<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_03_1334203</id>
	<title>X11 Chrome Reportedly Outperforms Windows and Mac Versions</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1257256440000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"In a curious contrast to conventional wisdom, there are reports of X11 Chromium being <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev/browse\_thread/thread/d86faf0eff41b998?pli=1">faster than Windows or Mac versions</a>. In the thread titled 'Why is Linux Chrome so fast?,' a developer speculates that it is due to the use of X11 capabilities: 'On X-windows [sic], the renderer backingstores are managed by the X server, and the transport DIBs are also managed by the X server.  So, we avoid a lot of memcpy costs incurred on Windows due to keeping the backingstores in main memory there.' Has the design of X11 withstood the test of time better than people tend to give it credit for?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " In a curious contrast to conventional wisdom , there are reports of X11 Chromium being faster than Windows or Mac versions .
In the thread titled 'Why is Linux Chrome so fast ? , ' a developer speculates that it is due to the use of X11 capabilities : 'On X-windows [ sic ] , the renderer backingstores are managed by the X server , and the transport DIBs are also managed by the X server .
So , we avoid a lot of memcpy costs incurred on Windows due to keeping the backingstores in main memory there .
' Has the design of X11 withstood the test of time better than people tend to give it credit for ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "In a curious contrast to conventional wisdom, there are reports of X11 Chromium being faster than Windows or Mac versions.
In the thread titled 'Why is Linux Chrome so fast?,' a developer speculates that it is due to the use of X11 capabilities: 'On X-windows [sic], the renderer backingstores are managed by the X server, and the transport DIBs are also managed by the X server.
So, we avoid a lot of memcpy costs incurred on Windows due to keeping the backingstores in main memory there.
' Has the design of X11 withstood the test of time better than people tend to give it credit for?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29974770</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>man\_of\_mr\_e</author>
	<datestamp>1257020580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The only difference between how X11 implements this and how Quartz or the Vista display server implement it is that the protocol used via the serial channel that X11 uses is well documented.</i></p><p>That's a very broad statement to make.  While it's true that all three systems use some form of IPC, you are completely glossing over the efficiency of the protocol for various purposes.  OSX and Windows can basically change their protocol whenever they want to improve efficiency on new hardware.  X11 doesn't really have that luxury and is largely confined to a protocol developed for ancient displays (which works pretty well in most situations).  But let's face it, having the ability to change your protocol when you see fit gives you a huge advantage.  Even being able to design your protocol with modern knowledge is a huge advantage.</p><p>Yes, X11 works quite well for being a 30 year old system, and there have been lots of extensions grafted on to help modernize it.  But it's still a bit like a frankensteins monster where the Doctor says "Yeah, those scars are an advantage, what are you talking about?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only difference between how X11 implements this and how Quartz or the Vista display server implement it is that the protocol used via the serial channel that X11 uses is well documented.That 's a very broad statement to make .
While it 's true that all three systems use some form of IPC , you are completely glossing over the efficiency of the protocol for various purposes .
OSX and Windows can basically change their protocol whenever they want to improve efficiency on new hardware .
X11 does n't really have that luxury and is largely confined to a protocol developed for ancient displays ( which works pretty well in most situations ) .
But let 's face it , having the ability to change your protocol when you see fit gives you a huge advantage .
Even being able to design your protocol with modern knowledge is a huge advantage.Yes , X11 works quite well for being a 30 year old system , and there have been lots of extensions grafted on to help modernize it .
But it 's still a bit like a frankensteins monster where the Doctor says " Yeah , those scars are an advantage , what are you talking about ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only difference between how X11 implements this and how Quartz or the Vista display server implement it is that the protocol used via the serial channel that X11 uses is well documented.That's a very broad statement to make.
While it's true that all three systems use some form of IPC, you are completely glossing over the efficiency of the protocol for various purposes.
OSX and Windows can basically change their protocol whenever they want to improve efficiency on new hardware.
X11 doesn't really have that luxury and is largely confined to a protocol developed for ancient displays (which works pretty well in most situations).
But let's face it, having the ability to change your protocol when you see fit gives you a huge advantage.
Even being able to design your protocol with modern knowledge is a huge advantage.Yes, X11 works quite well for being a 30 year old system, and there have been lots of extensions grafted on to help modernize it.
But it's still a bit like a frankensteins monster where the Doctor says "Yeah, those scars are an advantage, what are you talking about?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29966020</id>
	<title>FYI: Firefox QT Port</title>
	<author>mpapet</author>
	<datestamp>1257275340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://browser.garage.maemo.org/news/10/" title="maemo.org">http://browser.garage.maemo.org/news/10/</a> [maemo.org]</p><p>One of the architecture mistakes in the Google browser was *not* using Qt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //browser.garage.maemo.org/news/10/ [ maemo.org ] One of the architecture mistakes in the Google browser was * not * using Qt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://browser.garage.maemo.org/news/10/ [maemo.org]One of the architecture mistakes in the Google browser was *not* using Qt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29970802</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1257251820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>the X style of remote access is much, much more useful than VNC/RDP.... multiple people can run remote apps on the same machine, without interfering with each other or a user who's physically sitting at the machine.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Actually VNC for linux does that too ("vncserver").  Or, if what you wanted really <i>was</i> remote control of the console, it supports that too, via x11vnc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the X style of remote access is much , much more useful than VNC/RDP.... multiple people can run remote apps on the same machine , without interfering with each other or a user who 's physically sitting at the machine .
Actually VNC for linux does that too ( " vncserver " ) .
Or , if what you wanted really was remote control of the console , it supports that too , via x11vnc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the X style of remote access is much, much more useful than VNC/RDP.... multiple people can run remote apps on the same machine, without interfering with each other or a user who's physically sitting at the machine.
Actually VNC for linux does that too ("vncserver").
Or, if what you wanted really was remote control of the console, it supports that too, via x11vnc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29972308</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257259680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>www.nomachine.com</p><p>That will solve your problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>www.nomachine.comThat will solve your problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>www.nomachine.comThat will solve your problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29969922</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257248940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I gotta get that 64MB cache Processor you have, Did you get it from newegg?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got ta get that 64MB cache Processor you have , Did you get it from newegg ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I gotta get that 64MB cache Processor you have, Did you get it from newegg?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964870</id>
	<title>simple</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1257270000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mac, Windows, and X11 all are client/server window systems with a separate user process for rendering.  X11 was designed from the ground up for that model, while both the Mac and Windows started off with different models and tried to retrofit an X11-like model onto their existing APIs.  It's not surprising that they don't do it so well.</p><p>People tend to overestimate Windows and Mac performance for a couple of reasons.  For example, Macs cache a lot more stuff than other platforms (and use a ton of memory to do it).    And the X11 back-ends for cross platform libraries and ports are usually not very well written, and people blame X11 when they should be blaming those libraries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mac , Windows , and X11 all are client/server window systems with a separate user process for rendering .
X11 was designed from the ground up for that model , while both the Mac and Windows started off with different models and tried to retrofit an X11-like model onto their existing APIs .
It 's not surprising that they do n't do it so well.People tend to overestimate Windows and Mac performance for a couple of reasons .
For example , Macs cache a lot more stuff than other platforms ( and use a ton of memory to do it ) .
And the X11 back-ends for cross platform libraries and ports are usually not very well written , and people blame X11 when they should be blaming those libraries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mac, Windows, and X11 all are client/server window systems with a separate user process for rendering.
X11 was designed from the ground up for that model, while both the Mac and Windows started off with different models and tried to retrofit an X11-like model onto their existing APIs.
It's not surprising that they don't do it so well.People tend to overestimate Windows and Mac performance for a couple of reasons.
For example, Macs cache a lot more stuff than other platforms (and use a ton of memory to do it).
And the X11 back-ends for cross platform libraries and ports are usually not very well written, and people blame X11 when they should be blaming those libraries.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29973306</id>
	<title>Re:Forwarding</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1257267780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"OK great, how do I get this display from that PC to that one over there"</p><p>You just switch the cables.</p><p>Seriously, how many PCs of the Windows 3.1 era even had network cards. Most Unix guys really have no understanding of the limitations of early PCs and embedded systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" OK great , how do I get this display from that PC to that one over there " You just switch the cables.Seriously , how many PCs of the Windows 3.1 era even had network cards .
Most Unix guys really have no understanding of the limitations of early PCs and embedded systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"OK great, how do I get this display from that PC to that one over there"You just switch the cables.Seriously, how many PCs of the Windows 3.1 era even had network cards.
Most Unix guys really have no understanding of the limitations of early PCs and embedded systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29966840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963206</id>
	<title>X11 is not bloated</title>
	<author>dvh.tosomja</author>
	<datestamp>1257262440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>X11 is not bloated nor slow, GTK is both. Put 100 or so spinedits on one form in Win32 and in GTK. On netbook or anything other than quadcore machine, you will see significant difference in speed. And it is not because of the graphics. Sometimes I think GTK render fractals somewhere just to keep processor busy. Meanwhile, when I draw 100 spinedits using only cairo, it is almost as fast as Win32 while giving the same output as GTK including shadows, gradients, etc... I've being noticing this GTK behavior since forever.</p><p>GTK folks, please fix it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>X11 is not bloated nor slow , GTK is both .
Put 100 or so spinedits on one form in Win32 and in GTK .
On netbook or anything other than quadcore machine , you will see significant difference in speed .
And it is not because of the graphics .
Sometimes I think GTK render fractals somewhere just to keep processor busy .
Meanwhile , when I draw 100 spinedits using only cairo , it is almost as fast as Win32 while giving the same output as GTK including shadows , gradients , etc... I 've being noticing this GTK behavior since forever.GTK folks , please fix it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>X11 is not bloated nor slow, GTK is both.
Put 100 or so spinedits on one form in Win32 and in GTK.
On netbook or anything other than quadcore machine, you will see significant difference in speed.
And it is not because of the graphics.
Sometimes I think GTK render fractals somewhere just to keep processor busy.
Meanwhile, when I draw 100 spinedits using only cairo, it is almost as fast as Win32 while giving the same output as GTK including shadows, gradients, etc... I've being noticing this GTK behavior since forever.GTK folks, please fix it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29978042</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>incense</author>
	<datestamp>1257003960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RDP best? Something must've happened since I quit being a sysadmin some years ago. RDP used to be a security disaster.</p><p>X forwarding in SSH works well on ADSL (enable persistent connections on your ssh client if your ADSL modem insists on disconnecting inactive connections).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RDP best ?
Something must 've happened since I quit being a sysadmin some years ago .
RDP used to be a security disaster.X forwarding in SSH works well on ADSL ( enable persistent connections on your ssh client if your ADSL modem insists on disconnecting inactive connections ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RDP best?
Something must've happened since I quit being a sysadmin some years ago.
RDP used to be a security disaster.X forwarding in SSH works well on ADSL (enable persistent connections on your ssh client if your ADSL modem insists on disconnecting inactive connections).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963588</id>
	<title>Guestimates</title>
	<author>wye43</author>
	<datestamp>1257264600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read TFA and all there is are feelings of some people that its faster, no numbers.

I guess that is what "reportedly" means. Weasel words.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read TFA and all there is are feelings of some people that its faster , no numbers .
I guess that is what " reportedly " means .
Weasel words .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read TFA and all there is are feelings of some people that its faster, no numbers.
I guess that is what "reportedly" means.
Weasel words.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963318</id>
	<title>No NTLM, no Respect</title>
	<author>KWolfe81</author>
	<datestamp>1257263100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Until Chrome starts supporting NTLM, I know it will not get any respect at my firm, and likely many others....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until Chrome starts supporting NTLM , I know it will not get any respect at my firm , and likely many others... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until Chrome starts supporting NTLM, I know it will not get any respect at my firm, and likely many others....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963400</id>
	<title>Read this yesterday, installed, then removed.</title>
	<author>isolationism</author>
	<datestamp>1257263460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The font rendering settings are locked in. There are some Google Groups discussions about why this is so, but it was all white noise -- every other application can use<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.fonts.conf (even if it is a workaround to do so) and Chrome can't/won't for a while, so it got promptly uninstalled.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The font rendering settings are locked in .
There are some Google Groups discussions about why this is so , but it was all white noise -- every other application can use .fonts.conf ( even if it is a workaround to do so ) and Chrome ca n't/wo n't for a while , so it got promptly uninstalled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The font rendering settings are locked in.
There are some Google Groups discussions about why this is so, but it was all white noise -- every other application can use .fonts.conf (even if it is a workaround to do so) and Chrome can't/won't for a while, so it got promptly uninstalled.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29967588</id>
	<title>Re:Choosing the correct abstraction layer</title>
	<author>SpinyNorman</author>
	<datestamp>1257240060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>One thing I've heard talk of is "inverting" the stack to put all primitives on top of the 3D hardware, since that's where most of the hardware performance work has been done.</i></p><p>Or just forget about the X primitives and use OpenGL instead. If you use Qt then you can do this already since Qt supports OpenGL as a drawing engine as an alternative to X.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing I 've heard talk of is " inverting " the stack to put all primitives on top of the 3D hardware , since that 's where most of the hardware performance work has been done.Or just forget about the X primitives and use OpenGL instead .
If you use Qt then you can do this already since Qt supports OpenGL as a drawing engine as an alternative to X .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing I've heard talk of is "inverting" the stack to put all primitives on top of the 3D hardware, since that's where most of the hardware performance work has been done.Or just forget about the X primitives and use OpenGL instead.
If you use Qt then you can do this already since Qt supports OpenGL as a drawing engine as an alternative to X.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964642</id>
	<title>Re:Test of time</title>
	<author>eugene2k</author>
	<datestamp>1257269160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is this modded funny?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this modded funny ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this modded funny?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963068</id>
	<title>Leading statement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257261660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wheres the proof for the "If"?</p><p>What if X isn't generally slower at all?</p><p>What if generally it's faster but in a few cases slower? This, then would be one of the few cases where it is not slower.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wheres the proof for the " If " ? What if X is n't generally slower at all ? What if generally it 's faster but in a few cases slower ?
This , then would be one of the few cases where it is not slower .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wheres the proof for the "If"?What if X isn't generally slower at all?What if generally it's faster but in a few cases slower?
This, then would be one of the few cases where it is not slower.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29970910</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>Btarlinian</author>
	<datestamp>1257252240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh no you don't!</p><p>Try using X11 over something slightly slower as LAN. Just try it, over ADSL, whatever</p><p>I tried. And X11 is totally and utterly USELESS. A well configured VNC (and you have to really play with the knobs) is usable. RDP is the best (of course, it wasn't developed by Microsoft...)</p></div><p>That's not a problem with the architecture but with the protocol. Have you ever used FreeNX? It's amazingly fast in comparison to VNC and even RDP.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh no you do n't ! Try using X11 over something slightly slower as LAN .
Just try it , over ADSL , whateverI tried .
And X11 is totally and utterly USELESS .
A well configured VNC ( and you have to really play with the knobs ) is usable .
RDP is the best ( of course , it was n't developed by Microsoft... ) That 's not a problem with the architecture but with the protocol .
Have you ever used FreeNX ?
It 's amazingly fast in comparison to VNC and even RDP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh no you don't!Try using X11 over something slightly slower as LAN.
Just try it, over ADSL, whateverI tried.
And X11 is totally and utterly USELESS.
A well configured VNC (and you have to really play with the knobs) is usable.
RDP is the best (of course, it wasn't developed by Microsoft...)That's not a problem with the architecture but with the protocol.
Have you ever used FreeNX?
It's amazingly fast in comparison to VNC and even RDP.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29976116</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256990880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>layer upon layer of abstraction and interpretation stacked tall and high.</p></div><p>This!</p><p>Listen to the man!</p><p>Write a program that does a thing.  Don't write something that tells a library to tell a library to tell a library to talk through a protocol to tell a library to do a thing.</p><p>Reinventing the wheel is sometimes the right option if you want a wheel and your choice is making the wheel you want  or having a shipping container of assorted goods, one of which is a wheel that is mostly like what you were after.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>layer upon layer of abstraction and interpretation stacked tall and high.This ! Listen to the man ! Write a program that does a thing .
Do n't write something that tells a library to tell a library to tell a library to talk through a protocol to tell a library to do a thing.Reinventing the wheel is sometimes the right option if you want a wheel and your choice is making the wheel you want or having a shipping container of assorted goods , one of which is a wheel that is mostly like what you were after .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>layer upon layer of abstraction and interpretation stacked tall and high.This!Listen to the man!Write a program that does a thing.
Don't write something that tells a library to tell a library to tell a library to talk through a protocol to tell a library to do a thing.Reinventing the wheel is sometimes the right option if you want a wheel and your choice is making the wheel you want  or having a shipping container of assorted goods, one of which is a wheel that is mostly like what you were after.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963966</id>
	<title>Re:Other performance gains</title>
	<author>OrangeTide</author>
	<datestamp>1257266400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They also complained that writing audio in Linux was difficult.</p></div><p>They should use PortAudio, it's pretty easy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They also complained that writing audio in Linux was difficult.They should use PortAudio , it 's pretty easy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They also complained that writing audio in Linux was difficult.They should use PortAudio, it's pretty easy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963330</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257263160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>X11 has never been a bottleneck in performance on the desktop. Many people have been confusing X11 with the desktop system/kernel/applications and wrongly blamed X11 for any slowness.</p></div><p>Yes, exactly.  X11 ran reasonably complicated applications 20 years ago on hardware that we throw out as woefully inadequate (or quaintly archaic) today, and did so with entirely acceptable speed.  X11 isn't the problem -- hardware is what, two orders of magnitude faster now? -- it's all of the poor programming practices that have layer upon layer of abstraction and interpretation stacked tall and high.</p><p>I had a 266 MHz laptop in the mid 1990s (about 15 years ago) that ran Linux (RedHat 6.2, mostly) and X11 perfectly well with a mere 64 MB of main memory.  A while ago, I tried to load a Fedora release (9, if I recall correctly) on it.  "Laughable" is a good term to describe the result.  My current laptop has a 10x faster processor and 50x more memory.  There's more cache on the processor in my new laptop than total system memory on the old one --- And yet, Fedora 11 feels sluggish on the new hardware.  X11 is not the problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>X11 has never been a bottleneck in performance on the desktop .
Many people have been confusing X11 with the desktop system/kernel/applications and wrongly blamed X11 for any slowness.Yes , exactly .
X11 ran reasonably complicated applications 20 years ago on hardware that we throw out as woefully inadequate ( or quaintly archaic ) today , and did so with entirely acceptable speed .
X11 is n't the problem -- hardware is what , two orders of magnitude faster now ?
-- it 's all of the poor programming practices that have layer upon layer of abstraction and interpretation stacked tall and high.I had a 266 MHz laptop in the mid 1990s ( about 15 years ago ) that ran Linux ( RedHat 6.2 , mostly ) and X11 perfectly well with a mere 64 MB of main memory .
A while ago , I tried to load a Fedora release ( 9 , if I recall correctly ) on it .
" Laughable " is a good term to describe the result .
My current laptop has a 10x faster processor and 50x more memory .
There 's more cache on the processor in my new laptop than total system memory on the old one --- And yet , Fedora 11 feels sluggish on the new hardware .
X11 is not the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>X11 has never been a bottleneck in performance on the desktop.
Many people have been confusing X11 with the desktop system/kernel/applications and wrongly blamed X11 for any slowness.Yes, exactly.
X11 ran reasonably complicated applications 20 years ago on hardware that we throw out as woefully inadequate (or quaintly archaic) today, and did so with entirely acceptable speed.
X11 isn't the problem -- hardware is what, two orders of magnitude faster now?
-- it's all of the poor programming practices that have layer upon layer of abstraction and interpretation stacked tall and high.I had a 266 MHz laptop in the mid 1990s (about 15 years ago) that ran Linux (RedHat 6.2, mostly) and X11 perfectly well with a mere 64 MB of main memory.
A while ago, I tried to load a Fedora release (9, if I recall correctly) on it.
"Laughable" is a good term to describe the result.
My current laptop has a 10x faster processor and 50x more memory.
There's more cache on the processor in my new laptop than total system memory on the old one --- And yet, Fedora 11 feels sluggish on the new hardware.
X11 is not the problem.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29981226</id>
	<title>Re:Choosing the correct abstraction layer</title>
	<author>yuhong</author>
	<datestamp>1257014160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>IIRC it got to somewhere in the X11R6.3-X11R6.5 range.</p></div><p>I think it got up to X11R6.6.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Then XFree86 took over, ramping up some innovation, though still slower than many liked. After that X.Org took over</p></div><p>Which was a different story altogether that started with a licensing change that made it GPL-incompatible. I think it was the adding of a BSD-style attribution clause. GPLv3 finally fixed this incompatiblity, but by then it was too late, though XFree86 4.7 was released soon after GPLv3 was released.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IIRC it got to somewhere in the X11R6.3-X11R6.5 range.I think it got up to X11R6.6.Then XFree86 took over , ramping up some innovation , though still slower than many liked .
After that X.Org took overWhich was a different story altogether that started with a licensing change that made it GPL-incompatible .
I think it was the adding of a BSD-style attribution clause .
GPLv3 finally fixed this incompatiblity , but by then it was too late , though XFree86 4.7 was released soon after GPLv3 was released .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IIRC it got to somewhere in the X11R6.3-X11R6.5 range.I think it got up to X11R6.6.Then XFree86 took over, ramping up some innovation, though still slower than many liked.
After that X.Org took overWhich was a different story altogether that started with a licensing change that made it GPL-incompatible.
I think it was the adding of a BSD-style attribution clause.
GPLv3 finally fixed this incompatiblity, but by then it was too late, though XFree86 4.7 was released soon after GPLv3 was released.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963344</id>
	<title>Chrome - Webkit - KHTML - Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257263220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe it's because Chrome is based on Webkit that is based in KHTML that was developed mainly on Linux</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's because Chrome is based on Webkit that is based in KHTML that was developed mainly on Linux</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's because Chrome is based on Webkit that is based in KHTML that was developed mainly on Linux</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963156</id>
	<title>Not trying to troll here...</title>
	<author>MikeRT</author>
	<datestamp>1257262200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>But the 4.X beta runs incredibly fast on my dual core Windows workstation. If the Linux version is significantly faster in rendering, I would be very surprised.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But the 4.X beta runs incredibly fast on my dual core Windows workstation .
If the Linux version is significantly faster in rendering , I would be very surprised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the 4.X beta runs incredibly fast on my dual core Windows workstation.
If the Linux version is significantly faster in rendering, I would be very surprised.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29967826</id>
	<title>Re:http://www.goatse.cz</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257241200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The bloody website doesn't even work. For goatse, visit <a href="http://goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">here</a> [goatse.fr].</htmltext>
<tokenext>The bloody website does n't even work .
For goatse , visit here [ goatse.fr ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bloody website doesn't even work.
For goatse, visit here [goatse.fr].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29966154</id>
	<title>Re:Choosing the correct abstraction layer</title>
	<author>ToasterMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1257275880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Windows and OSX abstractions for the display don't provide an API that allows these sorts of optimizations to be done behind the scenes. We have incredible display hardware with awesome features that go unused in these environments because the display abstractions do not allow for them.</p></div><p>GDI, QuickDraw, and Quartz2D are all hardware accelerated, and you'll even find GPU acceleration in frameworks above those (the functionality provided by such should embarrass X11 desktops), all the way to the compositing systems (yet again an embarrassment for X11 based cousins). How can you POSSIBLY think X11 can be optimized for underlying hardware in a way Windows/OS X analogs can't?  Or that display hardware is underutilized in Windows and OS X compared to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..... X11 DESKTOPS?  The complete opposite is true with 3d accelerator cards everywhere today.  You have to use window manager hacks to get any extra utility from these cards at all on a X11 desktop, where newer versions of Windows and OS X have hardware/GPU accelerated rendering and compositing APIs.  Where are those in X11?</p><p>Now, I can't even imagine what you had meant by "behind the scenes", or why that sounds like such a good thing to you..  sometimes change is good.  In this case, it wasn't necessary for non-X11 rendering systems to utilize hardware acceleration, but GPU acceleration for one thing necessitates new APIs.  X11 has outlived most of its usefulness, look at flow diagrams for X w&amp;wo DRI, it's pretty obvious.  RDP does a better job at remoting a GUI than X on the same networks - with kerberos authentication, and encryption... and sound forwarding.  Wake up and smell the roses.</p><p>I'm going to read stackoverflow.com from now on.  This place is getting a tad stale<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:\</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Windows and OSX abstractions for the display do n't provide an API that allows these sorts of optimizations to be done behind the scenes .
We have incredible display hardware with awesome features that go unused in these environments because the display abstractions do not allow for them.GDI , QuickDraw , and Quartz2D are all hardware accelerated , and you 'll even find GPU acceleration in frameworks above those ( the functionality provided by such should embarrass X11 desktops ) , all the way to the compositing systems ( yet again an embarrassment for X11 based cousins ) .
How can you POSSIBLY think X11 can be optimized for underlying hardware in a way Windows/OS X analogs ca n't ?
Or that display hardware is underutilized in Windows and OS X compared to ..... X11 DESKTOPS ?
The complete opposite is true with 3d accelerator cards everywhere today .
You have to use window manager hacks to get any extra utility from these cards at all on a X11 desktop , where newer versions of Windows and OS X have hardware/GPU accelerated rendering and compositing APIs .
Where are those in X11 ? Now , I ca n't even imagine what you had meant by " behind the scenes " , or why that sounds like such a good thing to you.. sometimes change is good .
In this case , it was n't necessary for non-X11 rendering systems to utilize hardware acceleration , but GPU acceleration for one thing necessitates new APIs .
X11 has outlived most of its usefulness , look at flow diagrams for X w&amp;wo DRI , it 's pretty obvious .
RDP does a better job at remoting a GUI than X on the same networks - with kerberos authentication , and encryption... and sound forwarding .
Wake up and smell the roses.I 'm going to read stackoverflow.com from now on .
This place is getting a tad stale : \</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Windows and OSX abstractions for the display don't provide an API that allows these sorts of optimizations to be done behind the scenes.
We have incredible display hardware with awesome features that go unused in these environments because the display abstractions do not allow for them.GDI, QuickDraw, and Quartz2D are all hardware accelerated, and you'll even find GPU acceleration in frameworks above those (the functionality provided by such should embarrass X11 desktops), all the way to the compositing systems (yet again an embarrassment for X11 based cousins).
How can you POSSIBLY think X11 can be optimized for underlying hardware in a way Windows/OS X analogs can't?
Or that display hardware is underutilized in Windows and OS X compared to ..... X11 DESKTOPS?
The complete opposite is true with 3d accelerator cards everywhere today.
You have to use window manager hacks to get any extra utility from these cards at all on a X11 desktop, where newer versions of Windows and OS X have hardware/GPU accelerated rendering and compositing APIs.
Where are those in X11?Now, I can't even imagine what you had meant by "behind the scenes", or why that sounds like such a good thing to you..  sometimes change is good.
In this case, it wasn't necessary for non-X11 rendering systems to utilize hardware acceleration, but GPU acceleration for one thing necessitates new APIs.
X11 has outlived most of its usefulness, look at flow diagrams for X w&amp;wo DRI, it's pretty obvious.
RDP does a better job at remoting a GUI than X on the same networks - with kerberos authentication, and encryption... and sound forwarding.
Wake up and smell the roses.I'm going to read stackoverflow.com from now on.
This place is getting a tad stale :\
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965324</id>
	<title>It was users error - read the article</title>
	<author>frist</author>
	<datestamp>1257272040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's great to listen to the fanbois and folks who don't know what they're talking about go on and on, but....

Quoted from someone above:

After doing a fresh install on both systems the guy determined that it was just some sort of freak occurrence. He had one laptop with a 2.0ghz processor and another with a 2.4ghz processor and after the reinstall on both systems, VOILA...it was only roughly a 20\% difference...

TFA - just keep reading further and further down the usenet post

---

Personally if someone does this type of comparison on different hardware, I wouldn't even bother to read their findings. If you can't be bothered to compare it on the same hardware (where there may still be driver differences for the various OSs, but at least you're minimizing the variables) you really shouldn't be posting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's great to listen to the fanbois and folks who do n't know what they 're talking about go on and on , but... . Quoted from someone above : After doing a fresh install on both systems the guy determined that it was just some sort of freak occurrence .
He had one laptop with a 2.0ghz processor and another with a 2.4ghz processor and after the reinstall on both systems , VOILA...it was only roughly a 20 \ % difference.. . TFA - just keep reading further and further down the usenet post --- Personally if someone does this type of comparison on different hardware , I would n't even bother to read their findings .
If you ca n't be bothered to compare it on the same hardware ( where there may still be driver differences for the various OSs , but at least you 're minimizing the variables ) you really should n't be posting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's great to listen to the fanbois and folks who don't know what they're talking about go on and on, but....

Quoted from someone above:

After doing a fresh install on both systems the guy determined that it was just some sort of freak occurrence.
He had one laptop with a 2.0ghz processor and another with a 2.4ghz processor and after the reinstall on both systems, VOILA...it was only roughly a 20\% difference...

TFA - just keep reading further and further down the usenet post

---

Personally if someone does this type of comparison on different hardware, I wouldn't even bother to read their findings.
If you can't be bothered to compare it on the same hardware (where there may still be driver differences for the various OSs, but at least you're minimizing the variables) you really shouldn't be posting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965124</id>
	<title>Try out freenx</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257271200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Works great for me on a slow connection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Works great for me on a slow connection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Works great for me on a slow connection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29971770</id>
	<title>Re:Choosing the correct abstraction layer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257256200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason that nvidia doesn't use DRI and all that is that this allows them to share massive amounts of Code with their drivers for other OSs, and not that DRI is somehow broken.<br><a href="http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&amp;item=nvidia\_qa\_linux&amp;num=1" title="phoronix.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&amp;item=nvidia\_qa\_linux&amp;num=1</a> [phoronix.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason that nvidia does n't use DRI and all that is that this allows them to share massive amounts of Code with their drivers for other OSs , and not that DRI is somehow broken.http : //www.phoronix.com/scan.php ? page = article&amp;item = nvidia \ _qa \ _linux&amp;num = 1 [ phoronix.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason that nvidia doesn't use DRI and all that is that this allows them to share massive amounts of Code with their drivers for other OSs, and not that DRI is somehow broken.http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&amp;item=nvidia\_qa\_linux&amp;num=1 [phoronix.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965300</id>
	<title>Re:Choosing the correct abstraction layer</title>
	<author>caseih</author>
	<datestamp>1257271980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't know what you're talking about.  With the indirect rendering architecture in X11 right now, everything that Windows 7 does can or could be done with Compiz (if someone wanted to implement the effect).  X11 provides the "stuff" to do all of what Window 7 does.  Have you seen the ring-style switcher in compiz-fusion[1]?  It uses major 3D-looking transformations.  I use it daily.  Kind of a clone of Apple's coverflow, but for switching windows.  X11 indeed exposes "that kind of stuff."  Before you spread this kind of nonsense about X11 in the future, please at least read up on the stuff.</p><p>There are indeed a lot of perceived and real issues in modern X11 desktops.  Compiz helps with this as it reduces the redraws and makes things seem a lot smoother.  Another common problem is that sync X11 events are asynchronous, as you resize a window, the interior widgets often lag behind in their redraw.  I understand some time back there was work being done on a way to synchronize the redraws so that widgets in a window expand smoothly (like MS Windows and OS X does).</p><p>[1] <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEUf8BQB-YA" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEUf8BQB-YA</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't know what you 're talking about .
With the indirect rendering architecture in X11 right now , everything that Windows 7 does can or could be done with Compiz ( if someone wanted to implement the effect ) .
X11 provides the " stuff " to do all of what Window 7 does .
Have you seen the ring-style switcher in compiz-fusion [ 1 ] ?
It uses major 3D-looking transformations .
I use it daily .
Kind of a clone of Apple 's coverflow , but for switching windows .
X11 indeed exposes " that kind of stuff .
" Before you spread this kind of nonsense about X11 in the future , please at least read up on the stuff.There are indeed a lot of perceived and real issues in modern X11 desktops .
Compiz helps with this as it reduces the redraws and makes things seem a lot smoother .
Another common problem is that sync X11 events are asynchronous , as you resize a window , the interior widgets often lag behind in their redraw .
I understand some time back there was work being done on a way to synchronize the redraws so that widgets in a window expand smoothly ( like MS Windows and OS X does ) .
[ 1 ] http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = BEUf8BQB-YA [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't know what you're talking about.
With the indirect rendering architecture in X11 right now, everything that Windows 7 does can or could be done with Compiz (if someone wanted to implement the effect).
X11 provides the "stuff" to do all of what Window 7 does.
Have you seen the ring-style switcher in compiz-fusion[1]?
It uses major 3D-looking transformations.
I use it daily.
Kind of a clone of Apple's coverflow, but for switching windows.
X11 indeed exposes "that kind of stuff.
"  Before you spread this kind of nonsense about X11 in the future, please at least read up on the stuff.There are indeed a lot of perceived and real issues in modern X11 desktops.
Compiz helps with this as it reduces the redraws and makes things seem a lot smoother.
Another common problem is that sync X11 events are asynchronous, as you resize a window, the interior widgets often lag behind in their redraw.
I understand some time back there was work being done on a way to synchronize the redraws so that widgets in a window expand smoothly (like MS Windows and OS X does).
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEUf8BQB-YA [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29967596</id>
	<title>Re:What to make of X11?</title>
	<author>Homburg</author>
	<datestamp>1257240060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What I don't see a whole lot of is major distro companies (Red Hat, Novell, Canonical) paying for major upstream development with X.</p></div><p>Really? David Airlie (one of the main developers of the open-source ATI drivers) works for Red Hat. Keith Packard, one of the major forces behind x.org (and important recent-ish developments like the composite extension) was employed by SuSE. A lot of the DRI2 work is, I believe, being done by employees of Red Hat, and Novell are also credited for work done on x.org. I don't think the situation is any different for X than it is for the other components of the Linux desktop.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I do n't see a whole lot of is major distro companies ( Red Hat , Novell , Canonical ) paying for major upstream development with X.Really ?
David Airlie ( one of the main developers of the open-source ATI drivers ) works for Red Hat .
Keith Packard , one of the major forces behind x.org ( and important recent-ish developments like the composite extension ) was employed by SuSE .
A lot of the DRI2 work is , I believe , being done by employees of Red Hat , and Novell are also credited for work done on x.org .
I do n't think the situation is any different for X than it is for the other components of the Linux desktop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I don't see a whole lot of is major distro companies (Red Hat, Novell, Canonical) paying for major upstream development with X.Really?
David Airlie (one of the main developers of the open-source ATI drivers) works for Red Hat.
Keith Packard, one of the major forces behind x.org (and important recent-ish developments like the composite extension) was employed by SuSE.
A lot of the DRI2 work is, I believe, being done by employees of Red Hat, and Novell are also credited for work done on x.org.
I don't think the situation is any different for X than it is for the other components of the Linux desktop.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29967788</id>
	<title>Re:Other performance gains</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1257240900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Windows has, the Win32 API, GDI and the common controls. They come with EVERY install of Windows, it is a requirement. Pretty much everything else sits on top and is optional. You can draw buttons, checkboxes, ect, that work across all apps the same with nothing else.</p></div><p>It should be noted that two best Windows UI frameworks - namely, WPF and Qt - both draw their own widgets, and don't use stock ones. Part of the reasoning is performance, part is inability to add some features. In any case, Win32 API exposes lower-level widget drawing primitives as well, so you can draw buttons/menus/whatever using system theme. Both WPF and Qt do this right (in that it's hard to tell a widget draw by either one from a stock OS widget - you have to know the clues in advance to look for them). Java Swing also does this more or less okay. Gtk/Win32 tries to do that, too, but fails horribly on everything except Windows Classic theme.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>You can add a layer of abstraction with MFC and ATL if you want, but most developers who have been doing it for long enough will avoid those as they are more trouble then they are worth.</p></div><p>UI portions of Win32 API are ugly and low-level enough that any sane developer <em>will</em> want an abstraction layer, and hand-coding one when there are good existing solutions with acceptable licensing (now that Qt is LGPL) is a waste of time.</p><p>In any case, even hardcore Win32 developers normally use at least something like WTL. The tedium of manual resource management in plain C is just too high.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows has , the Win32 API , GDI and the common controls .
They come with EVERY install of Windows , it is a requirement .
Pretty much everything else sits on top and is optional .
You can draw buttons , checkboxes , ect , that work across all apps the same with nothing else.It should be noted that two best Windows UI frameworks - namely , WPF and Qt - both draw their own widgets , and do n't use stock ones .
Part of the reasoning is performance , part is inability to add some features .
In any case , Win32 API exposes lower-level widget drawing primitives as well , so you can draw buttons/menus/whatever using system theme .
Both WPF and Qt do this right ( in that it 's hard to tell a widget draw by either one from a stock OS widget - you have to know the clues in advance to look for them ) .
Java Swing also does this more or less okay .
Gtk/Win32 tries to do that , too , but fails horribly on everything except Windows Classic theme.You can add a layer of abstraction with MFC and ATL if you want , but most developers who have been doing it for long enough will avoid those as they are more trouble then they are worth.UI portions of Win32 API are ugly and low-level enough that any sane developer will want an abstraction layer , and hand-coding one when there are good existing solutions with acceptable licensing ( now that Qt is LGPL ) is a waste of time.In any case , even hardcore Win32 developers normally use at least something like WTL .
The tedium of manual resource management in plain C is just too high .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows has, the Win32 API, GDI and the common controls.
They come with EVERY install of Windows, it is a requirement.
Pretty much everything else sits on top and is optional.
You can draw buttons, checkboxes, ect, that work across all apps the same with nothing else.It should be noted that two best Windows UI frameworks - namely, WPF and Qt - both draw their own widgets, and don't use stock ones.
Part of the reasoning is performance, part is inability to add some features.
In any case, Win32 API exposes lower-level widget drawing primitives as well, so you can draw buttons/menus/whatever using system theme.
Both WPF and Qt do this right (in that it's hard to tell a widget draw by either one from a stock OS widget - you have to know the clues in advance to look for them).
Java Swing also does this more or less okay.
Gtk/Win32 tries to do that, too, but fails horribly on everything except Windows Classic theme.You can add a layer of abstraction with MFC and ATL if you want, but most developers who have been doing it for long enough will avoid those as they are more trouble then they are worth.UI portions of Win32 API are ugly and low-level enough that any sane developer will want an abstraction layer, and hand-coding one when there are good existing solutions with acceptable licensing (now that Qt is LGPL) is a waste of time.In any case, even hardcore Win32 developers normally use at least something like WTL.
The tedium of manual resource management in plain C is just too high.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29967950</id>
	<title>Re:Choosing the correct abstraction layer</title>
	<author>rrohbeck</author>
	<datestamp>1257241680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>X11 would have a hard time trying to do the Windows 7 alt-tab or OS X expose features where Windows move around in 3-dimensions on the screen.  X11 doesn't expose that kind of stuff.</p></div><p>I have a feeling that you haven't used Compiz. I'll admit that I'm no Windows 7 user, but no Windows 7 desktop effect looked new to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>X11 would have a hard time trying to do the Windows 7 alt-tab or OS X expose features where Windows move around in 3-dimensions on the screen .
X11 does n't expose that kind of stuff.I have a feeling that you have n't used Compiz .
I 'll admit that I 'm no Windows 7 user , but no Windows 7 desktop effect looked new to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>X11 would have a hard time trying to do the Windows 7 alt-tab or OS X expose features where Windows move around in 3-dimensions on the screen.
X11 doesn't expose that kind of stuff.I have a feeling that you haven't used Compiz.
I'll admit that I'm no Windows 7 user, but no Windows 7 desktop effect looked new to me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965576</id>
	<title>Re:X11 is not bloated</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1257273180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Most (all now?) graphics cards are hardware accelerated for the Windows GDI, for things like drawing fonts, arcs, ellipses, fills, etc.</p></div><p>No they aren't.  They were in the '90s, and things like this were commonly offloaded.  For almost a decade, doing this on the GPU has been slower than on the CPU due to the extra command overhead (drawing lines can be done incredibly fast on a modern CPU) and the newer X11 and Windows driver models don't offload them at all.  X11 drivers and Windows drivers both used to take advantage of this acceleration, but they don't anymore.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most ( all now ?
) graphics cards are hardware accelerated for the Windows GDI , for things like drawing fonts , arcs , ellipses , fills , etc.No they are n't .
They were in the '90s , and things like this were commonly offloaded .
For almost a decade , doing this on the GPU has been slower than on the CPU due to the extra command overhead ( drawing lines can be done incredibly fast on a modern CPU ) and the newer X11 and Windows driver models do n't offload them at all .
X11 drivers and Windows drivers both used to take advantage of this acceleration , but they do n't anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most (all now?
) graphics cards are hardware accelerated for the Windows GDI, for things like drawing fonts, arcs, ellipses, fills, etc.No they aren't.
They were in the '90s, and things like this were commonly offloaded.
For almost a decade, doing this on the GPU has been slower than on the CPU due to the extra command overhead (drawing lines can be done incredibly fast on a modern CPU) and the newer X11 and Windows driver models don't offload them at all.
X11 drivers and Windows drivers both used to take advantage of this acceleration, but they don't anymore.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29967518</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>richlv</author>
	<datestamp>1257239760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you could only say that rdp is the best if you haven't heard of nx.<br>building on top of x, it is really, really great.<br>and with the added coverage that neatx (google developed nx server) brought, i'm surprised you don't know about it...<br><a href="http://www.nomachine.com/" title="nomachine.com">http://www.nomachine.com/</a> [nomachine.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you could only say that rdp is the best if you have n't heard of nx.building on top of x , it is really , really great.and with the added coverage that neatx ( google developed nx server ) brought , i 'm surprised you do n't know about it...http : //www.nomachine.com/ [ nomachine.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you could only say that rdp is the best if you haven't heard of nx.building on top of x, it is really, really great.and with the added coverage that neatx (google developed nx server) brought, i'm surprised you don't know about it...http://www.nomachine.com/ [nomachine.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965956</id>
	<title>Re:No NTLM, no Respect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257275040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Until Chrome starts supporting NTLM, I know it will not get any respect at my firm, and likely many others....</p></div><p>Until NTLM starts supporting some real security, I doubt it will be included in Chrome.  I know NTLM will not get any respect until it implements a decent security model.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until Chrome starts supporting NTLM , I know it will not get any respect at my firm , and likely many others....Until NTLM starts supporting some real security , I doubt it will be included in Chrome .
I know NTLM will not get any respect until it implements a decent security model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until Chrome starts supporting NTLM, I know it will not get any respect at my firm, and likely many others....Until NTLM starts supporting some real security, I doubt it will be included in Chrome.
I know NTLM will not get any respect until it implements a decent security model.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29967730</id>
	<title>Re:Choosing the correct abstraction layer</title>
	<author>Guy Harris</author>
	<datestamp>1257240720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Windows and OSX abstractions for the display don't provide an API that allows these sorts of optimizations to be done behind the scenes.  We have incredible display hardware with awesome features that go unused in these environments because the display abstractions do not allow for them.</p></div><p>So what are some of those awesome features?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Windows and OSX abstractions for the display do n't provide an API that allows these sorts of optimizations to be done behind the scenes .
We have incredible display hardware with awesome features that go unused in these environments because the display abstractions do not allow for them.So what are some of those awesome features ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Windows and OSX abstractions for the display don't provide an API that allows these sorts of optimizations to be done behind the scenes.
We have incredible display hardware with awesome features that go unused in these environments because the display abstractions do not allow for them.So what are some of those awesome features?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963352</id>
	<title>Other performance gains</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257263220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about a Qt build of Chromium as opposed to a GTK build of Chromium? I'd be real curious to see how it performs.</p><p>I was also saddened to see the port team bitch and complain initially that they had to use GTK, because GTK is "the standard toolkit" for Linux, while in the same paragraph complaining that Linux doesn't simply have one standard toolkit. Last time I checked, Windows has a bevy of toolkits and APIs to choose from as well. They also complained that writing audio in Linux was difficult.</p><p>If they had written a Qt app from day one, porting would be minimal, they wouldn't have to maintain this huge separate trunks, it would have worked from day 1 on Solaris, Mac, Linux, Windows, BSD, etc. Audio would have been very easy to code with Phonon.</p><p>I'm curious to see if Chrome (the browser and OS) are indeed both developed with GTK, then will they both need some retrofits when GTK 3.0 ships, further complicating the matter?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about a Qt build of Chromium as opposed to a GTK build of Chromium ?
I 'd be real curious to see how it performs.I was also saddened to see the port team bitch and complain initially that they had to use GTK , because GTK is " the standard toolkit " for Linux , while in the same paragraph complaining that Linux does n't simply have one standard toolkit .
Last time I checked , Windows has a bevy of toolkits and APIs to choose from as well .
They also complained that writing audio in Linux was difficult.If they had written a Qt app from day one , porting would be minimal , they would n't have to maintain this huge separate trunks , it would have worked from day 1 on Solaris , Mac , Linux , Windows , BSD , etc .
Audio would have been very easy to code with Phonon.I 'm curious to see if Chrome ( the browser and OS ) are indeed both developed with GTK , then will they both need some retrofits when GTK 3.0 ships , further complicating the matter ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about a Qt build of Chromium as opposed to a GTK build of Chromium?
I'd be real curious to see how it performs.I was also saddened to see the port team bitch and complain initially that they had to use GTK, because GTK is "the standard toolkit" for Linux, while in the same paragraph complaining that Linux doesn't simply have one standard toolkit.
Last time I checked, Windows has a bevy of toolkits and APIs to choose from as well.
They also complained that writing audio in Linux was difficult.If they had written a Qt app from day one, porting would be minimal, they wouldn't have to maintain this huge separate trunks, it would have worked from day 1 on Solaris, Mac, Linux, Windows, BSD, etc.
Audio would have been very easy to code with Phonon.I'm curious to see if Chrome (the browser and OS) are indeed both developed with GTK, then will they both need some retrofits when GTK 3.0 ships, further complicating the matter?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29967072</id>
	<title>Re:No NTLM, no Respect</title>
	<author>kamochan</author>
	<datestamp>1257280920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as your firm keeps requiring NTLM, I know it will not get any respect in mine, and likely many others...</p><p>We'll gladly take your money, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as your firm keeps requiring NTLM , I know it will not get any respect in mine , and likely many others...We 'll gladly take your money , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as your firm keeps requiring NTLM, I know it will not get any respect in mine, and likely many others...We'll gladly take your money, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962820</id>
	<title>Test of time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257260340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Has the design of X11 withstood the test of time better than people tend to give it credit for?"</p><p>Yes of course it has.  X11 is great and anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't understand it properly, or have an accurate idea of what it's genuine problems are actually due to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Has the design of X11 withstood the test of time better than people tend to give it credit for ?
" Yes of course it has .
X11 is great and anyone who thinks otherwise does n't understand it properly , or have an accurate idea of what it 's genuine problems are actually due to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Has the design of X11 withstood the test of time better than people tend to give it credit for?
"Yes of course it has.
X11 is great and anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't understand it properly, or have an accurate idea of what it's genuine problems are actually due to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29972392</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257260400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I tried. And X11 is totally and utterly USELESS. A well configured VNC (and you have to really play with the knobs) is usable. RDP is the best (of course, it wasn't developed by Microsoft...)"</p><p>I've generally found NX to be the best, up until recently, even RDP over NX felt more responsive than RDP by itself.  NX will also give you X sessions, that are not terminated when you are disconnected.</p><p>The problem here is that you are comparing apples and oranges, X11 gives you network transport but no session system, RDP and VNC provide both session and network transport.</p><p>You can add sessions to X via NX, or another app that I've forgotten the name of, that allows you to resume your connection to an x app.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I tried .
And X11 is totally and utterly USELESS .
A well configured VNC ( and you have to really play with the knobs ) is usable .
RDP is the best ( of course , it was n't developed by Microsoft... ) " I 've generally found NX to be the best , up until recently , even RDP over NX felt more responsive than RDP by itself .
NX will also give you X sessions , that are not terminated when you are disconnected.The problem here is that you are comparing apples and oranges , X11 gives you network transport but no session system , RDP and VNC provide both session and network transport.You can add sessions to X via NX , or another app that I 've forgotten the name of , that allows you to resume your connection to an x app .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I tried.
And X11 is totally and utterly USELESS.
A well configured VNC (and you have to really play with the knobs) is usable.
RDP is the best (of course, it wasn't developed by Microsoft...)"I've generally found NX to be the best, up until recently, even RDP over NX felt more responsive than RDP by itself.
NX will also give you X sessions, that are not terminated when you are disconnected.The problem here is that you are comparing apples and oranges, X11 gives you network transport but no session system, RDP and VNC provide both session and network transport.You can add sessions to X via NX, or another app that I've forgotten the name of, that allows you to resume your connection to an x app.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29966944</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>asdfghjklqwertyuiop</author>
	<datestamp>1257280080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Using X that way is also a MUCH bigger security risk than VNC or RDP. The remote machine to which you're granting access to your X server can read all the keystrokes you type (wether they're to the remote app or not) and take screen shots of the whole display, etc...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Using X that way is also a MUCH bigger security risk than VNC or RDP .
The remote machine to which you 're granting access to your X server can read all the keystrokes you type ( wether they 're to the remote app or not ) and take screen shots of the whole display , etc.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using X that way is also a MUCH bigger security risk than VNC or RDP.
The remote machine to which you're granting access to your X server can read all the keystrokes you type (wether they're to the remote app or not) and take screen shots of the whole display, etc...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965048</id>
	<title>Re:Even if X is usually slower...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257270900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know why I read Framebuffer as Flamebuffer, but I guess you were trying to buffer yourself from a flame...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know why I read Framebuffer as Flamebuffer , but I guess you were trying to buffer yourself from a flame.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know why I read Framebuffer as Flamebuffer, but I guess you were trying to buffer yourself from a flame...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964222</id>
	<title>Re:X11 is not bloated</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257267420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL.  You're a certified MCSE, am I right or am I right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL .
You 're a certified MCSE , am I right or am I right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL.
You're a certified MCSE, am I right or am I right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29973862</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>consonant</author>
	<datestamp>1257271920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Red Hat 6.2 was released in 2000, IIRC. I know I installed a spanking new Red Hat 5.8 on a 266 MHz P-II desktop in 1998. Something doesn't quite gel - could it be the hyperbole in the pursuit of making a point?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Red Hat 6.2 was released in 2000 , IIRC .
I know I installed a spanking new Red Hat 5.8 on a 266 MHz P-II desktop in 1998 .
Something does n't quite gel - could it be the hyperbole in the pursuit of making a point ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Red Hat 6.2 was released in 2000, IIRC.
I know I installed a spanking new Red Hat 5.8 on a 266 MHz P-II desktop in 1998.
Something doesn't quite gel - could it be the hyperbole in the pursuit of making a point?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963436</id>
	<title>What to make of X11?</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1257263700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm wary of any real old legacy code.</p><p>I also know that graphic displays and inputs are vastly different today than they were 10 and 20 years ago.</p><p>Do I know that X11 is inefficient? No, but I sure read plenty of other people making those claims. However, I suspect that X11 wasn't developed initially with today's needs in mind. I do know that the X team keeps promising features, cutting them, and then still shipping six months past their projected release dates.</p><p>Novell has guys working on Mono, Evolution, OOo, KDE, Gnome, the kernel, etc. What I don't see a whole lot of is major distro companies (Red Hat, Novell, Canonical) paying for major upstream development with X. Maybe it just needs a little more love, some deprecation of old cruft, and a new forward-thinking design. There seems to be somewhat of a future direction (GEM, DRI2, MPX), but perhaps X needs a revolution.</p><p>Is Wayland a step in the right direction?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm wary of any real old legacy code.I also know that graphic displays and inputs are vastly different today than they were 10 and 20 years ago.Do I know that X11 is inefficient ?
No , but I sure read plenty of other people making those claims .
However , I suspect that X11 was n't developed initially with today 's needs in mind .
I do know that the X team keeps promising features , cutting them , and then still shipping six months past their projected release dates.Novell has guys working on Mono , Evolution , OOo , KDE , Gnome , the kernel , etc .
What I do n't see a whole lot of is major distro companies ( Red Hat , Novell , Canonical ) paying for major upstream development with X. Maybe it just needs a little more love , some deprecation of old cruft , and a new forward-thinking design .
There seems to be somewhat of a future direction ( GEM , DRI2 , MPX ) , but perhaps X needs a revolution.Is Wayland a step in the right direction ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm wary of any real old legacy code.I also know that graphic displays and inputs are vastly different today than they were 10 and 20 years ago.Do I know that X11 is inefficient?
No, but I sure read plenty of other people making those claims.
However, I suspect that X11 wasn't developed initially with today's needs in mind.
I do know that the X team keeps promising features, cutting them, and then still shipping six months past their projected release dates.Novell has guys working on Mono, Evolution, OOo, KDE, Gnome, the kernel, etc.
What I don't see a whole lot of is major distro companies (Red Hat, Novell, Canonical) paying for major upstream development with X. Maybe it just needs a little more love, some deprecation of old cruft, and a new forward-thinking design.
There seems to be somewhat of a future direction (GEM, DRI2, MPX), but perhaps X needs a revolution.Is Wayland a step in the right direction?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964026</id>
	<title>Uninformed and wrong</title>
	<author>FranTaylor</author>
	<datestamp>1257266640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"For whatever reason, Linux drivers have NEVER taken advantage of this, and that is why Linux often looks clunky compared to Windows on the same hardware."</p><p>This is just BLATANTLY WRONG.</p><p>All you need to do is read the feature announcements for the nVidia and ATI display drivers, which you apparently DON'T DO.</p><p>nVidia's REAL target market is the folks who work at animation companies, and the hard-core data visualization people.  Their products are designed to fly in THIS environment.  This market is VERY HEAVILY tilted toward Unix.  That is WHY you can get such EXCELLENT display support under Linux.  The rest of us are just piggybacking off of this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" For whatever reason , Linux drivers have NEVER taken advantage of this , and that is why Linux often looks clunky compared to Windows on the same hardware .
" This is just BLATANTLY WRONG.All you need to do is read the feature announcements for the nVidia and ATI display drivers , which you apparently DO N'T DO.nVidia 's REAL target market is the folks who work at animation companies , and the hard-core data visualization people .
Their products are designed to fly in THIS environment .
This market is VERY HEAVILY tilted toward Unix .
That is WHY you can get such EXCELLENT display support under Linux .
The rest of us are just piggybacking off of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"For whatever reason, Linux drivers have NEVER taken advantage of this, and that is why Linux often looks clunky compared to Windows on the same hardware.
"This is just BLATANTLY WRONG.All you need to do is read the feature announcements for the nVidia and ATI display drivers, which you apparently DON'T DO.nVidia's REAL target market is the folks who work at animation companies, and the hard-core data visualization people.
Their products are designed to fly in THIS environment.
This market is VERY HEAVILY tilted toward Unix.
That is WHY you can get such EXCELLENT display support under Linux.
The rest of us are just piggybacking off of this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963420</id>
	<title>Awes0me fp!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257263640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">to work i'm doing, to place a paper Distro is done Here market share. Red hot on the heels of to stick something which gathers Prima doonas, and our cause. Gay Forwards we must</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>to work i 'm doing , to place a paper Distro is done Here market share .
Red hot on the heels of to stick something which gathers Prima doonas , and our cause .
Gay Forwards we must [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to work i'm doing, to place a paper Distro is done Here market share.
Red hot on the heels of to stick something which gathers Prima doonas, and our cause.
Gay Forwards we must [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962912</id>
	<title>Even if X is usually slower...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257260880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even If X is usually slower then other system it doesn't mean it is always slower for all applications...   For most applications sadly X11 runs slower then Framebuffer based GUIs.  However X11 does do better then the Framebuffer apps for apps that are better made for X. X11 is great at the vector based information, It does get bogged down on bitmapped images.  Framebuffer OS GUI like Bitmaps much better then Vector Graphics.</p><p>It is not that X11 cant handle Bitmaps nor can Framebuffer handle Vector well. But X11 does Vector better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even If X is usually slower then other system it does n't mean it is always slower for all applications... For most applications sadly X11 runs slower then Framebuffer based GUIs .
However X11 does do better then the Framebuffer apps for apps that are better made for X. X11 is great at the vector based information , It does get bogged down on bitmapped images .
Framebuffer OS GUI like Bitmaps much better then Vector Graphics.It is not that X11 cant handle Bitmaps nor can Framebuffer handle Vector well .
But X11 does Vector better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even If X is usually slower then other system it doesn't mean it is always slower for all applications...   For most applications sadly X11 runs slower then Framebuffer based GUIs.
However X11 does do better then the Framebuffer apps for apps that are better made for X. X11 is great at the vector based information, It does get bogged down on bitmapped images.
Framebuffer OS GUI like Bitmaps much better then Vector Graphics.It is not that X11 cant handle Bitmaps nor can Framebuffer handle Vector well.
But X11 does Vector better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965216</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>that this is not und</author>
	<datestamp>1257271560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are you referencing the average PC of 20 years ago, which ran Windows 3.1, not X11, to the average workstation from back then, which the GP referred to as 'woefully inadequate' today?  Did you know that there were actual framebuffer cards back then in typical use that cost more than your '386-DX 25 with 16MB of RAM' that all the secretaries were impressed by?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are you referencing the average PC of 20 years ago , which ran Windows 3.1 , not X11 , to the average workstation from back then , which the GP referred to as 'woefully inadequate ' today ?
Did you know that there were actual framebuffer cards back then in typical use that cost more than your '386-DX 25 with 16MB of RAM ' that all the secretaries were impressed by ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are you referencing the average PC of 20 years ago, which ran Windows 3.1, not X11, to the average workstation from back then, which the GP referred to as 'woefully inadequate' today?
Did you know that there were actual framebuffer cards back then in typical use that cost more than your '386-DX 25 with 16MB of RAM' that all the secretaries were impressed by?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965574</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>celle</author>
	<datestamp>1257273120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Heck even the remoting does not scale well enough that it is usable without tricks for modern UIs out of the box."</p><p>Maybe the problem is with the "modern UIs" don't you think?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Heck even the remoting does not scale well enough that it is usable without tricks for modern UIs out of the box .
" Maybe the problem is with the " modern UIs " do n't you think ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Heck even the remoting does not scale well enough that it is usable without tricks for modern UIs out of the box.
"Maybe the problem is with the "modern UIs" don't you think?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964760</id>
	<title>Re:What to make of X11?</title>
	<author>snadrus</author>
	<datestamp>1257269580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's X11 changes that have helped make Wayland possible. Also, the breaking it apart into different pieces has helped accelerate it and offers an opportunity for some of those pieces to be replaced.

I'd say the biggest problem is that it's still X11 instead of an army of pieces that are re-assembled differently for each distros intentions. Also, swappable pieces like Wayland should help add options without disposing of 20 years of work all at once.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's X11 changes that have helped make Wayland possible .
Also , the breaking it apart into different pieces has helped accelerate it and offers an opportunity for some of those pieces to be replaced .
I 'd say the biggest problem is that it 's still X11 instead of an army of pieces that are re-assembled differently for each distros intentions .
Also , swappable pieces like Wayland should help add options without disposing of 20 years of work all at once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's X11 changes that have helped make Wayland possible.
Also, the breaking it apart into different pieces has helped accelerate it and offers an opportunity for some of those pieces to be replaced.
I'd say the biggest problem is that it's still X11 instead of an army of pieces that are re-assembled differently for each distros intentions.
Also, swappable pieces like Wayland should help add options without disposing of 20 years of work all at once.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965150</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257271320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you tried using the same window manager as back then, running the same programs, and especially killing all background programs / daemons that weren't there back then?</p><p>Because else, you're comparing apples to oranges.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you tried using the same window manager as back then , running the same programs , and especially killing all background programs / daemons that were n't there back then ? Because else , you 're comparing apples to oranges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you tried using the same window manager as back then, running the same programs, and especially killing all background programs / daemons that weren't there back then?Because else, you're comparing apples to oranges.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965772</id>
	<title>Re:Choosing the correct abstraction layer</title>
	<author>knarf</author>
	<datestamp>1257274020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>X11 would have a hard time trying to do the Windows 7 alt-tab or OS X expose features where Windows move around in 3-dimensions on the screen. X11 doesn't expose that kind of stuff.</p></div></blockquote><p>Uhhhh... have you seen Compiz, Beryl, Metisse, Gnome-Shell or any of the other whiz-bang screen-flipping and warping and cubing desktops? They do run X11 apps... through an X11 extension, be it AIGLX or XGL or something similar. X11 exposes whatever you want through the use of extensions, including the stuff needed to do 3D window manipulation. It did this when Vista was still Longhorn, let alone Windows come lately annex 7...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>X11 would have a hard time trying to do the Windows 7 alt-tab or OS X expose features where Windows move around in 3-dimensions on the screen .
X11 does n't expose that kind of stuff.Uhhhh... have you seen Compiz , Beryl , Metisse , Gnome-Shell or any of the other whiz-bang screen-flipping and warping and cubing desktops ?
They do run X11 apps... through an X11 extension , be it AIGLX or XGL or something similar .
X11 exposes whatever you want through the use of extensions , including the stuff needed to do 3D window manipulation .
It did this when Vista was still Longhorn , let alone Windows come lately annex 7.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>X11 would have a hard time trying to do the Windows 7 alt-tab or OS X expose features where Windows move around in 3-dimensions on the screen.
X11 doesn't expose that kind of stuff.Uhhhh... have you seen Compiz, Beryl, Metisse, Gnome-Shell or any of the other whiz-bang screen-flipping and warping and cubing desktops?
They do run X11 apps... through an X11 extension, be it AIGLX or XGL or something similar.
X11 exposes whatever you want through the use of extensions, including the stuff needed to do 3D window manipulation.
It did this when Vista was still Longhorn, let alone Windows come lately annex 7...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965550</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257273000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've never had performance issues running X11 over a LAN.</p><p>VNC and RDP are useful hacks for systems that weren't designed for remote access, but they're no replacement for real network transparency.</p></div><p>Oh no you don't!</p><p>Try using X11 over something slightly slower as LAN. Just try it, over ADSL, whatever</p><p>I tried. And X11 is totally and utterly USELESS. A well configured VNC (and you have to really play with the knobs) is usable. RDP is the best (of course, it wasn't developed by Microsoft...)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never had performance issues running X11 over a LAN.VNC and RDP are useful hacks for systems that were n't designed for remote access , but they 're no replacement for real network transparency.Oh no you do n't ! Try using X11 over something slightly slower as LAN .
Just try it , over ADSL , whateverI tried .
And X11 is totally and utterly USELESS .
A well configured VNC ( and you have to really play with the knobs ) is usable .
RDP is the best ( of course , it was n't developed by Microsoft... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never had performance issues running X11 over a LAN.VNC and RDP are useful hacks for systems that weren't designed for remote access, but they're no replacement for real network transparency.Oh no you don't!Try using X11 over something slightly slower as LAN.
Just try it, over ADSL, whateverI tried.
And X11 is totally and utterly USELESS.
A well configured VNC (and you have to really play with the knobs) is usable.
RDP is the best (of course, it wasn't developed by Microsoft...)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29979582</id>
	<title>Re:I read the article. So sue me.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257009120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nah-- in Chromium each renderer runs in a separate process spawned from the master process.   The master process is pretty safe because it never talks to potentially malicious 3rd party sites itself, and the renderer processes are never reused, so they're fine.</p><p>The suggestion that they were talking about was to have the master process keep a spare process initialized and ready to be a renderer, so that instead of creating a new renderer on demand the spare renderer could be immediately used, at which point a new spare renderer could be allocated in the background to service the next request for a new renderer.  So it really has no effect on the security architecture at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah-- in Chromium each renderer runs in a separate process spawned from the master process .
The master process is pretty safe because it never talks to potentially malicious 3rd party sites itself , and the renderer processes are never reused , so they 're fine.The suggestion that they were talking about was to have the master process keep a spare process initialized and ready to be a renderer , so that instead of creating a new renderer on demand the spare renderer could be immediately used , at which point a new spare renderer could be allocated in the background to service the next request for a new renderer .
So it really has no effect on the security architecture at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah-- in Chromium each renderer runs in a separate process spawned from the master process.
The master process is pretty safe because it never talks to potentially malicious 3rd party sites itself, and the renderer processes are never reused, so they're fine.The suggestion that they were talking about was to have the master process keep a spare process initialized and ready to be a renderer, so that instead of creating a new renderer on demand the spare renderer could be immediately used, at which point a new spare renderer could be allocated in the background to service the next request for a new renderer.
So it really has no effect on the security architecture at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29966302</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1257276540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guess what the same applications ran probably better on a C64 using GEOS... the reason why X11 performed 20 years ago was that the applications if they did graphics at all used the athena widget set, so basically all they did was to draw a few circles. The issue with X starts as soon as you do more it severely shows that it does not scale up too well especially on the networking side.<br>Most other UIs simply went for higher level drawing primitives and added networking later with better results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess what the same applications ran probably better on a C64 using GEOS... the reason why X11 performed 20 years ago was that the applications if they did graphics at all used the athena widget set , so basically all they did was to draw a few circles .
The issue with X starts as soon as you do more it severely shows that it does not scale up too well especially on the networking side.Most other UIs simply went for higher level drawing primitives and added networking later with better results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess what the same applications ran probably better on a C64 using GEOS... the reason why X11 performed 20 years ago was that the applications if they did graphics at all used the athena widget set, so basically all they did was to draw a few circles.
The issue with X starts as soon as you do more it severely shows that it does not scale up too well especially on the networking side.Most other UIs simply went for higher level drawing primitives and added networking later with better results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965364</id>
	<title>Re:http://www.goatse.cz</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257272220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fucking asshole</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fucking asshole</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fucking asshole</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29970638</id>
	<title>Re:Uninformed and wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257251280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>nVidia's REAL target market is the folks who work at animation companies....This market is VERY HEAVILY tilted toward Unix.  That is WHY you can get such EXCELLENT display support under Linux.</p></div><p>Now if only the nVidia driver for my mother's GeForce 4 MX 440 wouldn't keep crashing X on Kubuntu 9.10....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>nVidia 's REAL target market is the folks who work at animation companies....This market is VERY HEAVILY tilted toward Unix .
That is WHY you can get such EXCELLENT display support under Linux.Now if only the nVidia driver for my mother 's GeForce 4 MX 440 would n't keep crashing X on Kubuntu 9.10... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nVidia's REAL target market is the folks who work at animation companies....This market is VERY HEAVILY tilted toward Unix.
That is WHY you can get such EXCELLENT display support under Linux.Now if only the nVidia driver for my mother's GeForce 4 MX 440 wouldn't keep crashing X on Kubuntu 9.10....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963662</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>OrangeTide</author>
	<datestamp>1257264960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>memcpy of 1000s of bytes is slower than sending a message. Many of these systems that provide direct access to RAM require lots of copying too. (OSX one example I'm most familiar with)</p><p>X11 also supports direct access to memory, but it is only used in very specific circumstances because it's extra work to set up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>memcpy of 1000s of bytes is slower than sending a message .
Many of these systems that provide direct access to RAM require lots of copying too .
( OSX one example I 'm most familiar with ) X11 also supports direct access to memory , but it is only used in very specific circumstances because it 's extra work to set up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>memcpy of 1000s of bytes is slower than sending a message.
Many of these systems that provide direct access to RAM require lots of copying too.
(OSX one example I'm most familiar with)X11 also supports direct access to memory, but it is only used in very specific circumstances because it's extra work to set up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965340</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1257272160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And this is a typical X11 criticism: a comment based on a complete lack of understanding of how a modern display system works.</p><p>
Every modern operating system enforces isolation of processes both from each other and from the hardware.  With something like Apple's QuickDraw, this isolation was bypassed at the drawing level; applications were allowed to write directly to the frame buffer.  No modern systems - including Windows and Apple's Quartz - work this way.  Each application opens an IPC connection to a display server which handles drawing commands.  With X11, the communication goes via a mixture of UNIX domain sockets and shared memory.  With Quartz, it goes via Mach ports and shared memory.  </p><p>
The only difference between how X11 implements this and how Quartz or the Vista display server implement it is that the protocol used via the serial channel that X11 uses is well documented.  This means that, rather than using local IPC, you can use remote IPC such as a TCP (or SCTP these days) socket with exactly the same code that you use for local communication.  This means that your remote display code path is almost as well tested as the local one (although you don't get shared memory and you have protocol overhead from TCP/IP so it's slower).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And this is a typical X11 criticism : a comment based on a complete lack of understanding of how a modern display system works .
Every modern operating system enforces isolation of processes both from each other and from the hardware .
With something like Apple 's QuickDraw , this isolation was bypassed at the drawing level ; applications were allowed to write directly to the frame buffer .
No modern systems - including Windows and Apple 's Quartz - work this way .
Each application opens an IPC connection to a display server which handles drawing commands .
With X11 , the communication goes via a mixture of UNIX domain sockets and shared memory .
With Quartz , it goes via Mach ports and shared memory .
The only difference between how X11 implements this and how Quartz or the Vista display server implement it is that the protocol used via the serial channel that X11 uses is well documented .
This means that , rather than using local IPC , you can use remote IPC such as a TCP ( or SCTP these days ) socket with exactly the same code that you use for local communication .
This means that your remote display code path is almost as well tested as the local one ( although you do n't get shared memory and you have protocol overhead from TCP/IP so it 's slower ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this is a typical X11 criticism: a comment based on a complete lack of understanding of how a modern display system works.
Every modern operating system enforces isolation of processes both from each other and from the hardware.
With something like Apple's QuickDraw, this isolation was bypassed at the drawing level; applications were allowed to write directly to the frame buffer.
No modern systems - including Windows and Apple's Quartz - work this way.
Each application opens an IPC connection to a display server which handles drawing commands.
With X11, the communication goes via a mixture of UNIX domain sockets and shared memory.
With Quartz, it goes via Mach ports and shared memory.
The only difference between how X11 implements this and how Quartz or the Vista display server implement it is that the protocol used via the serial channel that X11 uses is well documented.
This means that, rather than using local IPC, you can use remote IPC such as a TCP (or SCTP these days) socket with exactly the same code that you use for local communication.
This means that your remote display code path is almost as well tested as the local one (although you don't get shared memory and you have protocol overhead from TCP/IP so it's slower).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29967206</id>
	<title>Upstream X devs</title>
	<author>Sits</author>
	<datestamp>1257281520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Intel pay for a lot of X devs at the moment who do upstream development as well as Intel driver development: Eric Anholt, Jesse Barnes, Keith Packard (of at least Xrandr and COMPOSITE fame), Ian Romanick, Carl Worth...<br>Red Hat employ some upstream X devs too: Dave Airlie, Peter Hutterer, Adam Jackson, Kristian H&#248;gsberg (who made Wayland) spring to immediate mind (I think they also used to emply Jesse and Carl)<br>Novell employ Matthias Hopf.<br>Nokia employ Daniel Stone.</p><p>There's an (incomplete?) <a href="http://www.ohloh.net/p/x/contributors" title="ohloh.net" rel="nofollow">list of xorg devs on ohloh</a> [ohloh.net]. Just because you haven't heard of them doesn't mean they aren't out there hacking away...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Intel pay for a lot of X devs at the moment who do upstream development as well as Intel driver development : Eric Anholt , Jesse Barnes , Keith Packard ( of at least Xrandr and COMPOSITE fame ) , Ian Romanick , Carl Worth...Red Hat employ some upstream X devs too : Dave Airlie , Peter Hutterer , Adam Jackson , Kristian H   gsberg ( who made Wayland ) spring to immediate mind ( I think they also used to emply Jesse and Carl ) Novell employ Matthias Hopf.Nokia employ Daniel Stone.There 's an ( incomplete ?
) list of xorg devs on ohloh [ ohloh.net ] .
Just because you have n't heard of them does n't mean they are n't out there hacking away.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intel pay for a lot of X devs at the moment who do upstream development as well as Intel driver development: Eric Anholt, Jesse Barnes, Keith Packard (of at least Xrandr and COMPOSITE fame), Ian Romanick, Carl Worth...Red Hat employ some upstream X devs too: Dave Airlie, Peter Hutterer, Adam Jackson, Kristian Høgsberg (who made Wayland) spring to immediate mind (I think they also used to emply Jesse and Carl)Novell employ Matthias Hopf.Nokia employ Daniel Stone.There's an (incomplete?
) list of xorg devs on ohloh [ohloh.net].
Just because you haven't heard of them doesn't mean they aren't out there hacking away...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29978478</id>
	<title>Flash?</title>
	<author>oglueck</author>
	<datestamp>1257005700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who cares, when a Youtube Flash video is eating almost 100\% of your CPU because it's idiotic use of X11? Playing a plain MPG video in mplayer uses almost no CPU.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares , when a Youtube Flash video is eating almost 100 \ % of your CPU because it 's idiotic use of X11 ?
Playing a plain MPG video in mplayer uses almost no CPU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares, when a Youtube Flash video is eating almost 100\% of your CPU because it's idiotic use of X11?
Playing a plain MPG video in mplayer uses almost no CPU.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963386</id>
	<title>Faster because it's incomplete?</title>
	<author>edmicman</author>
	<datestamp>1257263400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been using the daily Chromium PPA builds for a couple months now (updated weekly usually), and Chromium is by far more responsive than Firefox on my Ubuntu 9.04 laptop.  For some reason FF just seems to get laggy in the UI dept, and if I open up a handful of tabs, especially if there is Flash involved, the whole thing chokes and the app turns grey.  Chromium seems to perform much better.</p><p>That said, it still feels very much incomplete.  I don't think printing is working still, although I haven't tried it in awhile.  For some reason there are no "arrow button clickers" on scrollbars...not sure why that is the case.  I can't open a file download directly or inline - for example to view a PDF I have to save it somewhere first, THEN open it.  FF lets me choose what to open it with without having to save first.  99\% of my browsing on Chromium is super fast, except for the Gizmodo.com RSS feed through Google Reader.  I don't really know why, but it seems like it has something to do with the adds loading or something...does FF pre-fetch or cache things or something?</p><p>I've switched back and forth off and on for awhile now.  I"ll get tired of the UI laginess in FF, or I'll break it on a nightly update, and then use Chromium for some time.  Eventually I'll miss some features or speed in the RSS reading of Firefox (I wonder how much of that is due to Adblock?), and then return.  All in all both browsers are good, and I'm looking forward to Chromium becoming a full fledged option on Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using the daily Chromium PPA builds for a couple months now ( updated weekly usually ) , and Chromium is by far more responsive than Firefox on my Ubuntu 9.04 laptop .
For some reason FF just seems to get laggy in the UI dept , and if I open up a handful of tabs , especially if there is Flash involved , the whole thing chokes and the app turns grey .
Chromium seems to perform much better.That said , it still feels very much incomplete .
I do n't think printing is working still , although I have n't tried it in awhile .
For some reason there are no " arrow button clickers " on scrollbars...not sure why that is the case .
I ca n't open a file download directly or inline - for example to view a PDF I have to save it somewhere first , THEN open it .
FF lets me choose what to open it with without having to save first .
99 \ % of my browsing on Chromium is super fast , except for the Gizmodo.com RSS feed through Google Reader .
I do n't really know why , but it seems like it has something to do with the adds loading or something...does FF pre-fetch or cache things or something ? I 've switched back and forth off and on for awhile now .
I " ll get tired of the UI laginess in FF , or I 'll break it on a nightly update , and then use Chromium for some time .
Eventually I 'll miss some features or speed in the RSS reading of Firefox ( I wonder how much of that is due to Adblock ?
) , and then return .
All in all both browsers are good , and I 'm looking forward to Chromium becoming a full fledged option on Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been using the daily Chromium PPA builds for a couple months now (updated weekly usually), and Chromium is by far more responsive than Firefox on my Ubuntu 9.04 laptop.
For some reason FF just seems to get laggy in the UI dept, and if I open up a handful of tabs, especially if there is Flash involved, the whole thing chokes and the app turns grey.
Chromium seems to perform much better.That said, it still feels very much incomplete.
I don't think printing is working still, although I haven't tried it in awhile.
For some reason there are no "arrow button clickers" on scrollbars...not sure why that is the case.
I can't open a file download directly or inline - for example to view a PDF I have to save it somewhere first, THEN open it.
FF lets me choose what to open it with without having to save first.
99\% of my browsing on Chromium is super fast, except for the Gizmodo.com RSS feed through Google Reader.
I don't really know why, but it seems like it has something to do with the adds loading or something...does FF pre-fetch or cache things or something?I've switched back and forth off and on for awhile now.
I"ll get tired of the UI laginess in FF, or I'll break it on a nightly update, and then use Chromium for some time.
Eventually I'll miss some features or speed in the RSS reading of Firefox (I wonder how much of that is due to Adblock?
), and then return.
All in all both browsers are good, and I'm looking forward to Chromium becoming a full fledged option on Linux.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964712</id>
	<title>Re:Choosing the correct abstraction layer</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1257269400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Originally java was slow, but hard work behind the scenes means that your java programs run<br>&gt; much faster now, without any extra effort on the part of the application developer.</p><p>Yeah... that and the fact that instead of 100Mhz CPUs we now have 3Ghz CPUs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Originally java was slow , but hard work behind the scenes means that your java programs run &gt; much faster now , without any extra effort on the part of the application developer.Yeah... that and the fact that instead of 100Mhz CPUs we now have 3Ghz CPUs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Originally java was slow, but hard work behind the scenes means that your java programs run&gt; much faster now, without any extra effort on the part of the application developer.Yeah... that and the fact that instead of 100Mhz CPUs we now have 3Ghz CPUs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963166</id>
	<title>Memcpy not the biggest problem for chrome/chromium</title>
	<author>iamsquicky</author>
	<datestamp>1257262260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure that the biggest slowdown for Chrome isn't the memcpy/bitblitting for the display - it's probably something to do with the insanely big history files it generates as part of it's searchable history.</p><p>Files you can't limit in size, can't compress, can't optimise.  Instead all you can do is to delete them and loose all your precious history information.<br>It also has the bonus of providing a searchable address bar that performs significantly worse than firefox's searchable address bar !</p><p>I use both firefox and chrome simultaneously at home and at work, dedicated each browser for different tasks I do.  It's a real shame that Chrome is being seriously degraded over time by this fault - I've started switching back to firefox because of it as my laptop just struggles too much with it now...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure that the biggest slowdown for Chrome is n't the memcpy/bitblitting for the display - it 's probably something to do with the insanely big history files it generates as part of it 's searchable history.Files you ca n't limit in size , ca n't compress , ca n't optimise .
Instead all you can do is to delete them and loose all your precious history information.It also has the bonus of providing a searchable address bar that performs significantly worse than firefox 's searchable address bar ! I use both firefox and chrome simultaneously at home and at work , dedicated each browser for different tasks I do .
It 's a real shame that Chrome is being seriously degraded over time by this fault - I 've started switching back to firefox because of it as my laptop just struggles too much with it now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure that the biggest slowdown for Chrome isn't the memcpy/bitblitting for the display - it's probably something to do with the insanely big history files it generates as part of it's searchable history.Files you can't limit in size, can't compress, can't optimise.
Instead all you can do is to delete them and loose all your precious history information.It also has the bonus of providing a searchable address bar that performs significantly worse than firefox's searchable address bar !I use both firefox and chrome simultaneously at home and at work, dedicated each browser for different tasks I do.
It's a real shame that Chrome is being seriously degraded over time by this fault - I've started switching back to firefox because of it as my laptop just struggles too much with it now...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962822</id>
	<title>I read the article. So sue me.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257260340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting comment from one of the developers:</p><p> <i>We could also just move process
creation to a background thread.  An unused process might just get swapped
out and be no cheaper to "make live" than it would be to create a new
process.</i> </p><p>Surely this reusing of a process would negate the supposed security benefits of Chrome/Chromium's multi-process spawning architecture?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting comment from one of the developers : We could also just move process creation to a background thread .
An unused process might just get swapped out and be no cheaper to " make live " than it would be to create a new process .
Surely this reusing of a process would negate the supposed security benefits of Chrome/Chromium 's multi-process spawning architecture ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting comment from one of the developers: We could also just move process
creation to a background thread.
An unused process might just get swapped
out and be no cheaper to "make live" than it would be to create a new
process.
Surely this reusing of a process would negate the supposed security benefits of Chrome/Chromium's multi-process spawning architecture?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920</id>
	<title>X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>miffo.swe</author>
	<datestamp>1257260940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>X11 has never been a bottleneck in performance on the desktop. Many people have been confusing X11 with the desktop system/kernel/applications and wrongly blamed X11 for any slowness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>X11 has never been a bottleneck in performance on the desktop .
Many people have been confusing X11 with the desktop system/kernel/applications and wrongly blamed X11 for any slowness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>X11 has never been a bottleneck in performance on the desktop.
Many people have been confusing X11 with the desktop system/kernel/applications and wrongly blamed X11 for any slowness.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963142</id>
	<title>Choosing the correct abstraction layer</title>
	<author>FranTaylor</author>
	<datestamp>1257262080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you choose your abstraction carefully, you can hide expensive details from user space.</p><p>In the short term it may not gain you anything.</p><p>But if the abstraction lives and thrives, then much can go on behind the scenes to improve the situation.</p><p>Java is another example of this: they carefully designed the language so that it would be possible to make vast simplifiying assumptions and implement optimizations that really improve performance without impacting the "other side" of the wall.  Originally java was slow, but hard work behind the scenes means that your java programs run much faster now, without any extra effort on the part of the application developer.</p><p>X Windows is a great example of this.  Originally we had dumb frame buffers with no acceleration at all.  And yet X provides an abstraction that allows lots and lots of hardware optimizations to take place.</p><p>The Windows and OSX abstractions for the display don't provide an API that allows these sorts of optimizations to be done behind the scenes.  We have incredible display hardware with awesome features that go unused in these environments because the display abstractions do not allow for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you choose your abstraction carefully , you can hide expensive details from user space.In the short term it may not gain you anything.But if the abstraction lives and thrives , then much can go on behind the scenes to improve the situation.Java is another example of this : they carefully designed the language so that it would be possible to make vast simplifiying assumptions and implement optimizations that really improve performance without impacting the " other side " of the wall .
Originally java was slow , but hard work behind the scenes means that your java programs run much faster now , without any extra effort on the part of the application developer.X Windows is a great example of this .
Originally we had dumb frame buffers with no acceleration at all .
And yet X provides an abstraction that allows lots and lots of hardware optimizations to take place.The Windows and OSX abstractions for the display do n't provide an API that allows these sorts of optimizations to be done behind the scenes .
We have incredible display hardware with awesome features that go unused in these environments because the display abstractions do not allow for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you choose your abstraction carefully, you can hide expensive details from user space.In the short term it may not gain you anything.But if the abstraction lives and thrives, then much can go on behind the scenes to improve the situation.Java is another example of this: they carefully designed the language so that it would be possible to make vast simplifiying assumptions and implement optimizations that really improve performance without impacting the "other side" of the wall.
Originally java was slow, but hard work behind the scenes means that your java programs run much faster now, without any extra effort on the part of the application developer.X Windows is a great example of this.
Originally we had dumb frame buffers with no acceleration at all.
And yet X provides an abstraction that allows lots and lots of hardware optimizations to take place.The Windows and OSX abstractions for the display don't provide an API that allows these sorts of optimizations to be done behind the scenes.
We have incredible display hardware with awesome features that go unused in these environments because the display abstractions do not allow for them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965096</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>eugene2k</author>
	<datestamp>1257271080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do understand that the amont of code executed to implement IPC through unix domain sockets equals to an observational error compared to the amount of code even a simple GTK+ "hello world" application executes, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do understand that the amont of code executed to implement IPC through unix domain sockets equals to an observational error compared to the amount of code even a simple GTK + " hello world " application executes , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do understand that the amont of code executed to implement IPC through unix domain sockets equals to an observational error compared to the amount of code even a simple GTK+ "hello world" application executes, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29975310</id>
	<title>Re:Test of time</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1256982540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So X11 was designed for <i>future</i> software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So X11 was designed for future software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So X11 was designed for future software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29968274</id>
	<title>Re:Test of time</title>
	<author>KZigurs</author>
	<datestamp>1257243120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sir, you managed to say it with a straight face. Hat off to you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sir , you managed to say it with a straight face .
Hat off to you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sir, you managed to say it with a straight face.
Hat off to you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965690</id>
	<title>Re:Choosing the correct abstraction layer</title>
	<author>JasterBobaMereel</author>
	<datestamp>1257273660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No X11 can do Windows 7 and Vista and OSX expose features<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and does so<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....</p><p>The whole point is that X11 does not draw Windows it draws tiles<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Window Managers draw windows<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and they can draw 3d glass dancing Windows on X11 without X11 caring about it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>On Windows the layers are Driver - GDI - Application<br>On X11 the layers are Driver - Kernel - X11 - Window Manager - Application  (there may be more<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...)</p><p>The point is that you do not need to Expose the low level stuff to the application.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. just to the window manager, the application should not have to worry about redrawing itself, or resizing the window etc... it should let the window manager worry about that</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No X11 can do Windows 7 and Vista and OSX expose features ... and does so .....The whole point is that X11 does not draw Windows it draws tiles ... Window Managers draw windows ... and they can draw 3d glass dancing Windows on X11 without X11 caring about it ...On Windows the layers are Driver - GDI - ApplicationOn X11 the layers are Driver - Kernel - X11 - Window Manager - Application ( there may be more ... ) The point is that you do not need to Expose the low level stuff to the application .
.. just to the window manager , the application should not have to worry about redrawing itself , or resizing the window etc... it should let the window manager worry about that</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No X11 can do Windows 7 and Vista and OSX expose features ... and does so .....The whole point is that X11 does not draw Windows it draws tiles ... Window Managers draw windows ... and they can draw 3d glass dancing Windows on X11 without X11 caring about it ...On Windows the layers are Driver - GDI - ApplicationOn X11 the layers are Driver - Kernel - X11 - Window Manager - Application  (there may be more ...)The point is that you do not need to Expose the low level stuff to the application.
.. just to the window manager, the application should not have to worry about redrawing itself, or resizing the window etc... it should let the window manager worry about that</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29972160</id>
	<title>Re:Choosing the correct abstraction layer</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1257258780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a Linux user for 13 years, I have to say that the greatest improvement in X over that time period is: I don't have to fuck with it anymore.</p><p>I became something of an unwilling expert on XFree86.conf and xorg.conf. Nowadays, I never have to touch it. And if I did try to touch it, I wouldn't know what to do since so much of it has changed or is automagically managed now.</p><p>And that's the way it should be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a Linux user for 13 years , I have to say that the greatest improvement in X over that time period is : I do n't have to fuck with it anymore.I became something of an unwilling expert on XFree86.conf and xorg.conf .
Nowadays , I never have to touch it .
And if I did try to touch it , I would n't know what to do since so much of it has changed or is automagically managed now.And that 's the way it should be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a Linux user for 13 years, I have to say that the greatest improvement in X over that time period is: I don't have to fuck with it anymore.I became something of an unwilling expert on XFree86.conf and xorg.conf.
Nowadays, I never have to touch it.
And if I did try to touch it, I wouldn't know what to do since so much of it has changed or is automagically managed now.And that's the way it should be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29971806</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>deek</author>
	<datestamp>1257256500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I've run X11 over a 33k modem.  It was a little sluggish, but quite usable.  Maybe it depends on the application you're running?</p><p>I didn't even use something like FreeNX or nxproxy, which is designed to compress and streamline X11 connections over slow links.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I 've run X11 over a 33k modem .
It was a little sluggish , but quite usable .
Maybe it depends on the application you 're running ? I did n't even use something like FreeNX or nxproxy , which is designed to compress and streamline X11 connections over slow links .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I've run X11 over a 33k modem.
It was a little sluggish, but quite usable.
Maybe it depends on the application you're running?I didn't even use something like FreeNX or nxproxy, which is designed to compress and streamline X11 connections over slow links.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963880</id>
	<title>Huh?!?</title>
	<author>gbutler69</author>
	<datestamp>1257265980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you even know what the fuck you are talking about? Do you know what XAA, EXA, UXA, etc are? You need beaten with a clue-stick!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you even know what the fuck you are talking about ?
Do you know what XAA , EXA , UXA , etc are ?
You need beaten with a clue-stick !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you even know what the fuck you are talking about?
Do you know what XAA, EXA, UXA, etc are?
You need beaten with a clue-stick!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29970140</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>Thetawaves</author>
	<datestamp>1257249600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you suggest that everybody writes in raw xlib? I do not think the distinction you are trying to make is relevant.

Abstraction of some kind will always be necessary. Nobody wants to write in raw xlib.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you suggest that everybody writes in raw xlib ?
I do not think the distinction you are trying to make is relevant .
Abstraction of some kind will always be necessary .
Nobody wants to write in raw xlib .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you suggest that everybody writes in raw xlib?
I do not think the distinction you are trying to make is relevant.
Abstraction of some kind will always be necessary.
Nobody wants to write in raw xlib.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964076</id>
	<title>What is this "X11?"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257266820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is this "X11" of which you speak?  It sounds like some sort of Windows(tm) imitator.  How can that be?  Our wise leaders at Microsoft told us that using Lunix forces you to live in the command line!</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is this " X11 " of which you speak ?
It sounds like some sort of Windows ( tm ) imitator .
How can that be ?
Our wise leaders at Microsoft told us that using Lunix forces you to live in the command line !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is this "X11" of which you speak?
It sounds like some sort of Windows(tm) imitator.
How can that be?
Our wise leaders at Microsoft told us that using Lunix forces you to live in the command line!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29970778</id>
	<title>Re:Choosing the correct abstraction layer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257251760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; On X11 the layers are Driver - Kernel - X11 - Window Manager - Application (there may be more<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...)</p><p>Wrong: on X11 the layers are just <b>Hardware-X11-Application</b></p><p>The Xserver doesn't need to use any kernel driver except for changing resolution modes.<br>In fact, when the X server starts it maps all the graphic card's memory in it's own memory space using mmap()<br>including a special memory addresses used the send commands to the graphic card hardware.<br>After doing this, the X server has direct access to the graphic card without having to use any kernel system call.</p><p>Also X applycations deal directly whit the X server and don't have to deal with the window manager except when they<br>want to resize/minimize/maximize/sticky a windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; On X11 the layers are Driver - Kernel - X11 - Window Manager - Application ( there may be more ... ) Wrong : on X11 the layers are just Hardware-X11-ApplicationThe Xserver does n't need to use any kernel driver except for changing resolution modes.In fact , when the X server starts it maps all the graphic card 's memory in it 's own memory space using mmap ( ) including a special memory addresses used the send commands to the graphic card hardware.After doing this , the X server has direct access to the graphic card without having to use any kernel system call.Also X applycations deal directly whit the X server and do n't have to deal with the window manager except when theywant to resize/minimize/maximize/sticky a windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; On X11 the layers are Driver - Kernel - X11 - Window Manager - Application (there may be more ...)Wrong: on X11 the layers are just Hardware-X11-ApplicationThe Xserver doesn't need to use any kernel driver except for changing resolution modes.In fact, when the X server starts it maps all the graphic card's memory in it's own memory space using mmap()including a special memory addresses used the send commands to the graphic card hardware.After doing this, the X server has direct access to the graphic card without having to use any kernel system call.Also X applycations deal directly whit the X server and don't have to deal with the window manager except when theywant to resize/minimize/maximize/sticky a windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29969210</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257246540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Try using X11 over something slightly slower as LAN. Just try it, over ADSL, whatever</p></div><p>I've generally found that if you have a 10 Mb Ethernet link you're fine. This is for stuff like general browsing, e-mail, Matlab, etc. Never tried video (this was on SparcStation 5s and 10s, and even IPXs). I'd be interested in knowing if anyone did bandwidth throttling to find out where the "cut-off" point for decent responsiveness is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Try using X11 over something slightly slower as LAN .
Just try it , over ADSL , whateverI 've generally found that if you have a 10 Mb Ethernet link you 're fine .
This is for stuff like general browsing , e-mail , Matlab , etc .
Never tried video ( this was on SparcStation 5s and 10s , and even IPXs ) .
I 'd be interested in knowing if anyone did bandwidth throttling to find out where the " cut-off " point for decent responsiveness is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try using X11 over something slightly slower as LAN.
Just try it, over ADSL, whateverI've generally found that if you have a 10 Mb Ethernet link you're fine.
This is for stuff like general browsing, e-mail, Matlab, etc.
Never tried video (this was on SparcStation 5s and 10s, and even IPXs).
I'd be interested in knowing if anyone did bandwidth throttling to find out where the "cut-off" point for decent responsiveness is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29966062</id>
	<title>Re:Other performance gains</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257275460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mod parent up. He hits it right on the nail.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up .
He hits it right on the nail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up.
He hits it right on the nail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963802</id>
	<title>Re:I read the article. So sue me.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257265740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess maybe I'm making bad assumptions, as I don't really know what Chrome's intent with multiple processes is... but I think the answer to your question is no, it wouldn't necessarily impact security and certainly wouldn't fully negate the multi-process approach's advantages.</p><p>The major advantage to keeping separate tasks in separate processes, it seems to me, is that they have separate memory spaces.  I can't sneakily inject code into another task's buffers if I'm not in the same process.  In particular, if the browser spawns a process to execute some plug-in or whatever, there's less risk that the plug-in or whatever can trick the browser into executing malicious code.  (Or cause it to crash, but that's more "stability" than "security".)</p><p>In other words, the biggest security risk comes from two processes sharing the same process <i>at the same time</i>.  I don't think re-use is as big a problem.  Sure, if you did a bad job of wiping buffers, then in theory one process could see its predicessor's data; and I guess there are scenarios where that could be an issue, though I'm a little skeptical that a malicious process would go rooting around its uninitialized space "just in case" it was handed a process with something it would recognize as sensitive data from a previous task...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess maybe I 'm making bad assumptions , as I do n't really know what Chrome 's intent with multiple processes is... but I think the answer to your question is no , it would n't necessarily impact security and certainly would n't fully negate the multi-process approach 's advantages.The major advantage to keeping separate tasks in separate processes , it seems to me , is that they have separate memory spaces .
I ca n't sneakily inject code into another task 's buffers if I 'm not in the same process .
In particular , if the browser spawns a process to execute some plug-in or whatever , there 's less risk that the plug-in or whatever can trick the browser into executing malicious code .
( Or cause it to crash , but that 's more " stability " than " security " .
) In other words , the biggest security risk comes from two processes sharing the same process at the same time .
I do n't think re-use is as big a problem .
Sure , if you did a bad job of wiping buffers , then in theory one process could see its predicessor 's data ; and I guess there are scenarios where that could be an issue , though I 'm a little skeptical that a malicious process would go rooting around its uninitialized space " just in case " it was handed a process with something it would recognize as sensitive data from a previous task.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess maybe I'm making bad assumptions, as I don't really know what Chrome's intent with multiple processes is... but I think the answer to your question is no, it wouldn't necessarily impact security and certainly wouldn't fully negate the multi-process approach's advantages.The major advantage to keeping separate tasks in separate processes, it seems to me, is that they have separate memory spaces.
I can't sneakily inject code into another task's buffers if I'm not in the same process.
In particular, if the browser spawns a process to execute some plug-in or whatever, there's less risk that the plug-in or whatever can trick the browser into executing malicious code.
(Or cause it to crash, but that's more "stability" than "security".
)In other words, the biggest security risk comes from two processes sharing the same process at the same time.
I don't think re-use is as big a problem.
Sure, if you did a bad job of wiping buffers, then in theory one process could see its predicessor's data; and I guess there are scenarios where that could be an issue, though I'm a little skeptical that a malicious process would go rooting around its uninitialized space "just in case" it was handed a process with something it would recognize as sensitive data from a previous task...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964758</id>
	<title>Re:Memcpy not the biggest problem for chrome/chrom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257269580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Files you can't limit in size, can't compress, can't optimise. Instead all you can do is to delete them and loose all your precious history information.</p></div></blockquote><p>If you want a bunch of features to tweak, you shouldn't be using Chrome.  Its not intended to be full of a bunch of crappy features that 3 people use and 1200 extensions to make it run like crap.  Its meant to be lean and mean.</p><p>Chrome supports cleaning up the history with a few options, you can delete the last day, last week, last month, or entire thing.  If you want more options, you're using the wrong browser.  More features bring more bloat, which is why Firefox has become such a pig.  Please don't try to make Chrome another Firefox, then we'll just have to start ANOTHER browser to get back to where it runs fast.</p><p>Use Firefox if you want feature rich and bloated.  Use Chrome if you don't want a toolbox, an Application development environment, the kitchen sink, and more code than needed to power some small countries.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Files you ca n't limit in size , ca n't compress , ca n't optimise .
Instead all you can do is to delete them and loose all your precious history information.If you want a bunch of features to tweak , you should n't be using Chrome .
Its not intended to be full of a bunch of crappy features that 3 people use and 1200 extensions to make it run like crap .
Its meant to be lean and mean.Chrome supports cleaning up the history with a few options , you can delete the last day , last week , last month , or entire thing .
If you want more options , you 're using the wrong browser .
More features bring more bloat , which is why Firefox has become such a pig .
Please do n't try to make Chrome another Firefox , then we 'll just have to start ANOTHER browser to get back to where it runs fast.Use Firefox if you want feature rich and bloated .
Use Chrome if you do n't want a toolbox , an Application development environment , the kitchen sink , and more code than needed to power some small countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Files you can't limit in size, can't compress, can't optimise.
Instead all you can do is to delete them and loose all your precious history information.If you want a bunch of features to tweak, you shouldn't be using Chrome.
Its not intended to be full of a bunch of crappy features that 3 people use and 1200 extensions to make it run like crap.
Its meant to be lean and mean.Chrome supports cleaning up the history with a few options, you can delete the last day, last week, last month, or entire thing.
If you want more options, you're using the wrong browser.
More features bring more bloat, which is why Firefox has become such a pig.
Please don't try to make Chrome another Firefox, then we'll just have to start ANOTHER browser to get back to where it runs fast.Use Firefox if you want feature rich and bloated.
Use Chrome if you don't want a toolbox, an Application development environment, the kitchen sink, and more code than needed to power some small countries.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965266</id>
	<title>Re:Not trying to troll here...</title>
	<author>TheModelEskimo</author>
	<datestamp>1257271800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The 4.X beta on the same hardware? Why don't you just get a live CD and try it? I'm on an Ubuntu Q8300 quad-core with 8GB RAM and even I can tell that, for whatever reason, Chromium is *much* faster than even Opera (to say nothing of Firefox) on my system. It's got its annoyances, but when I need to do Youtube or Slashdot or anything else that Firefox convinces me is "intensive," I switch over to Chromium where I have like 20 tabs open and things fly. So I'm not surprised somebody is bringing this up. It's very fast.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The 4.X beta on the same hardware ?
Why do n't you just get a live CD and try it ?
I 'm on an Ubuntu Q8300 quad-core with 8GB RAM and even I can tell that , for whatever reason , Chromium is * much * faster than even Opera ( to say nothing of Firefox ) on my system .
It 's got its annoyances , but when I need to do Youtube or Slashdot or anything else that Firefox convinces me is " intensive , " I switch over to Chromium where I have like 20 tabs open and things fly .
So I 'm not surprised somebody is bringing this up .
It 's very fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 4.X beta on the same hardware?
Why don't you just get a live CD and try it?
I'm on an Ubuntu Q8300 quad-core with 8GB RAM and even I can tell that, for whatever reason, Chromium is *much* faster than even Opera (to say nothing of Firefox) on my system.
It's got its annoyances, but when I need to do Youtube or Slashdot or anything else that Firefox convinces me is "intensive," I switch over to Chromium where I have like 20 tabs open and things fly.
So I'm not surprised somebody is bringing this up.
It's very fast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964216</id>
	<title>Chrome vs Firefox</title>
	<author>deathguppie</author>
	<datestamp>1257267360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about Chrome being faster on Linux than Windows, but I do know that it <i> cleans the plate</i> vs. Firefox on Linux.  I'm using the Ubuntu version at "deb <a href="http://dl.google.com/linux/deb/" title="google.com">http://dl.google.com/linux/deb/</a> [google.com] stable main"  and I can finally pull Slashdot stories up in a second tab without locking up the browser while it loads.  Scrolling and rendering are also noticeably faster<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about Chrome being faster on Linux than Windows , but I do know that it cleans the plate vs. Firefox on Linux .
I 'm using the Ubuntu version at " deb http : //dl.google.com/linux/deb/ [ google.com ] stable main " and I can finally pull Slashdot stories up in a second tab without locking up the browser while it loads .
Scrolling and rendering are also noticeably faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about Chrome being faster on Linux than Windows, but I do know that it  cleans the plate vs. Firefox on Linux.
I'm using the Ubuntu version at "deb http://dl.google.com/linux/deb/ [google.com] stable main"  and I can finally pull Slashdot stories up in a second tab without locking up the browser while it loads.
Scrolling and rendering are also noticeably faster .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963938</id>
	<title>Re:Memcpy not the biggest problem for chrome/chrom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257266280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With all due respect, it sounds like you want to blame everything negative about Chrome on one feature you don't like.  Just sayin', the developers might have a reason to think that the rendering speed has something to do with the windowing system - they're a lot less likely to be just guessing and calling their guess "pretty sure".</p><p>But for the sake of argument - if the history files are the big slow-down for Chrome, why is that slowdown less pronounced on the X11 version?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With all due respect , it sounds like you want to blame everything negative about Chrome on one feature you do n't like .
Just sayin ' , the developers might have a reason to think that the rendering speed has something to do with the windowing system - they 're a lot less likely to be just guessing and calling their guess " pretty sure " .But for the sake of argument - if the history files are the big slow-down for Chrome , why is that slowdown less pronounced on the X11 version ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With all due respect, it sounds like you want to blame everything negative about Chrome on one feature you don't like.
Just sayin', the developers might have a reason to think that the rendering speed has something to do with the windowing system - they're a lot less likely to be just guessing and calling their guess "pretty sure".But for the sake of argument - if the history files are the big slow-down for Chrome, why is that slowdown less pronounced on the X11 version?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963870</id>
	<title>Re:Choosing the correct abstraction layer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257265980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Java is another example of this: they carefully designed the language so that it would be possible to make vast simplifiying assumptions and implement optimizations that really improve performance without impacting the "other side" of the wall.  Originally java was slow, but hard work behind the scenes means that your java programs run much faster now, without any extra effort on the part of the application developer.</p></div><p>I'm not sure that's how I would characterize java myself. Something like this is closer to the mark: A mediocre design made optimisation of the VM rather hard (particularly in the face of concurrency).  However after many years and some heroic effort, VMs are now available which can mostly mitigate the poor designs and perform well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Java is another example of this : they carefully designed the language so that it would be possible to make vast simplifiying assumptions and implement optimizations that really improve performance without impacting the " other side " of the wall .
Originally java was slow , but hard work behind the scenes means that your java programs run much faster now , without any extra effort on the part of the application developer.I 'm not sure that 's how I would characterize java myself .
Something like this is closer to the mark : A mediocre design made optimisation of the VM rather hard ( particularly in the face of concurrency ) .
However after many years and some heroic effort , VMs are now available which can mostly mitigate the poor designs and perform well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Java is another example of this: they carefully designed the language so that it would be possible to make vast simplifiying assumptions and implement optimizations that really improve performance without impacting the "other side" of the wall.
Originally java was slow, but hard work behind the scenes means that your java programs run much faster now, without any extra effort on the part of the application developer.I'm not sure that's how I would characterize java myself.
Something like this is closer to the mark: A mediocre design made optimisation of the VM rather hard (particularly in the face of concurrency).
However after many years and some heroic effort, VMs are now available which can mostly mitigate the poor designs and perform well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963016</id>
	<title>Re:Even if X is usually slower...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257261420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Framebuffer is an unaccelerated bitmap display, X11 is an accelerated graphics layer (that can use a framebuffer)</p><p>something that writes directly to a framebuffer is going to need a lot of additional programming in order to be as fast as X11 is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Framebuffer is an unaccelerated bitmap display , X11 is an accelerated graphics layer ( that can use a framebuffer ) something that writes directly to a framebuffer is going to need a lot of additional programming in order to be as fast as X11 is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Framebuffer is an unaccelerated bitmap display, X11 is an accelerated graphics layer (that can use a framebuffer)something that writes directly to a framebuffer is going to need a lot of additional programming in order to be as fast as X11 is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965184</id>
	<title>Sounds like they need to fix the Windows builds.</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1257271440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of what they've listed is as the reasons its faster on X are entirely possible in Windows.  Specifically, things like letting the GUI handling backing stores have been there since at least Win95, I don't know about before that, but I doubt Win 3.x or earlier had them.  Sadly, it is not the default.  Of course, X doesn't do it by default either.</p><p>At a low level, I found coding for X enjoyable, but requires more work for trivial tasks.  But for writing any sort of complex app, just the dependency tree alone gets to be a headache compared to how lazy you can be in OSX and Windows and still get good performance and feature balance.</p><p>They are different environments, if you focus or code towards the style of one, the others are going to suffer.  Its just as easy to code towards the Windows way of doing things and end up with some REALLY shitty X performance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of what they 've listed is as the reasons its faster on X are entirely possible in Windows .
Specifically , things like letting the GUI handling backing stores have been there since at least Win95 , I do n't know about before that , but I doubt Win 3.x or earlier had them .
Sadly , it is not the default .
Of course , X does n't do it by default either.At a low level , I found coding for X enjoyable , but requires more work for trivial tasks .
But for writing any sort of complex app , just the dependency tree alone gets to be a headache compared to how lazy you can be in OSX and Windows and still get good performance and feature balance.They are different environments , if you focus or code towards the style of one , the others are going to suffer .
Its just as easy to code towards the Windows way of doing things and end up with some REALLY shitty X performance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of what they've listed is as the reasons its faster on X are entirely possible in Windows.
Specifically, things like letting the GUI handling backing stores have been there since at least Win95, I don't know about before that, but I doubt Win 3.x or earlier had them.
Sadly, it is not the default.
Of course, X doesn't do it by default either.At a low level, I found coding for X enjoyable, but requires more work for trivial tasks.
But for writing any sort of complex app, just the dependency tree alone gets to be a headache compared to how lazy you can be in OSX and Windows and still get good performance and feature balance.They are different environments, if you focus or code towards the style of one, the others are going to suffer.
Its just as easy to code towards the Windows way of doing things and end up with some REALLY shitty X performance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29966464</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257277380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I had a 266 MHz laptop in the mid 1990s (about 15 years ago) that ran Linux (RedHat 6.2, mostly) and X11 perfectly well with a mere 64 MB of main memory.</p></div><p>Maybe it ran so well 15 years ago because RH6.2 didn't exist yet.  I know my imagination runs pretty fast too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a 266 MHz laptop in the mid 1990s ( about 15 years ago ) that ran Linux ( RedHat 6.2 , mostly ) and X11 perfectly well with a mere 64 MB of main memory.Maybe it ran so well 15 years ago because RH6.2 did n't exist yet .
I know my imagination runs pretty fast too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a 266 MHz laptop in the mid 1990s (about 15 years ago) that ran Linux (RedHat 6.2, mostly) and X11 perfectly well with a mere 64 MB of main memory.Maybe it ran so well 15 years ago because RH6.2 didn't exist yet.
I know my imagination runs pretty fast too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29991676</id>
	<title>nx speeds up remote X usage dramatically</title>
	<author>Nivag064</author>
	<datestamp>1257017940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you use 'nx' on both the server and client machines, you will find x applications running much faster.</p><p>The nx application intelligently caches x commands.</p><p># yum info nx<br>Loaded plugins: refresh-packagekit<br>[...]<br>Installed Packages<br>Name       : nx<br>Arch       : x86\_64<br>Version    : 3.3.0<br>Release    : 38.fc10<br>Size       : 12 M<br>Repo       : installed<br>From repo  : updates<br>Summary    : Proxy system for X11<br>URL        : <a href="http://www.nomachine.com/" title="nomachine.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nomachine.com/</a> [nomachine.com]<br>License    : GPLv2 and MIT<br>Description: NX provides a proxy system for the X Window System.</p><p>#</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you use 'nx ' on both the server and client machines , you will find x applications running much faster.The nx application intelligently caches x commands. # yum info nxLoaded plugins : refresh-packagekit [ ... ] Installed PackagesName : nxArch : x86 \ _64Version : 3.3.0Release : 38.fc10Size : 12 MRepo : installedFrom repo : updatesSummary : Proxy system for X11URL : http : //www.nomachine.com/ [ nomachine.com ] License : GPLv2 and MITDescription : NX provides a proxy system for the X Window System. #</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you use 'nx' on both the server and client machines, you will find x applications running much faster.The nx application intelligently caches x commands.# yum info nxLoaded plugins: refresh-packagekit[...]Installed PackagesName       : nxArch       : x86\_64Version    : 3.3.0Release    : 38.fc10Size       : 12 MRepo       : installedFrom repo  : updatesSummary    : Proxy system for X11URL        : http://www.nomachine.com/ [nomachine.com]License    : GPLv2 and MITDescription: NX provides a proxy system for the X Window System.#</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963188</id>
	<title>Re:Even if X is usually slower...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257262440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a bunch of incoherent nonsense. Are you one of those college computer experts I've heard so much about? Also, who the hell thumbed your post up...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a bunch of incoherent nonsense .
Are you one of those college computer experts I 've heard so much about ?
Also , who the hell thumbed your post up.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a bunch of incoherent nonsense.
Are you one of those college computer experts I've heard so much about?
Also, who the hell thumbed your post up...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964838</id>
	<title>Strange nym</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257269940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are you called MemoryDragon when you've forgotten that X uses direct access to ram on a local machine?</p><p>It doesn't use direct access to machine memory over a network, but then again you can't: it has to go over the network and if you want to use Windows GDI it wont go over the network at all (you have to have a wrapper protocol to pipe the display over, but MS is beginning to get the idea...).</p><p>So, memorydragon, why did you forget all the thousands of times this meme has been promulgated and proven false?</p><p>"It's been 1 hour, 7 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"</p><p>Good, eh? I wonder what would happen if you posted, say 10 minutes later, if 70 minutes gets you a "slow down, cowboy"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are you called MemoryDragon when you 've forgotten that X uses direct access to ram on a local machine ? It does n't use direct access to machine memory over a network , but then again you ca n't : it has to go over the network and if you want to use Windows GDI it wont go over the network at all ( you have to have a wrapper protocol to pipe the display over , but MS is beginning to get the idea... ) .So , memorydragon , why did you forget all the thousands of times this meme has been promulgated and proven false ?
" It 's been 1 hour , 7 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment " Good , eh ?
I wonder what would happen if you posted , say 10 minutes later , if 70 minutes gets you a " slow down , cowboy " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are you called MemoryDragon when you've forgotten that X uses direct access to ram on a local machine?It doesn't use direct access to machine memory over a network, but then again you can't: it has to go over the network and if you want to use Windows GDI it wont go over the network at all (you have to have a wrapper protocol to pipe the display over, but MS is beginning to get the idea...).So, memorydragon, why did you forget all the thousands of times this meme has been promulgated and proven false?
"It's been 1 hour, 7 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"Good, eh?
I wonder what would happen if you posted, say 10 minutes later, if 70 minutes gets you a "slow down, cowboy"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29973116</id>
	<title>Re:I read the article. So sue me.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257266280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On Windows at least, the security benefits come from the way Chrome sandboxes the processes running web content. They run in processes with very limited permissions and they're bundled together in a job object to set upper limits on resource consumption. Even if there is an exploitable flaw in Chrome or a plugin (and no doubt there is somewhere), and you hijack the process, it doesn't do you any good because the process running the web content can't do anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On Windows at least , the security benefits come from the way Chrome sandboxes the processes running web content .
They run in processes with very limited permissions and they 're bundled together in a job object to set upper limits on resource consumption .
Even if there is an exploitable flaw in Chrome or a plugin ( and no doubt there is somewhere ) , and you hijack the process , it does n't do you any good because the process running the web content ca n't do anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On Windows at least, the security benefits come from the way Chrome sandboxes the processes running web content.
They run in processes with very limited permissions and they're bundled together in a job object to set upper limits on resource consumption.
Even if there is an exploitable flaw in Chrome or a plugin (and no doubt there is somewhere), and you hijack the process, it doesn't do you any good because the process running the web content can't do anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963384</id>
	<title>What's with writing "[sic]" after "X-windows"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257263400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's been called X-Windows for a long time. Longer than the term "X11" has been around. It's not a misuse of Microsoft's Windows&reg; brand name.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been called X-Windows for a long time .
Longer than the term " X11 " has been around .
It 's not a misuse of Microsoft 's Windows   brand name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been called X-Windows for a long time.
Longer than the term "X11" has been around.
It's not a misuse of Microsoft's Windows® brand name.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29974218</id>
	<title>Re:Test of time</title>
	<author>dave87656</author>
	<datestamp>1257274380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>X11 is great</p></div><p> I think it is a great design and considering it stems from the 60's if I remember correctly as an MIT project it's pretty amazing.</p><p>However, I remember coding my first Xt project in the 90's and I remember two things: it was extremely fast and extremely difficult (as in Low Level) to program. Of course, noone really programs real-world applications with Xt directly anymore.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>X11 is great I think it is a great design and considering it stems from the 60 's if I remember correctly as an MIT project it 's pretty amazing.However , I remember coding my first Xt project in the 90 's and I remember two things : it was extremely fast and extremely difficult ( as in Low Level ) to program .
Of course , noone really programs real-world applications with Xt directly anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>X11 is great I think it is a great design and considering it stems from the 60's if I remember correctly as an MIT project it's pretty amazing.However, I remember coding my first Xt project in the 90's and I remember two things: it was extremely fast and extremely difficult (as in Low Level) to program.
Of course, noone really programs real-world applications with Xt directly anymore.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29968492</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>tbuskey</author>
	<datestamp>1257243960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, exactly.  X11 ran reasonably complicated applications 20 years ago on hardware that we throw out as woefully inadequate (or quaintly archaic) today</p></div><p>But that was in an environment where the average PC had a 640x480 display with 16 or maybe 256 colours.  High end workstations had higher resolution but were often monochrome.  The X server simply didn't have to do anywhere near as much work as a modern one.</p></div><p>I was running on a 486 with 1024x768 and 256 colors using and ATI VL-localbus card in 1993.  8 MB RAM.  The graphics were faster then the Sun Sparcstation 1+ at work with the same resolution.  Compiles &amp; multitasking were slower.</p><p>People were doing less work.  Instead of OpenOffice, I had LaTeX.  sc for a spreadsheet (or Excel 4 on Windows).  Xfig ran fine.  Emacs 18.59, pine, kermit, ghostscript.  olvwm,  xclock,  xload.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , exactly .
X11 ran reasonably complicated applications 20 years ago on hardware that we throw out as woefully inadequate ( or quaintly archaic ) todayBut that was in an environment where the average PC had a 640x480 display with 16 or maybe 256 colours .
High end workstations had higher resolution but were often monochrome .
The X server simply did n't have to do anywhere near as much work as a modern one.I was running on a 486 with 1024x768 and 256 colors using and ATI VL-localbus card in 1993 .
8 MB RAM .
The graphics were faster then the Sun Sparcstation 1 + at work with the same resolution .
Compiles &amp; multitasking were slower.People were doing less work .
Instead of OpenOffice , I had LaTeX .
sc for a spreadsheet ( or Excel 4 on Windows ) .
Xfig ran fine .
Emacs 18.59 , pine , kermit , ghostscript .
olvwm , xclock , xload .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, exactly.
X11 ran reasonably complicated applications 20 years ago on hardware that we throw out as woefully inadequate (or quaintly archaic) todayBut that was in an environment where the average PC had a 640x480 display with 16 or maybe 256 colours.
High end workstations had higher resolution but were often monochrome.
The X server simply didn't have to do anywhere near as much work as a modern one.I was running on a 486 with 1024x768 and 256 colors using and ATI VL-localbus card in 1993.
8 MB RAM.
The graphics were faster then the Sun Sparcstation 1+ at work with the same resolution.
Compiles &amp; multitasking were slower.People were doing less work.
Instead of OpenOffice, I had LaTeX.
sc for a spreadsheet (or Excel 4 on Windows).
Xfig ran fine.
Emacs 18.59, pine, kermit, ghostscript.
olvwm,  xclock,  xload.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29967834</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>rrohbeck</author>
	<datestamp>1257241200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If VNC is usable, you'll love <a href="http://www.nomachine.com/" title="nomachine.com">NX</a> [nomachine.com]. It is *far* more responsive for a given bandwidth/latency and it is persistent too (the session keeps running if your client disconnects.).</p><p>You can even run VNC to other machines through NX and it feels faster on limited bandwidth (NX creates a session on the Linux client that runs a fullscreen vncviewer to another system.)</p><p>It's my standard way of working remotely. My default work desktop lives on a Linux machine at the office and it resizes automatically depending on what screen size the client uses (as long as your Gnome or KDE version is recent.) Even at the office I run NX to my work session - over a LAN I can't tell the difference between local and NX.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If VNC is usable , you 'll love NX [ nomachine.com ] .
It is * far * more responsive for a given bandwidth/latency and it is persistent too ( the session keeps running if your client disconnects .
) .You can even run VNC to other machines through NX and it feels faster on limited bandwidth ( NX creates a session on the Linux client that runs a fullscreen vncviewer to another system .
) It 's my standard way of working remotely .
My default work desktop lives on a Linux machine at the office and it resizes automatically depending on what screen size the client uses ( as long as your Gnome or KDE version is recent .
) Even at the office I run NX to my work session - over a LAN I ca n't tell the difference between local and NX .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If VNC is usable, you'll love NX [nomachine.com].
It is *far* more responsive for a given bandwidth/latency and it is persistent too (the session keeps running if your client disconnects.
).You can even run VNC to other machines through NX and it feels faster on limited bandwidth (NX creates a session on the Linux client that runs a fullscreen vncviewer to another system.
)It's my standard way of working remotely.
My default work desktop lives on a Linux machine at the office and it resizes automatically depending on what screen size the client uses (as long as your Gnome or KDE version is recent.
) Even at the office I run NX to my work session - over a LAN I can't tell the difference between local and NX.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965390</id>
	<title>Re:Test of time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257272340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean like its font handling that had to be completely overhauled to become even slightly tolerable?  Yes, it had that nice font-server stuff and we were never stuck with the awful names, but deeply embedded was an assumption that glyphs were mere bitmaps of depth 1.</p><p>How about the xlib API?  Completely redone with xcb.</p><p>How about the fact that it had no facility at all to talk to drivers.  Not to initialize them, not to query them, not to use them.  You wanted a driver for X, you linked it into X.  X was its own driver famework.  To some degrees, it still is.</p><p>X is a ship of Theseus.  It doesn't mean the original planks didn't rot long ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean like its font handling that had to be completely overhauled to become even slightly tolerable ?
Yes , it had that nice font-server stuff and we were never stuck with the awful names , but deeply embedded was an assumption that glyphs were mere bitmaps of depth 1.How about the xlib API ?
Completely redone with xcb.How about the fact that it had no facility at all to talk to drivers .
Not to initialize them , not to query them , not to use them .
You wanted a driver for X , you linked it into X. X was its own driver famework .
To some degrees , it still is.X is a ship of Theseus .
It does n't mean the original planks did n't rot long ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean like its font handling that had to be completely overhauled to become even slightly tolerable?
Yes, it had that nice font-server stuff and we were never stuck with the awful names, but deeply embedded was an assumption that glyphs were mere bitmaps of depth 1.How about the xlib API?
Completely redone with xcb.How about the fact that it had no facility at all to talk to drivers.
Not to initialize them, not to query them, not to use them.
You wanted a driver for X, you linked it into X.  X was its own driver famework.
To some degrees, it still is.X is a ship of Theseus.
It doesn't mean the original planks didn't rot long ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29969840</id>
	<title>Re:Other performance gains</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1257248640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If they wanted the easy way out, they would have used wxWidgets, which at least feels native (by using the native toolkits) across Windows and Mac, and GTK on other Unixes.It looks native but it doesn't feel native. Example:<br>
<br>
A dialog that tells the user "Warning: Applying these changes will reset the device." and asks them whether they want to continue or not. The detail in question are the buttons presented to the user.<br>
Windows dialogs use [OK] [Cancel].<br>
GTK dialogs use [Cancel][OK].<br>
OS X dialogs use [Apply][Don't apply](the button labels are supposed to be self-explanatory and dialog-dependent).<br>
<br>
Whatever you do, it's going to violate the HIG (or established best practices) on at least some platforms. You can get a decent approximation but it's always going to be slightly off - although with wxW it won't be as far off (on non-X11 platforms) as with Qt and nowhere near GTK's distance to proper integration.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they wanted the easy way out , they would have used wxWidgets , which at least feels native ( by using the native toolkits ) across Windows and Mac , and GTK on other Unixes.It looks native but it does n't feel native .
Example : A dialog that tells the user " Warning : Applying these changes will reset the device .
" and asks them whether they want to continue or not .
The detail in question are the buttons presented to the user .
Windows dialogs use [ OK ] [ Cancel ] .
GTK dialogs use [ Cancel ] [ OK ] .
OS X dialogs use [ Apply ] [ Do n't apply ] ( the button labels are supposed to be self-explanatory and dialog-dependent ) .
Whatever you do , it 's going to violate the HIG ( or established best practices ) on at least some platforms .
You can get a decent approximation but it 's always going to be slightly off - although with wxW it wo n't be as far off ( on non-X11 platforms ) as with Qt and nowhere near GTK 's distance to proper integration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they wanted the easy way out, they would have used wxWidgets, which at least feels native (by using the native toolkits) across Windows and Mac, and GTK on other Unixes.It looks native but it doesn't feel native.
Example:

A dialog that tells the user "Warning: Applying these changes will reset the device.
" and asks them whether they want to continue or not.
The detail in question are the buttons presented to the user.
Windows dialogs use [OK] [Cancel].
GTK dialogs use [Cancel][OK].
OS X dialogs use [Apply][Don't apply](the button labels are supposed to be self-explanatory and dialog-dependent).
Whatever you do, it's going to violate the HIG (or established best practices) on at least some platforms.
You can get a decent approximation but it's always going to be slightly off - although with wxW it won't be as far off (on non-X11 platforms) as with Qt and nowhere near GTK's distance to proper integration.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965002</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>jeremyp</author>
	<datestamp>1257270720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, exactly.  X11 ran reasonably complicated applications 20 years ago on hardware that we throw out as woefully inadequate (or quaintly archaic) today</p></div><p>But that was in an environment where the average PC had a 640x480 display with 16 or maybe 256 colours.  High end workstations had higher resolution but were often monochrome.  The X server simply didn't have to do anywhere near as much work as a modern one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , exactly .
X11 ran reasonably complicated applications 20 years ago on hardware that we throw out as woefully inadequate ( or quaintly archaic ) todayBut that was in an environment where the average PC had a 640x480 display with 16 or maybe 256 colours .
High end workstations had higher resolution but were often monochrome .
The X server simply did n't have to do anywhere near as much work as a modern one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, exactly.
X11 ran reasonably complicated applications 20 years ago on hardware that we throw out as woefully inadequate (or quaintly archaic) todayBut that was in an environment where the average PC had a 640x480 display with 16 or maybe 256 colours.
High end workstations had higher resolution but were often monochrome.
The X server simply didn't have to do anywhere near as much work as a modern one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965816</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>Alpha830RulZ</author>
	<datestamp>1257274200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hm-m-m.  You might want to fiddle with your VNC connection.  I run many VNC sessions over LAN/WAN combos.  On LAN, it's as fast as console, as near as I can tell.  On LAN/WAN, it's a bit sluggish, but quite usable.  I often VNC from home, over comcrap, through the VPN, through the company netowrk, over a busy T1 to an office, to the machine I'm working on, and it's usable.  Not stellar, but quite usable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hm-m-m. You might want to fiddle with your VNC connection .
I run many VNC sessions over LAN/WAN combos .
On LAN , it 's as fast as console , as near as I can tell .
On LAN/WAN , it 's a bit sluggish , but quite usable .
I often VNC from home , over comcrap , through the VPN , through the company netowrk , over a busy T1 to an office , to the machine I 'm working on , and it 's usable .
Not stellar , but quite usable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hm-m-m.  You might want to fiddle with your VNC connection.
I run many VNC sessions over LAN/WAN combos.
On LAN, it's as fast as console, as near as I can tell.
On LAN/WAN, it's a bit sluggish, but quite usable.
I often VNC from home, over comcrap, through the VPN, through the company netowrk, over a busy T1 to an office, to the machine I'm working on, and it's usable.
Not stellar, but quite usable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29970972</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257252480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NX (network X11 with some buffering and compression) is pretty nifty over slow upstreams</p><p>WAY better than VNC because it works basically like RDP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NX ( network X11 with some buffering and compression ) is pretty nifty over slow upstreamsWAY better than VNC because it works basically like RDP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NX (network X11 with some buffering and compression) is pretty nifty over slow upstreamsWAY better than VNC because it works basically like RDP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29968894</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>sootman</author>
	<datestamp>1257245460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Random tip: if you just want to run a single app from the remove machine, <tt>ssh -XC</tt><br>The X tells ssh to forward X and the C means compress. One particular app I used to run (connecting from anywhere to my Linux box at home, which was behind a 256k up DSL) launched in 30 seconds with -X and 10 seconds with -XC.<br>Of course, different people's definitions of "usable" differ.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>Otherwise, I hear good things about <a href="http://freenx.berlios.de/" title="berlios.de">http://freenx.berlios.de/</a> [berlios.de] .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Random tip : if you just want to run a single app from the remove machine , ssh -XCThe X tells ssh to forward X and the C means compress .
One particular app I used to run ( connecting from anywhere to my Linux box at home , which was behind a 256k up DSL ) launched in 30 seconds with -X and 10 seconds with -XC.Of course , different people 's definitions of " usable " differ .
: - ) Otherwise , I hear good things about http : //freenx.berlios.de/ [ berlios.de ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Random tip: if you just want to run a single app from the remove machine, ssh -XCThe X tells ssh to forward X and the C means compress.
One particular app I used to run (connecting from anywhere to my Linux box at home, which was behind a 256k up DSL) launched in 30 seconds with -X and 10 seconds with -XC.Of course, different people's definitions of "usable" differ.
:-)Otherwise, I hear good things about http://freenx.berlios.de/ [berlios.de] .</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29966792</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1257279180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>layer upon layer of abstraction and interpretation stacked tall and high</i></p><p>yes, especially how well each layer optimizes.  There was a good article by a KDE dev a few months ago lamenting that KDE rarely ever runs with the acceleration it's capable of due to what's assumed and what's implemented at each layer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>layer upon layer of abstraction and interpretation stacked tall and highyes , especially how well each layer optimizes .
There was a good article by a KDE dev a few months ago lamenting that KDE rarely ever runs with the acceleration it 's capable of due to what 's assumed and what 's implemented at each layer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>layer upon layer of abstraction and interpretation stacked tall and highyes, especially how well each layer optimizes.
There was a good article by a KDE dev a few months ago lamenting that KDE rarely ever runs with the acceleration it's capable of due to what's assumed and what's implemented at each layer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963736</id>
	<title>Firefox did that already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257265440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox on Linux already leaned heavily on X11 just like described. The problem that caused was constant memory leaks... In X11. Firefox crashing especially tend to leave a lot of stuff into X11's raster caches. When I was still using Linux I had to restart X11 several times of day because of that problem... Your mileage may vary but for me normal usage is some 500+ tabs open simultaneously and some 10 000+ page loads in one day..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox on Linux already leaned heavily on X11 just like described .
The problem that caused was constant memory leaks... In X11 .
Firefox crashing especially tend to leave a lot of stuff into X11 's raster caches .
When I was still using Linux I had to restart X11 several times of day because of that problem... Your mileage may vary but for me normal usage is some 500 + tabs open simultaneously and some 10 000 + page loads in one day. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox on Linux already leaned heavily on X11 just like described.
The problem that caused was constant memory leaks... In X11.
Firefox crashing especially tend to leave a lot of stuff into X11's raster caches.
When I was still using Linux I had to restart X11 several times of day because of that problem... Your mileage may vary but for me normal usage is some 500+ tabs open simultaneously and some 10 000+ page loads in one day..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964088</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>Elbows</author>
	<datestamp>1257266880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've never had performance issues running X11 over a LAN. VNC, on the other hand, is noticeably sluggish (RDP seems to work well though). I don't run apps over a WAN very often, except for the occasional emacs session (which is a bit laggy but useable).</p><p>But more importantly, the X style of remote access is much, much more useful than VNC/RDP. Remote apps integrate seamlessly into my desktop, instead of being stuck in a separate window. And multiple people can run remote apps on the same machine, without interfering with each other or a user who's physically sitting at the machine.</p><p>VNC and RDP are useful hacks for systems that weren't designed for remote access, but they're no replacement for real network transparency.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never had performance issues running X11 over a LAN .
VNC , on the other hand , is noticeably sluggish ( RDP seems to work well though ) .
I do n't run apps over a WAN very often , except for the occasional emacs session ( which is a bit laggy but useable ) .But more importantly , the X style of remote access is much , much more useful than VNC/RDP .
Remote apps integrate seamlessly into my desktop , instead of being stuck in a separate window .
And multiple people can run remote apps on the same machine , without interfering with each other or a user who 's physically sitting at the machine.VNC and RDP are useful hacks for systems that were n't designed for remote access , but they 're no replacement for real network transparency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never had performance issues running X11 over a LAN.
VNC, on the other hand, is noticeably sluggish (RDP seems to work well though).
I don't run apps over a WAN very often, except for the occasional emacs session (which is a bit laggy but useable).But more importantly, the X style of remote access is much, much more useful than VNC/RDP.
Remote apps integrate seamlessly into my desktop, instead of being stuck in a separate window.
And multiple people can run remote apps on the same machine, without interfering with each other or a user who's physically sitting at the machine.VNC and RDP are useful hacks for systems that weren't designed for remote access, but they're no replacement for real network transparency.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964732</id>
	<title>Re:Choosing the correct abstraction layer</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1257269460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Windows and OSX abstractions for the display don't provide an API that allows these sorts of optimizations to be done behind the scenes.</p></div><p>That is not true.  Windows GDI was designed for hardware acceleration.  As an example: Circa 1998 I got an ISA Diamond Viper video card which performed orders of magnitude faster than comparable VESA cards because the drivers took advantage of the hardware rasterization.  For example, dragging a window didn't redraw the window, it moved the bitmap from one place in video memory to another.  Drawing/filling lines and shapes was absurdly fast because GDI offers primitives for those operations and the driver mapped those to the hardware functionality.</p><p>Those same things happen today under Windows Vista, Windows 7, and OS X.  That is a big part of why the driver model changed for Windows Vista/7: Microsoft wanted to expose even more layers through the video driver to permit those kinds of optimizations.  X11 would have a hard time trying to do the Windows 7 alt-tab or OS X expose features where Windows move around in 3-dimensions on the screen.  X11 doesn't expose that kind of stuff.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Windows and OSX abstractions for the display do n't provide an API that allows these sorts of optimizations to be done behind the scenes.That is not true .
Windows GDI was designed for hardware acceleration .
As an example : Circa 1998 I got an ISA Diamond Viper video card which performed orders of magnitude faster than comparable VESA cards because the drivers took advantage of the hardware rasterization .
For example , dragging a window did n't redraw the window , it moved the bitmap from one place in video memory to another .
Drawing/filling lines and shapes was absurdly fast because GDI offers primitives for those operations and the driver mapped those to the hardware functionality.Those same things happen today under Windows Vista , Windows 7 , and OS X. That is a big part of why the driver model changed for Windows Vista/7 : Microsoft wanted to expose even more layers through the video driver to permit those kinds of optimizations .
X11 would have a hard time trying to do the Windows 7 alt-tab or OS X expose features where Windows move around in 3-dimensions on the screen .
X11 does n't expose that kind of stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Windows and OSX abstractions for the display don't provide an API that allows these sorts of optimizations to be done behind the scenes.That is not true.
Windows GDI was designed for hardware acceleration.
As an example: Circa 1998 I got an ISA Diamond Viper video card which performed orders of magnitude faster than comparable VESA cards because the drivers took advantage of the hardware rasterization.
For example, dragging a window didn't redraw the window, it moved the bitmap from one place in video memory to another.
Drawing/filling lines and shapes was absurdly fast because GDI offers primitives for those operations and the driver mapped those to the hardware functionality.Those same things happen today under Windows Vista, Windows 7, and OS X.  That is a big part of why the driver model changed for Windows Vista/7: Microsoft wanted to expose even more layers through the video driver to permit those kinds of optimizations.
X11 would have a hard time trying to do the Windows 7 alt-tab or OS X expose features where Windows move around in 3-dimensions on the screen.
X11 doesn't expose that kind of stuff.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29971120</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257253020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doubt it - RedHat 6.2 was released in the beginning of 2000.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Doubt it - RedHat 6.2 was released in the beginning of 2000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doubt it - RedHat 6.2 was released in the beginning of 2000.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29971320</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>anon mouse-cow-aard</author>
	<datestamp>1257253920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>
Yes, exactly. X11 ran reasonably complicated applications 20 years ago on hardware that we throw out as woefully inadequate (or quaintly archaic) today, and did so with entirely acceptable speed. X11 isn't the problem -- hardware is what, two orders of magnitude faster now?
</i>
<p>
20 years of Moore's law is 2**10 == 1024 so<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... three orders of magnitude.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , exactly .
X11 ran reasonably complicated applications 20 years ago on hardware that we throw out as woefully inadequate ( or quaintly archaic ) today , and did so with entirely acceptable speed .
X11 is n't the problem -- hardware is what , two orders of magnitude faster now ?
20 years of Moore 's law is 2 * * 10 = = 1024 so ... three orders of magnitude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Yes, exactly.
X11 ran reasonably complicated applications 20 years ago on hardware that we throw out as woefully inadequate (or quaintly archaic) today, and did so with entirely acceptable speed.
X11 isn't the problem -- hardware is what, two orders of magnitude faster now?
20 years of Moore's law is 2**10 == 1024 so ... three orders of magnitude.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962806</id>
	<title>http://www.goatse.cz</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257260220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go to <a href="http://www.goatse.cz/" title="goatse.cz" rel="nofollow">Time Warner News</a> [goatse.cz] for more on this X11 Chrome vs. the "other brands." Lol, don't. I'm trolling in order to waste modpoints.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Mod me up!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go to Time Warner News [ goatse.cz ] for more on this X11 Chrome vs. the " other brands .
" Lol , do n't .
I 'm trolling in order to waste modpoints .
: ) Mod me up ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go to Time Warner News [goatse.cz] for more on this X11 Chrome vs. the "other brands.
" Lol, don't.
I'm trolling in order to waste modpoints.
:)Mod me up!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29966022</id>
	<title>Vive la X</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1257275340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've noticed that X unfortunately gets a lot of metaphorical rotten vegetables thrown at it from Linux users; even people who apparently are fans of Linux in every other respect.</p><p>In my own opinion, however, X qualifies as one of the greatest pieces of software ever written.  Put it in perspective, here; the system has been in continual use and evolution since 1984.  That's 25 years this year.  Granted, its' configuration process in particular has needed radical reform, and fortunately it has recently got it.</p><p>I don't understand why people criticise its' stability, either; for me it has always been rock solid, particularly on FreeBSD.</p><p>I'm also not really surprised that Chrome might run faster under X than under Windows or the Mac.  If there's one thing that's always been true of UNIX in general, it's that the system doesn't include unnecessary frills.  When you're wanting to be optimised for speed in particular, that can only be a good thing.</p><p>I love X.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've noticed that X unfortunately gets a lot of metaphorical rotten vegetables thrown at it from Linux users ; even people who apparently are fans of Linux in every other respect.In my own opinion , however , X qualifies as one of the greatest pieces of software ever written .
Put it in perspective , here ; the system has been in continual use and evolution since 1984 .
That 's 25 years this year .
Granted , its ' configuration process in particular has needed radical reform , and fortunately it has recently got it.I do n't understand why people criticise its ' stability , either ; for me it has always been rock solid , particularly on FreeBSD.I 'm also not really surprised that Chrome might run faster under X than under Windows or the Mac .
If there 's one thing that 's always been true of UNIX in general , it 's that the system does n't include unnecessary frills .
When you 're wanting to be optimised for speed in particular , that can only be a good thing.I love X .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've noticed that X unfortunately gets a lot of metaphorical rotten vegetables thrown at it from Linux users; even people who apparently are fans of Linux in every other respect.In my own opinion, however, X qualifies as one of the greatest pieces of software ever written.
Put it in perspective, here; the system has been in continual use and evolution since 1984.
That's 25 years this year.
Granted, its' configuration process in particular has needed radical reform, and fortunately it has recently got it.I don't understand why people criticise its' stability, either; for me it has always been rock solid, particularly on FreeBSD.I'm also not really surprised that Chrome might run faster under X than under Windows or the Mac.
If there's one thing that's always been true of UNIX in general, it's that the system doesn't include unnecessary frills.
When you're wanting to be optimised for speed in particular, that can only be a good thing.I love X.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963672</id>
	<title>Re:Even if X is usually slower...</title>
	<author>xtracto</author>
	<datestamp>1257265080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>s/then/than/g</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>s/then/than/g</tokentext>
<sentencetext>s/then/than/g</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29966840</id>
	<title>Forwarding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257279540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I distinctly remember sitting down with Windows 3.1 when it first came out (and on a Mac as well since we had many more Macs (Lisa's actually) at the time) and thinking "OK great, how do I get this display from that PC to that one over there" which I thought was perfectly logical thing to do since the only GUI I had used before that was X10 and the X11. The fact that it was not possible has always prejudiced me to both Windows and Mac interfaces ever since.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I distinctly remember sitting down with Windows 3.1 when it first came out ( and on a Mac as well since we had many more Macs ( Lisa 's actually ) at the time ) and thinking " OK great , how do I get this display from that PC to that one over there " which I thought was perfectly logical thing to do since the only GUI I had used before that was X10 and the X11 .
The fact that it was not possible has always prejudiced me to both Windows and Mac interfaces ever since .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I distinctly remember sitting down with Windows 3.1 when it first came out (and on a Mac as well since we had many more Macs (Lisa's actually) at the time) and thinking "OK great, how do I get this display from that PC to that one over there" which I thought was perfectly logical thing to do since the only GUI I had used before that was X10 and the X11.
The fact that it was not possible has always prejudiced me to both Windows and Mac interfaces ever since.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964040</id>
	<title>Re:Choosing the correct abstraction layer</title>
	<author>pak9rabid</author>
	<datestamp>1257266700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>X Windows is a great example of this. Originally we had dumb frame buffers with no acceleration at all. And yet X provides an abstraction that allows lots and lots of hardware optimizations to take place.</p></div><p>Good enough that arguably the leading graphics vendor to support Unix (NVIDIA) had to do so by replacing massive portions of X11 to get it's hardware to perform acceptably due to the clusterfuck that is the X11 Direct Rendering Infrastructure (DRI).  X11 has survived the test of time, but there is definitely lots of room for improvement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>X Windows is a great example of this .
Originally we had dumb frame buffers with no acceleration at all .
And yet X provides an abstraction that allows lots and lots of hardware optimizations to take place.Good enough that arguably the leading graphics vendor to support Unix ( NVIDIA ) had to do so by replacing massive portions of X11 to get it 's hardware to perform acceptably due to the clusterfuck that is the X11 Direct Rendering Infrastructure ( DRI ) .
X11 has survived the test of time , but there is definitely lots of room for improvement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>X Windows is a great example of this.
Originally we had dumb frame buffers with no acceleration at all.
And yet X provides an abstraction that allows lots and lots of hardware optimizations to take place.Good enough that arguably the leading graphics vendor to support Unix (NVIDIA) had to do so by replacing massive portions of X11 to get it's hardware to perform acceptably due to the clusterfuck that is the X11 Direct Rendering Infrastructure (DRI).
X11 has survived the test of time, but there is definitely lots of room for improvement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964630</id>
	<title>Re:X11 is not bloated</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1257269100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Most (all now?) graphics cards are hardware accelerated for the Windows GDI, for things like drawing fonts, arcs, ellipses, fills, etc.</i>
</p><p>All *now* ?!  They'd stopped selling video cards without 2D acceleration back when clock speeds were still measured in double-digit \_Mhz\_.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most ( all now ?
) graphics cards are hardware accelerated for the Windows GDI , for things like drawing fonts , arcs , ellipses , fills , etc .
All * now * ? !
They 'd stopped selling video cards without 2D acceleration back when clock speeds were still measured in double-digit \ _Mhz \ _ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Most (all now?
) graphics cards are hardware accelerated for the Windows GDI, for things like drawing fonts, arcs, ellipses, fills, etc.
All *now* ?!
They'd stopped selling video cards without 2D acceleration back when clock speeds were still measured in double-digit \_Mhz\_.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965056</id>
	<title>Re:Other performance gains</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1257270900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows does not have a bevy of toolkits to choose from out of the box.</p><p>Windows has, the Win32 API, GDI and the common controls.  They come with EVERY install of Windows, it is a requirement.  Pretty much everything else sits on top and is optional.  You can draw buttons, checkboxes, ect, that work across all apps the same with nothing else.  You can add a layer of abstraction with MFC and ATL if you want, but most developers who have been doing it for long enough will avoid those as they are more trouble then they are worth.</p><p>OS X has Cocoa, Quartz and some other APIs, same thing, included out of the box, required, and consistent.</p><p>Linux or more accurately, X11, doesn't.  You need GTK, or QT or SOMETHING if you want a widget set rather than coding your own buttons and UI interfaces using the raw X11 API and a bunch of pixmaps.  You HAVE to use GTK unless you want to design your own controls, and have no consistency with other applications.  X11 does not include any common set of controls.  And like it or not, GTK is crap.  Qt is definitely a step up, but they hung themselves with their retarded licensing moves over the years, and GTK took over, sadly.</p><p>OS X has a standard audio interface.</p><p>Windows has a standard audio interface.</p><p>Linux does not, hence all the bitching and complaining done by more than just the Chromium people about audio in Linux.  My recent looking into MythTV shows this.</p><p>No one wants their windows app to look like Qt.  Mac users most certainly don't want Qt.</p><p>If it takes a bunch of work to 'retrofit' GTK 3 into apps, then once again, you have another reason why Linux app development is not worth the effort and something to bitch about.  I have some non-trivial Windows apps that were built for Win95 that still run in Windows7.  Outside of hello world, that is not true with GTK, hell, a Hello World app written for GTK won't even run any more on Linux since there have been several changes to things like vtables in the compiler.</p><p>I have the distinct impression that neither you, nor the people who modded you insightful have dealt with developing for a consistent OS before.  You have, inadvertently I'm sure, just pointed out why most commercial software developers don't target Linux.  Too many choices can be a bad thing.  The changes to get most Windows or OSX apps to work on the next release are trivial, and you've usually known about them for the last 2 major revisions at least.</p><p>If they wanted the easy way out, they would have used wxWidgets, which at least feels native (by using the native toolkits) across Windows and Mac, and GTK on other Unixes.  They did not.  It probably wouldn't provide them with a low enough interface to do what they wanted to do, and now we're back to bitching about the lack of a standard toolkit on Linux.  The two linux machines I have do not even have GTK installed.  This of course is not Linux specific.  My FreeBSD boxes are the same way.  A few have GTK because they have some GTK apps installed.  Some have Qt.  Some have both, one has neither, no X at all, but thats a different story entirely and not really the point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows does not have a bevy of toolkits to choose from out of the box.Windows has , the Win32 API , GDI and the common controls .
They come with EVERY install of Windows , it is a requirement .
Pretty much everything else sits on top and is optional .
You can draw buttons , checkboxes , ect , that work across all apps the same with nothing else .
You can add a layer of abstraction with MFC and ATL if you want , but most developers who have been doing it for long enough will avoid those as they are more trouble then they are worth.OS X has Cocoa , Quartz and some other APIs , same thing , included out of the box , required , and consistent.Linux or more accurately , X11 , does n't .
You need GTK , or QT or SOMETHING if you want a widget set rather than coding your own buttons and UI interfaces using the raw X11 API and a bunch of pixmaps .
You HAVE to use GTK unless you want to design your own controls , and have no consistency with other applications .
X11 does not include any common set of controls .
And like it or not , GTK is crap .
Qt is definitely a step up , but they hung themselves with their retarded licensing moves over the years , and GTK took over , sadly.OS X has a standard audio interface.Windows has a standard audio interface.Linux does not , hence all the bitching and complaining done by more than just the Chromium people about audio in Linux .
My recent looking into MythTV shows this.No one wants their windows app to look like Qt .
Mac users most certainly do n't want Qt.If it takes a bunch of work to 'retrofit ' GTK 3 into apps , then once again , you have another reason why Linux app development is not worth the effort and something to bitch about .
I have some non-trivial Windows apps that were built for Win95 that still run in Windows7 .
Outside of hello world , that is not true with GTK , hell , a Hello World app written for GTK wo n't even run any more on Linux since there have been several changes to things like vtables in the compiler.I have the distinct impression that neither you , nor the people who modded you insightful have dealt with developing for a consistent OS before .
You have , inadvertently I 'm sure , just pointed out why most commercial software developers do n't target Linux .
Too many choices can be a bad thing .
The changes to get most Windows or OSX apps to work on the next release are trivial , and you 've usually known about them for the last 2 major revisions at least.If they wanted the easy way out , they would have used wxWidgets , which at least feels native ( by using the native toolkits ) across Windows and Mac , and GTK on other Unixes .
They did not .
It probably would n't provide them with a low enough interface to do what they wanted to do , and now we 're back to bitching about the lack of a standard toolkit on Linux .
The two linux machines I have do not even have GTK installed .
This of course is not Linux specific .
My FreeBSD boxes are the same way .
A few have GTK because they have some GTK apps installed .
Some have Qt .
Some have both , one has neither , no X at all , but thats a different story entirely and not really the point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows does not have a bevy of toolkits to choose from out of the box.Windows has, the Win32 API, GDI and the common controls.
They come with EVERY install of Windows, it is a requirement.
Pretty much everything else sits on top and is optional.
You can draw buttons, checkboxes, ect, that work across all apps the same with nothing else.
You can add a layer of abstraction with MFC and ATL if you want, but most developers who have been doing it for long enough will avoid those as they are more trouble then they are worth.OS X has Cocoa, Quartz and some other APIs, same thing, included out of the box, required, and consistent.Linux or more accurately, X11, doesn't.
You need GTK, or QT or SOMETHING if you want a widget set rather than coding your own buttons and UI interfaces using the raw X11 API and a bunch of pixmaps.
You HAVE to use GTK unless you want to design your own controls, and have no consistency with other applications.
X11 does not include any common set of controls.
And like it or not, GTK is crap.
Qt is definitely a step up, but they hung themselves with their retarded licensing moves over the years, and GTK took over, sadly.OS X has a standard audio interface.Windows has a standard audio interface.Linux does not, hence all the bitching and complaining done by more than just the Chromium people about audio in Linux.
My recent looking into MythTV shows this.No one wants their windows app to look like Qt.
Mac users most certainly don't want Qt.If it takes a bunch of work to 'retrofit' GTK 3 into apps, then once again, you have another reason why Linux app development is not worth the effort and something to bitch about.
I have some non-trivial Windows apps that were built for Win95 that still run in Windows7.
Outside of hello world, that is not true with GTK, hell, a Hello World app written for GTK won't even run any more on Linux since there have been several changes to things like vtables in the compiler.I have the distinct impression that neither you, nor the people who modded you insightful have dealt with developing for a consistent OS before.
You have, inadvertently I'm sure, just pointed out why most commercial software developers don't target Linux.
Too many choices can be a bad thing.
The changes to get most Windows or OSX apps to work on the next release are trivial, and you've usually known about them for the last 2 major revisions at least.If they wanted the easy way out, they would have used wxWidgets, which at least feels native (by using the native toolkits) across Windows and Mac, and GTK on other Unixes.
They did not.
It probably wouldn't provide them with a low enough interface to do what they wanted to do, and now we're back to bitching about the lack of a standard toolkit on Linux.
The two linux machines I have do not even have GTK installed.
This of course is not Linux specific.
My FreeBSD boxes are the same way.
A few have GTK because they have some GTK apps installed.
Some have Qt.
Some have both, one has neither, no X at all, but thats a different story entirely and not really the point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963402</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1257263460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah sure because every layer of indirection is faster than direct ram access... sorry<br>But I still after 10 years am not convinced about the design. X11 follows the design philosophy of enforcing<br>a methotology (remoting on drawing level) which is needed by about 5\% of its users and thus burdening a layer<br>of complexity on top of the rest of 95\% users who then have to deal with shoddy drivers.<br>Heck even the remoting does not scale well enough that it is usable without tricks for modern UIs out of the box.<br>Unless you use athena widgets or third party hacks you wont even get remotely the performance RDP or even plain VNC has.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah sure because every layer of indirection is faster than direct ram access... sorryBut I still after 10 years am not convinced about the design .
X11 follows the design philosophy of enforcinga methotology ( remoting on drawing level ) which is needed by about 5 \ % of its users and thus burdening a layerof complexity on top of the rest of 95 \ % users who then have to deal with shoddy drivers.Heck even the remoting does not scale well enough that it is usable without tricks for modern UIs out of the box.Unless you use athena widgets or third party hacks you wont even get remotely the performance RDP or even plain VNC has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah sure because every layer of indirection is faster than direct ram access... sorryBut I still after 10 years am not convinced about the design.
X11 follows the design philosophy of enforcinga methotology (remoting on drawing level) which is needed by about 5\% of its users and thus burdening a layerof complexity on top of the rest of 95\% users who then have to deal with shoddy drivers.Heck even the remoting does not scale well enough that it is usable without tricks for modern UIs out of the box.Unless you use athena widgets or third party hacks you wont even get remotely the performance RDP or even plain VNC has.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963906</id>
	<title>Re:What's with writing "[sic]" after "X-windows"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257266040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's been called X-Windows for a long time. Longer than the term "X11" has been around. It's not a misuse of Microsoft's Windows&reg; brand name.</p></div><p>Because its name is and always has been "X Window System". Only with the advent of Microsoft Windows, did people take to mistakenly and confusingly calling it "X Windows".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been called X-Windows for a long time .
Longer than the term " X11 " has been around .
It 's not a misuse of Microsoft 's Windows   brand name.Because its name is and always has been " X Window System " .
Only with the advent of Microsoft Windows , did people take to mistakenly and confusingly calling it " X Windows " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been called X-Windows for a long time.
Longer than the term "X11" has been around.
It's not a misuse of Microsoft's Windows® brand name.Because its name is and always has been "X Window System".
Only with the advent of Microsoft Windows, did people take to mistakenly and confusingly calling it "X Windows".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29968176</id>
	<title>Re:Other performance gains</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257242640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be fair, GTK runs on Windows too, so they could have written it in GTK from the start and they wouldn't have had to maintain huge separate trunks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , GTK runs on Windows too , so they could have written it in GTK from the start and they would n't have had to maintain huge separate trunks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, GTK runs on Windows too, so they could have written it in GTK from the start and they wouldn't have had to maintain huge separate trunks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963566</id>
	<title>Re:X11 is not bloated</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257264480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most (all now?) graphics cards are hardware accelerated for the Windows GDI, for things like drawing fonts, arcs, ellipses, fills, etc.</p><p>For whatever reason, Linux drivers have NEVER taken advantage of this, and that is why Linux often looks clunky compared to Windows on the same hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most ( all now ?
) graphics cards are hardware accelerated for the Windows GDI , for things like drawing fonts , arcs , ellipses , fills , etc.For whatever reason , Linux drivers have NEVER taken advantage of this , and that is why Linux often looks clunky compared to Windows on the same hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most (all now?
) graphics cards are hardware accelerated for the Windows GDI, for things like drawing fonts, arcs, ellipses, fills, etc.For whatever reason, Linux drivers have NEVER taken advantage of this, and that is why Linux often looks clunky compared to Windows on the same hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29967980</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257241860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, check out TightVNC. I tops RDP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , check out TightVNC .
I tops RDP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, check out TightVNC.
I tops RDP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963190</id>
	<title>So, X11 gotta suck? The point?</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1257262440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you can take risk of re-compiling every X related app/library in case you give up in future, try the semi official/unofficial at <a href="http://xquartz.macosforge.org/" title="macosforge.org">http://xquartz.macosforge.org/</a> [macosforge.org] , it is newer than the Apple bundles. Install anything with the help of Fink/Macports like Konqueror from KDE 3 and see the amazing GUI speed, scroll speed, widget drawing speed.</p><p>I don't understand, as an OS X user, why a modern x.org on a good, supported hardware should be surprising to give better results. Also remember the insane things x.org has to do on OS X like using Aqua layer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you can take risk of re-compiling every X related app/library in case you give up in future , try the semi official/unofficial at http : //xquartz.macosforge.org/ [ macosforge.org ] , it is newer than the Apple bundles .
Install anything with the help of Fink/Macports like Konqueror from KDE 3 and see the amazing GUI speed , scroll speed , widget drawing speed.I do n't understand , as an OS X user , why a modern x.org on a good , supported hardware should be surprising to give better results .
Also remember the insane things x.org has to do on OS X like using Aqua layer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can take risk of re-compiling every X related app/library in case you give up in future, try the semi official/unofficial at http://xquartz.macosforge.org/ [macosforge.org] , it is newer than the Apple bundles.
Install anything with the help of Fink/Macports like Konqueror from KDE 3 and see the amazing GUI speed, scroll speed, widget drawing speed.I don't understand, as an OS X user, why a modern x.org on a good, supported hardware should be surprising to give better results.
Also remember the insane things x.org has to do on OS X like using Aqua layer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963832</id>
	<title>Re:Memcpy not the biggest problem for chrome/chrom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257265800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aren't the history files regular sqlite3 databases? You should be able to run sqlite3 vacuum on them, which should at least help somewhat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't the history files regular sqlite3 databases ?
You should be able to run sqlite3 vacuum on them , which should at least help somewhat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't the history files regular sqlite3 databases?
You should be able to run sqlite3 vacuum on them, which should at least help somewhat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965482</id>
	<title>Re:X11 has never been a problem.</title>
	<author>JasterBobaMereel</author>
	<datestamp>1257272700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's because VNC and RDP assume you have a fast network connection.... and X11 assumes you have a 96Kbaud dial up line<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because VNC and RDP assume you have a fast network connection.... and X11 assumes you have a 96Kbaud dial up line ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because VNC and RDP assume you have a fast network connection.... and X11 assumes you have a 96Kbaud dial up line ....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965678</id>
	<title>Re:Choosing the correct abstraction layer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257273600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>X itself is undergoing incredible levels of development and improvement.  Way back when, "The Open Group" tried to say that X was "complete" with X11R6, and no more development was needed, though somehow defects and omissions let numbers start creeping in after the decimal point.  IIRC it got to somewhere in the X11R6.3-X11R6.5 range.  Then XFree86 took over, ramping up some innovation, though still slower than many liked.  After that X.Org took over, decided it was high time for X11R7, (They did X11R6.9 as a stage to get there.) and things started moving faster.</p><p>At this point, they're redrawing the lines (KMS, DRI/DRI2, DRM) between kernel and user space to (hopefully) get a better balance speed and stability/security.  They've pretty much reworked the 2D acceleration (*XA) and are reworking the 3D acceleration (Gallium3D) which will also simplify driver development.  The inteface has been reworked down near the protocol level (xcb) to improve speed and memory usage.  One thing I've heard talk of is "inverting" the stack to put all primitives on top of the 3D hardware, since that's where most of the hardware performance work has been done.</p><p>The next 6-12 months will be very interesting for X-Windows, but then again, the past few years have been interesting, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>X itself is undergoing incredible levels of development and improvement .
Way back when , " The Open Group " tried to say that X was " complete " with X11R6 , and no more development was needed , though somehow defects and omissions let numbers start creeping in after the decimal point .
IIRC it got to somewhere in the X11R6.3-X11R6.5 range .
Then XFree86 took over , ramping up some innovation , though still slower than many liked .
After that X.Org took over , decided it was high time for X11R7 , ( They did X11R6.9 as a stage to get there .
) and things started moving faster.At this point , they 're redrawing the lines ( KMS , DRI/DRI2 , DRM ) between kernel and user space to ( hopefully ) get a better balance speed and stability/security .
They 've pretty much reworked the 2D acceleration ( * XA ) and are reworking the 3D acceleration ( Gallium3D ) which will also simplify driver development .
The inteface has been reworked down near the protocol level ( xcb ) to improve speed and memory usage .
One thing I 've heard talk of is " inverting " the stack to put all primitives on top of the 3D hardware , since that 's where most of the hardware performance work has been done.The next 6-12 months will be very interesting for X-Windows , but then again , the past few years have been interesting , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>X itself is undergoing incredible levels of development and improvement.
Way back when, "The Open Group" tried to say that X was "complete" with X11R6, and no more development was needed, though somehow defects and omissions let numbers start creeping in after the decimal point.
IIRC it got to somewhere in the X11R6.3-X11R6.5 range.
Then XFree86 took over, ramping up some innovation, though still slower than many liked.
After that X.Org took over, decided it was high time for X11R7, (They did X11R6.9 as a stage to get there.
) and things started moving faster.At this point, they're redrawing the lines (KMS, DRI/DRI2, DRM) between kernel and user space to (hopefully) get a better balance speed and stability/security.
They've pretty much reworked the 2D acceleration (*XA) and are reworking the 3D acceleration (Gallium3D) which will also simplify driver development.
The inteface has been reworked down near the protocol level (xcb) to improve speed and memory usage.
One thing I've heard talk of is "inverting" the stack to put all primitives on top of the 3D hardware, since that's where most of the hardware performance work has been done.The next 6-12 months will be very interesting for X-Windows, but then again, the past few years have been interesting, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964522</id>
	<title>Re:Even if X is usually slower...</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1257268740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>X has it's problems. It also has it's advantages. Some of those<br>advantages aren't so much a matter of X itself but side effects<br>of the old school Unix way of approaching a problem.</p><p>Seeing MacOS going through vnc side by side with X apps being<br>run remotely (and viewed locally) certainly gives me no<br>burning desire to get rid of X.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>X has it 's problems .
It also has it 's advantages .
Some of thoseadvantages are n't so much a matter of X itself but side effectsof the old school Unix way of approaching a problem.Seeing MacOS going through vnc side by side with X apps beingrun remotely ( and viewed locally ) certainly gives me noburning desire to get rid of X .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>X has it's problems.
It also has it's advantages.
Some of thoseadvantages aren't so much a matter of X itself but side effectsof the old school Unix way of approaching a problem.Seeing MacOS going through vnc side by side with X apps beingrun remotely (and viewed locally) certainly gives me noburning desire to get rid of X.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29969810</id>
	<title>Re:Memcpy not the biggest problem for chrome/chrom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257248520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Useful options for cleaning up the history would be for example delete all data older than the past month while keeping the history information of the pages you usually visit (the ones you accessed in the last month).<br>As it is implemented now, is useless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Useful options for cleaning up the history would be for example delete all data older than the past month while keeping the history information of the pages you usually visit ( the ones you accessed in the last month ) .As it is implemented now , is useless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Useful options for cleaning up the history would be for example delete all data older than the past month while keeping the history information of the pages you usually visit (the ones you accessed in the last month).As it is implemented now, is useless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962814</id>
	<title>Ummm...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257260280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>no.</htmltext>
<tokenext>no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963680</id>
	<title>network transparancy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257265080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forget performance.</p><p>Network Transparancy man.  Thats what X does so well that no one else can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget performance.Network Transparancy man .
Thats what X does so well that no one else can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget performance.Network Transparancy man.
Thats what X does so well that no one else can.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29966534</id>
	<title>Re:What to make of X11?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257277740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Maybe it just needs a little more love, some deprecation of old cruft, and a new forward-thinking design</p></div></blockquote><p>You mean like the Render, Damage, and X-Fixes extensions?</p><p>The changes you are asking for were done years ago.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it just needs a little more love , some deprecation of old cruft , and a new forward-thinking designYou mean like the Render , Damage , and X-Fixes extensions ? The changes you are asking for were done years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it just needs a little more love, some deprecation of old cruft, and a new forward-thinking designYou mean like the Render, Damage, and X-Fixes extensions?The changes you are asking for were done years ago.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29975068</id>
	<title>Re:Choosing the correct abstraction layer</title>
	<author>Dreadrik</author>
	<datestamp>1256980380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, one of the bad things about Vista was that GDI acceleration was removed when introducing Aero. Vista windows draws into a system memory buffer, which is later copied to video memory, thus removing the possibility for GDI acceleration and increasing the memory footprint.<br>The only hardware accelleration in Vista was for the 3D effects.</p><p>This was fixed a bit in <a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/04/25/engineering-windows-7-for-graphics-performance.aspx" title="msdn.com" rel="nofollow">Windows 7</a> [msdn.com], by removing at least one of the system memory buffers and reintroducing hardware accellerated GDI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , one of the bad things about Vista was that GDI acceleration was removed when introducing Aero .
Vista windows draws into a system memory buffer , which is later copied to video memory , thus removing the possibility for GDI acceleration and increasing the memory footprint.The only hardware accelleration in Vista was for the 3D effects.This was fixed a bit in Windows 7 [ msdn.com ] , by removing at least one of the system memory buffers and reintroducing hardware accellerated GDI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, one of the bad things about Vista was that GDI acceleration was removed when introducing Aero.
Vista windows draws into a system memory buffer, which is later copied to video memory, thus removing the possibility for GDI acceleration and increasing the memory footprint.The only hardware accelleration in Vista was for the 3D effects.This was fixed a bit in Windows 7 [msdn.com], by removing at least one of the system memory buffers and reintroducing hardware accellerated GDI.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963658</id>
	<title>Re:Memcpy not the biggest problem for chrome/chrom</title>
	<author>The MAZZTer</author>
	<datestamp>1257264900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I haven't noticed any degradation of performance, but yeah, the history files are 900mb for me for only 9 months of use and the thumbnails are 300mb.  That's pretty big.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't noticed any degradation of performance , but yeah , the history files are 900mb for me for only 9 months of use and the thumbnails are 300mb .
That 's pretty big .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't noticed any degradation of performance, but yeah, the history files are 900mb for me for only 9 months of use and the thumbnails are 300mb.
That's pretty big.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964754</id>
	<title>Re:X11 is not bloated</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1257269580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same problems happens with WPF on Windows.  Yes, it is slower because it does anti-aliasing and all that.  But just create 400 buttons in code, and never draw it to the screen.  It's absurd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same problems happens with WPF on Windows .
Yes , it is slower because it does anti-aliasing and all that .
But just create 400 buttons in code , and never draw it to the screen .
It 's absurd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same problems happens with WPF on Windows.
Yes, it is slower because it does anti-aliasing and all that.
But just create 400 buttons in code, and never draw it to the screen.
It's absurd.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963206</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29971806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29969810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29970802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29967980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29969922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29967826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29966020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29967950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29969210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29966062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29975068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29968894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29970638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29971320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29971120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29970140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29968176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29976116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29967206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29966534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29967072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29967588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29974770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29970972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29970910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29966154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29979582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29966840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29973306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29967834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29967730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29967596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29966792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29973116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29991676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29966302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29974218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29981226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29968274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29975310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29966944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29967788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29972392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29970778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29966464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29967518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29972308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29978042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29971770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29972160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29973862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29968492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1334203_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29969840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1334203.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962814
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1334203.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29967588
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29981226
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29972160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29967730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964040
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29971770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964732
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29967950
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965772
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965300
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29975068
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965690
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29970778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29966154
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1334203.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29979582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963802
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29973116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1334203.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965056
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29967788
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29966062
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29969840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29966020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29968176
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1334203.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1334203.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963906
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1334203.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1334203.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964216
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1334203.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964758
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29969810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963938
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1334203.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963330
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29970140
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29966464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29976116
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29971320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29973862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29969922
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29971120
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965150
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29966792
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29966302
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965002
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29968492
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963402
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964838
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965574
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965096
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964088
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29970802
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29966944
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965482
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965550
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29972308
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29967980
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29967834
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29968894
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29991676
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29969210
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29972392
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29970910
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29978042
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29971806
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29967518
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29970972
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965816
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963662
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965340
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29974770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1334203.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29967596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29966534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29967206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1334203.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29966840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29973306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1334203.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964076
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1334203.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29975310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29968274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29974218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1334203.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29967072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965956
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1334203.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965266
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1334203.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1334203.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963016
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965048
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1334203.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29962806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29967826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1334203.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963566
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29965576
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964026
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29970638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29964630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1334203.29963880
</commentlist>
</conversation>
