurity about maybe having chosen a stupid OS with no future.  That, and not getting any sex.</htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL .
Mods with epic fail .
Linux fanbois came in here and saw " linux blah blah " and then " POS " and immediately their " OMG He 's HATING ON LINUX " gene kicked in and they all cried into their pillows .
Yet , you really were n't flaming or bashing .
I love Linux fanbois on this site .
They get riled up faster than anything .
It all has to do with their insecurity about maybe having chosen a stupid OS with no future .
That , and not getting any sex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL.
Mods with epic fail.
Linux fanbois came in here and saw "linux blah blah" and then "POS" and immediately their "OMG He's HATING ON LINUX" gene kicked in and they all cried into their pillows.
Yet, you really weren't flaming or bashing.
I love Linux fanbois on this site.
They get riled up faster than anything.
It all has to do with their insecurity about maybe having chosen a stupid OS with no future.
That, and not getting any sex.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29821667</id>
	<title>Re:Misguided</title>
	<author>1s44c</author>
	<datestamp>1256129760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ubuntu is nowhere near ready for prime time, and I don't care what its' fans try and say.</p></div><p>Maybe, maybe not. Windows has never been stable or secure enough for large scale use or use on a public network; The fact botnets exist is proof of that. However windows is still used all over the place.</p><p>Replacing something bad with something less bad is still progress.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ubuntu is nowhere near ready for prime time , and I do n't care what its ' fans try and say.Maybe , maybe not .
Windows has never been stable or secure enough for large scale use or use on a public network ; The fact botnets exist is proof of that .
However windows is still used all over the place.Replacing something bad with something less bad is still progress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ubuntu is nowhere near ready for prime time, and I don't care what its' fans try and say.Maybe, maybe not.
Windows has never been stable or secure enough for large scale use or use on a public network; The fact botnets exist is proof of that.
However windows is still used all over the place.Replacing something bad with something less bad is still progress.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819337</id>
	<title>Re:Office 2003 to 2007 vs. to OOo?</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1256059260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>c. 2005 I ran some <a href="http://blog.bfccomputing.com/articles/2005/09/21/office-12-radically-new-interface" title="bfccomputing.com">numbers</a> [bfccomputing.com] on re-training for the new Office based on some rudimentary testing.  I'm not sure if the numbers are still right, but the conversation is the same 4 years hence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>c. 2005 I ran some numbers [ bfccomputing.com ] on re-training for the new Office based on some rudimentary testing .
I 'm not sure if the numbers are still right , but the conversation is the same 4 years hence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>c. 2005 I ran some numbers [bfccomputing.com] on re-training for the new Office based on some rudimentary testing.
I'm not sure if the numbers are still right, but the conversation is the same 4 years hence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818099</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>aztektum</author>
	<datestamp>1256050920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you even look before spouting off?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you even look before spouting off ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you even look before spouting off?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817909</id>
	<title>Office 2003 to 2007 vs. to OOo?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256049600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And don't give me crap about open office solutions. It took most of these people 10 or 20 years to just get by with Office, you really think they are going to want to essentially re-learn everything?</p></div><p>Unless you're like my employer, which uses Access as a platform on which to run an off-the-shelf VBA app (from which we're slowly migrating), is the retraining from Microsoft Office 2003 to OOo 3.x with its traditional menus really that much harder than the retraining from Microsoft Office 2003 to Microsoft Office 2007 with its ribbon?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And do n't give me crap about open office solutions .
It took most of these people 10 or 20 years to just get by with Office , you really think they are going to want to essentially re-learn everything ? Unless you 're like my employer , which uses Access as a platform on which to run an off-the-shelf VBA app ( from which we 're slowly migrating ) , is the retraining from Microsoft Office 2003 to OOo 3.x with its traditional menus really that much harder than the retraining from Microsoft Office 2003 to Microsoft Office 2007 with its ribbon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And don't give me crap about open office solutions.
It took most of these people 10 or 20 years to just get by with Office, you really think they are going to want to essentially re-learn everything?Unless you're like my employer, which uses Access as a platform on which to run an off-the-shelf VBA app (from which we're slowly migrating), is the retraining from Microsoft Office 2003 to OOo 3.x with its traditional menus really that much harder than the retraining from Microsoft Office 2003 to Microsoft Office 2007 with its ribbon?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29821731</id>
	<title>Re:Misguided</title>
	<author>IrquiM</author>
	<datestamp>1256130360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ubuntu is not stable compared to other Linux flavors</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ubuntu is not stable compared to other Linux flavors</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ubuntu is not stable compared to other Linux flavors</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818161</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256051220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pick all that apply. You,</p><p>a) don't use linux<br>b) don't know how to properly Administrate Linux<br>c) work for Microsoft FUD machine<br>d) are a troll</p><p>The simple fact is, a Linux machine can be locked down to measures you can't even dream of with Windows environments. Even WITH 3rd party software that you paid too much for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pick all that apply .
You,a ) do n't use linuxb ) do n't know how to properly Administrate Linuxc ) work for Microsoft FUD machined ) are a trollThe simple fact is , a Linux machine can be locked down to measures you ca n't even dream of with Windows environments .
Even WITH 3rd party software that you paid too much for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pick all that apply.
You,a) don't use linuxb) don't know how to properly Administrate Linuxc) work for Microsoft FUD machined) are a trollThe simple fact is, a Linux machine can be locked down to measures you can't even dream of with Windows environments.
Even WITH 3rd party software that you paid too much for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819245</id>
	<title>$2,000?</title>
	<author>cenc</author>
	<datestamp>1256058540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank god I started by making my business an all Linux / open source shop from the start. It is hard to put real numbers to it, but I suspect it has saved me an easy $30,000 a year in IT cost for a small shop of around 6 employees (it will scale to around 12-24 easily without much investment). Perhaps something around $100,000 is a fair number to date in savings over the last 4 years. A case could be made for saving a whole lot more, if you add up the cost of all the propitiatory equivalents we use in terms of databases, hosting, mail servers, open source web packages, and so on ( three linux servers of various sorts). Even the routers use open firmware. My total IT budget is around $2,000 a year ($4,000 for everything including bandwidth and phone lines).</p><p>I might add, I am not including my own labor in this number. Just the cost of the hardware and software. Honestly, I remember spending a whole lot more time screwing with viruse infested crashing messes at my last job that was all windows network (and that was not even my job), then I ever do maintaining my linux systems.</p><p>Because I run Linux, I have been able to run old computers in to the ground that I would have needed to replace at least once or twice by now, plus figure a copy of xp, vista, and now windows 7 in the time we have been open. The only reason I replace a PC is because the hardware fails. In fact, that is really the way it should be. Not because the software is more bloated.  My oldest system still in everyday use is a PIII IBM T-22 notebook with 500 mb of ram, and half the office is still running single core Semprons just fine. The only thing making me considering upgrading currently is the possibility of energy savings with mini systems that use less juice and still get the job done. I am looking to downgrade basically. I am waiting for the industry to sort out the linux smart phone situation a bit more, and I will deploy linux phones to all my staff. Hell if that goes well, I will get rid of the cost of the frigen office all together. There, I found $2000 in cost conversion to linux. What it will cost me to break my office lease and sell the furniture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank god I started by making my business an all Linux / open source shop from the start .
It is hard to put real numbers to it , but I suspect it has saved me an easy $ 30,000 a year in IT cost for a small shop of around 6 employees ( it will scale to around 12-24 easily without much investment ) .
Perhaps something around $ 100,000 is a fair number to date in savings over the last 4 years .
A case could be made for saving a whole lot more , if you add up the cost of all the propitiatory equivalents we use in terms of databases , hosting , mail servers , open source web packages , and so on ( three linux servers of various sorts ) .
Even the routers use open firmware .
My total IT budget is around $ 2,000 a year ( $ 4,000 for everything including bandwidth and phone lines ) .I might add , I am not including my own labor in this number .
Just the cost of the hardware and software .
Honestly , I remember spending a whole lot more time screwing with viruse infested crashing messes at my last job that was all windows network ( and that was not even my job ) , then I ever do maintaining my linux systems.Because I run Linux , I have been able to run old computers in to the ground that I would have needed to replace at least once or twice by now , plus figure a copy of xp , vista , and now windows 7 in the time we have been open .
The only reason I replace a PC is because the hardware fails .
In fact , that is really the way it should be .
Not because the software is more bloated .
My oldest system still in everyday use is a PIII IBM T-22 notebook with 500 mb of ram , and half the office is still running single core Semprons just fine .
The only thing making me considering upgrading currently is the possibility of energy savings with mini systems that use less juice and still get the job done .
I am looking to downgrade basically .
I am waiting for the industry to sort out the linux smart phone situation a bit more , and I will deploy linux phones to all my staff .
Hell if that goes well , I will get rid of the cost of the frigen office all together .
There , I found $ 2000 in cost conversion to linux .
What it will cost me to break my office lease and sell the furniture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank god I started by making my business an all Linux / open source shop from the start.
It is hard to put real numbers to it, but I suspect it has saved me an easy $30,000 a year in IT cost for a small shop of around 6 employees (it will scale to around 12-24 easily without much investment).
Perhaps something around $100,000 is a fair number to date in savings over the last 4 years.
A case could be made for saving a whole lot more, if you add up the cost of all the propitiatory equivalents we use in terms of databases, hosting, mail servers, open source web packages, and so on ( three linux servers of various sorts).
Even the routers use open firmware.
My total IT budget is around $2,000 a year ($4,000 for everything including bandwidth and phone lines).I might add, I am not including my own labor in this number.
Just the cost of the hardware and software.
Honestly, I remember spending a whole lot more time screwing with viruse infested crashing messes at my last job that was all windows network (and that was not even my job), then I ever do maintaining my linux systems.Because I run Linux, I have been able to run old computers in to the ground that I would have needed to replace at least once or twice by now, plus figure a copy of xp, vista, and now windows 7 in the time we have been open.
The only reason I replace a PC is because the hardware fails.
In fact, that is really the way it should be.
Not because the software is more bloated.
My oldest system still in everyday use is a PIII IBM T-22 notebook with 500 mb of ram, and half the office is still running single core Semprons just fine.
The only thing making me considering upgrading currently is the possibility of energy savings with mini systems that use less juice and still get the job done.
I am looking to downgrade basically.
I am waiting for the industry to sort out the linux smart phone situation a bit more, and I will deploy linux phones to all my staff.
Hell if that goes well, I will get rid of the cost of the frigen office all together.
There, I found $2000 in cost conversion to linux.
What it will cost me to break my office lease and sell the furniture.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819585</id>
	<title>Re:IBM's answer to Windows 3.1 was OS/2 Warp...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256061540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Swearing and farting are both harmless fun, but never do either around someone you're trying to impress.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's fucking bullshit!  [fwaaaaap]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Swearing and farting are both harmless fun , but never do either around someone you 're trying to impress.That 's fucking bullshit !
[ fwaaaaap ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Swearing and farting are both harmless fun, but never do either around someone you're trying to impress.That's fucking bullshit!
[fwaaaaap]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29821065</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe IBM can't count???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256123700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're also forgetting that a lot of large companies run multi-processor machines and each processor will require a license</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're also forgetting that a lot of large companies run multi-processor machines and each processor will require a license</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're also forgetting that a lot of large companies run multi-processor machines and each processor will require a license</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816945</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256044440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>A standard user account doesn't exactly have alot of control to begin with. The way Windows does things is they open up access and lock things down while in the UNIX word its all locked down and open things up (i.e. sudo) <br> <br>

Your point is only valid if you want to prevent a use from changing his wallpaper, screen savers and the like. There are (expensive) tools out there but dont handle very well. <br> <br>

Also in GNOME you have gconf and can put custom settings into a SOE very easily.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A standard user account does n't exactly have alot of control to begin with .
The way Windows does things is they open up access and lock things down while in the UNIX word its all locked down and open things up ( i.e .
sudo ) Your point is only valid if you want to prevent a use from changing his wallpaper , screen savers and the like .
There are ( expensive ) tools out there but dont handle very well .
Also in GNOME you have gconf and can put custom settings into a SOE very easily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A standard user account doesn't exactly have alot of control to begin with.
The way Windows does things is they open up access and lock things down while in the UNIX word its all locked down and open things up (i.e.
sudo)  

Your point is only valid if you want to prevent a use from changing his wallpaper, screen savers and the like.
There are (expensive) tools out there but dont handle very well.
Also in GNOME you have gconf and can put custom settings into a SOE very easily.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817111</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256045160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are indeed a lack of external programs to lock down the desktop.  That's because that kind of thing is built into Linux.  ACLs, permissions, SELINUX and on and on.</p><p>If you favour Windows, that's fine, to each his own.  But please don't spread the MS cool-aid without actually knowing what you are talking about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are indeed a lack of external programs to lock down the desktop .
That 's because that kind of thing is built into Linux .
ACLs , permissions , SELINUX and on and on.If you favour Windows , that 's fine , to each his own .
But please do n't spread the MS cool-aid without actually knowing what you are talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are indeed a lack of external programs to lock down the desktop.
That's because that kind of thing is built into Linux.
ACLs, permissions, SELINUX and on and on.If you favour Windows, that's fine, to each his own.
But please don't spread the MS cool-aid without actually knowing what you are talking about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817091</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>keatonguy</author>
	<datestamp>1256045100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not true, you can lock down a GNOME desktop. This is not to say there isn't a learning curve to it, but I have done it for a production system that serves over 80 thin-clients in a K-12 charter school. It's all in the documentation (one of my favorite things about Linux's core systems, I might add).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not true , you can lock down a GNOME desktop .
This is not to say there is n't a learning curve to it , but I have done it for a production system that serves over 80 thin-clients in a K-12 charter school .
It 's all in the documentation ( one of my favorite things about Linux 's core systems , I might add ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not true, you can lock down a GNOME desktop.
This is not to say there isn't a learning curve to it, but I have done it for a production system that serves over 80 thin-clients in a K-12 charter school.
It's all in the documentation (one of my favorite things about Linux's core systems, I might add).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819595</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256061600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Notice how the knowledgeable admins are posting about Gnome policy, while the stupid freetards (who don't shit about anything) are reading off brochureware features like "permissions" and "SELINUX".</p><p>The latter group is also very fat and has disgusting body odor btw.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Notice how the knowledgeable admins are posting about Gnome policy , while the stupid freetards ( who do n't shit about anything ) are reading off brochureware features like " permissions " and " SELINUX " .The latter group is also very fat and has disgusting body odor btw .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Notice how the knowledgeable admins are posting about Gnome policy, while the stupid freetards (who don't shit about anything) are reading off brochureware features like "permissions" and "SELINUX".The latter group is also very fat and has disgusting body odor btw.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819163</id>
	<title>Re:Misguided</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256057940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Go and spend 24 hours or so on Ubuntu's forums before you try and tell me it is stable.</p></div><p> <i>That's</i> your argument against Ubuntu?  Do you know just how many forums are dedicated to solving various Windows fuckups?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Go and spend 24 hours or so on Ubuntu 's forums before you try and tell me it is stable .
That 's your argument against Ubuntu ?
Do you know just how many forums are dedicated to solving various Windows fuckups ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go and spend 24 hours or so on Ubuntu's forums before you try and tell me it is stable.
That's your argument against Ubuntu?
Do you know just how many forums are dedicated to solving various Windows fuckups?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818033</id>
	<title>Re:About that...</title>
	<author>pantherace</author>
	<datestamp>1256050500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It works fine in 4. I have a 8GB flash disk split 4/4, and kubuntu (9.04) with most of what I want runs fine on there. The only thing I think I don't have is LaTeX + it's gobs of space for stuff, but frankly, it's not like I'm likely to write anything on the stick, as it's mostly a rescue disk for windows computers.</p><p>For using it regularly I'd have to highly suggest 8. The EEE 900 is a little cramped at 4GB with Kubuntu 9.04. (That particular setup one has some of the extras removed and LaTeX added, as the person who I built the kubuntu install for is a big LaTeX user.) It's got an 8GB SD for storage beyond the 4GB it has in there. Asus should probably have made 8GB the baseline, but you couldn't complain about the $160 price for it. Unfortunately, they've gone up since then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It works fine in 4 .
I have a 8GB flash disk split 4/4 , and kubuntu ( 9.04 ) with most of what I want runs fine on there .
The only thing I think I do n't have is LaTeX + it 's gobs of space for stuff , but frankly , it 's not like I 'm likely to write anything on the stick , as it 's mostly a rescue disk for windows computers.For using it regularly I 'd have to highly suggest 8 .
The EEE 900 is a little cramped at 4GB with Kubuntu 9.04 .
( That particular setup one has some of the extras removed and LaTeX added , as the person who I built the kubuntu install for is a big LaTeX user .
) It 's got an 8GB SD for storage beyond the 4GB it has in there .
Asus should probably have made 8GB the baseline , but you could n't complain about the $ 160 price for it .
Unfortunately , they 've gone up since then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It works fine in 4.
I have a 8GB flash disk split 4/4, and kubuntu (9.04) with most of what I want runs fine on there.
The only thing I think I don't have is LaTeX + it's gobs of space for stuff, but frankly, it's not like I'm likely to write anything on the stick, as it's mostly a rescue disk for windows computers.For using it regularly I'd have to highly suggest 8.
The EEE 900 is a little cramped at 4GB with Kubuntu 9.04.
(That particular setup one has some of the extras removed and LaTeX added, as the person who I built the kubuntu install for is a big LaTeX user.
) It's got an 8GB SD for storage beyond the 4GB it has in there.
Asus should probably have made 8GB the baseline, but you couldn't complain about the $160 price for it.
Unfortunately, they've gone up since then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816807</id>
	<title>Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256043900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><strong>If you reduce the cost of software to zero and compete only on the hardware, you shut out some people from the market and trample others with your behemoth size.</strong>

<br> <br>

Yeah, what a shame.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you reduce the cost of software to zero and compete only on the hardware , you shut out some people from the market and trample others with your behemoth size .
Yeah , what a shame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you reduce the cost of software to zero and compete only on the hardware, you shut out some people from the market and trample others with your behemoth size.
Yeah, what a shame.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816747</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819073</id>
	<title>Re:IBM should jump first?</title>
	<author>MooPi</author>
	<datestamp>1256057040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought IBM has switched but not all at once. Seems I read that they are switching as need be and keeping Windows systems for specific tasks. Lets say they are skipping instaed of jumping.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought IBM has switched but not all at once .
Seems I read that they are switching as need be and keeping Windows systems for specific tasks .
Lets say they are skipping instaed of jumping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought IBM has switched but not all at once.
Seems I read that they are switching as need be and keeping Windows systems for specific tasks.
Lets say they are skipping instaed of jumping.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820849</id>
	<title>Re:About that...</title>
	<author>blackpig</author>
	<datestamp>1256121360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To be fair, Ubuntu 9.04 really needs 512 Meg of RAM to run well...</htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , Ubuntu 9.04 really needs 512 Meg of RAM to run well.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, Ubuntu 9.04 really needs 512 Meg of RAM to run well...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29827009</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe IBM can't count???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256155380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Therefore all of those costs apply to Ubuntu as well, and them some since it's a completely foreign environment to your users.</p><p>And don't forget that old chestnut about how Linux sysadmins get paid more than Windows ones.</p><p>Tell me now that it's cheaper to redo your network from the ground up than to upgrade an existing platform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Therefore all of those costs apply to Ubuntu as well , and them some since it 's a completely foreign environment to your users.And do n't forget that old chestnut about how Linux sysadmins get paid more than Windows ones.Tell me now that it 's cheaper to redo your network from the ground up than to upgrade an existing platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Therefore all of those costs apply to Ubuntu as well, and them some since it's a completely foreign environment to your users.And don't forget that old chestnut about how Linux sysadmins get paid more than Windows ones.Tell me now that it's cheaper to redo your network from the ground up than to upgrade an existing platform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817911</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe IBM can't count???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256049600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you know what the corporate licensing fees are?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you know what the corporate licensing fees are ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you know what the corporate licensing fees are?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817041</id>
	<title>"IBM isn't a friend of Microsoft anymore"</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1256044800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Anymore"?</p><p>Uhm, there is some history there...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Anymore " ? Uhm , there is some history there.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Anymore"?Uhm, there is some history there...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817079</id>
	<title>Irrelevant</title>
	<author>DogDude</author>
	<datestamp>1256045040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Blah blah blah Linux is the best blah blah blah.  Broad statements like this press release are absolutely irrelevant to those of us for whom *nix isn't even an option.  In my case, there's no low to mid range POS software that runs on *nix.  *nix isn't even a consideration for me and my business.  End of story.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blah blah blah Linux is the best blah blah blah .
Broad statements like this press release are absolutely irrelevant to those of us for whom * nix is n't even an option .
In my case , there 's no low to mid range POS software that runs on * nix .
* nix is n't even a consideration for me and my business .
End of story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blah blah blah Linux is the best blah blah blah.
Broad statements like this press release are absolutely irrelevant to those of us for whom *nix isn't even an option.
In my case, there's no low to mid range POS software that runs on *nix.
*nix isn't even a consideration for me and my business.
End of story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820099</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe IBM can't count???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256067480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I installed the beta version of Ubuntu karmic koala my 8 year old laptop without any issues</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I installed the beta version of Ubuntu karmic koala my 8 year old laptop without any issues</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I installed the beta version of Ubuntu karmic koala my 8 year old laptop without any issues</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820689</id>
	<title>Re:IBM's hardware vendor mind is taking over</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1256118780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, proprietary lock-in is bad wether it's on hardware or software...<br>However if the software is open (as opposed to no-cost, like ibm mainframe software was) then there's nothing to stop you running the exact same software on other hardware.</p><p>IBM's plan is much better for those of us who value freedom from lockin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , proprietary lock-in is bad wether it 's on hardware or software...However if the software is open ( as opposed to no-cost , like ibm mainframe software was ) then there 's nothing to stop you running the exact same software on other hardware.IBM 's plan is much better for those of us who value freedom from lockin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, proprietary lock-in is bad wether it's on hardware or software...However if the software is open (as opposed to no-cost, like ibm mainframe software was) then there's nothing to stop you running the exact same software on other hardware.IBM's plan is much better for those of us who value freedom from lockin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818559</id>
	<title>Re:A company like IBM doesn't need Microsoft</title>
	<author>rastilin</author>
	<datestamp>1256053620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If Microsoft introduces an incompatible change in Windows 8 (so that, for example a given version of IE can no longer be installed, or a driver for a widely deployed device stops working), it can force a company into unbounded costs of updating their software and hardware. On the other hand, once initial migration to Ubuntu is done, only an effort of a dozen developers would be needed to compile Firefox 1.0 with new libraries, update a driver to work with 2.6 kernel and so on. While for an individual it may be acceptable - and cheaper - to buy new peripherals and applications - IBM can trivially afford custom development costs to keep an operating system running exactly the same way they want it.</p></div><p>Since there are still companies running DOS as part of their systems, I doubt Microsoft can force people to upgrade.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Microsoft introduces an incompatible change in Windows 8 ( so that , for example a given version of IE can no longer be installed , or a driver for a widely deployed device stops working ) , it can force a company into unbounded costs of updating their software and hardware .
On the other hand , once initial migration to Ubuntu is done , only an effort of a dozen developers would be needed to compile Firefox 1.0 with new libraries , update a driver to work with 2.6 kernel and so on .
While for an individual it may be acceptable - and cheaper - to buy new peripherals and applications - IBM can trivially afford custom development costs to keep an operating system running exactly the same way they want it.Since there are still companies running DOS as part of their systems , I doubt Microsoft can force people to upgrade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Microsoft introduces an incompatible change in Windows 8 (so that, for example a given version of IE can no longer be installed, or a driver for a widely deployed device stops working), it can force a company into unbounded costs of updating their software and hardware.
On the other hand, once initial migration to Ubuntu is done, only an effort of a dozen developers would be needed to compile Firefox 1.0 with new libraries, update a driver to work with 2.6 kernel and so on.
While for an individual it may be acceptable - and cheaper - to buy new peripherals and applications - IBM can trivially afford custom development costs to keep an operating system running exactly the same way they want it.Since there are still companies running DOS as part of their systems, I doubt Microsoft can force people to upgrade.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817065</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>Techman83</author>
	<datestamp>1256044920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Huh wah?? Obviously you must be from a parallel universe, rather uninformed or a clever troll. I manage the desktop branch of a medium - large sized organisation and the amount of pain involved in locking machines down in the distributed workforce age is quite painful. Sure there are apps to aid this (we employ ZenWorks) and they do work really well, but you can't have used anything more then a default install of Ubuntu. Honestly the amount of fine grained control mixed with sudo (neither run-as or UAC are sudo, they impersonate another user rather then privilege escalation) you get with *nix environment is leaps and bounds ahead of Windows. Admittedly group policy has some nice default templates, but as soon as you step an inch outside the norm (which is hard not to) be prepared for pain, so much so that the only place we employ GP is on our Terminal Services boxes. Even then a lot of the "Lock Down" is pretty much just obscuring things without actually adding any security.<br> <br>Nice try, but I suggest you undertake a bit of a learning curve and you will be enlightened.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh wah ? ?
Obviously you must be from a parallel universe , rather uninformed or a clever troll .
I manage the desktop branch of a medium - large sized organisation and the amount of pain involved in locking machines down in the distributed workforce age is quite painful .
Sure there are apps to aid this ( we employ ZenWorks ) and they do work really well , but you ca n't have used anything more then a default install of Ubuntu .
Honestly the amount of fine grained control mixed with sudo ( neither run-as or UAC are sudo , they impersonate another user rather then privilege escalation ) you get with * nix environment is leaps and bounds ahead of Windows .
Admittedly group policy has some nice default templates , but as soon as you step an inch outside the norm ( which is hard not to ) be prepared for pain , so much so that the only place we employ GP is on our Terminal Services boxes .
Even then a lot of the " Lock Down " is pretty much just obscuring things without actually adding any security .
Nice try , but I suggest you undertake a bit of a learning curve and you will be enlightened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh wah??
Obviously you must be from a parallel universe, rather uninformed or a clever troll.
I manage the desktop branch of a medium - large sized organisation and the amount of pain involved in locking machines down in the distributed workforce age is quite painful.
Sure there are apps to aid this (we employ ZenWorks) and they do work really well, but you can't have used anything more then a default install of Ubuntu.
Honestly the amount of fine grained control mixed with sudo (neither run-as or UAC are sudo, they impersonate another user rather then privilege escalation) you get with *nix environment is leaps and bounds ahead of Windows.
Admittedly group policy has some nice default templates, but as soon as you step an inch outside the norm (which is hard not to) be prepared for pain, so much so that the only place we employ GP is on our Terminal Services boxes.
Even then a lot of the "Lock Down" is pretty much just obscuring things without actually adding any security.
Nice try, but I suggest you undertake a bit of a learning curve and you will be enlightened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819787</id>
	<title>Re:Can't Lock Linux Down</title>
	<author>cerberusss</author>
	<datestamp>1256063640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, <i>you</i> might want to, but the financial regulator might raise an eyebrow over it.</p></div><p>OoooOOOoo damnit I HATE when the financial regulator comes and does, like, *Spock eyebrow raise* on us.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you might want to , but the financial regulator might raise an eyebrow over it.OoooOOOoo damnit I HATE when the financial regulator comes and does , like , * Spock eyebrow raise * on us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you might want to, but the financial regulator might raise an eyebrow over it.OoooOOOoo damnit I HATE when the financial regulator comes and does, like, *Spock eyebrow raise* on us.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818623</id>
	<title>FART!</title>
	<author>milatchi</author>
	<datestamp>1256054040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FART!</htmltext>
<tokenext>FART !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FART!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817697</id>
	<title>Re:It isn't just licensing costs...</title>
	<author>jrumney</author>
	<datestamp>1256048400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>RedHat and SuSE both meet these</p></div></blockquote><p>
Windows Server products meet those criteria too - provided you configure them in a specific way which renders them unable to run most off the shelf applications, and do not apply any updates between Service Pack releases.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>RedHat and SuSE both meet these Windows Server products meet those criteria too - provided you configure them in a specific way which renders them unable to run most off the shelf applications , and do not apply any updates between Service Pack releases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RedHat and SuSE both meet these
Windows Server products meet those criteria too - provided you configure them in a specific way which renders them unable to run most off the shelf applications, and do not apply any updates between Service Pack releases.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817011</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29832527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29824311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29827009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29824441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29821617
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29826169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819453
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29836593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29822161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29824171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818343
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29821347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29856795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29838417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29821731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29821431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29822967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29821343
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29821303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29821547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29822457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29891467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29823447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29832595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29828849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29836839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29823387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29827039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29821667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29830559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29822011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29821065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29823723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29822369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29842635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1756215_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1756215.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817217
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29823447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820379
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1756215.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816943
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1756215.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817011
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29832595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817215
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29822161
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817741
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1756215.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819425
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1756215.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816997
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820693
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29821065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29821303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29824311
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817927
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29828849
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29827009
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29821343
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29821547
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29824441
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29891467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29836839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817911
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1756215.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819033
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1756215.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29842635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29826169
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29821667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819163
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29822011
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29821731
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29830559
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29822369
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1756215.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29822565
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1756215.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817685
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29823387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818653
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818559
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29824171
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1756215.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818789
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1756215.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816967
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1756215.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818111
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1756215.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816837
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819585
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817639
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1756215.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816857
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1756215.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29823723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819897
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1756215.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819693
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1756215.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816895
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817233
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29822967
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818983
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818033
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818277
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29832527
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818171
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820849
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816975
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816807
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819029
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820689
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29836593
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1756215.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29856795
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29822457
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29821431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29827039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819073
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1756215.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29838417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817455
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29821347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817909
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819453
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819845
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29821617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819263
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1756215.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817637
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818531
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817065
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819153
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820317
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817975
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820227
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819223
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818019
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817693
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817111
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819439
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29816945
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817177
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819957
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818437
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817127
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818369
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819787
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820927
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29820821
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818161
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818343
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817073
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29818921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29819953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1756215.29817369
</commentlist>
</conversation>
