<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_14_0312247</id>
	<title>GNOME 3 Delayed Until September 2010</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1258225380000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>supersloshy writes <i>"Contrary to popular opinion, GNOME 3 will not be released in March next year. It has been <a href="http://mail.gnome.org/archives/devel-announce-list/2009-November/msg00001.html">delayed until September 2010</a>, six months later. According to the news message, this is because 'our community wants GNOME 3.0 to be fully working for users and why we believe September is more appropriate.' GNOME 3's main goal is to re-define the ways people interact with the desktop, mainly through a new UI design (currently called '<a href="http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell">GNOME Shell</a>'), while GNOME 2.30, set for release in March, will have a focus on being stable. An early <a href="http://digitizor.com/?p=4872">visual tour of GNOME 3</a> has been posted at Digitizor."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>supersloshy writes " Contrary to popular opinion , GNOME 3 will not be released in March next year .
It has been delayed until September 2010 , six months later .
According to the news message , this is because 'our community wants GNOME 3.0 to be fully working for users and why we believe September is more appropriate .
' GNOME 3 's main goal is to re-define the ways people interact with the desktop , mainly through a new UI design ( currently called 'GNOME Shell ' ) , while GNOME 2.30 , set for release in March , will have a focus on being stable .
An early visual tour of GNOME 3 has been posted at Digitizor .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>supersloshy writes "Contrary to popular opinion, GNOME 3 will not be released in March next year.
It has been delayed until September 2010, six months later.
According to the news message, this is because 'our community wants GNOME 3.0 to be fully working for users and why we believe September is more appropriate.
' GNOME 3's main goal is to re-define the ways people interact with the desktop, mainly through a new UI design (currently called 'GNOME Shell'), while GNOME 2.30, set for release in March, will have a focus on being stable.
An early visual tour of GNOME 3 has been posted at Digitizor.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30108278</id>
	<title>Re:Does not fix the real problem</title>
	<author>rantingkitten</author>
	<datestamp>1258275900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, that's the OSX way of doing things.  It sucks.  The GUI has no  business "deciding" what I'm trying to do, and it introduces inconsistent behavior. <br>
<br>
Right now, for example, I have an xterm open.  Now I want another.  If I click the little xterm icon, is it going to bring up my currently running xterm window, or launch another for me? <br>
<br>
Of course, it's going to launch another for me.  It will do this consistently, every single time.  That's what I want. <br>
<br>
In the OSX paradigm, now copied by Windows 7, I have to make a special effort to launch a new instance of a program.  Here's how it actually works in real life:<ul>
<li>I click the launcher icon.</li>
<li>My currently-running program pops up.</li>
<li>Irritated, I minimise it back because that's not what I wanted.</li>
<li>I do some inane key-combo shortcut crap while clicking the icon again.</li>
<li>The new instance of the program comes up, which is what I wanted.</li>
</ul><p>
I should have been done with the first step, but instead I had to go through four additional steps.  The third one is <b>really</b> annoying.  It's part of why I sigh anytime someone touts the OSX way of doing things as "really intuitive" and "a great UI".  It's not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , that 's the OSX way of doing things .
It sucks .
The GUI has no business " deciding " what I 'm trying to do , and it introduces inconsistent behavior .
Right now , for example , I have an xterm open .
Now I want another .
If I click the little xterm icon , is it going to bring up my currently running xterm window , or launch another for me ?
Of course , it 's going to launch another for me .
It will do this consistently , every single time .
That 's what I want .
In the OSX paradigm , now copied by Windows 7 , I have to make a special effort to launch a new instance of a program .
Here 's how it actually works in real life : I click the launcher icon .
My currently-running program pops up .
Irritated , I minimise it back because that 's not what I wanted .
I do some inane key-combo shortcut crap while clicking the icon again .
The new instance of the program comes up , which is what I wanted .
I should have been done with the first step , but instead I had to go through four additional steps .
The third one is really annoying .
It 's part of why I sigh anytime someone touts the OSX way of doing things as " really intuitive " and " a great UI " .
It 's not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, that's the OSX way of doing things.
It sucks.
The GUI has no  business "deciding" what I'm trying to do, and it introduces inconsistent behavior.
Right now, for example, I have an xterm open.
Now I want another.
If I click the little xterm icon, is it going to bring up my currently running xterm window, or launch another for me?
Of course, it's going to launch another for me.
It will do this consistently, every single time.
That's what I want.
In the OSX paradigm, now copied by Windows 7, I have to make a special effort to launch a new instance of a program.
Here's how it actually works in real life:
I click the launcher icon.
My currently-running program pops up.
Irritated, I minimise it back because that's not what I wanted.
I do some inane key-combo shortcut crap while clicking the icon again.
The new instance of the program comes up, which is what I wanted.
I should have been done with the first step, but instead I had to go through four additional steps.
The third one is really annoying.
It's part of why I sigh anytime someone touts the OSX way of doing things as "really intuitive" and "a great UI".
It's not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30100182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097256</id>
	<title>Re:WTH</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258212180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, I already started getting used to KDE since I plan on switching if Gnome Shell doesn't undergo some drastic improvements. I miss the old applications, places, and settings panel along with the fact that gnome shell won't work with compiz. KDE doesn't work so well with compiz either but kwin is at least decent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , I already started getting used to KDE since I plan on switching if Gnome Shell does n't undergo some drastic improvements .
I miss the old applications , places , and settings panel along with the fact that gnome shell wo n't work with compiz .
KDE does n't work so well with compiz either but kwin is at least decent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, I already started getting used to KDE since I plan on switching if Gnome Shell doesn't undergo some drastic improvements.
I miss the old applications, places, and settings panel along with the fact that gnome shell won't work with compiz.
KDE doesn't work so well with compiz either but kwin is at least decent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099538</id>
	<title>Re:Glad it's delayed. It's rubbish.</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1258228020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Users should learn to save their god-damned files somewhere sensible so they can actually find them again, and close windows when they're done with them.</i></p><p>Should, would, could. Reality is: they don't.</p><p>Cope with reality. You can't live your entire life in some fantasy world where people do exactly what you'd like them to do all the time, because that's simply not going to happen. People have evolved to be the way they are for millions of years, you're not going to change that after a couple of lectures about what they "should" do.</p><p>UI design is as much about psychology as it is software engineering. I hope that someday people like you figure that out, so we could get more usable software for everybody.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Users should learn to save their god-damned files somewhere sensible so they can actually find them again , and close windows when they 're done with them.Should , would , could .
Reality is : they do n't.Cope with reality .
You ca n't live your entire life in some fantasy world where people do exactly what you 'd like them to do all the time , because that 's simply not going to happen .
People have evolved to be the way they are for millions of years , you 're not going to change that after a couple of lectures about what they " should " do.UI design is as much about psychology as it is software engineering .
I hope that someday people like you figure that out , so we could get more usable software for everybody .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Users should learn to save their god-damned files somewhere sensible so they can actually find them again, and close windows when they're done with them.Should, would, could.
Reality is: they don't.Cope with reality.
You can't live your entire life in some fantasy world where people do exactly what you'd like them to do all the time, because that's simply not going to happen.
People have evolved to be the way they are for millions of years, you're not going to change that after a couple of lectures about what they "should" do.UI design is as much about psychology as it is software engineering.
I hope that someday people like you figure that out, so we could get more usable software for everybody.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095882</id>
	<title>Who needs GNOME when Windows is affordable</title>
	<author>postmortem</author>
	<datestamp>1258191300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and Windows is platform where most OSS/FS is actually being used.</p><p>GNOME is objectively in the eyes of users not as good as Windows. Windows has set bar very high (in a sense of difficulty to capture the market) where honestly any free low budget effort has no chance to fight.</p><p>As long as most of OSS stuff is available on Windows, people will keep taking best of both worlds, and there's no space for GNOME or KDE.</p><p>(For these quick on troll points, don't be troll if your opinion differs)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and Windows is platform where most OSS/FS is actually being used.GNOME is objectively in the eyes of users not as good as Windows .
Windows has set bar very high ( in a sense of difficulty to capture the market ) where honestly any free low budget effort has no chance to fight.As long as most of OSS stuff is available on Windows , people will keep taking best of both worlds , and there 's no space for GNOME or KDE .
( For these quick on troll points , do n't be troll if your opinion differs )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and Windows is platform where most OSS/FS is actually being used.GNOME is objectively in the eyes of users not as good as Windows.
Windows has set bar very high (in a sense of difficulty to capture the market) where honestly any free low budget effort has no chance to fight.As long as most of OSS stuff is available on Windows, people will keep taking best of both worlds, and there's no space for GNOME or KDE.
(For these quick on troll points, don't be troll if your opinion differs)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096264</id>
	<title>Re:Glad it's delayed. It's rubbish.</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1258199160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm yet to be convinced that that is the correct approach.  Users should learn to save their god-damned files somewhere sensible so they can actually find them again, and close windows when they're done with them.  This isn't a technical user, this is a user with a clue, for goodness sakes.  If you're so dumb you can't learn the concepts behind these tasks, I really do wonder whether you are suited to the operation of a Turing machine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm yet to be convinced that that is the correct approach .
Users should learn to save their god-damned files somewhere sensible so they can actually find them again , and close windows when they 're done with them .
This is n't a technical user , this is a user with a clue , for goodness sakes .
If you 're so dumb you ca n't learn the concepts behind these tasks , I really do wonder whether you are suited to the operation of a Turing machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm yet to be convinced that that is the correct approach.
Users should learn to save their god-damned files somewhere sensible so they can actually find them again, and close windows when they're done with them.
This isn't a technical user, this is a user with a clue, for goodness sakes.
If you're so dumb you can't learn the concepts behind these tasks, I really do wonder whether you are suited to the operation of a Turing machine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096594</id>
	<title>FUD.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258204680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gnome 3.0 is not based upon Mono. It's still the 'old' C/glib framework. No Mono. Get your facts straight and stop spreading FUD. Who moderated that 'insightful'?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gnome 3.0 is not based upon Mono .
It 's still the 'old ' C/glib framework .
No Mono .
Get your facts straight and stop spreading FUD .
Who moderated that 'insightful ' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gnome 3.0 is not based upon Mono.
It's still the 'old' C/glib framework.
No Mono.
Get your facts straight and stop spreading FUD.
Who moderated that 'insightful'?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095896</id>
	<title>Re:How can xterm be improved?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258191600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's right, just dumb everything down.

Using the mouse usually isn't faster than the keyboard. Taking my hands off the keyboard is what slows me down. Ugh. This is the kind of mentality that feeds these moronic decisions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's right , just dumb everything down .
Using the mouse usually is n't faster than the keyboard .
Taking my hands off the keyboard is what slows me down .
Ugh. This is the kind of mentality that feeds these moronic decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's right, just dumb everything down.
Using the mouse usually isn't faster than the keyboard.
Taking my hands off the keyboard is what slows me down.
Ugh. This is the kind of mentality that feeds these moronic decisions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095812</id>
	<title>suddenoutbreakofcommonsense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258189980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I kinda hope allot of open source projects can start making wise decisions like this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I kinda hope allot of open source projects can start making wise decisions like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I kinda hope allot of open source projects can start making wise decisions like this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30098894</id>
	<title>Re:WTH</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258223700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Never show a fool half a job."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Never show a fool half a job .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Never show a fool half a job.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096340</id>
	<title>Re:How can xterm be improved?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258200660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Artistic freedom in CS is at its best when it is heavily curbed.</p></div></blockquote><p>From the <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/curb" title="thefreedictionary.com" rel="nofollow">Free Dictionary</a> [thefreedictionary.com]:</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>tr.v.<i> curbed, curbing, curbs<br>1.  To check, restrain, or control as if with a curb; rein in.<br>2. To lead (a dog) off the sidewalk into the gutter so that it can excrete waste.<br></i></i></p></div></blockquote><p>Wonder which meaning the average computer user will think of when interacting with xterm? Let's not make Unix the gutter on the edge of usability again, please. Elitism is always a poor choice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Artistic freedom in CS is at its best when it is heavily curbed.From the Free Dictionary [ thefreedictionary.com ] : tr.v .
curbed , curbing , curbs1 .
To check , restrain , or control as if with a curb ; rein in.2 .
To lead ( a dog ) off the sidewalk into the gutter so that it can excrete waste.Wonder which meaning the average computer user will think of when interacting with xterm ?
Let 's not make Unix the gutter on the edge of usability again , please .
Elitism is always a poor choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Artistic freedom in CS is at its best when it is heavily curbed.From the Free Dictionary [thefreedictionary.com]: tr.v.
curbed, curbing, curbs1.
To check, restrain, or control as if with a curb; rein in.2.
To lead (a dog) off the sidewalk into the gutter so that it can excrete waste.Wonder which meaning the average computer user will think of when interacting with xterm?
Let's not make Unix the gutter on the edge of usability again, please.
Elitism is always a poor choice.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096180</id>
	<title>Leave well alone!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258197420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>nobody cares.</p></div><p>Nobody except the millions of people like me who use Gnome. The current version is near-perfect and the new one seems to have lost all the good points and added nothing. OK, all the desktops on screen at once could be useful once in a while, but WTF! If it ain't broke (and it ain't), don't "fix" it. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>nobody cares.Nobody except the millions of people like me who use Gnome .
The current version is near-perfect and the new one seems to have lost all the good points and added nothing .
OK , all the desktops on screen at once could be useful once in a while , but WTF !
If it ai n't broke ( and it ai n't ) , do n't " fix " it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nobody cares.Nobody except the millions of people like me who use Gnome.
The current version is near-perfect and the new one seems to have lost all the good points and added nothing.
OK, all the desktops on screen at once could be useful once in a while, but WTF!
If it ain't broke (and it ain't), don't "fix" it. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095650</id>
	<title>Re:taking the time to get it right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258230120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously? Shut up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously ?
Shut up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously?
Shut up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30100706</id>
	<title>Time is not the center of my universe</title>
	<author>dyfet</author>
	<datestamp>1258192560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet it seems to be the center of this new gnome shell<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).  With it in the middle of the panel, it ultimately limits what can be done with the "panel", if it is still that underneath...</p><p>Application switching and taskbar; Ubintu Netbook remix (UNR), which this seems derived from, actually gets it right and best.  Using just icons, one for each app, expanding along the top panel, it is both easy to switch and takes up far less real estate than the old taskbar, making it effective to converge on a single taskbar.  Just give it the functionality to close, minimize, etc, by right clicking on the application icon, and have it open a "normal" window rather than automatic maximize with the titlebar in the panel, and the underlyng logic of UNR already accomplishes most of what is needed for a "new" gnome shell, with more functionality easily accessible, and with a very similar look.  Indeed, it means gnome desktop and netbook could then converge on many common interface elements rather than this new and rather ugly thing.  No pager?  Sure, let's go back to the 1980's in desktop functionality, or have a castrated desktop experience, like typically on Microsoft Windows.  The only thing that could reduce desirability even further from what I have seen so far would be to make it depend on Mono.</p><p>Activity: this may be okay, it clearly takes some getting used to, but to me it overloads different functionality.  Hopefully it can be done with a icon rather than the long text on the panel, that way one could also park some launch icons for favorite apps, followed of course by an icon version of taskbar and of course time de-throned from the center.  That is what I would want to see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet it seems to be the center of this new gnome shell : ) .
With it in the middle of the panel , it ultimately limits what can be done with the " panel " , if it is still that underneath...Application switching and taskbar ; Ubintu Netbook remix ( UNR ) , which this seems derived from , actually gets it right and best .
Using just icons , one for each app , expanding along the top panel , it is both easy to switch and takes up far less real estate than the old taskbar , making it effective to converge on a single taskbar .
Just give it the functionality to close , minimize , etc , by right clicking on the application icon , and have it open a " normal " window rather than automatic maximize with the titlebar in the panel , and the underlyng logic of UNR already accomplishes most of what is needed for a " new " gnome shell , with more functionality easily accessible , and with a very similar look .
Indeed , it means gnome desktop and netbook could then converge on many common interface elements rather than this new and rather ugly thing .
No pager ?
Sure , let 's go back to the 1980 's in desktop functionality , or have a castrated desktop experience , like typically on Microsoft Windows .
The only thing that could reduce desirability even further from what I have seen so far would be to make it depend on Mono.Activity : this may be okay , it clearly takes some getting used to , but to me it overloads different functionality .
Hopefully it can be done with a icon rather than the long text on the panel , that way one could also park some launch icons for favorite apps , followed of course by an icon version of taskbar and of course time de-throned from the center .
That is what I would want to see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet it seems to be the center of this new gnome shell :).
With it in the middle of the panel, it ultimately limits what can be done with the "panel", if it is still that underneath...Application switching and taskbar; Ubintu Netbook remix (UNR), which this seems derived from, actually gets it right and best.
Using just icons, one for each app, expanding along the top panel, it is both easy to switch and takes up far less real estate than the old taskbar, making it effective to converge on a single taskbar.
Just give it the functionality to close, minimize, etc, by right clicking on the application icon, and have it open a "normal" window rather than automatic maximize with the titlebar in the panel, and the underlyng logic of UNR already accomplishes most of what is needed for a "new" gnome shell, with more functionality easily accessible, and with a very similar look.
Indeed, it means gnome desktop and netbook could then converge on many common interface elements rather than this new and rather ugly thing.
No pager?
Sure, let's go back to the 1980's in desktop functionality, or have a castrated desktop experience, like typically on Microsoft Windows.
The only thing that could reduce desirability even further from what I have seen so far would be to make it depend on Mono.Activity: this may be okay, it clearly takes some getting used to, but to me it overloads different functionality.
Hopefully it can be done with a icon rather than the long text on the panel, that way one could also park some launch icons for favorite apps, followed of course by an icon version of taskbar and of course time de-throned from the center.
That is what I would want to see.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096732</id>
	<title>Re:How can xterm be improved?</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1258206960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In vista/7 to open Firefox I:
Click the windows button.
push the f key
hit enter.</p></div><p>Even better - hit the Windows key instead of pressing the button.  Saves that nasty mouse click...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In vista/7 to open Firefox I : Click the windows button .
push the f key hit enter.Even better - hit the Windows key instead of pressing the button .
Saves that nasty mouse click.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In vista/7 to open Firefox I:
Click the windows button.
push the f key
hit enter.Even better - hit the Windows key instead of pressing the button.
Saves that nasty mouse click...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30102678</id>
	<title>Koala Crashes GNOME</title>
	<author>Doc Ruby</author>
	<datestamp>1258207980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever since I upgraded my P4/Intel-845-motherboard to Koala, GNOME or the X server has been crashing several times a day. The mouse still moves the cursor, but nothing can be clicked, no keyboard presses have any effect. I can telnet into the box, but the screen gets no updates. Stopping and/or restarting gdm has no effect (the scripts report OK). No errors in the console, or in dmesg.</p><p>I can't wait for GNOME 3 to fix this. I haven't even seen anyone else reporting it, and none of the updates since the Koala release have fixed it.</p><p>What will fix this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever since I upgraded my P4/Intel-845-motherboard to Koala , GNOME or the X server has been crashing several times a day .
The mouse still moves the cursor , but nothing can be clicked , no keyboard presses have any effect .
I can telnet into the box , but the screen gets no updates .
Stopping and/or restarting gdm has no effect ( the scripts report OK ) .
No errors in the console , or in dmesg.I ca n't wait for GNOME 3 to fix this .
I have n't even seen anyone else reporting it , and none of the updates since the Koala release have fixed it.What will fix this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever since I upgraded my P4/Intel-845-motherboard to Koala, GNOME or the X server has been crashing several times a day.
The mouse still moves the cursor, but nothing can be clicked, no keyboard presses have any effect.
I can telnet into the box, but the screen gets no updates.
Stopping and/or restarting gdm has no effect (the scripts report OK).
No errors in the console, or in dmesg.I can't wait for GNOME 3 to fix this.
I haven't even seen anyone else reporting it, and none of the updates since the Koala release have fixed it.What will fix this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30098396</id>
	<title>Re:Leave well alone!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258220940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually the comiz Expo plugin already does the desktop overview effect. Mapped to a click on one corner of the screen it is very nice. Not too much improvement there. Also, AFAIK the new Gnome uses compositing be default with clutter. Wonder how that will run on machines with on board graphics..</p><p>Anyway, the Gnome 3 experiment is still interesting, and I'll take a look at it. Sensible control element compositing is one of the things I miss right now. Maybe it will be cool. And if not, we can still stay with the 2.x branch and fork it. Not like it will magically go away suddenly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually the comiz Expo plugin already does the desktop overview effect .
Mapped to a click on one corner of the screen it is very nice .
Not too much improvement there .
Also , AFAIK the new Gnome uses compositing be default with clutter .
Wonder how that will run on machines with on board graphics..Anyway , the Gnome 3 experiment is still interesting , and I 'll take a look at it .
Sensible control element compositing is one of the things I miss right now .
Maybe it will be cool .
And if not , we can still stay with the 2.x branch and fork it .
Not like it will magically go away suddenly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually the comiz Expo plugin already does the desktop overview effect.
Mapped to a click on one corner of the screen it is very nice.
Not too much improvement there.
Also, AFAIK the new Gnome uses compositing be default with clutter.
Wonder how that will run on machines with on board graphics..Anyway, the Gnome 3 experiment is still interesting, and I'll take a look at it.
Sensible control element compositing is one of the things I miss right now.
Maybe it will be cool.
And if not, we can still stay with the 2.x branch and fork it.
Not like it will magically go away suddenly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30101456</id>
	<title>Re:Who needs GNOME when Windows is affordable</title>
	<author>EvanED</author>
	<datestamp>1258198380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Complete incremental backup of computer to network drive, usb drive, whatever.</i></p><p>Because we all know Windows computers can't do that.</p><p><i>nfs, and sshfs. They really are awesome. Windows/mac users don't even know what they are missing.</i></p><p>SSHFS I'll give you, because that would be awesome. But NFS? Besides a question of whether NFS even holds a candle to something like CIFS (I can't speak to NFSv4, but I'd use CIFS before any previous version of NFS any day of the week), Windows has an NFS server and client.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Complete incremental backup of computer to network drive , usb drive , whatever.Because we all know Windows computers ca n't do that.nfs , and sshfs .
They really are awesome .
Windows/mac users do n't even know what they are missing.SSHFS I 'll give you , because that would be awesome .
But NFS ?
Besides a question of whether NFS even holds a candle to something like CIFS ( I ca n't speak to NFSv4 , but I 'd use CIFS before any previous version of NFS any day of the week ) , Windows has an NFS server and client .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Complete incremental backup of computer to network drive, usb drive, whatever.Because we all know Windows computers can't do that.nfs, and sshfs.
They really are awesome.
Windows/mac users don't even know what they are missing.SSHFS I'll give you, because that would be awesome.
But NFS?
Besides a question of whether NFS even holds a candle to something like CIFS (I can't speak to NFSv4, but I'd use CIFS before any previous version of NFS any day of the week), Windows has an NFS server and client.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628</id>
	<title>How can xterm be improved?</title>
	<author>SpaghettiPattern</author>
	<datestamp>1258229940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>All GUI experiences I had always were some combination of stuff that's around since ages. Artistic freedom in CS is at its best when it is heavily curbed. Hell, saving your document in MS Word has become an art form. Even my Mac, which allegedly comes with the most wonderful GUI on the planet, drives me up the wall. All I want and all we need is Firefox, Eclipse, a terminal and Openoffice and plain and simple menus with it. Anything else just plain and simple. Brothers unite and let's get back to the roots. I say "No more rotating, sliding, enlarging, diminishing menus!" Saving a document is best done using a simple key sequence<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:w</htmltext>
<tokenext>All GUI experiences I had always were some combination of stuff that 's around since ages .
Artistic freedom in CS is at its best when it is heavily curbed .
Hell , saving your document in MS Word has become an art form .
Even my Mac , which allegedly comes with the most wonderful GUI on the planet , drives me up the wall .
All I want and all we need is Firefox , Eclipse , a terminal and Openoffice and plain and simple menus with it .
Anything else just plain and simple .
Brothers unite and let 's get back to the roots .
I say " No more rotating , sliding , enlarging , diminishing menus !
" Saving a document is best done using a simple key sequence : w</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All GUI experiences I had always were some combination of stuff that's around since ages.
Artistic freedom in CS is at its best when it is heavily curbed.
Hell, saving your document in MS Word has become an art form.
Even my Mac, which allegedly comes with the most wonderful GUI on the planet, drives me up the wall.
All I want and all we need is Firefox, Eclipse, a terminal and Openoffice and plain and simple menus with it.
Anything else just plain and simple.
Brothers unite and let's get back to the roots.
I say "No more rotating, sliding, enlarging, diminishing menus!
" Saving a document is best done using a simple key sequence :w</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095844</id>
	<title>Re:taking the time to get it right</title>
	<author>DMiax</author>
	<datestamp>1258190520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not like Microsoft never screwed an announced timeline either... Maybe it's just me but delays seem to have little correlation with the final quality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not like Microsoft never screwed an announced timeline either... Maybe it 's just me but delays seem to have little correlation with the final quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not like Microsoft never screwed an announced timeline either... Maybe it's just me but delays seem to have little correlation with the final quality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30109694</id>
	<title>Re:Glad it's delayed. It's rubbish.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258285560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Noooooooooooo!<br>There are already *plenty* of efforts focused on the average non-tech user; if I was one of them I would be happily using what the majority uses.  Do you really need another way to find that "god-damn file"???  It's already invented, do the same; if they change it to something better follow suit, if they don't, don't.  Don't try to "innovate" on how to do things average, it's bad for innovation and bad for the average!!!<br>And as for arguing in favor of dumbing down the interface so that LINUX becomes more appealing to the "average" user at cost of its core constituency<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... WTF are you thinking?  That's why we are NOT Windoze, for f*cks sakes!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Noooooooooooo ! There are already * plenty * of efforts focused on the average non-tech user ; if I was one of them I would be happily using what the majority uses .
Do you really need another way to find that " god-damn file " ? ? ?
It 's already invented , do the same ; if they change it to something better follow suit , if they do n't , do n't .
Do n't try to " innovate " on how to do things average , it 's bad for innovation and bad for the average ! !
! And as for arguing in favor of dumbing down the interface so that LINUX becomes more appealing to the " average " user at cost of its core constituency ... WTF are you thinking ?
That 's why we are NOT Windoze , for f * cks sakes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Noooooooooooo!There are already *plenty* of efforts focused on the average non-tech user; if I was one of them I would be happily using what the majority uses.
Do you really need another way to find that "god-damn file"???
It's already invented, do the same; if they change it to something better follow suit, if they don't, don't.
Don't try to "innovate" on how to do things average, it's bad for innovation and bad for the average!!
!And as for arguing in favor of dumbing down the interface so that LINUX becomes more appealing to the "average" user at cost of its core constituency ... WTF are you thinking?
That's why we are NOT Windoze, for f*cks sakes!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097876</id>
	<title>Re:GNOME Shell == Clusterfuck</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1258217460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>``Do we laugh or cry? It's like KDE and Gnome are in some sort of frantic struggle for who can botch desktop Linux the most.''</p><p>So let's put some more effort into the alternatives, such as <a href="http://www.enlightenment.org/" title="enlightenment.org">Enlightenment</a> [enlightenment.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>` ` Do we laugh or cry ?
It 's like KDE and Gnome are in some sort of frantic struggle for who can botch desktop Linux the most .
''So let 's put some more effort into the alternatives , such as Enlightenment [ enlightenment.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>``Do we laugh or cry?
It's like KDE and Gnome are in some sort of frantic struggle for who can botch desktop Linux the most.
''So let's put some more effort into the alternatives, such as Enlightenment [enlightenment.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30103350</id>
	<title>Re:WTH</title>
	<author>synthespian</author>
	<datestamp>1258216560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah. Fuck you all double-click haters. You can all single-click your way to hell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .
Fuck you all double-click haters .
You can all single-click your way to hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.
Fuck you all double-click haters.
You can all single-click your way to hell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30101298</id>
	<title>Re:Leave well alone!</title>
	<author>GNUALMAFUERTE</author>
	<datestamp>1258197300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Totally agreed!</p><p>I just had to try it out. I got scared they were going to screw it up. They are.</p><p>I just installed it (sudo apt-get install gnome-shell) and tested it (gnome-shell --replace). It's even more dumbed down than MacOSX. You can't customize the new shell. It's horrible. If they do this, I hope they keep the old shell around, or we'll surely see a fork of Gnome.</p><p>Here's what I currently use:</p><p>Ubuntu with Gnome + Compiz + Cairo Dock. I find myself using mostly expose + dock. It's the best way.</p><p>I had a hard time moving to this. I was historically a Slackware + KDE user (Since Slackware 3). I had a hard time getting used to X, even harder time moving to Gnome. Moving to Ubuntu was shocking. I am willing to modernize<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but if this trend goes on I'll go back to Slackware with no X11.</p><p>Everyone is copying apple. That's good, in some ways, but it's getting all environments just as dumb as OSX. Damn you Steve.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Totally agreed ! I just had to try it out .
I got scared they were going to screw it up .
They are.I just installed it ( sudo apt-get install gnome-shell ) and tested it ( gnome-shell --replace ) .
It 's even more dumbed down than MacOSX .
You ca n't customize the new shell .
It 's horrible .
If they do this , I hope they keep the old shell around , or we 'll surely see a fork of Gnome.Here 's what I currently use : Ubuntu with Gnome + Compiz + Cairo Dock .
I find myself using mostly expose + dock .
It 's the best way.I had a hard time moving to this .
I was historically a Slackware + KDE user ( Since Slackware 3 ) .
I had a hard time getting used to X , even harder time moving to Gnome .
Moving to Ubuntu was shocking .
I am willing to modernize ... but if this trend goes on I 'll go back to Slackware with no X11.Everyone is copying apple .
That 's good , in some ways , but it 's getting all environments just as dumb as OSX .
Damn you Steve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Totally agreed!I just had to try it out.
I got scared they were going to screw it up.
They are.I just installed it (sudo apt-get install gnome-shell) and tested it (gnome-shell --replace).
It's even more dumbed down than MacOSX.
You can't customize the new shell.
It's horrible.
If they do this, I hope they keep the old shell around, or we'll surely see a fork of Gnome.Here's what I currently use:Ubuntu with Gnome + Compiz + Cairo Dock.
I find myself using mostly expose + dock.
It's the best way.I had a hard time moving to this.
I was historically a Slackware + KDE user (Since Slackware 3).
I had a hard time getting used to X, even harder time moving to Gnome.
Moving to Ubuntu was shocking.
I am willing to modernize ... but if this trend goes on I'll go back to Slackware with no X11.Everyone is copying apple.
That's good, in some ways, but it's getting all environments just as dumb as OSX.
Damn you Steve.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097862</id>
	<title>Re:Who needs GNOME when Windows is affordable</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1258217340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I use Virtualbox for the 2\% of the time I \_need\_ Windows.</p></div><p>And you still need to pay for Windows, and you need to upgrade RAM to support multiple operating systems at once.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Virtualbox for the 2 \ % of the time I \ _need \ _ Windows.And you still need to pay for Windows , and you need to upgrade RAM to support multiple operating systems at once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use Virtualbox for the 2\% of the time I \_need\_ Windows.And you still need to pay for Windows, and you need to upgrade RAM to support multiple operating systems at once.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30098920</id>
	<title>Re:Who needs GNOME when Windows is affordable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258223820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I spend 47.5\% of my work computing time to figure out why the some thing does not work.<br>I spend 47.5\% of my work computing time to browse net while waiting for build, version control commit or bug tracker to load the page.</p><p>If I use Windows the build time many times slower.</p><p>I get paid by hour so I really don't care. But if you care, keep user interface minimal and responsive - and servers functional.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I spend 47.5 \ % of my work computing time to figure out why the some thing does not work.I spend 47.5 \ % of my work computing time to browse net while waiting for build , version control commit or bug tracker to load the page.If I use Windows the build time many times slower.I get paid by hour so I really do n't care .
But if you care , keep user interface minimal and responsive - and servers functional .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I spend 47.5\% of my work computing time to figure out why the some thing does not work.I spend 47.5\% of my work computing time to browse net while waiting for build, version control commit or bug tracker to load the page.If I use Windows the build time many times slower.I get paid by hour so I really don't care.
But if you care, keep user interface minimal and responsive - and servers functional.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095638</id>
	<title>New Gnome?</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1258230000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>80\% percent of the tour looks like stuff in the current gnome. I mean we already have a NetworkManager and you already get a calendar when you click on the clock.</p><p>Virtual desktops get more recognition. The UI is more modal and Mac like. So what if their default configuration has just the one panel? Thats how I configure it anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>80 \ % percent of the tour looks like stuff in the current gnome .
I mean we already have a NetworkManager and you already get a calendar when you click on the clock.Virtual desktops get more recognition .
The UI is more modal and Mac like .
So what if their default configuration has just the one panel ?
Thats how I configure it anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>80\% percent of the tour looks like stuff in the current gnome.
I mean we already have a NetworkManager and you already get a calendar when you click on the clock.Virtual desktops get more recognition.
The UI is more modal and Mac like.
So what if their default configuration has just the one panel?
Thats how I configure it anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095932</id>
	<title>just kill gnome 3, please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258192140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lack of taskbar makes it unusable..

Ubuntu remix way is so much better than this.. so gnome people.. please stop working on useless stuff like gnome 3.

I was considering giving some money to the foundation but when i see where they're heading to.. no thanks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lack of taskbar makes it unusable. . Ubuntu remix way is so much better than this.. so gnome people.. please stop working on useless stuff like gnome 3 .
I was considering giving some money to the foundation but when i see where they 're heading to.. no thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lack of taskbar makes it unusable..

Ubuntu remix way is so much better than this.. so gnome people.. please stop working on useless stuff like gnome 3.
I was considering giving some money to the foundation but when i see where they're heading to.. no thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097294</id>
	<title>Change for change's sake</title>
	<author>misfit815</author>
	<datestamp>1258212420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Y'know, jacking with the UI worked *so* well for Vista. I use OpenOffice.org as much as possible now because it's more Office-like than Office 2007.</p><p>Make it faster and less buggy. But please don't change it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Y'know , jacking with the UI worked * so * well for Vista .
I use OpenOffice.org as much as possible now because it 's more Office-like than Office 2007.Make it faster and less buggy .
But please do n't change it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Y'know, jacking with the UI worked *so* well for Vista.
I use OpenOffice.org as much as possible now because it's more Office-like than Office 2007.Make it faster and less buggy.
But please don't change it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097316</id>
	<title>Re:WTH</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258212600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Umm... that's funny and all, but if you have so much trouble with the new design, why don't you do something (its open source, FFS), instead of bitching and whining here?
<br> <br>
Any big change will always make some people more uncomfortable than the others (see KDE, Amarok 2 and thousand more). That does not mean EVERYBODY hates it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm... that 's funny and all , but if you have so much trouble with the new design , why do n't you do something ( its open source , FFS ) , instead of bitching and whining here ?
Any big change will always make some people more uncomfortable than the others ( see KDE , Amarok 2 and thousand more ) .
That does not mean EVERYBODY hates it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm... that's funny and all, but if you have so much trouble with the new design, why don't you do something (its open source, FFS), instead of bitching and whining here?
Any big change will always make some people more uncomfortable than the others (see KDE, Amarok 2 and thousand more).
That does not mean EVERYBODY hates it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30104866</id>
	<title>Re:How can xterm be improved?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258279560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does it compare to Launchy?<br>http://www.launchy.net/</p><p>I've been really enjoying it on WinXP and ubuntu.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does it compare to Launchy ? http : //www.launchy.net/I 've been really enjoying it on WinXP and ubuntu .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does it compare to Launchy?http://www.launchy.net/I've been really enjoying it on WinXP and ubuntu.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099562</id>
	<title>Re:How can xterm be improved?</title>
	<author>WinterSolstice</author>
	<datestamp>1258228140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously - why use Eclipse instead of gedit/kate/gvim/take your pick<br>Maybe he doesn't know gcc/gdb/javacc<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>If I wanted super lightweight and simple I'd drop Eclipse, and OO.o entirely. Go with Google docs and Vim or something. GCC and javacc don't require a big complicated IDE like Eclipse.</p><p>I happen to like things like Rhythmbox, Wine (go gaming!), XAMPP, Thunderbird, Gimp, Inkscape, Scribus, etc. There are plenty of distros out there (Damn Small Linux, for example) aimed at the super light weight - and you'll get more bang for your buck on old hardware with a lightweight window manager like XFCE or WindowMaker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously - why use Eclipse instead of gedit/kate/gvim/take your pickMaybe he does n't know gcc/gdb/javacc ; ) If I wanted super lightweight and simple I 'd drop Eclipse , and OO.o entirely .
Go with Google docs and Vim or something .
GCC and javacc do n't require a big complicated IDE like Eclipse.I happen to like things like Rhythmbox , Wine ( go gaming !
) , XAMPP , Thunderbird , Gimp , Inkscape , Scribus , etc .
There are plenty of distros out there ( Damn Small Linux , for example ) aimed at the super light weight - and you 'll get more bang for your buck on old hardware with a lightweight window manager like XFCE or WindowMaker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously - why use Eclipse instead of gedit/kate/gvim/take your pickMaybe he doesn't know gcc/gdb/javacc ;)If I wanted super lightweight and simple I'd drop Eclipse, and OO.o entirely.
Go with Google docs and Vim or something.
GCC and javacc don't require a big complicated IDE like Eclipse.I happen to like things like Rhythmbox, Wine (go gaming!
), XAMPP, Thunderbird, Gimp, Inkscape, Scribus, etc.
There are plenty of distros out there (Damn Small Linux, for example) aimed at the super light weight - and you'll get more bang for your buck on old hardware with a lightweight window manager like XFCE or WindowMaker.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096484</id>
	<title>Re:GNOME Shell == Clusterfuck</title>
	<author>QCompson</author>
	<datestamp>1258203000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>So true... both desktop environments are missing the point.  You have misguided ego-hounds like Aaron Seigo chasing after some elusive new "desktop paradigm" which no one has asked for nor wants.
<br> <br>
The formula for a popular successful desktop is so simple: something fully integrated with all options available via menus (program launching, suspend/hibernate, screensaver, etc), and <b>something fast and stable</b>.  Very few everyday users care about some translucent twitter widget on the desktop.  They want a platform to launch applications from that is simple, fast and stable.  That should be priority number one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So true... both desktop environments are missing the point .
You have misguided ego-hounds like Aaron Seigo chasing after some elusive new " desktop paradigm " which no one has asked for nor wants .
The formula for a popular successful desktop is so simple : something fully integrated with all options available via menus ( program launching , suspend/hibernate , screensaver , etc ) , and something fast and stable .
Very few everyday users care about some translucent twitter widget on the desktop .
They want a platform to launch applications from that is simple , fast and stable .
That should be priority number one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So true... both desktop environments are missing the point.
You have misguided ego-hounds like Aaron Seigo chasing after some elusive new "desktop paradigm" which no one has asked for nor wants.
The formula for a popular successful desktop is so simple: something fully integrated with all options available via menus (program launching, suspend/hibernate, screensaver, etc), and something fast and stable.
Very few everyday users care about some translucent twitter widget on the desktop.
They want a platform to launch applications from that is simple, fast and stable.
That should be priority number one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097124</id>
	<title>Re:New Gnome?</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1258211160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; So what if their default configuration has just the<br>&gt; one panel? Thats how I configure it anyway.<br><br>I used to try to fit everything on one panel, but it made the task list (or window list, or whatever they call it now) too cramped.  I tend to have numerous windows open at once...<br><br>I ended up settling on a panel across the bottom with very little on it, mostly just the window list, so that it gets pretty much the whole panel and thus has plenty of space.  Then I put my launchers and panel apps and stuff on a side panel on the left.  There's a screenshot of my setup (taken for a different purpose, but it shows the whole desktop) here:<br>http://mistersanity.blogspot.com/2009/10/screenshot.html<br><br>I know, most people don't have that many panel launchers because they use desktop icons.  But I don't like that setup because it causes you to constantly have to minimize everything, which gets old fast.  And yes, I know you can minimize everything in one fell swoop, but I don't want to do that, because I don't want everything minimized.  I want my windows to stay where I put them, thank you very much.  I want to be able to glance down and see the bottom line of the xxms2-status readout showing what's currently playing.  I want to be able to see that big dclock from across the room.  And I want to be able to open a new window or launch a new application without minimizing what I'm currently working on, because I want to be able to alt-tab back to it in one quick motion, without going through other less-recent windows first.  So I don't minimize everything, and thus I go *weeks* without seeing my wallpaper.<br><br>So I use panel launchers instead of desktop shortcuts.  Hence, the second panel.  Plus, that gives me a handy place to put panel applets, which is useful.  The UIM applet, for instance, has become indispensable as I'm studying a foreign language.  In a single-panel setup, I'd end up begrudging it the space, because I'd need the room for more entries on my window list.<br><br>YMMV.  Configurability is good.<br><br>And as much as I complain about the reduced and ever shrinking configurability in Gnome 2.x, it still beats the everliving pants off Windows in that department.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; So what if their default configuration has just the &gt; one panel ?
Thats how I configure it anyway.I used to try to fit everything on one panel , but it made the task list ( or window list , or whatever they call it now ) too cramped .
I tend to have numerous windows open at once...I ended up settling on a panel across the bottom with very little on it , mostly just the window list , so that it gets pretty much the whole panel and thus has plenty of space .
Then I put my launchers and panel apps and stuff on a side panel on the left .
There 's a screenshot of my setup ( taken for a different purpose , but it shows the whole desktop ) here : http : //mistersanity.blogspot.com/2009/10/screenshot.htmlI know , most people do n't have that many panel launchers because they use desktop icons .
But I do n't like that setup because it causes you to constantly have to minimize everything , which gets old fast .
And yes , I know you can minimize everything in one fell swoop , but I do n't want to do that , because I do n't want everything minimized .
I want my windows to stay where I put them , thank you very much .
I want to be able to glance down and see the bottom line of the xxms2-status readout showing what 's currently playing .
I want to be able to see that big dclock from across the room .
And I want to be able to open a new window or launch a new application without minimizing what I 'm currently working on , because I want to be able to alt-tab back to it in one quick motion , without going through other less-recent windows first .
So I do n't minimize everything , and thus I go * weeks * without seeing my wallpaper.So I use panel launchers instead of desktop shortcuts .
Hence , the second panel .
Plus , that gives me a handy place to put panel applets , which is useful .
The UIM applet , for instance , has become indispensable as I 'm studying a foreign language .
In a single-panel setup , I 'd end up begrudging it the space , because I 'd need the room for more entries on my window list.YMMV .
Configurability is good.And as much as I complain about the reduced and ever shrinking configurability in Gnome 2.x , it still beats the everliving pants off Windows in that department .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; So what if their default configuration has just the&gt; one panel?
Thats how I configure it anyway.I used to try to fit everything on one panel, but it made the task list (or window list, or whatever they call it now) too cramped.
I tend to have numerous windows open at once...I ended up settling on a panel across the bottom with very little on it, mostly just the window list, so that it gets pretty much the whole panel and thus has plenty of space.
Then I put my launchers and panel apps and stuff on a side panel on the left.
There's a screenshot of my setup (taken for a different purpose, but it shows the whole desktop) here:http://mistersanity.blogspot.com/2009/10/screenshot.htmlI know, most people don't have that many panel launchers because they use desktop icons.
But I don't like that setup because it causes you to constantly have to minimize everything, which gets old fast.
And yes, I know you can minimize everything in one fell swoop, but I don't want to do that, because I don't want everything minimized.
I want my windows to stay where I put them, thank you very much.
I want to be able to glance down and see the bottom line of the xxms2-status readout showing what's currently playing.
I want to be able to see that big dclock from across the room.
And I want to be able to open a new window or launch a new application without minimizing what I'm currently working on, because I want to be able to alt-tab back to it in one quick motion, without going through other less-recent windows first.
So I don't minimize everything, and thus I go *weeks* without seeing my wallpaper.So I use panel launchers instead of desktop shortcuts.
Hence, the second panel.
Plus, that gives me a handy place to put panel applets, which is useful.
The UIM applet, for instance, has become indispensable as I'm studying a foreign language.
In a single-panel setup, I'd end up begrudging it the space, because I'd need the room for more entries on my window list.YMMV.
Configurability is good.And as much as I complain about the reduced and ever shrinking configurability in Gnome 2.x, it still beats the everliving pants off Windows in that department.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30192296</id>
	<title>Re:Not going to comment about the actual product..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258890540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ubuntu was never going to switch to Gnome 3 in the next release anyway, before this announcement there was still a planned 2.30 release which is what the next LTS is going to use.</p><p>I don't think this announcement affects Ubuntu's plan's at all.  If there is any effect, it'll be Gnome 3 being introduced in Ubuntu 11.04 instead of 10.10, but I don't think that'll be the case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ubuntu was never going to switch to Gnome 3 in the next release anyway , before this announcement there was still a planned 2.30 release which is what the next LTS is going to use.I do n't think this announcement affects Ubuntu 's plan 's at all .
If there is any effect , it 'll be Gnome 3 being introduced in Ubuntu 11.04 instead of 10.10 , but I do n't think that 'll be the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ubuntu was never going to switch to Gnome 3 in the next release anyway, before this announcement there was still a planned 2.30 release which is what the next LTS is going to use.I don't think this announcement affects Ubuntu's plan's at all.
If there is any effect, it'll be Gnome 3 being introduced in Ubuntu 11.04 instead of 10.10, but I don't think that'll be the case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30098048</id>
	<title>Re:How can xterm be improved?</title>
	<author>musmax</author>
	<datestamp>1258219080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Amen ! preach it brother, preach it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen !
preach it brother , preach it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen !
preach it brother, preach it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30102452</id>
	<title>You're all a bunch of philistines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258206120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't you recognise great art when you see it. Gnome 3.0 will have a place in the Museum of Modern Art when you and your stupid 'practical' applications are long dead and six feet under.</p><p>As an artist, I can tell you that Gnome 3.0 can be appreciated on many levels, is both dynamic and static at the same time and exhibits all of the features of greatness, genius and profundity worthy of an icon of the age. Future generations will look back and ask themselves how the font of creativity which Gnome 3.0 represents was able to flow midst the sea of ignorance which existed at the time.</p><p>I don't know why i'm bothering to even talk to you load of ignoramuses. Gnome 3.0 is in the same class as the Sistine Chapel, Piero de la Francesca's Virgin dell Nino and Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup.</p><p>One day, windows managers will no longer require 'functionality' and then they will be free of the bonds with which the sorry minds of plebeians have sought to restrict them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you recognise great art when you see it .
Gnome 3.0 will have a place in the Museum of Modern Art when you and your stupid 'practical ' applications are long dead and six feet under.As an artist , I can tell you that Gnome 3.0 can be appreciated on many levels , is both dynamic and static at the same time and exhibits all of the features of greatness , genius and profundity worthy of an icon of the age .
Future generations will look back and ask themselves how the font of creativity which Gnome 3.0 represents was able to flow midst the sea of ignorance which existed at the time.I do n't know why i 'm bothering to even talk to you load of ignoramuses .
Gnome 3.0 is in the same class as the Sistine Chapel , Piero de la Francesca 's Virgin dell Nino and Andy Warhol 's Campbell 's Soup.One day , windows managers will no longer require 'functionality ' and then they will be free of the bonds with which the sorry minds of plebeians have sought to restrict them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you recognise great art when you see it.
Gnome 3.0 will have a place in the Museum of Modern Art when you and your stupid 'practical' applications are long dead and six feet under.As an artist, I can tell you that Gnome 3.0 can be appreciated on many levels, is both dynamic and static at the same time and exhibits all of the features of greatness, genius and profundity worthy of an icon of the age.
Future generations will look back and ask themselves how the font of creativity which Gnome 3.0 represents was able to flow midst the sea of ignorance which existed at the time.I don't know why i'm bothering to even talk to you load of ignoramuses.
Gnome 3.0 is in the same class as the Sistine Chapel, Piero de la Francesca's Virgin dell Nino and Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup.One day, windows managers will no longer require 'functionality' and then they will be free of the bonds with which the sorry minds of plebeians have sought to restrict them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096692</id>
	<title>Re:Leave well alone!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258206300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Damn right. It is nearly perfect.</p><p>I had an old box in the closet and needed it for something, so I powered it up and found that it had Ubuntu 7.10. Went through the upgrade process to 9.10. Since you reboot after each upgrade I played around with the GUI a bit just to look at the changes. The amount of work and improvements over a couple years really is impressive. The interface is actually *complete*.</p><p>And now they are going to toss it out?! I am at a loss here...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn right .
It is nearly perfect.I had an old box in the closet and needed it for something , so I powered it up and found that it had Ubuntu 7.10 .
Went through the upgrade process to 9.10 .
Since you reboot after each upgrade I played around with the GUI a bit just to look at the changes .
The amount of work and improvements over a couple years really is impressive .
The interface is actually * complete * .And now they are going to toss it out ? !
I am at a loss here.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn right.
It is nearly perfect.I had an old box in the closet and needed it for something, so I powered it up and found that it had Ubuntu 7.10.
Went through the upgrade process to 9.10.
Since you reboot after each upgrade I played around with the GUI a bit just to look at the changes.
The amount of work and improvements over a couple years really is impressive.
The interface is actually *complete*.And now they are going to toss it out?!
I am at a loss here...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095702</id>
	<title>Re:How can xterm be improved?</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1258231260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Vista/win7 actually made one seemingly minor but actually huge improvement. They killed the start menu. Though they later killed the quick start toolbar which i put back myself, no idea wtf they were thinking there. Anyways! <br> <br>In vista/7 to open Firefox I:<br>Click the windows button.<br>push the f key<br>hit enter.<br> <br>For word instead of f i hit wo. Hamachi I hit h. WMP classic I hit c.<br> <br>It is so efficient and easy I don't actually need anything within the start menu itself. With explorer notepad++ and FF pinned to the start menu (Generally I don't like the new mac ripoff so I have titles not just icons) and 6 things in quick start...<br> <br>Linux needs this. Also, I'd suggest a one click entry to terminal that acts much the same way, something like an always running terminal. When you click you are ready to type your command and it drops down the screen of shit you've done recently. Fast, simple, clean. We definitely don't need so much shit popping up whenever we want to do anything... including look at what stuff we have open. I can occasionally remember what I have open but when you are booted up for a month or two and use 4~6 desktops having to check would get old real fucking fast... also, clicking is faster than alt+tabbing a good portion of the time...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Vista/win7 actually made one seemingly minor but actually huge improvement .
They killed the start menu .
Though they later killed the quick start toolbar which i put back myself , no idea wtf they were thinking there .
Anyways ! In vista/7 to open Firefox I : Click the windows button.push the f keyhit enter .
For word instead of f i hit wo .
Hamachi I hit h. WMP classic I hit c. It is so efficient and easy I do n't actually need anything within the start menu itself .
With explorer notepad + + and FF pinned to the start menu ( Generally I do n't like the new mac ripoff so I have titles not just icons ) and 6 things in quick start... Linux needs this .
Also , I 'd suggest a one click entry to terminal that acts much the same way , something like an always running terminal .
When you click you are ready to type your command and it drops down the screen of shit you 've done recently .
Fast , simple , clean .
We definitely do n't need so much shit popping up whenever we want to do anything... including look at what stuff we have open .
I can occasionally remember what I have open but when you are booted up for a month or two and use 4 ~ 6 desktops having to check would get old real fucking fast... also , clicking is faster than alt + tabbing a good portion of the time.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vista/win7 actually made one seemingly minor but actually huge improvement.
They killed the start menu.
Though they later killed the quick start toolbar which i put back myself, no idea wtf they were thinking there.
Anyways!  In vista/7 to open Firefox I:Click the windows button.push the f keyhit enter.
For word instead of f i hit wo.
Hamachi I hit h. WMP classic I hit c. It is so efficient and easy I don't actually need anything within the start menu itself.
With explorer notepad++ and FF pinned to the start menu (Generally I don't like the new mac ripoff so I have titles not just icons) and 6 things in quick start... Linux needs this.
Also, I'd suggest a one click entry to terminal that acts much the same way, something like an always running terminal.
When you click you are ready to type your command and it drops down the screen of shit you've done recently.
Fast, simple, clean.
We definitely don't need so much shit popping up whenever we want to do anything... including look at what stuff we have open.
I can occasionally remember what I have open but when you are booted up for a month or two and use 4~6 desktops having to check would get old real fucking fast... also, clicking is faster than alt+tabbing a good portion of the time...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095794</id>
	<title>Re:WTH</title>
	<author>Clovert Agent</author>
	<datestamp>1258189620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of it's just a big mental jump, and I think I could get used to it, especially if some of the appearance and behaviour can be customised.</p><p>One thing grabbed me right away, though. The idea of slightly minimising the desktop while I'm working with the menu is interesting. But in the examples, look how every item in the menu is truncated. It's all "Home..." and "OpenO..." and "Docu..."</p><p>That alone would drive me crazy. If nothing fits in your menus, then your menus are badly designed. If there isn't a option to show just a list, instead of a grid of too-large icons with ellipses everywhere, it's definitely a no for me. Might seem trivial, but I'm going to be looking at that annoyance a LOT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of it 's just a big mental jump , and I think I could get used to it , especially if some of the appearance and behaviour can be customised.One thing grabbed me right away , though .
The idea of slightly minimising the desktop while I 'm working with the menu is interesting .
But in the examples , look how every item in the menu is truncated .
It 's all " Home... " and " OpenO... " and " Docu... " That alone would drive me crazy .
If nothing fits in your menus , then your menus are badly designed .
If there is n't a option to show just a list , instead of a grid of too-large icons with ellipses everywhere , it 's definitely a no for me .
Might seem trivial , but I 'm going to be looking at that annoyance a LOT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of it's just a big mental jump, and I think I could get used to it, especially if some of the appearance and behaviour can be customised.One thing grabbed me right away, though.
The idea of slightly minimising the desktop while I'm working with the menu is interesting.
But in the examples, look how every item in the menu is truncated.
It's all "Home..." and "OpenO..." and "Docu..."That alone would drive me crazy.
If nothing fits in your menus, then your menus are badly designed.
If there isn't a option to show just a list, instead of a grid of too-large icons with ellipses everywhere, it's definitely a no for me.
Might seem trivial, but I'm going to be looking at that annoyance a LOT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097734</id>
	<title>Re:Well at Least...</title>
	<author>ivoras</author>
	<datestamp>1258216200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Ask yourself, why the hell is Wave coming from Google, instead of us?</p></div><p>Because Google has the money?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ask yourself , why the hell is Wave coming from Google , instead of us ? Because Google has the money ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Ask yourself, why the hell is Wave coming from Google, instead of us?Because Google has the money?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096714</id>
	<title>Re:Based on Mono</title>
	<author>natbudin</author>
	<datestamp>1258206720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that it isn't.  According <a href="http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell" title="gnome.org" rel="nofollow">the GnomeShell</a> [gnome.org] page on Gnome Live, "Much of the code of the shell is written in Javascript and Clutter and GNOME platform libraries via GObject Introspection and JavaScript bindings for GNOME."</p><p>GObject Introspection is actually quite cool IMO, it makes it much easier to create bindings from dynamic languages libraries that use GObject, like the GNOME platform, GStreamer, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that it is n't .
According the GnomeShell [ gnome.org ] page on Gnome Live , " Much of the code of the shell is written in Javascript and Clutter and GNOME platform libraries via GObject Introspection and JavaScript bindings for GNOME .
" GObject Introspection is actually quite cool IMO , it makes it much easier to create bindings from dynamic languages libraries that use GObject , like the GNOME platform , GStreamer , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that it isn't.
According the GnomeShell [gnome.org] page on Gnome Live, "Much of the code of the shell is written in Javascript and Clutter and GNOME platform libraries via GObject Introspection and JavaScript bindings for GNOME.
"GObject Introspection is actually quite cool IMO, it makes it much easier to create bindings from dynamic languages libraries that use GObject, like the GNOME platform, GStreamer, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095780</id>
	<title>Glad it's delayed.  It's rubbish.</title>
	<author>thaig</author>
	<datestamp>1258189500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't what I'm missing in Gnome.  I'm missing desktop sharing and conferencing software like Livemeeting. I'm also missing some ease-of-use dealing with very simple things like cutting and pasting a link to a windows share and using it to look at a remote directory without having to edit all the slashes.</p><p>Instead, some *person* for want of a better word, thinks I need to have yet another new way to select the same applications, wants to "improve" (i.e. remove the choice from) the task list to be *more* application-centric (so retrograde it's laughable)..  What a waste of time.   What about an Object-Oriented or task-oriented desktop?  How about some *actual* innovation?    Being force-fed this kind of thing is pretty unpleasant;.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't what I 'm missing in Gnome .
I 'm missing desktop sharing and conferencing software like Livemeeting .
I 'm also missing some ease-of-use dealing with very simple things like cutting and pasting a link to a windows share and using it to look at a remote directory without having to edit all the slashes.Instead , some * person * for want of a better word , thinks I need to have yet another new way to select the same applications , wants to " improve " ( i.e .
remove the choice from ) the task list to be * more * application-centric ( so retrograde it 's laughable ) .. What a waste of time .
What about an Object-Oriented or task-oriented desktop ?
How about some * actual * innovation ?
Being force-fed this kind of thing is pretty unpleasant ; .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't what I'm missing in Gnome.
I'm missing desktop sharing and conferencing software like Livemeeting.
I'm also missing some ease-of-use dealing with very simple things like cutting and pasting a link to a windows share and using it to look at a remote directory without having to edit all the slashes.Instead, some *person* for want of a better word, thinks I need to have yet another new way to select the same applications, wants to "improve" (i.e.
remove the choice from) the task list to be *more* application-centric (so retrograde it's laughable)..  What a waste of time.
What about an Object-Oriented or task-oriented desktop?
How about some *actual* innovation?
Being force-fed this kind of thing is pretty unpleasant;.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096186</id>
	<title>Re:Feel Like I've Been Punched In The Stomach</title>
	<author>Alex Belits</author>
	<datestamp>1258197540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I just switched to Ubuntu 9.10 it has been ok. Very rough, buggy, and unpolished compared to Windows but I really wanted to soldier on.</p></div><p>Gnome is just fine -- certainly better than Windows Vusta/7. Just switch to any other theme/color scheme.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just switched to Ubuntu 9.10 it has been ok. Very rough , buggy , and unpolished compared to Windows but I really wanted to soldier on.Gnome is just fine -- certainly better than Windows Vusta/7 .
Just switch to any other theme/color scheme .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just switched to Ubuntu 9.10 it has been ok. Very rough, buggy, and unpolished compared to Windows but I really wanted to soldier on.Gnome is just fine -- certainly better than Windows Vusta/7.
Just switch to any other theme/color scheme.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096094</id>
	<title>Re:Well at Least...</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1258195500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it looks like GNOME is now copying MacOSX instead of Windows *eye roll*.</p></div><p> <em>Now</em> copying? How long do you think the current ordering of Cancel/OK buttons in GNOME had been there for?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it looks like GNOME is now copying MacOSX instead of Windows * eye roll * .
Now copying ?
How long do you think the current ordering of Cancel/OK buttons in GNOME had been there for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it looks like GNOME is now copying MacOSX instead of Windows *eye roll*.
Now copying?
How long do you think the current ordering of Cancel/OK buttons in GNOME had been there for?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095588</id>
	<title>And yet..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258229280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>nobody cares.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nobody cares .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nobody cares.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095950</id>
	<title>Re:Who needs GNOME when Windows is affordable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258192800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, yeah. Windows control 99.99\% of germs, I mean desktop computers.</p><p>I've been freed from Windows for about 4 years now, and there is no way in hell i am going back. I barely tolerate it on my netbook (hardware driver issues), and I install linux on all of my other machines now for these reasons:<br>1. I spend 95\% of my non-work computing time in Firefox.<br>2. I spend 95\% of my work computing time in Firefox and Eclipse.<br>3. The other 8\%, there are linux software for those.<br>4. I use Virtualbox for the 2\% of the time I \_need\_ Windows.</p><p>In return for not using Windows, I gain:<br>1. I don't worry about firewalls, or anti-virus software.<br>2. Complete incremental backup of computer to network drive, usb drive, whatever.<br>3. nfs, and sshfs. They really are awesome. Windows/mac users don't even know what they are missing.</p><p>And most importantly:<br>4. New OS every few months, FREE. FOREVER..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , yeah .
Windows control 99.99 \ % of germs , I mean desktop computers.I 've been freed from Windows for about 4 years now , and there is no way in hell i am going back .
I barely tolerate it on my netbook ( hardware driver issues ) , and I install linux on all of my other machines now for these reasons : 1 .
I spend 95 \ % of my non-work computing time in Firefox.2 .
I spend 95 \ % of my work computing time in Firefox and Eclipse.3 .
The other 8 \ % , there are linux software for those.4 .
I use Virtualbox for the 2 \ % of the time I \ _need \ _ Windows.In return for not using Windows , I gain : 1 .
I do n't worry about firewalls , or anti-virus software.2 .
Complete incremental backup of computer to network drive , usb drive , whatever.3 .
nfs , and sshfs .
They really are awesome .
Windows/mac users do n't even know what they are missing.And most importantly : 4 .
New OS every few months , FREE .
FOREVER. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, yeah.
Windows control 99.99\% of germs, I mean desktop computers.I've been freed from Windows for about 4 years now, and there is no way in hell i am going back.
I barely tolerate it on my netbook (hardware driver issues), and I install linux on all of my other machines now for these reasons:1.
I spend 95\% of my non-work computing time in Firefox.2.
I spend 95\% of my work computing time in Firefox and Eclipse.3.
The other 8\%, there are linux software for those.4.
I use Virtualbox for the 2\% of the time I \_need\_ Windows.In return for not using Windows, I gain:1.
I don't worry about firewalls, or anti-virus software.2.
Complete incremental backup of computer to network drive, usb drive, whatever.3.
nfs, and sshfs.
They really are awesome.
Windows/mac users don't even know what they are missing.And most importantly:4.
New OS every few months, FREE.
FOREVER..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097436</id>
	<title>Re:Glad it's delayed. It's rubbish.</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1258213620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Instead, this user is interested in finding "that god-damn file" that he saved somewhere yesterday morning and has no idea where it is. He doesn't organize his files, he doesn't care about file hierarchies, he just wants his file. He also wants to easily find that openoffice window that got lost in the 20 windows he opened and never closed in the last hour. Believe it or not, no desktop environment makes it really easy to do such basic stuff.</p></div><p>I just have to ask, who are all these people? That really have no concepts of folders, piles, boxes or whatever metaphor you want to use. I've met people that put everything on the desktop and they're the same people that have all their papers in a big pile, it's not computers they don't understand it's organization. Many, many otherwise quite uneducated computer users get it quite fine. You can't organize unorganized people because you have no idea what belongs together in their mind and trying to divine metadata out of the files themselves is useless except in extremely few limited circumstances where others have filled in the metadata like mp3 id tags. You'll never know that the mp3s, the cover image, the lyric text and their homepage bookmark somehow belongs together unless someone tags it, and it's exactly what those people won't do. They won't even put it into different piles!</p><p>If the first one is somewhat common, I've never met anyone with the second problem. Even preschoolers and people well into retirement age don't seem to have a problem with this concept. It's like having a book shelf and a desk, if you keep opening up books and putting them on your desk you'll have a mess, you should close those you are done with by clicking the X in the top right corner. It's a common element you'll find in browsers and tabs, chat messages, email messages in outlook, any of a million normal places in all common applications. If they really are this unfamiliar with computers, they should take some remedial classes at the local community college. This is like trying to design some incredibly complex (and epic fail) system to create a car without a brake pedal on the assumption the driver won't know when to brake.</p><p>For example, one source of endless confusion I've seen is launching multiple instances of one application. That one does not translate well from the real world, it's likc taking a book off the shelf multiple times. It makes sense in some contexts, but often what they really want is to bring the current application to the front - or they've forgotten launching it in the first place. Being able to configure that, without any application support, would be solving a real problem. Just configure any application to run in single instance mode and they'd never to get confused again, either click it from taskbar or launch it again and the same instance will be brought to front. Just one example of things I think they could be solving.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead , this user is interested in finding " that god-damn file " that he saved somewhere yesterday morning and has no idea where it is .
He does n't organize his files , he does n't care about file hierarchies , he just wants his file .
He also wants to easily find that openoffice window that got lost in the 20 windows he opened and never closed in the last hour .
Believe it or not , no desktop environment makes it really easy to do such basic stuff.I just have to ask , who are all these people ?
That really have no concepts of folders , piles , boxes or whatever metaphor you want to use .
I 've met people that put everything on the desktop and they 're the same people that have all their papers in a big pile , it 's not computers they do n't understand it 's organization .
Many , many otherwise quite uneducated computer users get it quite fine .
You ca n't organize unorganized people because you have no idea what belongs together in their mind and trying to divine metadata out of the files themselves is useless except in extremely few limited circumstances where others have filled in the metadata like mp3 id tags .
You 'll never know that the mp3s , the cover image , the lyric text and their homepage bookmark somehow belongs together unless someone tags it , and it 's exactly what those people wo n't do .
They wo n't even put it into different piles ! If the first one is somewhat common , I 've never met anyone with the second problem .
Even preschoolers and people well into retirement age do n't seem to have a problem with this concept .
It 's like having a book shelf and a desk , if you keep opening up books and putting them on your desk you 'll have a mess , you should close those you are done with by clicking the X in the top right corner .
It 's a common element you 'll find in browsers and tabs , chat messages , email messages in outlook , any of a million normal places in all common applications .
If they really are this unfamiliar with computers , they should take some remedial classes at the local community college .
This is like trying to design some incredibly complex ( and epic fail ) system to create a car without a brake pedal on the assumption the driver wo n't know when to brake.For example , one source of endless confusion I 've seen is launching multiple instances of one application .
That one does not translate well from the real world , it 's likc taking a book off the shelf multiple times .
It makes sense in some contexts , but often what they really want is to bring the current application to the front - or they 've forgotten launching it in the first place .
Being able to configure that , without any application support , would be solving a real problem .
Just configure any application to run in single instance mode and they 'd never to get confused again , either click it from taskbar or launch it again and the same instance will be brought to front .
Just one example of things I think they could be solving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead, this user is interested in finding "that god-damn file" that he saved somewhere yesterday morning and has no idea where it is.
He doesn't organize his files, he doesn't care about file hierarchies, he just wants his file.
He also wants to easily find that openoffice window that got lost in the 20 windows he opened and never closed in the last hour.
Believe it or not, no desktop environment makes it really easy to do such basic stuff.I just have to ask, who are all these people?
That really have no concepts of folders, piles, boxes or whatever metaphor you want to use.
I've met people that put everything on the desktop and they're the same people that have all their papers in a big pile, it's not computers they don't understand it's organization.
Many, many otherwise quite uneducated computer users get it quite fine.
You can't organize unorganized people because you have no idea what belongs together in their mind and trying to divine metadata out of the files themselves is useless except in extremely few limited circumstances where others have filled in the metadata like mp3 id tags.
You'll never know that the mp3s, the cover image, the lyric text and their homepage bookmark somehow belongs together unless someone tags it, and it's exactly what those people won't do.
They won't even put it into different piles!If the first one is somewhat common, I've never met anyone with the second problem.
Even preschoolers and people well into retirement age don't seem to have a problem with this concept.
It's like having a book shelf and a desk, if you keep opening up books and putting them on your desk you'll have a mess, you should close those you are done with by clicking the X in the top right corner.
It's a common element you'll find in browsers and tabs, chat messages, email messages in outlook, any of a million normal places in all common applications.
If they really are this unfamiliar with computers, they should take some remedial classes at the local community college.
This is like trying to design some incredibly complex (and epic fail) system to create a car without a brake pedal on the assumption the driver won't know when to brake.For example, one source of endless confusion I've seen is launching multiple instances of one application.
That one does not translate well from the real world, it's likc taking a book off the shelf multiple times.
It makes sense in some contexts, but often what they really want is to bring the current application to the front - or they've forgotten launching it in the first place.
Being able to configure that, without any application support, would be solving a real problem.
Just configure any application to run in single instance mode and they'd never to get confused again, either click it from taskbar or launch it again and the same instance will be brought to front.
Just one example of things I think they could be solving.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096432</id>
	<title>Re:Well at Least...</title>
	<author>leereyno</author>
	<datestamp>1258202220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually some of us WANT them to copy Windows.</p><p>Macs have their followers, but over 90\% of computer users run Windows.  You sit the average person down in front of a computer and they are going to expect it to follow the Windows UI conventions.</p><p>I'm not a Gnome user.  I use KDE.  I do this precisely because it has always followed the windows UI conventions.</p><p>If the Mac fanboys in the Gnome project want to copy the Mac, then they should so in such a way that this behavior can be chosen by the user.</p><p>Gnome should have behavior profiles that can be selected (or customized) so that users can choose Mac behavior if they want it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually some of us WANT them to copy Windows.Macs have their followers , but over 90 \ % of computer users run Windows .
You sit the average person down in front of a computer and they are going to expect it to follow the Windows UI conventions.I 'm not a Gnome user .
I use KDE .
I do this precisely because it has always followed the windows UI conventions.If the Mac fanboys in the Gnome project want to copy the Mac , then they should so in such a way that this behavior can be chosen by the user.Gnome should have behavior profiles that can be selected ( or customized ) so that users can choose Mac behavior if they want it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually some of us WANT them to copy Windows.Macs have their followers, but over 90\% of computer users run Windows.
You sit the average person down in front of a computer and they are going to expect it to follow the Windows UI conventions.I'm not a Gnome user.
I use KDE.
I do this precisely because it has always followed the windows UI conventions.If the Mac fanboys in the Gnome project want to copy the Mac, then they should so in such a way that this behavior can be chosen by the user.Gnome should have behavior profiles that can be selected (or customized) so that users can choose Mac behavior if they want it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097492</id>
	<title>Re:Glad it's delayed. It's rubbish.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258213920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Make a hyperbole and everyone will believe it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Make a hyperbole and everyone will believe it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make a hyperbole and everyone will believe it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096642</id>
	<title>Re:How can xterm be improved?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258205580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Kickoff menu in Kde4 does just like that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Kickoff menu in Kde4 does just like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Kickoff menu in Kde4 does just like that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096126</id>
	<title>I don't need a new look at the desktop!!</title>
	<author>Lord Lode</author>
	<datestamp>1258196160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used to like KDE 3.5 more than Gnome. Now I like Gnome more than KDE 4, because all handy things of the desktop are lost with KDE 4's new way.

And now Gnome is also going that route? NOOOOO!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to like KDE 3.5 more than Gnome .
Now I like Gnome more than KDE 4 , because all handy things of the desktop are lost with KDE 4 's new way .
And now Gnome is also going that route ?
NOOOOO !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to like KDE 3.5 more than Gnome.
Now I like Gnome more than KDE 4, because all handy things of the desktop are lost with KDE 4's new way.
And now Gnome is also going that route?
NOOOOO!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096790</id>
	<title>Re:WTH</title>
	<author>egr</author>
	<datestamp>1258207740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have to agree on the subject of the enormously large buttons, text and spaces in general. Make things smaller and more compact! I don't need to hit button from mile away. All it takes a lot of unnecessary space</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to agree on the subject of the enormously large buttons , text and spaces in general .
Make things smaller and more compact !
I do n't need to hit button from mile away .
All it takes a lot of unnecessary space</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to agree on the subject of the enormously large buttons, text and spaces in general.
Make things smaller and more compact!
I don't need to hit button from mile away.
All it takes a lot of unnecessary space</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099114</id>
	<title>Re:Leave well alone!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258225020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. Many people complain about Gnome, but I like the minimal design. There is only couple things that I usually configure, because it's only borders for programs that I use. Gnome might not be the choice for all, but it fills my needs.</p><p>Only thing I would change is the locale. Even thou I speak no English, I use it in computing. I use 24 hour clock and ISO timestamp (not the is date what is cryptic), SI units, but I use dot as decimal separator. I think this is quite common configuration for many IT workers who live outside US. But this is more the Unix issue than the Gnome issue, but Gnome uses the locale and so on.</p><p>There is only national locales available, and configuring your own usually takes time</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
Many people complain about Gnome , but I like the minimal design .
There is only couple things that I usually configure , because it 's only borders for programs that I use .
Gnome might not be the choice for all , but it fills my needs.Only thing I would change is the locale .
Even thou I speak no English , I use it in computing .
I use 24 hour clock and ISO timestamp ( not the is date what is cryptic ) , SI units , but I use dot as decimal separator .
I think this is quite common configuration for many IT workers who live outside US .
But this is more the Unix issue than the Gnome issue , but Gnome uses the locale and so on.There is only national locales available , and configuring your own usually takes time</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
Many people complain about Gnome, but I like the minimal design.
There is only couple things that I usually configure, because it's only borders for programs that I use.
Gnome might not be the choice for all, but it fills my needs.Only thing I would change is the locale.
Even thou I speak no English, I use it in computing.
I use 24 hour clock and ISO timestamp (not the is date what is cryptic), SI units, but I use dot as decimal separator.
I think this is quite common configuration for many IT workers who live outside US.
But this is more the Unix issue than the Gnome issue, but Gnome uses the locale and so on.There is only national locales available, and configuring your own usually takes time</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096548</id>
	<title>Re:Glad it's delayed. It's rubbish.</title>
	<author>Stormwatch</author>
	<datestamp>1258203840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>He doesn't organize his files, he doesn't care about file hierarchies, he just wants his file.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Gawd, the hell. I want a system that forces the user to organize his stuff. I'm sick of seeing desktops so cluttered with icons that there's no room for anything else. I wouldn't mind shoving that Ubuntu Netbook Remix interface down their throats. I mean, I make my desktop a mess too, but I clean up my shit eventually. Tons of people (like my sis) simply DON'T, EVER. EVERYTHING GOES ON THE DESKTOP. That's ridiculous. Can't understand the concept of folders? No computer for you!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He does n't organize his files , he does n't care about file hierarchies , he just wants his file .
Gawd , the hell .
I want a system that forces the user to organize his stuff .
I 'm sick of seeing desktops so cluttered with icons that there 's no room for anything else .
I would n't mind shoving that Ubuntu Netbook Remix interface down their throats .
I mean , I make my desktop a mess too , but I clean up my shit eventually .
Tons of people ( like my sis ) simply DO N'T , EVER .
EVERYTHING GOES ON THE DESKTOP .
That 's ridiculous .
Ca n't understand the concept of folders ?
No computer for you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He doesn't organize his files, he doesn't care about file hierarchies, he just wants his file.
Gawd, the hell.
I want a system that forces the user to organize his stuff.
I'm sick of seeing desktops so cluttered with icons that there's no room for anything else.
I wouldn't mind shoving that Ubuntu Netbook Remix interface down their throats.
I mean, I make my desktop a mess too, but I clean up my shit eventually.
Tons of people (like my sis) simply DON'T, EVER.
EVERYTHING GOES ON THE DESKTOP.
That's ridiculous.
Can't understand the concept of folders?
No computer for you!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30192392</id>
	<title>Re:Does not fix the real problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258892940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You haven't used Windows 7 yet have you?  When you pin an application to the task bar it will launch it or switch to it if it is running.  I believe this is somewhat akin to the way the OS X dock works, so I think (I haven't actually used OS X) OS X also has the behaviour you desire and for a lot longer than Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have n't used Windows 7 yet have you ?
When you pin an application to the task bar it will launch it or switch to it if it is running .
I believe this is somewhat akin to the way the OS X dock works , so I think ( I have n't actually used OS X ) OS X also has the behaviour you desire and for a lot longer than Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You haven't used Windows 7 yet have you?
When you pin an application to the task bar it will launch it or switch to it if it is running.
I believe this is somewhat akin to the way the OS X dock works, so I think (I haven't actually used OS X) OS X also has the behaviour you desire and for a lot longer than Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30100182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095960</id>
	<title>Re:Glad it's delayed. It's rubbish.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258193040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm also missing some ease-of-use dealing with very simple things like cutting and pasting a link to a windows share and using it to look at a remote directory without having to edit all the slashes.</p></div><p>If gnome (and linux in general) wants to escape the geek-in-a-basement marketshare, it has to focus on the average non-tech user. And no, pasting a link to a windows share is not what this user does.</p><p>Instead, this user is interested in finding "that god-damn file" that he saved somewhere yesterday morning and has no idea where it is. He doesn't organize his files, he doesn't care about file hierarchies, he just wants his file. He also wants to easily find that openoffice window that got lost in the 20 windows he opened and never closed in the last hour. Believe it or not, no desktop environment makes it really easy to do such basic stuff.</p><p>IMHO Gnome Shell and <a href="http://live.gnome.org/GnomeZeitgeist" title="gnome.org">Zeitgeist</a> [gnome.org] is a step in the right direction for the average user.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm also missing some ease-of-use dealing with very simple things like cutting and pasting a link to a windows share and using it to look at a remote directory without having to edit all the slashes.If gnome ( and linux in general ) wants to escape the geek-in-a-basement marketshare , it has to focus on the average non-tech user .
And no , pasting a link to a windows share is not what this user does.Instead , this user is interested in finding " that god-damn file " that he saved somewhere yesterday morning and has no idea where it is .
He does n't organize his files , he does n't care about file hierarchies , he just wants his file .
He also wants to easily find that openoffice window that got lost in the 20 windows he opened and never closed in the last hour .
Believe it or not , no desktop environment makes it really easy to do such basic stuff.IMHO Gnome Shell and Zeitgeist [ gnome.org ] is a step in the right direction for the average user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm also missing some ease-of-use dealing with very simple things like cutting and pasting a link to a windows share and using it to look at a remote directory without having to edit all the slashes.If gnome (and linux in general) wants to escape the geek-in-a-basement marketshare, it has to focus on the average non-tech user.
And no, pasting a link to a windows share is not what this user does.Instead, this user is interested in finding "that god-damn file" that he saved somewhere yesterday morning and has no idea where it is.
He doesn't organize his files, he doesn't care about file hierarchies, he just wants his file.
He also wants to easily find that openoffice window that got lost in the 20 windows he opened and never closed in the last hour.
Believe it or not, no desktop environment makes it really easy to do such basic stuff.IMHO Gnome Shell and Zeitgeist [gnome.org] is a step in the right direction for the average user.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095998</id>
	<title>Don't tell me</title>
	<author>Simon Rowe</author>
	<datestamp>1258194000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... they need to take some more options out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... they need to take some more options out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... they need to take some more options out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097082</id>
	<title>Re:WTH</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1258210680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can get win7 taskbar to act normally. Set them to 'never combine' use small icons and then unpin everything. I left only firefox, explorer and notepad++ pinned because they are open often enough that it actually saves space having them there rather than on a quick launch bar.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can get win7 taskbar to act normally .
Set them to 'never combine ' use small icons and then unpin everything .
I left only firefox , explorer and notepad + + pinned because they are open often enough that it actually saves space having them there rather than on a quick launch bar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can get win7 taskbar to act normally.
Set them to 'never combine' use small icons and then unpin everything.
I left only firefox, explorer and notepad++ pinned because they are open often enough that it actually saves space having them there rather than on a quick launch bar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30102410</id>
	<title>It's all downhill from here</title>
	<author>synthespian</author>
	<datestamp>1258205760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. I wish GNOME was made by Debian "developers". That way, Linux fans might be spared the stupidity until KDE gets their shit together and finally releases something that looks like a half-assed Mac OS X or Windows 7 with some tech that works approximately close to Quartz on Apple. GNOME can  just die.</p><p>Here's my proposal: millionaire Shuttleworth buys the GNOME boys lots and lots of books about human-computer interaction and funds usability studies. He would actually make normal humans use that shit. Wait...It's better if he funds KDE. At least they're not clueless, just a bit slow and lacking manpower. Oh, that and the C++ fixation Apple and Microsoft got over years ago.</p><p>How long do GNOME boys they think they can keep up with that moronic idea of delivering a GUI programmed in C (!), for fsck's sake! (Meanwhile, Apple has moved to garbage collection in their Objective-C and Microsoft is miles away with their C# and CLI (that's Common Language Interface, in case your frozen in a time capsule and think it's "Command Line Interface").</p><p>Yeah, the technology lag in Linux is kinda showing...And you know what? It'll only get worse, much worse. It looks pathetic now, but I dare not think where we will be in a decade. I'm guessing dead and buried on the desktop (and it doesn't matter - Linux has never been a priority on the desktop - we can all buy a perfectly fine Unix for desktops made by Apple, right?)</p><p>And you what I find *amazing*: how GNOME developers just <b>make shit up as they go along</b>, without any regard to usability or <b>any empirical evidence collected by them that takes into account usage patterns by normal humans.</b> Really, really good. Because, of course, in Linux, you're a "hacker." You just make shit up as you go. And that goes for GUIs, file systems, packaging systems, X, whatever...</p><p>With over a decade of Linux usage, I'm getting to the point I might actually buy myself a Windows notebook and just forget about the whole experience. It's made by clueless people, with the exception of the kernel people that work for hardware companies that would like Sun Microsystems to fold.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
I wish GNOME was made by Debian " developers " .
That way , Linux fans might be spared the stupidity until KDE gets their shit together and finally releases something that looks like a half-assed Mac OS X or Windows 7 with some tech that works approximately close to Quartz on Apple .
GNOME can just die.Here 's my proposal : millionaire Shuttleworth buys the GNOME boys lots and lots of books about human-computer interaction and funds usability studies .
He would actually make normal humans use that shit .
Wait...It 's better if he funds KDE .
At least they 're not clueless , just a bit slow and lacking manpower .
Oh , that and the C + + fixation Apple and Microsoft got over years ago.How long do GNOME boys they think they can keep up with that moronic idea of delivering a GUI programmed in C ( !
) , for fsck 's sake !
( Meanwhile , Apple has moved to garbage collection in their Objective-C and Microsoft is miles away with their C # and CLI ( that 's Common Language Interface , in case your frozen in a time capsule and think it 's " Command Line Interface " ) .Yeah , the technology lag in Linux is kinda showing...And you know what ?
It 'll only get worse , much worse .
It looks pathetic now , but I dare not think where we will be in a decade .
I 'm guessing dead and buried on the desktop ( and it does n't matter - Linux has never been a priority on the desktop - we can all buy a perfectly fine Unix for desktops made by Apple , right ?
) And you what I find * amazing * : how GNOME developers just make shit up as they go along , without any regard to usability or any empirical evidence collected by them that takes into account usage patterns by normal humans .
Really , really good .
Because , of course , in Linux , you 're a " hacker .
" You just make shit up as you go .
And that goes for GUIs , file systems , packaging systems , X , whatever...With over a decade of Linux usage , I 'm getting to the point I might actually buy myself a Windows notebook and just forget about the whole experience .
It 's made by clueless people , with the exception of the kernel people that work for hardware companies that would like Sun Microsystems to fold .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
I wish GNOME was made by Debian "developers".
That way, Linux fans might be spared the stupidity until KDE gets their shit together and finally releases something that looks like a half-assed Mac OS X or Windows 7 with some tech that works approximately close to Quartz on Apple.
GNOME can  just die.Here's my proposal: millionaire Shuttleworth buys the GNOME boys lots and lots of books about human-computer interaction and funds usability studies.
He would actually make normal humans use that shit.
Wait...It's better if he funds KDE.
At least they're not clueless, just a bit slow and lacking manpower.
Oh, that and the C++ fixation Apple and Microsoft got over years ago.How long do GNOME boys they think they can keep up with that moronic idea of delivering a GUI programmed in C (!
), for fsck's sake!
(Meanwhile, Apple has moved to garbage collection in their Objective-C and Microsoft is miles away with their C# and CLI (that's Common Language Interface, in case your frozen in a time capsule and think it's "Command Line Interface").Yeah, the technology lag in Linux is kinda showing...And you know what?
It'll only get worse, much worse.
It looks pathetic now, but I dare not think where we will be in a decade.
I'm guessing dead and buried on the desktop (and it doesn't matter - Linux has never been a priority on the desktop - we can all buy a perfectly fine Unix for desktops made by Apple, right?
)And you what I find *amazing*: how GNOME developers just make shit up as they go along, without any regard to usability or any empirical evidence collected by them that takes into account usage patterns by normal humans.
Really, really good.
Because, of course, in Linux, you're a "hacker.
" You just make shit up as you go.
And that goes for GUIs, file systems, packaging systems, X, whatever...With over a decade of Linux usage, I'm getting to the point I might actually buy myself a Windows notebook and just forget about the whole experience.
It's made by clueless people, with the exception of the kernel people that work for hardware companies that would like Sun Microsystems to fold.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097014</id>
	<title>Re:Well at Least...</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1258210080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, F/OSS is more than GNOME. There is a lot of innovation going on in the F/OSS universe. It has always been this way and I'm willing to bet it will always be that way. That you don't see it says more about you than about the F/OSS universe.</p><p>And yes, F/OSS projects copy things from proprietary software, too. And this is a Good Thing. After all, one of the most heard complaints about F/OSS is that it doesn't have whatever it is the complainer wants to have that they do have with their proprietary software of choice. Well, the likes of OpenOffice.org, KDE, GNOME, and many others cater to those wishes.</p><p>If you want something original and open source, there are numerous examples. Many features of modern Unix were pioneered in the open-source <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD" title="wikipedia.org">BSD</a> [wikipedia.org], many others are pioneered in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux\_kernel" title="wikipedia.org">Linux</a> [wikipedia.org] (e.g. several filesystems), the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeX" title="wikipedia.org">TeX</a> [wikipedia.org] typesetting system was a real innovation, the open source <a href="http://www.apache.org/" title="apache.org">Apache</a> [apache.org] is the world's leading web server, the <a href="http://www.python.org/" title="python.org">Python</a> [python.org] programming language is open source and certainly innovative; and that's just a few examples.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , F/OSS is more than GNOME .
There is a lot of innovation going on in the F/OSS universe .
It has always been this way and I 'm willing to bet it will always be that way .
That you do n't see it says more about you than about the F/OSS universe.And yes , F/OSS projects copy things from proprietary software , too .
And this is a Good Thing .
After all , one of the most heard complaints about F/OSS is that it does n't have whatever it is the complainer wants to have that they do have with their proprietary software of choice .
Well , the likes of OpenOffice.org , KDE , GNOME , and many others cater to those wishes.If you want something original and open source , there are numerous examples .
Many features of modern Unix were pioneered in the open-source BSD [ wikipedia.org ] , many others are pioneered in Linux [ wikipedia.org ] ( e.g .
several filesystems ) , the TeX [ wikipedia.org ] typesetting system was a real innovation , the open source Apache [ apache.org ] is the world 's leading web server , the Python [ python.org ] programming language is open source and certainly innovative ; and that 's just a few examples .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, F/OSS is more than GNOME.
There is a lot of innovation going on in the F/OSS universe.
It has always been this way and I'm willing to bet it will always be that way.
That you don't see it says more about you than about the F/OSS universe.And yes, F/OSS projects copy things from proprietary software, too.
And this is a Good Thing.
After all, one of the most heard complaints about F/OSS is that it doesn't have whatever it is the complainer wants to have that they do have with their proprietary software of choice.
Well, the likes of OpenOffice.org, KDE, GNOME, and many others cater to those wishes.If you want something original and open source, there are numerous examples.
Many features of modern Unix were pioneered in the open-source BSD [wikipedia.org], many others are pioneered in Linux [wikipedia.org] (e.g.
several filesystems), the TeX [wikipedia.org] typesetting system was a real innovation, the open source Apache [apache.org] is the world's leading web server, the Python [python.org] programming language is open source and certainly innovative; and that's just a few examples.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30098234</id>
	<title>Re:How can xterm be improved?</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1258220100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>so windows 7 FINALLY implemented alt+f2 launcher from kde and gnome, but the huge improvement was that they made it appear instead of the start menu ?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div></blockquote><p>

Hmm, alt+f2 also makes the menu pop up in fvwm.  Are we gonna have to fire up twm in this archaeological quest?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>so windows 7 FINALLY implemented alt + f2 launcher from kde and gnome , but the huge improvement was that they made it appear instead of the start menu ?
: ) Hmm , alt + f2 also makes the menu pop up in fvwm .
Are we gon na have to fire up twm in this archaeological quest ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so windows 7 FINALLY implemented alt+f2 launcher from kde and gnome, but the huge improvement was that they made it appear instead of the start menu ?
:)

Hmm, alt+f2 also makes the menu pop up in fvwm.
Are we gonna have to fire up twm in this archaeological quest?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30100182</id>
	<title>Does not fix the real problem</title>
	<author>Zoxed</author>
	<datestamp>1258231980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My experience with *inexperienced* users always shows one thing that no Desktop GUI seems to have addressed/solved yet: the User who does not care whether the program they want is already running or not, they just want to use it. At the moment you look to see in one area if, say, you have a web browser already running and if not then you start one. This is one step too many. The User should just have one button to press per app and then the GUI decides whether to simple bring an existing app window to the front, or start the app for the first time. (Some programs play well with multiple startups, others do not.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My experience with * inexperienced * users always shows one thing that no Desktop GUI seems to have addressed/solved yet : the User who does not care whether the program they want is already running or not , they just want to use it .
At the moment you look to see in one area if , say , you have a web browser already running and if not then you start one .
This is one step too many .
The User should just have one button to press per app and then the GUI decides whether to simple bring an existing app window to the front , or start the app for the first time .
( Some programs play well with multiple startups , others do not .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My experience with *inexperienced* users always shows one thing that no Desktop GUI seems to have addressed/solved yet: the User who does not care whether the program they want is already running or not, they just want to use it.
At the moment you look to see in one area if, say, you have a web browser already running and if not then you start one.
This is one step too many.
The User should just have one button to press per app and then the GUI decides whether to simple bring an existing app window to the front, or start the app for the first time.
(Some programs play well with multiple startups, others do not.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30109278</id>
	<title>Re:WTH</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1258282620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of us seem to keep bouncing back and forth between KDE and GNOME based on which sucks less.</p><p>Back in the day, I settled on GNOME 1.2 because it was much faster than KDE and highly configurable. Then GNOME 2.0 was released and took away almost all of the configuration options. (It was a conscious design decision. They were trying to imitate Apple, I think, by parading around their "less is more" foolishness.) KDE 3 was in good shape by then, so I switched because it gave me the option to set up my desktop exactly how I wanted it. When KDE 4 came out, virtually all development stopped on 3.5, so I was forced back to GNOME, which had finally regained most of the power that it had back in the 1.2 days. Now they're going to change it up on me again...</p><p>If I can make one request of the GNOME developers it's this: before releasing GNOME 3, please at least wait until KDE 4 stops sucking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of us seem to keep bouncing back and forth between KDE and GNOME based on which sucks less.Back in the day , I settled on GNOME 1.2 because it was much faster than KDE and highly configurable .
Then GNOME 2.0 was released and took away almost all of the configuration options .
( It was a conscious design decision .
They were trying to imitate Apple , I think , by parading around their " less is more " foolishness .
) KDE 3 was in good shape by then , so I switched because it gave me the option to set up my desktop exactly how I wanted it .
When KDE 4 came out , virtually all development stopped on 3.5 , so I was forced back to GNOME , which had finally regained most of the power that it had back in the 1.2 days .
Now they 're going to change it up on me again...If I can make one request of the GNOME developers it 's this : before releasing GNOME 3 , please at least wait until KDE 4 stops sucking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of us seem to keep bouncing back and forth between KDE and GNOME based on which sucks less.Back in the day, I settled on GNOME 1.2 because it was much faster than KDE and highly configurable.
Then GNOME 2.0 was released and took away almost all of the configuration options.
(It was a conscious design decision.
They were trying to imitate Apple, I think, by parading around their "less is more" foolishness.
) KDE 3 was in good shape by then, so I switched because it gave me the option to set up my desktop exactly how I wanted it.
When KDE 4 came out, virtually all development stopped on 3.5, so I was forced back to GNOME, which had finally regained most of the power that it had back in the 1.2 days.
Now they're going to change it up on me again...If I can make one request of the GNOME developers it's this: before releasing GNOME 3, please at least wait until KDE 4 stops sucking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095592</id>
	<title>...this is because...and why...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258229340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>for POST in $(cat slashdot); do<br>
    beGrammarNazi $POST<br>
done<br>
<br>
I couldn't resist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>for POST in $ ( cat slashdot ) ; do beGrammarNazi $ POST done I could n't resist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for POST in $(cat slashdot); do
    beGrammarNazi $POST
done

I couldn't resist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30109208</id>
	<title>Re:And yet..</title>
	<author>DaVince21</author>
	<datestamp>1258282080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right. I'm a nobody, and I care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right .
I 'm a nobody , and I care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right.
I'm a nobody, and I care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30104538</id>
	<title>Fluxbox!</title>
	<author>Luke has no name</author>
	<datestamp>1258316160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you just need to get shit <b>done</b>.</p><p>Seriously though, gnome 2.28 is pretty damned nice. If a little more flexibility were allowed in sizing panels, and Gnome-DO were a default, advertised part of the project, Gnome 2 would be great. Stability and performance are what Gnome needs to work on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you just need to get shit done.Seriously though , gnome 2.28 is pretty damned nice .
If a little more flexibility were allowed in sizing panels , and Gnome-DO were a default , advertised part of the project , Gnome 2 would be great .
Stability and performance are what Gnome needs to work on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you just need to get shit done.Seriously though, gnome 2.28 is pretty damned nice.
If a little more flexibility were allowed in sizing panels, and Gnome-DO were a default, advertised part of the project, Gnome 2 would be great.
Stability and performance are what Gnome needs to work on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095600</id>
	<title>Gnome is for gniggers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258229400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gnome 2 has een out since 2002, almost as long as windows xp, and they messed up nautilus twice, plus all sorts of other tricks.</p><p>Screw it, just install Windows 7 already, and take a shower.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gnome 2 has een out since 2002 , almost as long as windows xp , and they messed up nautilus twice , plus all sorts of other tricks.Screw it , just install Windows 7 already , and take a shower .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gnome 2 has een out since 2002, almost as long as windows xp, and they messed up nautilus twice, plus all sorts of other tricks.Screw it, just install Windows 7 already, and take a shower.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096604</id>
	<title>The comments re G3 remind me of something...</title>
	<author>ibsteve2u</author>
	<datestamp>1258204800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What was it...oh, yeah:  The alpha-tester reviews of Vista.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What was it...oh , yeah : The alpha-tester reviews of Vista .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What was it...oh, yeah:  The alpha-tester reviews of Vista.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099048</id>
	<title>Re:How can xterm be improved?</title>
	<author>aztracker1</author>
	<datestamp>1258224540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umn, SUPER+R has been in windows since Win9x iirc.  The search box in the start menu is much more functional, as it also searches recent documents, and installed applications.  It can be configured for more as well.  IMHO Win7 finally does a doc/taskbar right.  Though it is a pretty big rip off of OSX and for those that remember, OS/2.  The GUI desktop is an evolutionary approach, though ideas can be burrowed from other sources.  I think the new Gnome screenshots look a lot like KDE taken to the next level myself.</p><p>Honestly, I really like Win7's desktop/gui.  It's the first time I've used windows and really feel like I'm not missing "Feature X" from either OSX, Gnome or KDE.  The past few releases of KDE are far too out there for me, to be honest.  I like the current Gnome, but usually replaced the menu bar, and put it all into a single strip, as most of my use has been on a laptop with limited screen space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umn , SUPER + R has been in windows since Win9x iirc .
The search box in the start menu is much more functional , as it also searches recent documents , and installed applications .
It can be configured for more as well .
IMHO Win7 finally does a doc/taskbar right .
Though it is a pretty big rip off of OSX and for those that remember , OS/2 .
The GUI desktop is an evolutionary approach , though ideas can be burrowed from other sources .
I think the new Gnome screenshots look a lot like KDE taken to the next level myself.Honestly , I really like Win7 's desktop/gui .
It 's the first time I 've used windows and really feel like I 'm not missing " Feature X " from either OSX , Gnome or KDE .
The past few releases of KDE are far too out there for me , to be honest .
I like the current Gnome , but usually replaced the menu bar , and put it all into a single strip , as most of my use has been on a laptop with limited screen space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umn, SUPER+R has been in windows since Win9x iirc.
The search box in the start menu is much more functional, as it also searches recent documents, and installed applications.
It can be configured for more as well.
IMHO Win7 finally does a doc/taskbar right.
Though it is a pretty big rip off of OSX and for those that remember, OS/2.
The GUI desktop is an evolutionary approach, though ideas can be burrowed from other sources.
I think the new Gnome screenshots look a lot like KDE taken to the next level myself.Honestly, I really like Win7's desktop/gui.
It's the first time I've used windows and really feel like I'm not missing "Feature X" from either OSX, Gnome or KDE.
The past few releases of KDE are far too out there for me, to be honest.
I like the current Gnome, but usually replaced the menu bar, and put it all into a single strip, as most of my use has been on a laptop with limited screen space.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099034</id>
	<title>Avoiding the KDE4 debacle?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1258224420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't get me wrong: I love KDE3.</p><p>But I think it's a good idea of them, to not repeat the "fun" with the KDE 4.0 misunderstanding. And the "more fun" of KDE 4.3 still being pretty much unusable for an experienced KDE3 user.</p><p>If only the GNOME team would care for things like choice (= building in options/configurability), and that part of the Gaussian curve that does not want dumbing down to unusability... (which sadly now is half the hype with KDE4 too.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't get me wrong : I love KDE3.But I think it 's a good idea of them , to not repeat the " fun " with the KDE 4.0 misunderstanding .
And the " more fun " of KDE 4.3 still being pretty much unusable for an experienced KDE3 user.If only the GNOME team would care for things like choice ( = building in options/configurability ) , and that part of the Gaussian curve that does not want dumbing down to unusability... ( which sadly now is half the hype with KDE4 too .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't get me wrong: I love KDE3.But I think it's a good idea of them, to not repeat the "fun" with the KDE 4.0 misunderstanding.
And the "more fun" of KDE 4.3 still being pretty much unusable for an experienced KDE3 user.If only the GNOME team would care for things like choice (= building in options/configurability), and that part of the Gaussian curve that does not want dumbing down to unusability... (which sadly now is half the hype with KDE4 too.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30109196</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>DaVince21</author>
	<datestamp>1258281960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before Duke Nukem Forever?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before Duke Nukem Forever ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before Duke Nukem Forever?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096708</id>
	<title>Re:And yet..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258206660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why would I want to use a smelly foot?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why would I want to use a smelly foot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why would I want to use a smelly foot?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30101078</id>
	<title>Re:How can xterm be improved?</title>
	<author>EvanED</author>
	<datestamp>1258195620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Though it is a pretty big rip off of OSX and for those that remember, OS/2.</i></p><p>I can't speak to OS/2, but I'd say the Win7 taskbar isn't that much a bigger rip off the OS X dock than the dock was off of the old-style taskbar.</p><p>For instance, my long-term impression (admittedly from the relatively little I've used OS X; I could be missing something; OTOH I didn't exactly read a Windows manual or anything like that) of the OS X dock is that it's fine for opening programs, but it sucks for window management. There's almost nothing you can do in that arena with the dock that couldn't be done easier with alt-tab and alt-` or whatever the 'next application' and 'next window' buttons are.</p><p>For OS X, this is fine, because it has another nice window management feature: expose. Windows doesn't have this, so if the Win7 taskbar was as crap for switching windows as the dock is, it'd be unusable. But fortunately this isn't the case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Though it is a pretty big rip off of OSX and for those that remember , OS/2.I ca n't speak to OS/2 , but I 'd say the Win7 taskbar is n't that much a bigger rip off the OS X dock than the dock was off of the old-style taskbar.For instance , my long-term impression ( admittedly from the relatively little I 've used OS X ; I could be missing something ; OTOH I did n't exactly read a Windows manual or anything like that ) of the OS X dock is that it 's fine for opening programs , but it sucks for window management .
There 's almost nothing you can do in that arena with the dock that could n't be done easier with alt-tab and alt- ` or whatever the 'next application ' and 'next window ' buttons are.For OS X , this is fine , because it has another nice window management feature : expose .
Windows does n't have this , so if the Win7 taskbar was as crap for switching windows as the dock is , it 'd be unusable .
But fortunately this is n't the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though it is a pretty big rip off of OSX and for those that remember, OS/2.I can't speak to OS/2, but I'd say the Win7 taskbar isn't that much a bigger rip off the OS X dock than the dock was off of the old-style taskbar.For instance, my long-term impression (admittedly from the relatively little I've used OS X; I could be missing something; OTOH I didn't exactly read a Windows manual or anything like that) of the OS X dock is that it's fine for opening programs, but it sucks for window management.
There's almost nothing you can do in that arena with the dock that couldn't be done easier with alt-tab and alt-` or whatever the 'next application' and 'next window' buttons are.For OS X, this is fine, because it has another nice window management feature: expose.
Windows doesn't have this, so if the Win7 taskbar was as crap for switching windows as the dock is, it'd be unusable.
But fortunately this isn't the case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30100870</id>
	<title>Re:Glad it's delayed. It's rubbish.</title>
	<author>kbielefe</author>
	<datestamp>1258194060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've never understood the hostility behind comments like this.  What skin is it off your nose?</p><p>Even advanced users can benefit from features like these, especially if they are customizable and substitutable.  Computers are supposed to automate tasks like that.  Just one example:  I used to have a complex system of folders to organize my email.  I could find things easily, but it also required consistent effort to maintain.  Now, with gmail, I can still find things just as easily, but the effort of maintaining that ease is handled for me.  I may have the skills to operate a computer from the silicon on up, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate not having to use them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never understood the hostility behind comments like this .
What skin is it off your nose ? Even advanced users can benefit from features like these , especially if they are customizable and substitutable .
Computers are supposed to automate tasks like that .
Just one example : I used to have a complex system of folders to organize my email .
I could find things easily , but it also required consistent effort to maintain .
Now , with gmail , I can still find things just as easily , but the effort of maintaining that ease is handled for me .
I may have the skills to operate a computer from the silicon on up , but that does n't mean I do n't appreciate not having to use them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never understood the hostility behind comments like this.
What skin is it off your nose?Even advanced users can benefit from features like these, especially if they are customizable and substitutable.
Computers are supposed to automate tasks like that.
Just one example:  I used to have a complex system of folders to organize my email.
I could find things easily, but it also required consistent effort to maintain.
Now, with gmail, I can still find things just as easily, but the effort of maintaining that ease is handled for me.
I may have the skills to operate a computer from the silicon on up, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate not having to use them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096016</id>
	<title>Re:How can xterm be improved?</title>
	<author>Gordonjcp</author>
	<datestamp>1258194360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Linux needs this</i> </p><p>Most Linux desktop environments have this.  The default in Gnome is to use  to pop up a run dialogue, that will autocomplete recently used apps.  I configured the same thing in openbox, with lxpanel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux needs this Most Linux desktop environments have this .
The default in Gnome is to use to pop up a run dialogue , that will autocomplete recently used apps .
I configured the same thing in openbox , with lxpanel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux needs this Most Linux desktop environments have this.
The default in Gnome is to use  to pop up a run dialogue, that will autocomplete recently used apps.
I configured the same thing in openbox, with lxpanel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096232</id>
	<title>Re:Glad it's delayed. It's rubbish.</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1258198620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So you are saying to the non geek modifying links to support windows instead of linux is easier than just pasting it? Do tell...</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you are saying to the non geek modifying links to support windows instead of linux is easier than just pasting it ?
Do tell.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you are saying to the non geek modifying links to support windows instead of linux is easier than just pasting it?
Do tell...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096786</id>
	<title>Re:Based on Mono</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258207680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>whoever modded this insightful should be modded stupid immediately.</htmltext>
<tokenext>whoever modded this insightful should be modded stupid immediately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>whoever modded this insightful should be modded stupid immediately.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30104728</id>
	<title>Re:How can xterm be improved?</title>
	<author>evolve75</author>
	<datestamp>1258276440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Quicksilver was purchased by Apple and put into OSX 10.3 several years ago.</p></div><p>Quicksilver was <b>not</b> purchased by Apple. In fact, the source code for QS is now open source (under an Apache license) and available at <a href="http://code.google.com/p/blacktree-alchemy/" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://code.google.com/p/blacktree-alchemy/</a> [google.com].
</p><p>
Apple's Spotlight is not a launcher per-se but more a system-wide search facility.  It does work as a very simple application launcher (since apps are also indexed) - but definitely not a equivalent to QS or Gnome Do, which are essentially context sensitive mash-up of GUI based shells with a noun-verb model for operating on system objects such as applications (for launching, hiding, quitting etc.) and specific verb actions for tasks such as displaying contact info, opening chat sessions, operating on files etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quicksilver was purchased by Apple and put into OSX 10.3 several years ago.Quicksilver was not purchased by Apple .
In fact , the source code for QS is now open source ( under an Apache license ) and available at http : //code.google.com/p/blacktree-alchemy/ [ google.com ] .
Apple 's Spotlight is not a launcher per-se but more a system-wide search facility .
It does work as a very simple application launcher ( since apps are also indexed ) - but definitely not a equivalent to QS or Gnome Do , which are essentially context sensitive mash-up of GUI based shells with a noun-verb model for operating on system objects such as applications ( for launching , hiding , quitting etc .
) and specific verb actions for tasks such as displaying contact info , opening chat sessions , operating on files etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Quicksilver was purchased by Apple and put into OSX 10.3 several years ago.Quicksilver was not purchased by Apple.
In fact, the source code for QS is now open source (under an Apache license) and available at http://code.google.com/p/blacktree-alchemy/ [google.com].
Apple's Spotlight is not a launcher per-se but more a system-wide search facility.
It does work as a very simple application launcher (since apps are also indexed) - but definitely not a equivalent to QS or Gnome Do, which are essentially context sensitive mash-up of GUI based shells with a noun-verb model for operating on system objects such as applications (for launching, hiding, quitting etc.
) and specific verb actions for tasks such as displaying contact info, opening chat sessions, operating on files etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30102296</id>
	<title>I use Gnome because it is unlike KDE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258204740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use Gnome because unlike KDE it has a clean, simple, uncluttered interface. Gnome 3.0 looks very much as though it is introducing the worst elements of KDE plus a few novel ones of its own.</p><p>Remove the significant differences between the two and you remove the incentive for me to stay with Gnome. Come September when Gnome 3.0 appears as a default in Ubuntu, I will move over to KDE, and good riddance. The Gnome project managers obviously don't care what their users think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Gnome because unlike KDE it has a clean , simple , uncluttered interface .
Gnome 3.0 looks very much as though it is introducing the worst elements of KDE plus a few novel ones of its own.Remove the significant differences between the two and you remove the incentive for me to stay with Gnome .
Come September when Gnome 3.0 appears as a default in Ubuntu , I will move over to KDE , and good riddance .
The Gnome project managers obviously do n't care what their users think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use Gnome because unlike KDE it has a clean, simple, uncluttered interface.
Gnome 3.0 looks very much as though it is introducing the worst elements of KDE plus a few novel ones of its own.Remove the significant differences between the two and you remove the incentive for me to stay with Gnome.
Come September when Gnome 3.0 appears as a default in Ubuntu, I will move over to KDE, and good riddance.
The Gnome project managers obviously don't care what their users think.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097382</id>
	<title>Re:How can xterm be improved?</title>
	<author>mrboyd</author>
	<datestamp>1258213140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>did you mean C-x,C-s?</htmltext>
<tokenext>did you mean C-x,C-s ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>did you mean C-x,C-s?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096796</id>
	<title>Cellputer</title>
	<author>zogger</author>
	<datestamp>1258207920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And that's it, this. People in the future are going to want their cellphone to be a major part of the computing experience, and when they get home, toss the thing on the desk and it just reopens on the monitor there. The focus should be on making that transition really smooth and consistent.</p><p>
&nbsp; Right now it is backwards, try to force a desktop OS on the phone or synch it, etc, nuts. The phone os will be more important, the phone hardware will be powerful enough to do most tasks, and the monitor and keyboard on the desk will just be an extension of that primarily, and where your big storage lives. It will *have* to focus on being functional on the phone, then be able to scale up smoothly to a larger screen, and fast.</p><p>
&nbsp; The next generation practical GUI/desktop therefore should start focusing on that next big step. Whomever gets their first with functionality and smooth transitions and synching wins. Android might be it, but one of the phone OSes will be it for sure, for most people, it won't be gnome or KDE at this point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And that 's it , this .
People in the future are going to want their cellphone to be a major part of the computing experience , and when they get home , toss the thing on the desk and it just reopens on the monitor there .
The focus should be on making that transition really smooth and consistent .
  Right now it is backwards , try to force a desktop OS on the phone or synch it , etc , nuts .
The phone os will be more important , the phone hardware will be powerful enough to do most tasks , and the monitor and keyboard on the desk will just be an extension of that primarily , and where your big storage lives .
It will * have * to focus on being functional on the phone , then be able to scale up smoothly to a larger screen , and fast .
  The next generation practical GUI/desktop therefore should start focusing on that next big step .
Whomever gets their first with functionality and smooth transitions and synching wins .
Android might be it , but one of the phone OSes will be it for sure , for most people , it wo n't be gnome or KDE at this point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that's it, this.
People in the future are going to want their cellphone to be a major part of the computing experience, and when they get home, toss the thing on the desk and it just reopens on the monitor there.
The focus should be on making that transition really smooth and consistent.
  Right now it is backwards, try to force a desktop OS on the phone or synch it, etc, nuts.
The phone os will be more important, the phone hardware will be powerful enough to do most tasks, and the monitor and keyboard on the desk will just be an extension of that primarily, and where your big storage lives.
It will *have* to focus on being functional on the phone, then be able to scale up smoothly to a larger screen, and fast.
  The next generation practical GUI/desktop therefore should start focusing on that next big step.
Whomever gets their first with functionality and smooth transitions and synching wins.
Android might be it, but one of the phone OSes will be it for sure, for most people, it won't be gnome or KDE at this point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096118</id>
	<title>Re:Well at Least...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258195800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No innovation in FOSS? Dude you missed KDE4? It has so much innovation people are howling at it for it. Take a step back, and look at the entire picture, take in everything from stupid facebook integrating widgets (optional) to an integrated personal information data- and meta-database for contacts, bookmarks, and the last I saw, plans for integrating the backend of the rss reader.</p><p>Also, look at the timeline when all this started, out in the open. Remember, if you see someone planning on something, but not having enough resources to implement it as quickly as you, doesn't make \_you\_ the innovator.</p><p>No innovation? IMO windows 7 copies several features of KDE4. Badly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No innovation in FOSS ?
Dude you missed KDE4 ?
It has so much innovation people are howling at it for it .
Take a step back , and look at the entire picture , take in everything from stupid facebook integrating widgets ( optional ) to an integrated personal information data- and meta-database for contacts , bookmarks , and the last I saw , plans for integrating the backend of the rss reader.Also , look at the timeline when all this started , out in the open .
Remember , if you see someone planning on something , but not having enough resources to implement it as quickly as you , does n't make \ _you \ _ the innovator.No innovation ?
IMO windows 7 copies several features of KDE4 .
Badly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No innovation in FOSS?
Dude you missed KDE4?
It has so much innovation people are howling at it for it.
Take a step back, and look at the entire picture, take in everything from stupid facebook integrating widgets (optional) to an integrated personal information data- and meta-database for contacts, bookmarks, and the last I saw, plans for integrating the backend of the rss reader.Also, look at the timeline when all this started, out in the open.
Remember, if you see someone planning on something, but not having enough resources to implement it as quickly as you, doesn't make \_you\_ the innovator.No innovation?
IMO windows 7 copies several features of KDE4.
Badly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096572</id>
	<title>Re:How can xterm be improved?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258204320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hear, hear. Since I've replaced metacity with a simple tiling manager (xmonad) and stuck to one application per workspace, I have one thing less on my mind: arranging the freaking windows in the first place. This has the added benefit of maximizing screen real-estate for each application and every running app is two keystrokes away (Alt + workspace number). It takes some time to get adapt but it's worth it. The manager is a little rough around the edges (for example doesn't work well with GIMP) since it's still experimental but I still feel more productive.
<br> <br>
What really bothers me with the GNOME Shell is that the project doesn't have a goal beyond: <a href="http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Features" title="gnome.org">eye-candy, flat searchable menus and switching "paradigms"</a> [gnome.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hear , hear .
Since I 've replaced metacity with a simple tiling manager ( xmonad ) and stuck to one application per workspace , I have one thing less on my mind : arranging the freaking windows in the first place .
This has the added benefit of maximizing screen real-estate for each application and every running app is two keystrokes away ( Alt + workspace number ) .
It takes some time to get adapt but it 's worth it .
The manager is a little rough around the edges ( for example does n't work well with GIMP ) since it 's still experimental but I still feel more productive .
What really bothers me with the GNOME Shell is that the project does n't have a goal beyond : eye-candy , flat searchable menus and switching " paradigms " [ gnome.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hear, hear.
Since I've replaced metacity with a simple tiling manager (xmonad) and stuck to one application per workspace, I have one thing less on my mind: arranging the freaking windows in the first place.
This has the added benefit of maximizing screen real-estate for each application and every running app is two keystrokes away (Alt + workspace number).
It takes some time to get adapt but it's worth it.
The manager is a little rough around the edges (for example doesn't work well with GIMP) since it's still experimental but I still feel more productive.
What really bothers me with the GNOME Shell is that the project doesn't have a goal beyond: eye-candy, flat searchable menus and switching "paradigms" [gnome.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099078</id>
	<title>Re:How can xterm be improved?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1258224780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's because they all are imitating. Not innovating.<br>Which again is because they listen to those who complain about everything that is different, no matter if it's good or bad.<br>Which is because they themselves have a weak sense of reality / set of values, and so put the opinions of everyone who is loud enough above their own.<br>And that is sadly a problem that very many computer experts have. (Just like me in the past.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because they all are imitating .
Not innovating.Which again is because they listen to those who complain about everything that is different , no matter if it 's good or bad.Which is because they themselves have a weak sense of reality / set of values , and so put the opinions of everyone who is loud enough above their own.And that is sadly a problem that very many computer experts have .
( Just like me in the past .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because they all are imitating.
Not innovating.Which again is because they listen to those who complain about everything that is different, no matter if it's good or bad.Which is because they themselves have a weak sense of reality / set of values, and so put the opinions of everyone who is loud enough above their own.And that is sadly a problem that very many computer experts have.
(Just like me in the past.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095804</id>
	<title>Alignes nicely with Ubuntu LTS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258189800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This works really well with Ubuntu's planned LTS release. The 10.04 release will focus on stability, and probably wouldn't have adopted any of the new Gnome features anyways. This supports Mark Shuttleworth's idea that projects should align their release cycles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This works really well with Ubuntu 's planned LTS release .
The 10.04 release will focus on stability , and probably would n't have adopted any of the new Gnome features anyways .
This supports Mark Shuttleworth 's idea that projects should align their release cycles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This works really well with Ubuntu's planned LTS release.
The 10.04 release will focus on stability, and probably wouldn't have adopted any of the new Gnome features anyways.
This supports Mark Shuttleworth's idea that projects should align their release cycles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30098124</id>
	<title>Re:How can xterm be improved?</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1258219620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alternatively, install Xubuntu.</p><p>You can get there from a basic Ubuntu install with a few extra steps.  I used it on an old 450Mhz Apple G4 with less than 1gb of RAM a year or two ago, and it ran beautifully, where any vaguely recent version of Mac OS or GNOME used far too much memory to be usable.</p><p>Amazingly, Xfce's compositor worked flawlessly, and added a small speed boost, while making things very pretty.  Xfce really is the perfect compromise between usability, features, and aesthetics.  It doesn't get nearly enough credit in the open source community, as it is truly fantastic.</p><p>Also, if you're a part of the 'slow computer' demographic that Xfce targets, you probably don't want to be running Gentoo unless you have 2 weeks to spare, and never plan to install anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alternatively , install Xubuntu.You can get there from a basic Ubuntu install with a few extra steps .
I used it on an old 450Mhz Apple G4 with less than 1gb of RAM a year or two ago , and it ran beautifully , where any vaguely recent version of Mac OS or GNOME used far too much memory to be usable.Amazingly , Xfce 's compositor worked flawlessly , and added a small speed boost , while making things very pretty .
Xfce really is the perfect compromise between usability , features , and aesthetics .
It does n't get nearly enough credit in the open source community , as it is truly fantastic.Also , if you 're a part of the 'slow computer ' demographic that Xfce targets , you probably do n't want to be running Gentoo unless you have 2 weeks to spare , and never plan to install anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alternatively, install Xubuntu.You can get there from a basic Ubuntu install with a few extra steps.
I used it on an old 450Mhz Apple G4 with less than 1gb of RAM a year or two ago, and it ran beautifully, where any vaguely recent version of Mac OS or GNOME used far too much memory to be usable.Amazingly, Xfce's compositor worked flawlessly, and added a small speed boost, while making things very pretty.
Xfce really is the perfect compromise between usability, features, and aesthetics.
It doesn't get nearly enough credit in the open source community, as it is truly fantastic.Also, if you're a part of the 'slow computer' demographic that Xfce targets, you probably don't want to be running Gentoo unless you have 2 weeks to spare, and never plan to install anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096596</id>
	<title>Re:Based on Mono</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258204740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it is based upon Mono then Distros like Fedora are not going to use it. Their policy (from F12) is as far as I know, to make everything that uses Mono an optional install.</p><p>I guess I'll be moving to XFCE if this is true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it is based upon Mono then Distros like Fedora are not going to use it .
Their policy ( from F12 ) is as far as I know , to make everything that uses Mono an optional install.I guess I 'll be moving to XFCE if this is true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it is based upon Mono then Distros like Fedora are not going to use it.
Their policy (from F12) is as far as I know, to make everything that uses Mono an optional install.I guess I'll be moving to XFCE if this is true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099688</id>
	<title>Re:Stop fucking with the interface</title>
	<author>formfeed</author>
	<datestamp>1258228740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It wouldn't  be a problem if that would happen once, and they came up with something more useful than the steering wheel. But next year's model will again "redefine" everything.
<p> Gnome (which I love)  or kde, or windows<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... would suck less if they gave the user <b>easy</b> options to just stick with the old look, gui, menu layout, or window manager after an upgrade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would n't be a problem if that would happen once , and they came up with something more useful than the steering wheel .
But next year 's model will again " redefine " everything .
Gnome ( which I love ) or kde , or windows ... would suck less if they gave the user easy options to just stick with the old look , gui , menu layout , or window manager after an upgrade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It wouldn't  be a problem if that would happen once, and they came up with something more useful than the steering wheel.
But next year's model will again "redefine" everything.
Gnome (which I love)  or kde, or windows ... would suck less if they gave the user easy options to just stick with the old look, gui, menu layout, or window manager after an upgrade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096952</id>
	<title>Re:Glad it's delayed. It's rubbish.</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1258209600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhm...BS. Since automotive examples are a gold standard on Slashdot:</p><p>Look at the interface of a car and supporting infrastructure. It's great at this point (people tend to forget it wasn't always like this). And "idiots" routinelly can handle it, can use it. But not only them...heck, UI of a rally car or F1 car is basically the same.</p><p>As a matter of fact, it's quite safe to assume you also use it. That makes you an idiot, right?...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhm...BS .
Since automotive examples are a gold standard on Slashdot : Look at the interface of a car and supporting infrastructure .
It 's great at this point ( people tend to forget it was n't always like this ) .
And " idiots " routinelly can handle it , can use it .
But not only them...heck , UI of a rally car or F1 car is basically the same.As a matter of fact , it 's quite safe to assume you also use it .
That makes you an idiot , right ? .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhm...BS.
Since automotive examples are a gold standard on Slashdot:Look at the interface of a car and supporting infrastructure.
It's great at this point (people tend to forget it wasn't always like this).
And "idiots" routinelly can handle it, can use it.
But not only them...heck, UI of a rally car or F1 car is basically the same.As a matter of fact, it's quite safe to assume you also use it.
That makes you an idiot, right?...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099674</id>
	<title>Re:Stop fucking with the interface</title>
	<author>J4</author>
	<datestamp>1258228740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention they keep doing it with every major release.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention they keep doing it with every major release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention they keep doing it with every major release.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095712</id>
	<title>Re:How can xterm be improved?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258231440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Congratulations! simply install BlackBox and all your needs are solved.<br>But for the majority of population, we like pretty GUIs. The fades helps the eye to recognize an interactive object and a fading menu avoids distraction and harmonize the desktop.</p><p>The art in the GUIs improves usability and makes the daily computer usage a more satisfying experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Congratulations !
simply install BlackBox and all your needs are solved.But for the majority of population , we like pretty GUIs .
The fades helps the eye to recognize an interactive object and a fading menu avoids distraction and harmonize the desktop.The art in the GUIs improves usability and makes the daily computer usage a more satisfying experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congratulations!
simply install BlackBox and all your needs are solved.But for the majority of population, we like pretty GUIs.
The fades helps the eye to recognize an interactive object and a fading menu avoids distraction and harmonize the desktop.The art in the GUIs improves usability and makes the daily computer usage a more satisfying experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095814</id>
	<title>Don't really care for it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258189980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Though I haven't used it yet, I must say I don't really like what I see. It seems like they're moving towards more context based menus and I really dislike that direction. I'm already not terribly happy with some of the dumbing down GNOME has done for the 2.28 release. Some of those things seem to mimic the Vista not-so-start menu and they seem to smack of a ribbon based UI. I've been using GNOME for years now, but I may have to switch to something else soon. Not a terribly big KDE fan either so I'm not sure where to go yet. That being said, I'll give it a try before I dump it, but as it stands it doesn't look great. It looks like a move backwards in usability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Though I have n't used it yet , I must say I do n't really like what I see .
It seems like they 're moving towards more context based menus and I really dislike that direction .
I 'm already not terribly happy with some of the dumbing down GNOME has done for the 2.28 release .
Some of those things seem to mimic the Vista not-so-start menu and they seem to smack of a ribbon based UI .
I 've been using GNOME for years now , but I may have to switch to something else soon .
Not a terribly big KDE fan either so I 'm not sure where to go yet .
That being said , I 'll give it a try before I dump it , but as it stands it does n't look great .
It looks like a move backwards in usability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though I haven't used it yet, I must say I don't really like what I see.
It seems like they're moving towards more context based menus and I really dislike that direction.
I'm already not terribly happy with some of the dumbing down GNOME has done for the 2.28 release.
Some of those things seem to mimic the Vista not-so-start menu and they seem to smack of a ribbon based UI.
I've been using GNOME for years now, but I may have to switch to something else soon.
Not a terribly big KDE fan either so I'm not sure where to go yet.
That being said, I'll give it a try before I dump it, but as it stands it doesn't look great.
It looks like a move backwards in usability.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097744</id>
	<title>Re:How can xterm be improved?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258216260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Gnome version of that is <a href="http://do.davebsd.com/" title="davebsd.com">Gnome Do</a> [davebsd.com], which started as a project to port Quicksilver to Linux.  Quicksilver was purchased by Apple and put into OSX 10.3 several years ago.  I use Gnome, and I no longer have any sort of task bar or "start menu"; they are pointless wastes of screen real estate.  If I want to chat with my buddy Mike, I just hit meta-space, and then type "ch", which auto-completes to "Chat", then I hit tab and type "mi" which auto-completes to Mike.  Gnome-Do will then launch Pidgin and open a chat window for Mike.   If I want to listen to Rhapsody In Blue, I hit meta-space, and type "rha", it auto-completes the song name, I hit enter and then Rhythmbox starts playing Gershwin.  It really is an amazing riff on all the quick launchers.  It's much better than Spotlight (Apple's version of Quicksilver);  I wrote a plugin for Gnome-Do last summer -- it's all written in C#/Mono and very accessible for coders of any level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Gnome version of that is Gnome Do [ davebsd.com ] , which started as a project to port Quicksilver to Linux .
Quicksilver was purchased by Apple and put into OSX 10.3 several years ago .
I use Gnome , and I no longer have any sort of task bar or " start menu " ; they are pointless wastes of screen real estate .
If I want to chat with my buddy Mike , I just hit meta-space , and then type " ch " , which auto-completes to " Chat " , then I hit tab and type " mi " which auto-completes to Mike .
Gnome-Do will then launch Pidgin and open a chat window for Mike .
If I want to listen to Rhapsody In Blue , I hit meta-space , and type " rha " , it auto-completes the song name , I hit enter and then Rhythmbox starts playing Gershwin .
It really is an amazing riff on all the quick launchers .
It 's much better than Spotlight ( Apple 's version of Quicksilver ) ; I wrote a plugin for Gnome-Do last summer -- it 's all written in C # /Mono and very accessible for coders of any level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Gnome version of that is Gnome Do [davebsd.com], which started as a project to port Quicksilver to Linux.
Quicksilver was purchased by Apple and put into OSX 10.3 several years ago.
I use Gnome, and I no longer have any sort of task bar or "start menu"; they are pointless wastes of screen real estate.
If I want to chat with my buddy Mike, I just hit meta-space, and then type "ch", which auto-completes to "Chat", then I hit tab and type "mi" which auto-completes to Mike.
Gnome-Do will then launch Pidgin and open a chat window for Mike.
If I want to listen to Rhapsody In Blue, I hit meta-space, and type "rha", it auto-completes the song name, I hit enter and then Rhythmbox starts playing Gershwin.
It really is an amazing riff on all the quick launchers.
It's much better than Spotlight (Apple's version of Quicksilver);  I wrote a plugin for Gnome-Do last summer -- it's all written in C#/Mono and very accessible for coders of any level.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095894</id>
	<title>Damned if they do, damned if they don't, eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258191600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe they're trying to innovate and do something new and different.  I don't share your doubts but if I did, I would rather give them the benefit of any doubt then criticize before I had even tried the software.  It seems to me that they're in a tough spot: do what UIs have been doing for a long time and get accused of copying rather than doing something new, or do something new and get bad word from people who reject the free software out of hand at their "first look".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they 're trying to innovate and do something new and different .
I do n't share your doubts but if I did , I would rather give them the benefit of any doubt then criticize before I had even tried the software .
It seems to me that they 're in a tough spot : do what UIs have been doing for a long time and get accused of copying rather than doing something new , or do something new and get bad word from people who reject the free software out of hand at their " first look " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they're trying to innovate and do something new and different.
I don't share your doubts but if I did, I would rather give them the benefit of any doubt then criticize before I had even tried the software.
It seems to me that they're in a tough spot: do what UIs have been doing for a long time and get accused of copying rather than doing something new, or do something new and get bad word from people who reject the free software out of hand at their "first look".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099752</id>
	<title>Re:How can xterm be improved?</title>
	<author>J4</author>
	<datestamp>1258229160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine where we'd be if all the energy that goes into masturbatory effects went into defining and working on<br>real problems. It would just suck the entertainment value out of computing and kill the industry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine where we 'd be if all the energy that goes into masturbatory effects went into defining and working onreal problems .
It would just suck the entertainment value out of computing and kill the industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine where we'd be if all the energy that goes into masturbatory effects went into defining and working onreal problems.
It would just suck the entertainment value out of computing and kill the industry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30098364</id>
	<title>Re:Who needs GNOME when Windows is affordable</title>
	<author>hughperkins</author>
	<datestamp>1258220820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, I never knew about sshfs before.  It's *awesome*!  Nice info GP, and thanks for highlighting this for me, parent, since I didnt actually read the GP to the end<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)  Wicked.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , I never knew about sshfs before .
It 's * awesome * !
Nice info GP , and thanks for highlighting this for me , parent , since I didnt actually read the GP to the end ; - ) Wicked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, I never knew about sshfs before.
It's *awesome*!
Nice info GP, and thanks for highlighting this for me, parent, since I didnt actually read the GP to the end ;-)  Wicked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095736</id>
	<title>Re:How can xterm be improved?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258231800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Try <a href="http://do.davebsd.com/" title="davebsd.com" rel="nofollow">GNOME Do</a> [davebsd.com].
<br> <br>
The "Docky" frontend is a fantastic dock experience as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Try GNOME Do [ davebsd.com ] .
The " Docky " frontend is a fantastic dock experience as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try GNOME Do [davebsd.com].
The "Docky" frontend is a fantastic dock experience as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30100832</id>
	<title>Re:taking the time to get it right</title>
	<author>man\_of\_mr\_e</author>
	<datestamp>1258193640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except, every time Microsoft slips a schedule they're lambasted by Open Source developers and the press for not meeting their promises, and accused of being terrible programmers because of it.</p><p>It's damned either way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except , every time Microsoft slips a schedule they 're lambasted by Open Source developers and the press for not meeting their promises , and accused of being terrible programmers because of it.It 's damned either way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except, every time Microsoft slips a schedule they're lambasted by Open Source developers and the press for not meeting their promises, and accused of being terrible programmers because of it.It's damned either way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095598</id>
	<title>taking the time to get it right</title>
	<author>anarking</author>
	<datestamp>1258229400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is a badge of honor and a sound development strategy, one M$ doesn't care to follow. hence that great difference between open-source and $$ driven.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is a badge of honor and a sound development strategy , one M $ does n't care to follow .
hence that great difference between open-source and $ $ driven .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is a badge of honor and a sound development strategy, one M$ doesn't care to follow.
hence that great difference between open-source and $$ driven.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096058</id>
	<title>I've been a Mac user for a while, but</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1258194900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reading about Gnome Shell reminded me somewhat of what the Enlightenment guys were going after with E17, quite a few years ago.</p><p>Of course Raster et. al. would work for a while and then decide to start again from scratch, what, three times at least with E17? So maybe Gnome 3 will get there first...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading about Gnome Shell reminded me somewhat of what the Enlightenment guys were going after with E17 , quite a few years ago.Of course Raster et .
al. would work for a while and then decide to start again from scratch , what , three times at least with E17 ?
So maybe Gnome 3 will get there first.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading about Gnome Shell reminded me somewhat of what the Enlightenment guys were going after with E17, quite a few years ago.Of course Raster et.
al. would work for a while and then decide to start again from scratch, what, three times at least with E17?
So maybe Gnome 3 will get there first...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096730</id>
	<title>Re:Leave well alone!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258206900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>maybe the gnome guys are feeling the heat from KDE</htmltext>
<tokenext>maybe the gnome guys are feeling the heat from KDE</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maybe the gnome guys are feeling the heat from KDE</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096754</id>
	<title>Re:Well at Least...</title>
	<author>TrancePhreak</author>
	<datestamp>1258207140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe they'll copy guest logins from OSX too.<br> <br>
I mean, it just works, right?!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they 'll copy guest logins from OSX too .
I mean , it just works , right ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they'll copy guest logins from OSX too.
I mean, it just works, right?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096662</id>
	<title>Re:Well at Least...</title>
	<author>exosyst</author>
	<datestamp>1258205880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it looks like GNOME is now copying MacOSX instead of Windows *eye roll*.</p></div><p>I don't see how it's copying Mac or Windows so I'd love to see how you've come to that conclusion.

I don't use a Mac but I'd love to know if...</p><ul>
<li>Mac has an activity button/menu?</li><li>Mac has a single pluggable communications stack like Empathy will provide gnome with?</li><li>Mac allows you to zoom from your current document to view all open documents on all desktops in a well presented format?</li></ul><p>
I'm not trying to troll but good ideas come out closed and open source source and your viewpoints do nothing but perpetuate the false myth that nothing good comes out of the F/OSS community.

In my opinion, the only real catchup they have to do is proper integration with an office suite (OO.org uses non-standard widgets, as does FF for that matter), support of proprietary file formats and then I'd be happy.

If you're seeing such wonderful ideas coming from CHI, USENIX and SIGIR then why not churn some stuff out and see if it sticks to the wall? If people like it - great, if not, you can use it and stop ranting on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it looks like GNOME is now copying MacOSX instead of Windows * eye roll * .I do n't see how it 's copying Mac or Windows so I 'd love to see how you 've come to that conclusion .
I do n't use a Mac but I 'd love to know if.. . Mac has an activity button/menu ? Mac has a single pluggable communications stack like Empathy will provide gnome with ? Mac allows you to zoom from your current document to view all open documents on all desktops in a well presented format ?
I 'm not trying to troll but good ideas come out closed and open source source and your viewpoints do nothing but perpetuate the false myth that nothing good comes out of the F/OSS community .
In my opinion , the only real catchup they have to do is proper integration with an office suite ( OO.org uses non-standard widgets , as does FF for that matter ) , support of proprietary file formats and then I 'd be happy .
If you 're seeing such wonderful ideas coming from CHI , USENIX and SIGIR then why not churn some stuff out and see if it sticks to the wall ?
If people like it - great , if not , you can use it and stop ranting on / .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it looks like GNOME is now copying MacOSX instead of Windows *eye roll*.I don't see how it's copying Mac or Windows so I'd love to see how you've come to that conclusion.
I don't use a Mac but I'd love to know if...
Mac has an activity button/menu?Mac has a single pluggable communications stack like Empathy will provide gnome with?Mac allows you to zoom from your current document to view all open documents on all desktops in a well presented format?
I'm not trying to troll but good ideas come out closed and open source source and your viewpoints do nothing but perpetuate the false myth that nothing good comes out of the F/OSS community.
In my opinion, the only real catchup they have to do is proper integration with an office suite (OO.org uses non-standard widgets, as does FF for that matter), support of proprietary file formats and then I'd be happy.
If you're seeing such wonderful ideas coming from CHI, USENIX and SIGIR then why not churn some stuff out and see if it sticks to the wall?
If people like it - great, if not, you can use it and stop ranting on /.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30106974</id>
	<title>Re:Who needs GNOME when Windows is affordable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258311900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Installing and using MacFUSE is a joke compared with Places&gt;Connect to Server.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Installing and using MacFUSE is a joke compared with Places &gt; Connect to Server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Installing and using MacFUSE is a joke compared with Places&gt;Connect to Server.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096238</id>
	<title>To the tune of "hi ho, hi ho"</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1258198740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
No show, no show,
<br>
Gnome's just like a cheap ho!
<br>
Promise a lot, insides all shot,
<br>
You'll catch mono!
</p><p>
No show, no show,
<br>
To KDE I go!
<br>
Looks up to date, not fugly, mate,
<br>
Like gnome, you know<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... or this chant<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
</p><p>
Gimme a "G"!
<br>
"GEE !"
<br>
Gimme an "N"!
<br>
"ENNN !"
<br>
Gimme an "O"!
<br>
"OWE !"
<br>
Gimme an "M"!
<br>
"EMMM !"
<br>
Gimme an "E"!
<br>
"EEEE !"
<br>
What's that spell?
<br>
"GNOME'S NO OPTION, MUST EVADE!"
<br>
"Huh? It's not dead."
<br>
"Sure it is mate."
<br>
"It's not.  It's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it's pining for the fjords, it is!"
</p><p>
Seriously, I hope they achieve what they want, but they're going to be MIA for a full year<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...most distros will have shipped at least one version with an even more advanced KDE on them by then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No show , no show , Gnome 's just like a cheap ho !
Promise a lot , insides all shot , You 'll catch mono !
No show , no show , To KDE I go !
Looks up to date , not fugly , mate , Like gnome , you know .. . ... or this chant .. . Gim me a " G " !
" GEE !
" Gim me an " N " !
" ENNN !
" Gim me an " O " !
" OWE !
" Gim me an " M " !
" EMMM !
" Gim me an " E " !
" EEEE !
" What 's that spell ?
" GNOME 'S NO OPTION , MUST EVADE !
" " Huh ?
It 's not dead .
" " Sure it is mate .
" " It 's not .
It 's ... it 's pining for the fjords , it is !
" Seriously , I hope they achieve what they want , but they 're going to be MIA for a full year ...most distros will have shipped at least one version with an even more advanced KDE on them by then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
No show, no show,

Gnome's just like a cheap ho!
Promise a lot, insides all shot,

You'll catch mono!
No show, no show,

To KDE I go!
Looks up to date, not fugly, mate,

Like gnome, you know ...
 ... or this chant ...

Gimme a "G"!
"GEE !
"

Gimme an "N"!
"ENNN !
"

Gimme an "O"!
"OWE !
"

Gimme an "M"!
"EMMM !
"

Gimme an "E"!
"EEEE !
"

What's that spell?
"GNOME'S NO OPTION, MUST EVADE!
"

"Huh?
It's not dead.
"

"Sure it is mate.
"

"It's not.
It's ... it's pining for the fjords, it is!
"

Seriously, I hope they achieve what they want, but they're going to be MIA for a full year ...most distros will have shipped at least one version with an even more advanced KDE on them by then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30098484</id>
	<title>How about Do, run, xbindkeys?</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1258221480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Linux needs this.</p></div><p>I'm not sure what your exact specification is, but there's Gnome Do which claims to be smart about converting short key sequences into program names (so "ffx" will likely turn into "firefox", "opow" into "open office word processor", i.e. oowriter).  There's also the default GNOME run dialog which autocompletes things in your $PATH.  And you can set up keyboard shortcuts for your favourite applications with xbindkeys.</p><p>So exactly what's missing?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux needs this.I 'm not sure what your exact specification is , but there 's Gnome Do which claims to be smart about converting short key sequences into program names ( so " ffx " will likely turn into " firefox " , " opow " into " open office word processor " , i.e .
oowriter ) . There 's also the default GNOME run dialog which autocompletes things in your $ PATH .
And you can set up keyboard shortcuts for your favourite applications with xbindkeys.So exactly what 's missing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux needs this.I'm not sure what your exact specification is, but there's Gnome Do which claims to be smart about converting short key sequences into program names (so "ffx" will likely turn into "firefox", "opow" into "open office word processor", i.e.
oowriter).  There's also the default GNOME run dialog which autocompletes things in your $PATH.
And you can set up keyboard shortcuts for your favourite applications with xbindkeys.So exactly what's missing?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096008</id>
	<title>Re:WTH</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258194060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone needs to take all GUI designers, put them into a room and fill it with nervous gas. Sure, people will call us monsters and whatnot. But someone has to save the world.<br>I think they get up in the morning and think: "How could I make our user interface gayer and more difficult to use?"<br>"Oh, I know, I will remove icons from the desktop"<br>"And you know, what use is a start menu where everything can be easily accessed?"<br>"And who would want to have more than one app running at the same time? The taskbar is useless. I think I will replace program names with immense icons drawn by my retarded siblings"<br>"A menu? This isn't even a restaurant and I have a lot of retarded drawings left to use."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone needs to take all GUI designers , put them into a room and fill it with nervous gas .
Sure , people will call us monsters and whatnot .
But someone has to save the world.I think they get up in the morning and think : " How could I make our user interface gayer and more difficult to use ?
" " Oh , I know , I will remove icons from the desktop " " And you know , what use is a start menu where everything can be easily accessed ?
" " And who would want to have more than one app running at the same time ?
The taskbar is useless .
I think I will replace program names with immense icons drawn by my retarded siblings " " A menu ?
This is n't even a restaurant and I have a lot of retarded drawings left to use .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone needs to take all GUI designers, put them into a room and fill it with nervous gas.
Sure, people will call us monsters and whatnot.
But someone has to save the world.I think they get up in the morning and think: "How could I make our user interface gayer and more difficult to use?
""Oh, I know, I will remove icons from the desktop""And you know, what use is a start menu where everything can be easily accessed?
""And who would want to have more than one app running at the same time?
The taskbar is useless.
I think I will replace program names with immense icons drawn by my retarded siblings""A menu?
This isn't even a restaurant and I have a lot of retarded drawings left to use.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096372</id>
	<title>This is terrible.</title>
	<author>ido50</author>
	<datestamp>1258201320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is terrible. And I just moved to GNOME after years with KDE. I hated KDE 4 trying to "redefine the way we work with the desktop" and looking at the visual tour I hate the way GNOME tries to do the same.

I hope this shell thing will be optional, and if not, I wouldn't mind seeing a fork.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is terrible .
And I just moved to GNOME after years with KDE .
I hated KDE 4 trying to " redefine the way we work with the desktop " and looking at the visual tour I hate the way GNOME tries to do the same .
I hope this shell thing will be optional , and if not , I would n't mind seeing a fork .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is terrible.
And I just moved to GNOME after years with KDE.
I hated KDE 4 trying to "redefine the way we work with the desktop" and looking at the visual tour I hate the way GNOME tries to do the same.
I hope this shell thing will be optional, and if not, I wouldn't mind seeing a fork.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30100612</id>
	<title>Re:Glad it's delayed. It's rubbish.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258191900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If gnome (and linux in general) wants to escape the geek-in-a-basement marketshare</p></div><p>A-ha! There's your problem sir. Your supposition is false to begin with. Who here really cares about market shares? Who are you talking to? Most free software developers to it out of a hobby, some of them (I hope I'm in that group someday) even get paid for it. But very few developers do stuff because 'the boss told them to'. And I think only the boss would care about market share. We, developers, mostly care about interesting code, fun functionalities and technical problem solving. I'm selfish, I'm not in it for the money, I'm in it for my own pleasure.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If gnome ( and linux in general ) wants to escape the geek-in-a-basement marketshareA-ha !
There 's your problem sir .
Your supposition is false to begin with .
Who here really cares about market shares ?
Who are you talking to ?
Most free software developers to it out of a hobby , some of them ( I hope I 'm in that group someday ) even get paid for it .
But very few developers do stuff because 'the boss told them to' .
And I think only the boss would care about market share .
We , developers , mostly care about interesting code , fun functionalities and technical problem solving .
I 'm selfish , I 'm not in it for the money , I 'm in it for my own pleasure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If gnome (and linux in general) wants to escape the geek-in-a-basement marketshareA-ha!
There's your problem sir.
Your supposition is false to begin with.
Who here really cares about market shares?
Who are you talking to?
Most free software developers to it out of a hobby, some of them (I hope I'm in that group someday) even get paid for it.
But very few developers do stuff because 'the boss told them to'.
And I think only the boss would care about market share.
We, developers, mostly care about interesting code, fun functionalities and technical problem solving.
I'm selfish, I'm not in it for the money, I'm in it for my own pleasure.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30102844</id>
	<title>Re:Damned if they do, damned if they don't, eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258209780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>do what UIs have been doing for a long time and get accused of copying rather than doing something new, or do something new and get bad word from people who reject the free software out of hand at their "first look"</em></p><p>Why not stop worrying about what people think? I wish they'd concentrate on improving stability, fixing bugs, making a great, functional desktop, and stop treating the entire project as a personal playground for the developers, which annoys the shit out of actual users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>do what UIs have been doing for a long time and get accused of copying rather than doing something new , or do something new and get bad word from people who reject the free software out of hand at their " first look " Why not stop worrying about what people think ?
I wish they 'd concentrate on improving stability , fixing bugs , making a great , functional desktop , and stop treating the entire project as a personal playground for the developers , which annoys the shit out of actual users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>do what UIs have been doing for a long time and get accused of copying rather than doing something new, or do something new and get bad word from people who reject the free software out of hand at their "first look"Why not stop worrying about what people think?
I wish they'd concentrate on improving stability, fixing bugs, making a great, functional desktop, and stop treating the entire project as a personal playground for the developers, which annoys the shit out of actual users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095920</id>
	<title>Re:How can xterm be improved?</title>
	<author>jgrahn</author>
	<datestamp>1258192020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>All I want and all we need is Firefox, Eclipse, a terminal and Openoffice and plain and simple menus with it.</p></div></blockquote><p>I don't understand your point<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you seem to argue for simplicity and against bloat,
but then you mention Eclipse (which according to people who *like* it regularly needs *gigabytes* of RAM)
and Openoffice?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All I want and all we need is Firefox , Eclipse , a terminal and Openoffice and plain and simple menus with it.I do n't understand your point ... you seem to argue for simplicity and against bloat , but then you mention Eclipse ( which according to people who * like * it regularly needs * gigabytes * of RAM ) and Openoffice ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I want and all we need is Firefox, Eclipse, a terminal and Openoffice and plain and simple menus with it.I don't understand your point ... you seem to argue for simplicity and against bloat,
but then you mention Eclipse (which according to people who *like* it regularly needs *gigabytes* of RAM)
and Openoffice?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30103478</id>
	<title>Re:GNOME Shell == Clusterfuck</title>
	<author>synthespian</author>
	<datestamp>1258217580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you're saying the top priority for the Linux desktop is being able to actually launch apps and just not even have the eye candy that Macs and Win boxen have?</p><p>Do you see the sad predicament Linux fanboys are in, caused by the mighty F/OSS developers that just can't seem to stick their heads out of each other's ass, except for more mutual ass-licking and mutual asinine autistic congratulation?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you 're saying the top priority for the Linux desktop is being able to actually launch apps and just not even have the eye candy that Macs and Win boxen have ? Do you see the sad predicament Linux fanboys are in , caused by the mighty F/OSS developers that just ca n't seem to stick their heads out of each other 's ass , except for more mutual ass-licking and mutual asinine autistic congratulation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you're saying the top priority for the Linux desktop is being able to actually launch apps and just not even have the eye candy that Macs and Win boxen have?Do you see the sad predicament Linux fanboys are in, caused by the mighty F/OSS developers that just can't seem to stick their heads out of each other's ass, except for more mutual ass-licking and mutual asinine autistic congratulation?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095776</id>
	<title>Well, it wasn't broke,</title>
	<author>MrMista\_B</author>
	<datestamp>1258189380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and they sure didn't fix it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and they sure did n't fix it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and they sure didn't fix it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30102388</id>
	<title>Re:Who needs GNOME when Windows is affordable</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1258205520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Might want to use a different calculator, though.  By my count, you have accounted for 105\% of your computing time...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Might want to use a different calculator , though .
By my count , you have accounted for 105 \ % of your computing time.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Might want to use a different calculator, though.
By my count, you have accounted for 105\% of your computing time...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096600</id>
	<title>Re:Based on Mono</title>
	<author>und0</author>
	<datestamp>1258204740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Last time I've checked it was still based on C and using Javascript for extension purposes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last time I 've checked it was still based on C and using Javascript for extension purposes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last time I've checked it was still based on C and using Javascript for extension purposes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099268</id>
	<title>Re:WTH</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1258226040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can I ask a stupid question?</p><p>With your perfect happy UI where a single click opens icons, how do you select an icon to move it to a different folder? Is that operation impossible to do without reverting to the keyboard? Because I'd say that's a huge step back to how other OSes do selection/activation.</p><p>Also, how do... say... listboxes work in your perfect happy UI? Do they also activate on a single click? How do you select multiple items before performing an operation on them? Or is that impossible, too?</p><p>The way the mouse button works is one click selects, the second activates. It's been that way for... ever, as far as I'm aware, except for some weird X11 UIs that went *against* the common wisdom and did it differently. Maybe there's a better way to use a mouse button. I highly doubt it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can I ask a stupid question ? With your perfect happy UI where a single click opens icons , how do you select an icon to move it to a different folder ?
Is that operation impossible to do without reverting to the keyboard ?
Because I 'd say that 's a huge step back to how other OSes do selection/activation.Also , how do... say... listboxes work in your perfect happy UI ?
Do they also activate on a single click ?
How do you select multiple items before performing an operation on them ?
Or is that impossible , too ? The way the mouse button works is one click selects , the second activates .
It 's been that way for... ever , as far as I 'm aware , except for some weird X11 UIs that went * against * the common wisdom and did it differently .
Maybe there 's a better way to use a mouse button .
I highly doubt it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can I ask a stupid question?With your perfect happy UI where a single click opens icons, how do you select an icon to move it to a different folder?
Is that operation impossible to do without reverting to the keyboard?
Because I'd say that's a huge step back to how other OSes do selection/activation.Also, how do... say... listboxes work in your perfect happy UI?
Do they also activate on a single click?
How do you select multiple items before performing an operation on them?
Or is that impossible, too?The way the mouse button works is one click selects, the second activates.
It's been that way for... ever, as far as I'm aware, except for some weird X11 UIs that went *against* the common wisdom and did it differently.
Maybe there's a better way to use a mouse button.
I highly doubt it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096808</id>
	<title>Re:WTH</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1258208040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Double click is perfectly justifiable. Accidentally single clicking on an app is far more costly and annoying than clicking on a hyper link. Inadvertantly clicking on something like OpenOffice, Eclipse or whatever might waste a minute waiting for the bloody thing to start in order to shut down again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Double click is perfectly justifiable .
Accidentally single clicking on an app is far more costly and annoying than clicking on a hyper link .
Inadvertantly clicking on something like OpenOffice , Eclipse or whatever might waste a minute waiting for the bloody thing to start in order to shut down again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Double click is perfectly justifiable.
Accidentally single clicking on an app is far more costly and annoying than clicking on a hyper link.
Inadvertantly clicking on something like OpenOffice, Eclipse or whatever might waste a minute waiting for the bloody thing to start in order to shut down again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095770</id>
	<title>As long as it dont gets mono infested.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258189260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only thing i really care for is that gnome doesn't get Mono infested. If Gnome 3 becomes a push for getting mono stuff into gnome i will drop it like a poisonous snake no matter what. Thankfully LXDE, XFCE and KDE is getting really good these days so a switch to something non mono wont be a problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing i really care for is that gnome does n't get Mono infested .
If Gnome 3 becomes a push for getting mono stuff into gnome i will drop it like a poisonous snake no matter what .
Thankfully LXDE , XFCE and KDE is getting really good these days so a switch to something non mono wont be a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing i really care for is that gnome doesn't get Mono infested.
If Gnome 3 becomes a push for getting mono stuff into gnome i will drop it like a poisonous snake no matter what.
Thankfully LXDE, XFCE and KDE is getting really good these days so a switch to something non mono wont be a problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096096</id>
	<title>Re:Glad it's delayed. It's rubbish.</title>
	<author>Arker</author>
	<datestamp>1258195500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Make a system any idiot can use and only idiots will use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Make a system any idiot can use and only idiots will use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make a system any idiot can use and only idiots will use it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30105036</id>
	<title>Re:And yet..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258293120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>nobody cares.</p></div><p>+1 Troll</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>nobody cares. + 1 Troll</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nobody cares.+1 Troll
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096082</id>
	<title>Please fix the window manager</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258195260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><ul><li>I have two applications A and B in different workspaces</li><li>Drag app A to the same workspace as app B</li><li>Workspace shows B</li><li>Click on A in the task bar (window list)</li><li>Application A <b>minimises</b>. I expect it to come to the front.</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have two applications A and B in different workspacesDrag app A to the same workspace as app BWorkspace shows BClick on A in the task bar ( window list ) Application A minimises .
I expect it to come to the front .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have two applications A and B in different workspacesDrag app A to the same workspace as app BWorkspace shows BClick on A in the task bar (window list)Application A minimises.
I expect it to come to the front.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096012</id>
	<title>Reminds me of Amarok 2.0</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258194180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Take something very popular that people like, something that works, is highly configurable, and logical, then toss it out the window due to developer vanity. I now use Exaile. Looks like I might not use that much longer because if this is how GNOME is going to work, I'm going to have to switch to something else.

Quit taking away options. Seriously.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Take something very popular that people like , something that works , is highly configurable , and logical , then toss it out the window due to developer vanity .
I now use Exaile .
Looks like I might not use that much longer because if this is how GNOME is going to work , I 'm going to have to switch to something else .
Quit taking away options .
Seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take something very popular that people like, something that works, is highly configurable, and logical, then toss it out the window due to developer vanity.
I now use Exaile.
Looks like I might not use that much longer because if this is how GNOME is going to work, I'm going to have to switch to something else.
Quit taking away options.
Seriously.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30100400</id>
	<title>Re:taking the time to get it right</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1258190400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blizzard is the exception rather than the rule.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blizzard is the exception rather than the rule .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blizzard is the exception rather than the rule.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095952</id>
	<title>Well at Least...</title>
	<author>coaxial</author>
	<datestamp>1258192860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it looks like GNOME is now copying MacOSX instead of Windows *eye roll*.</p><p>At least now their copying something that at least works, but still, they're <strong>copying</strong>, and thus ensuring that they are always playing catchup, and creating an inferior product.  This is not a new problem, and has been talked about repeated on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. <a href="http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/18/1549249" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">2005</a> [slashdot.org], <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/22/215256" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">2006</a> [slashdot.org], and <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/06/28/1351220/The-Open-Source-Design-Conundrum" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">even last June</a> [slashdot.org].  With the notable exception of Firefox, there hasn't been anything original, innovative, and well good from the F/OSS community, which is very disturbing.</p><p>Hell, read some CHI, USENIX, and SIGIR papers people!  Stop making a poor facsimile of two years, and start making the next five.  Ask yourself, why the hell is Wave coming from Google, instead of us?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it looks like GNOME is now copying MacOSX instead of Windows * eye roll * .At least now their copying something that at least works , but still , they 're copying , and thus ensuring that they are always playing catchup , and creating an inferior product .
This is not a new problem , and has been talked about repeated on / .
2005 [ slashdot.org ] , 2006 [ slashdot.org ] , and even last June [ slashdot.org ] .
With the notable exception of Firefox , there has n't been anything original , innovative , and well good from the F/OSS community , which is very disturbing.Hell , read some CHI , USENIX , and SIGIR papers people !
Stop making a poor facsimile of two years , and start making the next five .
Ask yourself , why the hell is Wave coming from Google , instead of us ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it looks like GNOME is now copying MacOSX instead of Windows *eye roll*.At least now their copying something that at least works, but still, they're copying, and thus ensuring that they are always playing catchup, and creating an inferior product.
This is not a new problem, and has been talked about repeated on /.
2005 [slashdot.org], 2006 [slashdot.org], and even last June [slashdot.org].
With the notable exception of Firefox, there hasn't been anything original, innovative, and well good from the F/OSS community, which is very disturbing.Hell, read some CHI, USENIX, and SIGIR papers people!
Stop making a poor facsimile of two years, and start making the next five.
Ask yourself, why the hell is Wave coming from Google, instead of us?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097892</id>
	<title>Re:taking the time to get it right</title>
	<author>harmonise</author>
	<datestamp>1258217640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That isn't true. Blizzard rarely releases a game on time, they are of the up-most quality, and they are money driven.</p></div> </blockquote><p> <a href="http://grammartips.homestead.com/utmost.html" title="homestead.com">Don't Confuse "Utmost" with "Upmost"</a> [homestead.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is n't true .
Blizzard rarely releases a game on time , they are of the up-most quality , and they are money driven .
Do n't Confuse " Utmost " with " Upmost " [ homestead.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That isn't true.
Blizzard rarely releases a game on time, they are of the up-most quality, and they are money driven.
Don't Confuse "Utmost" with "Upmost" [homestead.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095630</id>
	<title>WTH</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1258229940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gnome3 looks unusable anyways, delay it forever. Go through the early tour and tell me that is more usable. I've no idea wtf they were thinking.<br> <br>Lose the ability to 1click to open aps. Clock takes a huge chunk of real estate. The aps button is needlessly large and boring text. Opening a common folder takes more time now. This is just my first look at it but still wtf...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gnome3 looks unusable anyways , delay it forever .
Go through the early tour and tell me that is more usable .
I 've no idea wtf they were thinking .
Lose the ability to 1click to open aps .
Clock takes a huge chunk of real estate .
The aps button is needlessly large and boring text .
Opening a common folder takes more time now .
This is just my first look at it but still wtf.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gnome3 looks unusable anyways, delay it forever.
Go through the early tour and tell me that is more usable.
I've no idea wtf they were thinking.
Lose the ability to 1click to open aps.
Clock takes a huge chunk of real estate.
The aps button is needlessly large and boring text.
Opening a common folder takes more time now.
This is just my first look at it but still wtf...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095640</id>
	<title>Problems on the horizon for Gnome 3!</title>
	<author>Akir</author>
	<datestamp>1258230060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, lots of people will be in an uproar! There are millions of problems with Gnome 3! For starters, it won't be enough like KDE 3, so everyone will think it's broken when there's really no problems with it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , lots of people will be in an uproar !
There are millions of problems with Gnome 3 !
For starters , it wo n't be enough like KDE 3 , so everyone will think it 's broken when there 's really no problems with it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, lots of people will be in an uproar!
There are millions of problems with Gnome 3!
For starters, it won't be enough like KDE 3, so everyone will think it's broken when there's really no problems with it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30145592</id>
	<title>the reason</title>
	<author>anonieuweling</author>
	<datestamp>1257098940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would <a href="http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=47948" title="gnome.org">http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=47948</a> [gnome.org] be the reason why?
A very basic feature of even MS Windows will not be implemented for ages.
Other stuff appears to be more important than a decent desktop.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would http : //bugzilla.gnome.org/show \ _bug.cgi ? id = 47948 [ gnome.org ] be the reason why ?
A very basic feature of even MS Windows will not be implemented for ages .
Other stuff appears to be more important than a decent desktop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=47948 [gnome.org] be the reason why?
A very basic feature of even MS Windows will not be implemented for ages.
Other stuff appears to be more important than a decent desktop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099116</id>
	<title>Re:WTH</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1258225020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate<br>- where KDE 4 is going.<br>- where GNOME was and is going.<br>- Windows... in general, and Microsoft's behavior.<br>- the philosophy behind OS X's UI, and Apple's behavior.</p><p>So I'm back to the console again,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...until my own project becomes usable.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate- where KDE 4 is going.- where GNOME was and is going.- Windows... in general , and Microsoft 's behavior.- the philosophy behind OS X 's UI , and Apple 's behavior.So I 'm back to the console again , ...until my own project becomes usable .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate- where KDE 4 is going.- where GNOME was and is going.- Windows... in general, and Microsoft's behavior.- the philosophy behind OS X's UI, and Apple's behavior.So I'm back to the console again, ...until my own project becomes usable.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30102220</id>
	<title>Re:How can xterm be improved?</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1258204020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the past ten years or so (at least... My first distro was Mandrake in 2000), you could hit alt-f2 in most linux window managers and get a text box that works like a single-line command line.  (i.e. including tab completion, but with the output turned off)</p><p>There are no fewer than six terminals running behind your X session all the time.  In most distributions you can get to them by hitting ctrl-alt-F[1-6] (if in X) and alt-F# if in one of the terminal sessions.  You can get back to X by hitting alt-F7.</p><p>Linux had it before <em>Macs</em>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the past ten years or so ( at least... My first distro was Mandrake in 2000 ) , you could hit alt-f2 in most linux window managers and get a text box that works like a single-line command line .
( i.e. including tab completion , but with the output turned off ) There are no fewer than six terminals running behind your X session all the time .
In most distributions you can get to them by hitting ctrl-alt-F [ 1-6 ] ( if in X ) and alt-F # if in one of the terminal sessions .
You can get back to X by hitting alt-F7.Linux had it before Macs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the past ten years or so (at least... My first distro was Mandrake in 2000), you could hit alt-f2 in most linux window managers and get a text box that works like a single-line command line.
(i.e. including tab completion, but with the output turned off)There are no fewer than six terminals running behind your X session all the time.
In most distributions you can get to them by hitting ctrl-alt-F[1-6] (if in X) and alt-F# if in one of the terminal sessions.
You can get back to X by hitting alt-F7.Linux had it before Macs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096368</id>
	<title>Re:Based on Mono</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258201260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the GUI changes aren't controversial enough the fact that it is based on Mono will probably kill it.</p></div><p>How is it based on Mono? It uses Javascript.<br>Stop spreading FUD please.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the GUI changes are n't controversial enough the fact that it is based on Mono will probably kill it.How is it based on Mono ?
It uses Javascript.Stop spreading FUD please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the GUI changes aren't controversial enough the fact that it is based on Mono will probably kill it.How is it based on Mono?
It uses Javascript.Stop spreading FUD please.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096276</id>
	<title>Re:Glad it's delayed. It's rubbish.</title>
	<author>moreati</author>
	<datestamp>1258199400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm missing desktop sharing and conferencing software like Livemeeting. I'm also missing some ease-of-use dealing with very simple things like cutting and pasting a link to a windows share and using it to look at a remote directory without having to edit all the slashes.</p></div></blockquote><p>Regarding desktop sharing, are you aware of the newer features in Empathy? It can do video/voice and desktop sharing (for xmmp at least).I believe (like Livemeeting), both end would need to have Empathy installed.</p><p>Regarding the link clicking, I'm guessing you mean UNC paths like \\smbserver\share\somefile.doc now you've mentioned it, I'm missing it too. A bug was filed in 2007 <a href="https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=446136" title="gnome.org">https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=446136</a> [gnome.org], nothing has happened unfortunately.</p><p>Alex</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm missing desktop sharing and conferencing software like Livemeeting .
I 'm also missing some ease-of-use dealing with very simple things like cutting and pasting a link to a windows share and using it to look at a remote directory without having to edit all the slashes.Regarding desktop sharing , are you aware of the newer features in Empathy ?
It can do video/voice and desktop sharing ( for xmmp at least ) .I believe ( like Livemeeting ) , both end would need to have Empathy installed.Regarding the link clicking , I 'm guessing you mean UNC paths like \ \ smbserver \ share \ somefile.doc now you 've mentioned it , I 'm missing it too .
A bug was filed in 2007 https : //bugzilla.gnome.org/show \ _bug.cgi ? id = 446136 [ gnome.org ] , nothing has happened unfortunately.Alex</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm missing desktop sharing and conferencing software like Livemeeting.
I'm also missing some ease-of-use dealing with very simple things like cutting and pasting a link to a windows share and using it to look at a remote directory without having to edit all the slashes.Regarding desktop sharing, are you aware of the newer features in Empathy?
It can do video/voice and desktop sharing (for xmmp at least).I believe (like Livemeeting), both end would need to have Empathy installed.Regarding the link clicking, I'm guessing you mean UNC paths like \\smbserver\share\somefile.doc now you've mentioned it, I'm missing it too.
A bug was filed in 2007 https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=446136 [gnome.org], nothing has happened unfortunately.Alex
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097088</id>
	<title>NO JOHN RINGO NO.</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1258210680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm seeing this kind of "MMO style" user interface more and more, where the desktop becomes more and more obscured by locked down immovable user interface elements. I've gotten used to the task bar on Windows and the Menu Bar on the Mac and the Panel, I can deal with that, there's one box and it's pretty small and I can stuff everything into it... but Microsoft keeps turning menus into big obtrusive blocks (ribbons and sidebars and the start panel and so on) and this new Gnome scheme seems to be putting this horrid scheme on steroids.</p><p>No, no, no, ten thousand times, no.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm seeing this kind of " MMO style " user interface more and more , where the desktop becomes more and more obscured by locked down immovable user interface elements .
I 've gotten used to the task bar on Windows and the Menu Bar on the Mac and the Panel , I can deal with that , there 's one box and it 's pretty small and I can stuff everything into it... but Microsoft keeps turning menus into big obtrusive blocks ( ribbons and sidebars and the start panel and so on ) and this new Gnome scheme seems to be putting this horrid scheme on steroids.No , no , no , ten thousand times , no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm seeing this kind of "MMO style" user interface more and more, where the desktop becomes more and more obscured by locked down immovable user interface elements.
I've gotten used to the task bar on Windows and the Menu Bar on the Mac and the Panel, I can deal with that, there's one box and it's pretty small and I can stuff everything into it... but Microsoft keeps turning menus into big obtrusive blocks (ribbons and sidebars and the start panel and so on) and this new Gnome scheme seems to be putting this horrid scheme on steroids.No, no, no, ten thousand times, no.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095986</id>
	<title>can I see the ps -AH?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258193640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Gnome really wanted to improve they'd organize and minimize.</p><p>As long as programs and the logic of them are created as text, a text based system will be the most powerful. All the GUI should be doing is making it easier to use a text-based system.  I hate programs that try to pretend there's no configuration files and command line options behind them; this is what gnome programs do with their lack of man pages and plain text configuration files. While I'm at it, there's gotta be a better way to manage settings than gconf. I fucking hate gconf.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Gnome really wanted to improve they 'd organize and minimize.As long as programs and the logic of them are created as text , a text based system will be the most powerful .
All the GUI should be doing is making it easier to use a text-based system .
I hate programs that try to pretend there 's no configuration files and command line options behind them ; this is what gnome programs do with their lack of man pages and plain text configuration files .
While I 'm at it , there 's got ta be a better way to manage settings than gconf .
I fucking hate gconf .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Gnome really wanted to improve they'd organize and minimize.As long as programs and the logic of them are created as text, a text based system will be the most powerful.
All the GUI should be doing is making it easier to use a text-based system.
I hate programs that try to pretend there's no configuration files and command line options behind them; this is what gnome programs do with their lack of man pages and plain text configuration files.
While I'm at it, there's gotta be a better way to manage settings than gconf.
I fucking hate gconf.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097754</id>
	<title>Re:Based on Mono</title>
	<author>ivoras</author>
	<datestamp>1258216440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the GUI changes aren't controversial enough the fact that it is based on Mono will probably kill it.</p></div><p>Developing GUI applications in year 2010 in C/C++ is a serious candidate for *massive fail*. If there isn't a good alternative to Mono from the FOSS community and what's more the current "best thing" is a copy of Microsoft's idea, who's to blame?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the GUI changes are n't controversial enough the fact that it is based on Mono will probably kill it.Developing GUI applications in year 2010 in C/C + + is a serious candidate for * massive fail * .
If there is n't a good alternative to Mono from the FOSS community and what 's more the current " best thing " is a copy of Microsoft 's idea , who 's to blame ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the GUI changes aren't controversial enough the fact that it is based on Mono will probably kill it.Developing GUI applications in year 2010 in C/C++ is a serious candidate for *massive fail*.
If there isn't a good alternative to Mono from the FOSS community and what's more the current "best thing" is a copy of Microsoft's idea, who's to blame?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097218</id>
	<title>Good choice.</title>
	<author>mevets</author>
	<datestamp>1258211880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know I would like a working Gnome, and I'm sure many others would as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know I would like a working Gnome , and I 'm sure many others would as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know I would like a working Gnome, and I'm sure many others would as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095662</id>
	<title>I see...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258230360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So it still looks like crap...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So it still looks like crap.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it still looks like crap...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30103276</id>
	<title>Re:What GNOME really needs</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1258215660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What GNOME really needs (in my mind): * better dual screen support</p></div></blockquote><p>I don't really understand the problem, I have more than a dozen gnome users on two screens (and one on 3).  It was very easy to do at the X level with the downloaded driver from nvidia and gnome just did what X told it to.  What exactly needs to be better?<br>As for the other things, yes the window manager is crap but with a bit of mucking about you can use something else and get customisable menus when you right click on the desktop to do "open terminal in current location" or "run as root" or whatever you want to put in the menu.  I think fluxbox could do it and work properly with gnome, not sure about how to add custom menus to sawfish, but enlightenment 0.16 can definitely play nicely with the gnome panel and can be customised to do many different things.  You don't have to wait for the gnome people to give you what you want when there are available bits that can do it now - but it WILL require a bit of googling, reading and messing about.<br>Like most things in *nix gnome is a lose collection of things, and you can replace some parts with others.  A post above showed how you can replace the current window manager with sawfish with a single link - other changes are not so easy but will not take long and are reversible.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What GNOME really needs ( in my mind ) : * better dual screen supportI do n't really understand the problem , I have more than a dozen gnome users on two screens ( and one on 3 ) .
It was very easy to do at the X level with the downloaded driver from nvidia and gnome just did what X told it to .
What exactly needs to be better ? As for the other things , yes the window manager is crap but with a bit of mucking about you can use something else and get customisable menus when you right click on the desktop to do " open terminal in current location " or " run as root " or whatever you want to put in the menu .
I think fluxbox could do it and work properly with gnome , not sure about how to add custom menus to sawfish , but enlightenment 0.16 can definitely play nicely with the gnome panel and can be customised to do many different things .
You do n't have to wait for the gnome people to give you what you want when there are available bits that can do it now - but it WILL require a bit of googling , reading and messing about.Like most things in * nix gnome is a lose collection of things , and you can replace some parts with others .
A post above showed how you can replace the current window manager with sawfish with a single link - other changes are not so easy but will not take long and are reversible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What GNOME really needs (in my mind): * better dual screen supportI don't really understand the problem, I have more than a dozen gnome users on two screens (and one on 3).
It was very easy to do at the X level with the downloaded driver from nvidia and gnome just did what X told it to.
What exactly needs to be better?As for the other things, yes the window manager is crap but with a bit of mucking about you can use something else and get customisable menus when you right click on the desktop to do "open terminal in current location" or "run as root" or whatever you want to put in the menu.
I think fluxbox could do it and work properly with gnome, not sure about how to add custom menus to sawfish, but enlightenment 0.16 can definitely play nicely with the gnome panel and can be customised to do many different things.
You don't have to wait for the gnome people to give you what you want when there are available bits that can do it now - but it WILL require a bit of googling, reading and messing about.Like most things in *nix gnome is a lose collection of things, and you can replace some parts with others.
A post above showed how you can replace the current window manager with sawfish with a single link - other changes are not so easy but will not take long and are reversible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096744</id>
	<title>Re:How can xterm be improved?</title>
	<author>A12m0v</author>
	<datestamp>1258207020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>All I want and all we need is Firefox, Eclipse, a terminal and Openoffice and plain and simple menus with it.</p></div></blockquote><p>I don't understand your point<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you seem to argue for simplicity and against bloat,<br>but then you mention Eclipse (which according to people who *like* it regularly needs *gigabytes* of RAM)<br>and Openoffice?</p></div><p>Use BlackBox</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All I want and all we need is Firefox , Eclipse , a terminal and Openoffice and plain and simple menus with it.I do n't understand your point ... you seem to argue for simplicity and against bloat,but then you mention Eclipse ( which according to people who * like * it regularly needs * gigabytes * of RAM ) and Openoffice ? Use BlackBox</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I want and all we need is Firefox, Eclipse, a terminal and Openoffice and plain and simple menus with it.I don't understand your point ... you seem to argue for simplicity and against bloat,but then you mention Eclipse (which according to people who *like* it regularly needs *gigabytes* of RAM)and Openoffice?Use BlackBox
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30102186</id>
	<title>This says it all....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258203600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If you open more windows in the current desktop, the windows are automatically arranged to give you the best possible view."</p><p>So, no doubt about what the 'best possible' view is, and no room for another opinion. You will accept the best possible view and like it!</p><p>The bigger the OSS projects get, the quicker the transformation becomes. Pretty soon they will rename themselves Microsoft Gnome... I'd like to say that I will be leaving them to go with KDE but unfortunately they're just as bad. What horrors they all are.</p><p>Someone please fork Gnome, get rid of Mono and go some way, any way other than the daft bunch of nuts which is Gnome 3.0</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If you open more windows in the current desktop , the windows are automatically arranged to give you the best possible view .
" So , no doubt about what the 'best possible ' view is , and no room for another opinion .
You will accept the best possible view and like it ! The bigger the OSS projects get , the quicker the transformation becomes .
Pretty soon they will rename themselves Microsoft Gnome... I 'd like to say that I will be leaving them to go with KDE but unfortunately they 're just as bad .
What horrors they all are.Someone please fork Gnome , get rid of Mono and go some way , any way other than the daft bunch of nuts which is Gnome 3.0</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If you open more windows in the current desktop, the windows are automatically arranged to give you the best possible view.
"So, no doubt about what the 'best possible' view is, and no room for another opinion.
You will accept the best possible view and like it!The bigger the OSS projects get, the quicker the transformation becomes.
Pretty soon they will rename themselves Microsoft Gnome... I'd like to say that I will be leaving them to go with KDE but unfortunately they're just as bad.
What horrors they all are.Someone please fork Gnome, get rid of Mono and go some way, any way other than the daft bunch of nuts which is Gnome 3.0</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099648</id>
	<title>Look it up.</title>
	<author>J4</author>
	<datestamp>1258228560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Experience suggest Linus will be switching back to KDE shortly after<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p><p>He so fickle... Or is it practical?</p><p>It works like this, new major version $Competing\_Desktops comes out,it lacks the polish, he goes back to the one that's had the polishing.<br>Just the pendulum swinging and not needing to be ahead of the curve, but still fun to watch the flames.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Experience suggest Linus will be switching back to KDE shortly after : PHe so fickle... Or is it practical ? It works like this , new major version $ Competing \ _Desktops comes out,it lacks the polish , he goes back to the one that 's had the polishing.Just the pendulum swinging and not needing to be ahead of the curve , but still fun to watch the flames .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Experience suggest Linus will be switching back to KDE shortly after :PHe so fickle... Or is it practical?It works like this, new major version $Competing\_Desktops comes out,it lacks the polish, he goes back to the one that's had the polishing.Just the pendulum swinging and not needing to be ahead of the curve, but still fun to watch the flames.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096224</id>
	<title>Based on Mono</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258198500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the GUI changes aren't controversial enough the fact that it is based on Mono will probably kill it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the GUI changes are n't controversial enough the fact that it is based on Mono will probably kill it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the GUI changes aren't controversial enough the fact that it is based on Mono will probably kill it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30100270</id>
	<title>Re:Glad it's delayed. It's rubbish.</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1258189380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Make a system any idiot can use and only idiots will use it.</i> </p><p>It's this attitude that guarantees OSX and Windows a 99\% share of the desktop.</p><p>The ordinary user expects sensible defaults that allow routine tasks to be completed routinely.</p><p>He'll tolerate less-than-optimum solutions to more complex tasks if the solution is easy to find and easy to implement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Make a system any idiot can use and only idiots will use it .
It 's this attitude that guarantees OSX and Windows a 99 \ % share of the desktop.The ordinary user expects sensible defaults that allow routine tasks to be completed routinely.He 'll tolerate less-than-optimum solutions to more complex tasks if the solution is easy to find and easy to implement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make a system any idiot can use and only idiots will use it.
It's this attitude that guarantees OSX and Windows a 99\% share of the desktop.The ordinary user expects sensible defaults that allow routine tasks to be completed routinely.He'll tolerate less-than-optimum solutions to more complex tasks if the solution is easy to find and easy to implement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096406</id>
	<title>Stop fucking with the interface</title>
	<author>leereyno</author>
	<datestamp>1258201860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine you were looking to buy a new car.  Going to a dealership, you are presented with a sedan that is marketed as "redefining the way drivers interact with their automobile."  Getting behind the wheel, you discover that standard conventions like the steering wheel, turn indicator, gear shift, accelerator and brake pedals have all been replaced with New and Improved devices that the salesman assures you are so much Better.</p><p>Would you buy the damned thing?</p><p>I'm sick and tired of coders who pretend they are cognitive psychologists or ergonomics experts.</p><p>Just implement a standard GUI using normal conventions.  Anything more and people like me will either find ways to turn the bullshit off, or we'll avoid using your product.</p><p>Microsoft is about to learn this the hard way with their new bullshit replacement for the task bar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine you were looking to buy a new car .
Going to a dealership , you are presented with a sedan that is marketed as " redefining the way drivers interact with their automobile .
" Getting behind the wheel , you discover that standard conventions like the steering wheel , turn indicator , gear shift , accelerator and brake pedals have all been replaced with New and Improved devices that the salesman assures you are so much Better.Would you buy the damned thing ? I 'm sick and tired of coders who pretend they are cognitive psychologists or ergonomics experts.Just implement a standard GUI using normal conventions .
Anything more and people like me will either find ways to turn the bullshit off , or we 'll avoid using your product.Microsoft is about to learn this the hard way with their new bullshit replacement for the task bar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine you were looking to buy a new car.
Going to a dealership, you are presented with a sedan that is marketed as "redefining the way drivers interact with their automobile.
"  Getting behind the wheel, you discover that standard conventions like the steering wheel, turn indicator, gear shift, accelerator and brake pedals have all been replaced with New and Improved devices that the salesman assures you are so much Better.Would you buy the damned thing?I'm sick and tired of coders who pretend they are cognitive psychologists or ergonomics experts.Just implement a standard GUI using normal conventions.
Anything more and people like me will either find ways to turn the bullshit off, or we'll avoid using your product.Microsoft is about to learn this the hard way with their new bullshit replacement for the task bar.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095626</id>
	<title>KDE 4!</title>
	<author>samsonian</author>
	<datestamp>1258229940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>this is your chance buddy! Shine on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>this is your chance buddy !
Shine on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is your chance buddy!
Shine on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095842</id>
	<title>Re:WTH</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258190520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I respect that they're aiming for stability (quite different from what KDE did), but I'm not sure I like the direction their UI is going. I'll probably hop to KDE or LXDE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I respect that they 're aiming for stability ( quite different from what KDE did ) , but I 'm not sure I like the direction their UI is going .
I 'll probably hop to KDE or LXDE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I respect that they're aiming for stability (quite different from what KDE did), but I'm not sure I like the direction their UI is going.
I'll probably hop to KDE or LXDE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096018</id>
	<title>Re:WTH</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1258194420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It appears they are trying to unify everything into a more task centric "start menu" like experience. This in itself is not a bad thing as Windows and particularly Windows 7 have used a start menu for ages and it is a fairly well understood concept. It also works very well in W7 when combined with Aero preview panes and suchlike. GNOME has used two bars in the past (one at the top and one at the bottom) to accomplish the same and there really isn't any need to. The question is whether they are going to release some wannabe Windows 7 experience or actually produce something useful in its own right. Past GNOMEs have struck a happy balance producing a pleasing usable desktop without going full retard and cutting features that most advanced users need.
<p>
On the point of the tour, it seems to be demonstrating just the shell, not the file explorer or other apps. This may explain why it looks so spartan. I expect the real thing would have icons, spatial windows and all the other business you would expect from a modern desktop. My biggest concern with the shell is I like seeing all my running apps in a task bar or similar. The shell seems to be only showing one app at a time. I would consider it a major regression (almost as bad as multifinder) if I have to click on something, or even mouse into a corner to find out what I'm running.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It appears they are trying to unify everything into a more task centric " start menu " like experience .
This in itself is not a bad thing as Windows and particularly Windows 7 have used a start menu for ages and it is a fairly well understood concept .
It also works very well in W7 when combined with Aero preview panes and suchlike .
GNOME has used two bars in the past ( one at the top and one at the bottom ) to accomplish the same and there really is n't any need to .
The question is whether they are going to release some wannabe Windows 7 experience or actually produce something useful in its own right .
Past GNOMEs have struck a happy balance producing a pleasing usable desktop without going full retard and cutting features that most advanced users need .
On the point of the tour , it seems to be demonstrating just the shell , not the file explorer or other apps .
This may explain why it looks so spartan .
I expect the real thing would have icons , spatial windows and all the other business you would expect from a modern desktop .
My biggest concern with the shell is I like seeing all my running apps in a task bar or similar .
The shell seems to be only showing one app at a time .
I would consider it a major regression ( almost as bad as multifinder ) if I have to click on something , or even mouse into a corner to find out what I 'm running .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It appears they are trying to unify everything into a more task centric "start menu" like experience.
This in itself is not a bad thing as Windows and particularly Windows 7 have used a start menu for ages and it is a fairly well understood concept.
It also works very well in W7 when combined with Aero preview panes and suchlike.
GNOME has used two bars in the past (one at the top and one at the bottom) to accomplish the same and there really isn't any need to.
The question is whether they are going to release some wannabe Windows 7 experience or actually produce something useful in its own right.
Past GNOMEs have struck a happy balance producing a pleasing usable desktop without going full retard and cutting features that most advanced users need.
On the point of the tour, it seems to be demonstrating just the shell, not the file explorer or other apps.
This may explain why it looks so spartan.
I expect the real thing would have icons, spatial windows and all the other business you would expect from a modern desktop.
My biggest concern with the shell is I like seeing all my running apps in a task bar or similar.
The shell seems to be only showing one app at a time.
I would consider it a major regression (almost as bad as multifinder) if I have to click on something, or even mouse into a corner to find out what I'm running.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096472</id>
	<title>Re:Glad it's delayed. It's rubbish.</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1258202760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish there was a split-mod, because I'd love to mod the first half of the post insightful or informative and the second half Troll.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish there was a split-mod , because I 'd love to mod the first half of the post insightful or informative and the second half Troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish there was a split-mod, because I'd love to mod the first half of the post insightful or informative and the second half Troll.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096550</id>
	<title>Re:WTH</title>
	<author>Rhapsody Scarlet</author>
	<datestamp>1258203840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I respect that they're aiming for stability (quite different from what KDE did), but I'm not sure I like the direction their UI is going. I'll probably hop to KDE or LXDE.</p></div><p>So it's finally happened. After months of "I hate where KDE is going with KDE 4, I'm switching to GNOME!", now it's GNOME that's making unpopular changes and people are saying "I hate where GNOME is going with GNOME 3, I'm switching to KDE!".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I respect that they 're aiming for stability ( quite different from what KDE did ) , but I 'm not sure I like the direction their UI is going .
I 'll probably hop to KDE or LXDE.So it 's finally happened .
After months of " I hate where KDE is going with KDE 4 , I 'm switching to GNOME !
" , now it 's GNOME that 's making unpopular changes and people are saying " I hate where GNOME is going with GNOME 3 , I 'm switching to KDE !
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I respect that they're aiming for stability (quite different from what KDE did), but I'm not sure I like the direction their UI is going.
I'll probably hop to KDE or LXDE.So it's finally happened.
After months of "I hate where KDE is going with KDE 4, I'm switching to GNOME!
", now it's GNOME that's making unpopular changes and people are saying "I hate where GNOME is going with GNOME 3, I'm switching to KDE!
".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099494</id>
	<title>Re:Glad it's delayed. It's rubbish.</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1258227720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to be an old-school Mac user. Back when Macintosh was *really* kicking ass (UI-wise), it was simultaneously one of the easiest-to-use and most powerful desktops ever made. AppleScript in its prime whoops the *crap* out of any other GUI scripting language, to this day.</p><p>Of course, since people whine and cry over every little tiny UI change *anyway*, I'm afraid that doesn't hold much weight anymore. We've figured it out: the whining doesn't indicate dissatisfaction, it indicates that you changed something, no matter how tiny. It's just something to be filtered out and ignored after each change.</p><p>Or, in the words of a long lamented Fark admin, who posted this brilliance in the middle of a giant thread bitching about Fark layout changes: "You'll get over it."</p><p>But really, the point is this: if you don't like the direction GNOME is going, just don't use it. Right? There's not much more to it than that. Otherwise, if you want to define the direction GNOME is going, then become part of the project and do that.</p><p>None of those two options require bitching about it on Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to be an old-school Mac user .
Back when Macintosh was * really * kicking ass ( UI-wise ) , it was simultaneously one of the easiest-to-use and most powerful desktops ever made .
AppleScript in its prime whoops the * crap * out of any other GUI scripting language , to this day.Of course , since people whine and cry over every little tiny UI change * anyway * , I 'm afraid that does n't hold much weight anymore .
We 've figured it out : the whining does n't indicate dissatisfaction , it indicates that you changed something , no matter how tiny .
It 's just something to be filtered out and ignored after each change.Or , in the words of a long lamented Fark admin , who posted this brilliance in the middle of a giant thread bitching about Fark layout changes : " You 'll get over it .
" But really , the point is this : if you do n't like the direction GNOME is going , just do n't use it .
Right ? There 's not much more to it than that .
Otherwise , if you want to define the direction GNOME is going , then become part of the project and do that.None of those two options require bitching about it on Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to be an old-school Mac user.
Back when Macintosh was *really* kicking ass (UI-wise), it was simultaneously one of the easiest-to-use and most powerful desktops ever made.
AppleScript in its prime whoops the *crap* out of any other GUI scripting language, to this day.Of course, since people whine and cry over every little tiny UI change *anyway*, I'm afraid that doesn't hold much weight anymore.
We've figured it out: the whining doesn't indicate dissatisfaction, it indicates that you changed something, no matter how tiny.
It's just something to be filtered out and ignored after each change.Or, in the words of a long lamented Fark admin, who posted this brilliance in the middle of a giant thread bitching about Fark layout changes: "You'll get over it.
"But really, the point is this: if you don't like the direction GNOME is going, just don't use it.
Right? There's not much more to it than that.
Otherwise, if you want to define the direction GNOME is going, then become part of the project and do that.None of those two options require bitching about it on Slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30098036</id>
	<title>Re:Who needs GNOME when Windows is affordable</title>
	<author>i\_liek\_turtles</author>
	<datestamp>1258219020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every time I use MacFUSE I get a deluge of kernel panics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time I use MacFUSE I get a deluge of kernel panics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time I use MacFUSE I get a deluge of kernel panics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096798</id>
	<title>Re:What GNOME really needs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258207920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"open terminal in current location"</p></div><p>sudo apt-get install nautilus-open-terminal</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" open terminal in current location " sudo apt-get install nautilus-open-terminal</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"open terminal in current location"sudo apt-get install nautilus-open-terminal
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096244</id>
	<title>Re:What GNOME really needs</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1258198860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think all of these are good ideas!<br>Also<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... related to ""run as root" in the menu under right mouse click" I think it'd be nice if when you tried to do something that needed root but you weren't root it should popup asking for your password ALL THE TIME... It does it for some things atm but not everything. I've no idea why that isn't more normalized.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think all of these are good ideas ! Also ... related to " " run as root " in the menu under right mouse click " I think it 'd be nice if when you tried to do something that needed root but you were n't root it should popup asking for your password ALL THE TIME... It does it for some things atm but not everything .
I 've no idea why that is n't more normalized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think all of these are good ideas!Also ... related to ""run as root" in the menu under right mouse click" I think it'd be nice if when you tried to do something that needed root but you weren't root it should popup asking for your password ALL THE TIME... It does it for some things atm but not everything.
I've no idea why that isn't more normalized.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096482</id>
	<title>Commendable, but</title>
	<author>pmontra</author>
	<datestamp>1258203000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea of designing a new approach to the desktop is commendable and shows one of the advantages of open source. If people doesn't like it they can switch to other alternatives.
The idea of making it work well is also a positive innovation on some well established practices of both the FOSS and proprietary camps.</p><p>However there are for sure some strange things in this Gnome Shell.</p><ul>
<li>The absence of the task bar will puzzle a lot of people used to it since Windows 95 (but I had no problems working without it on X Terminals before then) so removing it is a very bold and risky decision.</li><li>I cannot understand why the clock is so important to be in the middle of the top bar. Considering how many times one needs to know the time and how many times one needs to do something else, hiding it into a corner looks just right. Maybe there is a need to fill the top bar after having removed all the open application icons/names from it. It surely has to look bare and empty.</li><li>I also don't understand why is so important to show the name of the current application. Another way to fill all that empty space in the bar? But it if is so empty maybe the right thing to do is to remove it and leave only an Activities button to the left and the icons and clock to the right. That leaves more useful space for the applications and vertical space is always precious.</li><li>Some people will really get sick when the screen moves so much every time they open the menu. This interface may be not for everybody.</li><li>The Plus button to add new desktops uses up so much space (it takes a whole bottom bar with it) that it hints that a lot of people actually use multiple desktops. I do, but are they really so popular?</li></ul><p>On the positive side, the large Activities menu could be very useful on the forthcoming generation of touchscreen computers because it provides a larger target for fingers than the menu items we have now. It reminds me a lot of the interfaces used by some Linux distributions for netbooks it is seems good. Maybe it's not so handy for computers that only have a mouse (too much travel).</p><p>Finally I hope that the top bar can be moved to the bottom because I just hate top bars. They are placed right where my eyes look by default but they are the less important piece of information on the screen. Apple made it totally wrong IMHO and MS improved their design, maybe the only time they did it.</p><p>So, I'll be using Gnome Shell in its present form? Maybe I'll give a try but I bet I'll soon switch to something else, back to Gnome 2 if I can. Other desktops I so for Linux look to much like Windows, something that cannot be good considering all the years I had to use it and never liked the way it worked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea of designing a new approach to the desktop is commendable and shows one of the advantages of open source .
If people does n't like it they can switch to other alternatives .
The idea of making it work well is also a positive innovation on some well established practices of both the FOSS and proprietary camps.However there are for sure some strange things in this Gnome Shell .
The absence of the task bar will puzzle a lot of people used to it since Windows 95 ( but I had no problems working without it on X Terminals before then ) so removing it is a very bold and risky decision.I can not understand why the clock is so important to be in the middle of the top bar .
Considering how many times one needs to know the time and how many times one needs to do something else , hiding it into a corner looks just right .
Maybe there is a need to fill the top bar after having removed all the open application icons/names from it .
It surely has to look bare and empty.I also do n't understand why is so important to show the name of the current application .
Another way to fill all that empty space in the bar ?
But it if is so empty maybe the right thing to do is to remove it and leave only an Activities button to the left and the icons and clock to the right .
That leaves more useful space for the applications and vertical space is always precious.Some people will really get sick when the screen moves so much every time they open the menu .
This interface may be not for everybody.The Plus button to add new desktops uses up so much space ( it takes a whole bottom bar with it ) that it hints that a lot of people actually use multiple desktops .
I do , but are they really so popular ? On the positive side , the large Activities menu could be very useful on the forthcoming generation of touchscreen computers because it provides a larger target for fingers than the menu items we have now .
It reminds me a lot of the interfaces used by some Linux distributions for netbooks it is seems good .
Maybe it 's not so handy for computers that only have a mouse ( too much travel ) .Finally I hope that the top bar can be moved to the bottom because I just hate top bars .
They are placed right where my eyes look by default but they are the less important piece of information on the screen .
Apple made it totally wrong IMHO and MS improved their design , maybe the only time they did it.So , I 'll be using Gnome Shell in its present form ?
Maybe I 'll give a try but I bet I 'll soon switch to something else , back to Gnome 2 if I can .
Other desktops I so for Linux look to much like Windows , something that can not be good considering all the years I had to use it and never liked the way it worked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea of designing a new approach to the desktop is commendable and shows one of the advantages of open source.
If people doesn't like it they can switch to other alternatives.
The idea of making it work well is also a positive innovation on some well established practices of both the FOSS and proprietary camps.However there are for sure some strange things in this Gnome Shell.
The absence of the task bar will puzzle a lot of people used to it since Windows 95 (but I had no problems working without it on X Terminals before then) so removing it is a very bold and risky decision.I cannot understand why the clock is so important to be in the middle of the top bar.
Considering how many times one needs to know the time and how many times one needs to do something else, hiding it into a corner looks just right.
Maybe there is a need to fill the top bar after having removed all the open application icons/names from it.
It surely has to look bare and empty.I also don't understand why is so important to show the name of the current application.
Another way to fill all that empty space in the bar?
But it if is so empty maybe the right thing to do is to remove it and leave only an Activities button to the left and the icons and clock to the right.
That leaves more useful space for the applications and vertical space is always precious.Some people will really get sick when the screen moves so much every time they open the menu.
This interface may be not for everybody.The Plus button to add new desktops uses up so much space (it takes a whole bottom bar with it) that it hints that a lot of people actually use multiple desktops.
I do, but are they really so popular?On the positive side, the large Activities menu could be very useful on the forthcoming generation of touchscreen computers because it provides a larger target for fingers than the menu items we have now.
It reminds me a lot of the interfaces used by some Linux distributions for netbooks it is seems good.
Maybe it's not so handy for computers that only have a mouse (too much travel).Finally I hope that the top bar can be moved to the bottom because I just hate top bars.
They are placed right where my eyes look by default but they are the less important piece of information on the screen.
Apple made it totally wrong IMHO and MS improved their design, maybe the only time they did it.So, I'll be using Gnome Shell in its present form?
Maybe I'll give a try but I bet I'll soon switch to something else, back to Gnome 2 if I can.
Other desktops I so for Linux look to much like Windows, something that cannot be good considering all the years I had to use it and never liked the way it worked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30109122</id>
	<title>Re:How can xterm be improved?</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1258281360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't help you on Windows or Mac, but on Linux- and BSD-based systems, there is an enormous number of window managers and desktop environments to choose from. Chance are very good that there's at least one that comes close to your own personal definition of efficient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't help you on Windows or Mac , but on Linux- and BSD-based systems , there is an enormous number of window managers and desktop environments to choose from .
Chance are very good that there 's at least one that comes close to your own personal definition of efficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't help you on Windows or Mac, but on Linux- and BSD-based systems, there is an enormous number of window managers and desktop environments to choose from.
Chance are very good that there's at least one that comes close to your own personal definition of efficient.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30103064</id>
	<title>What happened to change by increments?</title>
	<author>InfiniteLoopCounter</author>
	<datestamp>1258212840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember reading that GNOME 2.30 was going to be relabelled GNOME 3.00, or something like that. Where did all these ideas to change (read stuff up as per KDE rivals) a perfectly workable base desktop environment suddenly come from?</p><p>Why not focus on improving the 2.x series, and maybe add in some extra features for a 3.x release?</p><p>I would be very happy with a GNOME desktop that:</p><ul><li>Made it possible to resize icons to any pixel width/height (SVG graphics) - so that the panel quick launchers/menu size can be more configurable.</li><li>The menu be easier to edit items. Also, maybe more features could be added to right/middle click on items.</li><li>Distro specific changes to menus could be more easily changed -- e.g. "Applications/Places/System" on Ubuntu could be replaced with whatever the user wants.</li><li>Icons would show up before clicking okay on a folder when setting them.</li><li>Screensavers become more configurable -- just add the "advanced" tab already damn it.</li><li>The quick launch bar could have icons moved around/ordered, added to, hidden, etc.</li><li>Nautilius have an extra list display that scrolls horizontally with vertical listings.</li><li>Maybe add a way of combining panel applets vertically in the one panel to save space (e.g. for the system monitors (provessor/memory/network/heat) and vertically list virtual desktops,etc.</li><li>Fix up bugs - e.g. make sure all applets do not move around on some logins and the system monitor does not sometimes reduces to one pixel vertically, etc.</li><li>Keep it looking and feeling normal; experiment only when old stuff is still made selectable (at least for a bit).</li></ul><p>If GNOME developers did at least some of this kind of stuff, I'd be a very happy person indeed. They've made an excellent desktop so far and really doesn't need much more than polishing in my view.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember reading that GNOME 2.30 was going to be relabelled GNOME 3.00 , or something like that .
Where did all these ideas to change ( read stuff up as per KDE rivals ) a perfectly workable base desktop environment suddenly come from ? Why not focus on improving the 2.x series , and maybe add in some extra features for a 3.x release ? I would be very happy with a GNOME desktop that : Made it possible to resize icons to any pixel width/height ( SVG graphics ) - so that the panel quick launchers/menu size can be more configurable.The menu be easier to edit items .
Also , maybe more features could be added to right/middle click on items.Distro specific changes to menus could be more easily changed -- e.g .
" Applications/Places/System " on Ubuntu could be replaced with whatever the user wants.Icons would show up before clicking okay on a folder when setting them.Screensavers become more configurable -- just add the " advanced " tab already damn it.The quick launch bar could have icons moved around/ordered , added to , hidden , etc.Nautilius have an extra list display that scrolls horizontally with vertical listings.Maybe add a way of combining panel applets vertically in the one panel to save space ( e.g .
for the system monitors ( provessor/memory/network/heat ) and vertically list virtual desktops,etc.Fix up bugs - e.g .
make sure all applets do not move around on some logins and the system monitor does not sometimes reduces to one pixel vertically , etc.Keep it looking and feeling normal ; experiment only when old stuff is still made selectable ( at least for a bit ) .If GNOME developers did at least some of this kind of stuff , I 'd be a very happy person indeed .
They 've made an excellent desktop so far and really does n't need much more than polishing in my view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember reading that GNOME 2.30 was going to be relabelled GNOME 3.00, or something like that.
Where did all these ideas to change (read stuff up as per KDE rivals) a perfectly workable base desktop environment suddenly come from?Why not focus on improving the 2.x series, and maybe add in some extra features for a 3.x release?I would be very happy with a GNOME desktop that:Made it possible to resize icons to any pixel width/height (SVG graphics) - so that the panel quick launchers/menu size can be more configurable.The menu be easier to edit items.
Also, maybe more features could be added to right/middle click on items.Distro specific changes to menus could be more easily changed -- e.g.
"Applications/Places/System" on Ubuntu could be replaced with whatever the user wants.Icons would show up before clicking okay on a folder when setting them.Screensavers become more configurable -- just add the "advanced" tab already damn it.The quick launch bar could have icons moved around/ordered, added to, hidden, etc.Nautilius have an extra list display that scrolls horizontally with vertical listings.Maybe add a way of combining panel applets vertically in the one panel to save space (e.g.
for the system monitors (provessor/memory/network/heat) and vertically list virtual desktops,etc.Fix up bugs - e.g.
make sure all applets do not move around on some logins and the system monitor does not sometimes reduces to one pixel vertically, etc.Keep it looking and feeling normal; experiment only when old stuff is still made selectable (at least for a bit).If GNOME developers did at least some of this kind of stuff, I'd be a very happy person indeed.
They've made an excellent desktop so far and really doesn't need much more than polishing in my view.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097630</id>
	<title>Re:Well at Least...</title>
	<author>ZERO1ZERO</author>
	<datestamp>1258215240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>um. Gnome has always been more Mac like especially since Gnome2.  I actually used Gnome long before OSX and when I used OSX for the first time a couple of years ago i said "Damn, this Mac OSX is just like gnome!".  Menu locations, dialog boxes, buttons etc all are heavily influened by OSX as far as i can tell</htmltext>
<tokenext>um .
Gnome has always been more Mac like especially since Gnome2 .
I actually used Gnome long before OSX and when I used OSX for the first time a couple of years ago i said " Damn , this Mac OSX is just like gnome ! " .
Menu locations , dialog boxes , buttons etc all are heavily influened by OSX as far as i can tell</tokentext>
<sentencetext>um.
Gnome has always been more Mac like especially since Gnome2.
I actually used Gnome long before OSX and when I used OSX for the first time a couple of years ago i said "Damn, this Mac OSX is just like gnome!".
Menu locations, dialog boxes, buttons etc all are heavily influened by OSX as far as i can tell</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30100244</id>
	<title>Re:Not going to comment about the actual product..</title>
	<author>specific</author>
	<datestamp>1258189200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was thinking the same thing.  "Please don't shoehorn this crap into the next LTS!"  Hopefully they'll just stick it in the intermediate releases, however.  I'll give it a spin around the office, but i'm not getting my hopes up for this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was thinking the same thing .
" Please do n't shoehorn this crap into the next LTS !
" Hopefully they 'll just stick it in the intermediate releases , however .
I 'll give it a spin around the office , but i 'm not getting my hopes up for this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was thinking the same thing.
"Please don't shoehorn this crap into the next LTS!
"  Hopefully they'll just stick it in the intermediate releases, however.
I'll give it a spin around the office, but i'm not getting my hopes up for this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096898</id>
	<title>Re:Damned if they do, damned if they don't, eh?</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1258209120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Maybe they're trying to innovate and do something new and different.<br><br>Innovation would be okay if we could turn off the "innovations" we dislike.  But the general pattern with Gnome (starting from version 2.0) is that such changes, especially the most undesirable ones, are usually mandatory, i.e., it is impossible to configure things back to the way we want them, impossible to get back basic functionality that we had in version 1.4.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Maybe they 're trying to innovate and do something new and different.Innovation would be okay if we could turn off the " innovations " we dislike .
But the general pattern with Gnome ( starting from version 2.0 ) is that such changes , especially the most undesirable ones , are usually mandatory , i.e. , it is impossible to configure things back to the way we want them , impossible to get back basic functionality that we had in version 1.4 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Maybe they're trying to innovate and do something new and different.Innovation would be okay if we could turn off the "innovations" we dislike.
But the general pattern with Gnome (starting from version 2.0) is that such changes, especially the most undesirable ones, are usually mandatory, i.e., it is impossible to configure things back to the way we want them, impossible to get back basic functionality that we had in version 1.4.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099936</id>
	<title>Re:New Gnome?</title>
	<author>Professional Slacker</author>
	<datestamp>1258230480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The big problem of Gnome shell, is that it's not modular. The problem isn't just that the default configuration has one panel, it's that <i>THE</i> configuration has one panel. And it's not even a panel, the menu/top bar is a singular whole unit, the elements can't be moved, removed, or added to. If gnome-shell provided a different default configuration, that wouldn't be a problem, the problem is that gnome-shell is a singular unit, you get all of it or none of it. Also gnome-shell isn't a stand alone application, it's a module/library loaded by the mutter window manager, so if you use a window manager other than mutter, like say compiz, you're left out in the cold. Gnome-shell not playing nice with other window managers isn't a problem as long as gnome-panel is still developed, supported, and packaged, but how long is that going to be?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The big problem of Gnome shell , is that it 's not modular .
The problem is n't just that the default configuration has one panel , it 's that THE configuration has one panel .
And it 's not even a panel , the menu/top bar is a singular whole unit , the elements ca n't be moved , removed , or added to .
If gnome-shell provided a different default configuration , that would n't be a problem , the problem is that gnome-shell is a singular unit , you get all of it or none of it .
Also gnome-shell is n't a stand alone application , it 's a module/library loaded by the mutter window manager , so if you use a window manager other than mutter , like say compiz , you 're left out in the cold .
Gnome-shell not playing nice with other window managers is n't a problem as long as gnome-panel is still developed , supported , and packaged , but how long is that going to be ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big problem of Gnome shell, is that it's not modular.
The problem isn't just that the default configuration has one panel, it's that THE configuration has one panel.
And it's not even a panel, the menu/top bar is a singular whole unit, the elements can't be moved, removed, or added to.
If gnome-shell provided a different default configuration, that wouldn't be a problem, the problem is that gnome-shell is a singular unit, you get all of it or none of it.
Also gnome-shell isn't a stand alone application, it's a module/library loaded by the mutter window manager, so if you use a window manager other than mutter, like say compiz, you're left out in the cold.
Gnome-shell not playing nice with other window managers isn't a problem as long as gnome-panel is still developed, supported, and packaged, but how long is that going to be?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096492</id>
	<title>Re:How can xterm be improved?</title>
	<author>richlv</author>
	<datestamp>1258203120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so windows 7 FINALLY implemented alt+f2 launcher from kde and gnome, but the huge improvement was that they made it appear instead of the start menu ?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>i've been using launcher for years now, and i completely agree that it is very convenient. but somehow i see this as windows following what was available on linux long time ago, except that they have brought commandline in front of the user as opposed to gui. very simple commandline, but still we get people complaining that "if you have to enter text into some box, it's not usable" - and they are talking about linux distros, of course,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so windows 7 FINALLY implemented alt + f2 launcher from kde and gnome , but the huge improvement was that they made it appear instead of the start menu ?
: ) i 've been using launcher for years now , and i completely agree that it is very convenient .
but somehow i see this as windows following what was available on linux long time ago , except that they have brought commandline in front of the user as opposed to gui .
very simple commandline , but still we get people complaining that " if you have to enter text into some box , it 's not usable " - and they are talking about linux distros , of course,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so windows 7 FINALLY implemented alt+f2 launcher from kde and gnome, but the huge improvement was that they made it appear instead of the start menu ?
:)i've been using launcher for years now, and i completely agree that it is very convenient.
but somehow i see this as windows following what was available on linux long time ago, except that they have brought commandline in front of the user as opposed to gui.
very simple commandline, but still we get people complaining that "if you have to enter text into some box, it's not usable" - and they are talking about linux distros, of course,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097348</id>
	<title>Re:Glad it's delayed. It's rubbish.</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1258212840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; If gnome (and linux in general) wants to escape<br>&gt; the geek-in-a-basement marketshare, it has to focus<br>&gt; on the average non-tech user.<br><br>Actually, focusing *exclusively* on the average non-tech user will put you where Apple was in 1995, before they got Jobs back.<br><br>There has to be a balance.  A good rule of thumb is, the default setup should be geared toward the end user, but it's important to provide more flexible features and configurability for more advanced users.<br><br>&gt; And no, pasting a link to a windows share is not what this user does.<br><br>Actually, users do (or try to do) an astonishingly wide variety of things, many of which do not make a heck of a lot of sense to a computer geek.  Pasting a link to a CIFS fileshare into a web browser and expecting it to show them the contents of the fileshare is barely the tip of the iceberg.  They print email that they don't want, even if they're being charged by the page.  They type URLs into search boxes.  They use the mouse upside down.  They use spaces to center text on a line and blank lines to create double spaced copy.  They type several pages of text into a six-line textarea on a web page, hit print, and expect to see all of the text they typed on the paper, and they get very upset when it's not there, because they *need* it to be there, to show the court.  They set the zoom level in print setup to 300\% and get upset when the ends of some of the lines get chopped off.  They print white text and get upset if it's not legible.  (I tell them the printer is all out of white ink.)<br><br>&gt; Instead, this user is interested in finding "that god-damn file"<br>&gt; that he saved somewhere yesterday morning and has no idea where it is.<br><br>Yeah, recently used file lists are useful.  Welcome to the state of the art of 1991.<br><br>&gt; He also wants to easily find that openoffice window that got<br>&gt; lost in the 20 windows he opened and never closed in the last hour.<br><br>Actually, in all the considerable time I have spent working with, observing, and supporting end users, I have never yet seen an end user deliberately open more than one window at a time.  I've seen them get several browser windows because client-side script links open windows without their knowledge; this, of course, confuses the user, who typically doesn't understand why the back button won't work.  But I've never EVER seen an end user open two word processing windows at once.<br><br>I'm sure there *are* users who do this.  As I said, users do an astonishingly wide variety of things.  But opening lots of windows is not at all common among the computer illiterate, I can tell you that for free.<br><br>Now, power users open lots of windows.  Amazingly large numbers of windows.  But power users also like for things to be configurable and are willing (usually eager) to learn how to do new things.  That's a whole different category of users.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; If gnome ( and linux in general ) wants to escape &gt; the geek-in-a-basement marketshare , it has to focus &gt; on the average non-tech user.Actually , focusing * exclusively * on the average non-tech user will put you where Apple was in 1995 , before they got Jobs back.There has to be a balance .
A good rule of thumb is , the default setup should be geared toward the end user , but it 's important to provide more flexible features and configurability for more advanced users. &gt; And no , pasting a link to a windows share is not what this user does.Actually , users do ( or try to do ) an astonishingly wide variety of things , many of which do not make a heck of a lot of sense to a computer geek .
Pasting a link to a CIFS fileshare into a web browser and expecting it to show them the contents of the fileshare is barely the tip of the iceberg .
They print email that they do n't want , even if they 're being charged by the page .
They type URLs into search boxes .
They use the mouse upside down .
They use spaces to center text on a line and blank lines to create double spaced copy .
They type several pages of text into a six-line textarea on a web page , hit print , and expect to see all of the text they typed on the paper , and they get very upset when it 's not there , because they * need * it to be there , to show the court .
They set the zoom level in print setup to 300 \ % and get upset when the ends of some of the lines get chopped off .
They print white text and get upset if it 's not legible .
( I tell them the printer is all out of white ink .
) &gt; Instead , this user is interested in finding " that god-damn file " &gt; that he saved somewhere yesterday morning and has no idea where it is.Yeah , recently used file lists are useful .
Welcome to the state of the art of 1991. &gt; He also wants to easily find that openoffice window that got &gt; lost in the 20 windows he opened and never closed in the last hour.Actually , in all the considerable time I have spent working with , observing , and supporting end users , I have never yet seen an end user deliberately open more than one window at a time .
I 've seen them get several browser windows because client-side script links open windows without their knowledge ; this , of course , confuses the user , who typically does n't understand why the back button wo n't work .
But I 've never EVER seen an end user open two word processing windows at once.I 'm sure there * are * users who do this .
As I said , users do an astonishingly wide variety of things .
But opening lots of windows is not at all common among the computer illiterate , I can tell you that for free.Now , power users open lots of windows .
Amazingly large numbers of windows .
But power users also like for things to be configurable and are willing ( usually eager ) to learn how to do new things .
That 's a whole different category of users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; If gnome (and linux in general) wants to escape&gt; the geek-in-a-basement marketshare, it has to focus&gt; on the average non-tech user.Actually, focusing *exclusively* on the average non-tech user will put you where Apple was in 1995, before they got Jobs back.There has to be a balance.
A good rule of thumb is, the default setup should be geared toward the end user, but it's important to provide more flexible features and configurability for more advanced users.&gt; And no, pasting a link to a windows share is not what this user does.Actually, users do (or try to do) an astonishingly wide variety of things, many of which do not make a heck of a lot of sense to a computer geek.
Pasting a link to a CIFS fileshare into a web browser and expecting it to show them the contents of the fileshare is barely the tip of the iceberg.
They print email that they don't want, even if they're being charged by the page.
They type URLs into search boxes.
They use the mouse upside down.
They use spaces to center text on a line and blank lines to create double spaced copy.
They type several pages of text into a six-line textarea on a web page, hit print, and expect to see all of the text they typed on the paper, and they get very upset when it's not there, because they *need* it to be there, to show the court.
They set the zoom level in print setup to 300\% and get upset when the ends of some of the lines get chopped off.
They print white text and get upset if it's not legible.
(I tell them the printer is all out of white ink.
)&gt; Instead, this user is interested in finding "that god-damn file"&gt; that he saved somewhere yesterday morning and has no idea where it is.Yeah, recently used file lists are useful.
Welcome to the state of the art of 1991.&gt; He also wants to easily find that openoffice window that got&gt; lost in the 20 windows he opened and never closed in the last hour.Actually, in all the considerable time I have spent working with, observing, and supporting end users, I have never yet seen an end user deliberately open more than one window at a time.
I've seen them get several browser windows because client-side script links open windows without their knowledge; this, of course, confuses the user, who typically doesn't understand why the back button won't work.
But I've never EVER seen an end user open two word processing windows at once.I'm sure there *are* users who do this.
As I said, users do an astonishingly wide variety of things.
But opening lots of windows is not at all common among the computer illiterate, I can tell you that for free.Now, power users open lots of windows.
Amazingly large numbers of windows.
But power users also like for things to be configurable and are willing (usually eager) to learn how to do new things.
That's a whole different category of users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097732</id>
	<title>Re:How can xterm be improved?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258216140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you're looking for alt-f2</p><p>hth</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you 're looking for alt-f2hth</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you're looking for alt-f2hth</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30102460</id>
	<title>Re:WTH</title>
	<author>synthespian</author>
	<datestamp>1258206120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>ok how every item in the menu is truncated. It's all "Home..." and "OpenO..." and "Docu..."</i></p><p>GNOME is pure genius. You just don't have the IQ for that. It's made by and for linux hackers. They're not you. They're supersmart nerds, working through a collective mind that automatically understands truncated names.</p><p>No, seriously...<b>A decade from now we will have brain-computer interfaces in at least half the desktops and these morons still can't program a fucking menu. Somebody tell them to quit, please. Just quit, GNOME guys. Just quit. Please.</b></p><p>You failed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ok how every item in the menu is truncated .
It 's all " Home... " and " OpenO... " and " Docu... " GNOME is pure genius .
You just do n't have the IQ for that .
It 's made by and for linux hackers .
They 're not you .
They 're supersmart nerds , working through a collective mind that automatically understands truncated names.No , seriously...A decade from now we will have brain-computer interfaces in at least half the desktops and these morons still ca n't program a fucking menu .
Somebody tell them to quit , please .
Just quit , GNOME guys .
Just quit .
Please.You failed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ok how every item in the menu is truncated.
It's all "Home..." and "OpenO..." and "Docu..."GNOME is pure genius.
You just don't have the IQ for that.
It's made by and for linux hackers.
They're not you.
They're supersmart nerds, working through a collective mind that automatically understands truncated names.No, seriously...A decade from now we will have brain-computer interfaces in at least half the desktops and these morons still can't program a fucking menu.
Somebody tell them to quit, please.
Just quit, GNOME guys.
Just quit.
Please.You failed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096184</id>
	<title>Re:WTH</title>
	<author>fnj</author>
	<datestamp>1258197480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, for Pete's sake.  That's unbelievably lame.  If you lose single-click-to-open capability, then it's a huge step backward and a crock.  Double click is an abomination.  It BARELY had some feeble justification when there was only a single mouse button, but it's a complete crock in the real world of 2 or more buttons.</p><p>If it takes even longer to open a folder than current Gnome, that's just unacceptable.  Compare navigating folders containing thousands of files using the Gnome file-open dialog now, against the Kde file-open dialog.  It's night and day.  The Kde version is faster when you first hit such a folder, and then it caches the contents and is blazing fast after that.  Night and day.</p><p>Time to branch at 2.28 and maintain a sane alternative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , for Pete 's sake .
That 's unbelievably lame .
If you lose single-click-to-open capability , then it 's a huge step backward and a crock .
Double click is an abomination .
It BARELY had some feeble justification when there was only a single mouse button , but it 's a complete crock in the real world of 2 or more buttons.If it takes even longer to open a folder than current Gnome , that 's just unacceptable .
Compare navigating folders containing thousands of files using the Gnome file-open dialog now , against the Kde file-open dialog .
It 's night and day .
The Kde version is faster when you first hit such a folder , and then it caches the contents and is blazing fast after that .
Night and day.Time to branch at 2.28 and maintain a sane alternative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, for Pete's sake.
That's unbelievably lame.
If you lose single-click-to-open capability, then it's a huge step backward and a crock.
Double click is an abomination.
It BARELY had some feeble justification when there was only a single mouse button, but it's a complete crock in the real world of 2 or more buttons.If it takes even longer to open a folder than current Gnome, that's just unacceptable.
Compare navigating folders containing thousands of files using the Gnome file-open dialog now, against the Kde file-open dialog.
It's night and day.
The Kde version is faster when you first hit such a folder, and then it caches the contents and is blazing fast after that.
Night and day.Time to branch at 2.28 and maintain a sane alternative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30103610</id>
	<title>Re:Glad it's delayed. It's rubbish.</title>
	<author>synthespian</author>
	<datestamp>1258218540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> I want a system that forces the user to organize his stuff. (...) Can't understand the concept of folders? No computer for you!</i></p><p>Oh, so you're one of those that actually thinks that machine learning algorithms are a setback from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopher\_(protocol)" title="wikipedia.org">Gopher</a> [wikipedia.org] era, right? LOL.</p><p>You and the moron who modded you up. LOL. LMAO at you, you poor thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want a system that forces the user to organize his stuff .
( ... ) Ca n't understand the concept of folders ?
No computer for you ! Oh , so you 're one of those that actually thinks that machine learning algorithms are a setback from the Gopher [ wikipedia.org ] era , right ?
LOL.You and the moron who modded you up .
LOL. LMAO at you , you poor thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I want a system that forces the user to organize his stuff.
(...) Can't understand the concept of folders?
No computer for you!Oh, so you're one of those that actually thinks that machine learning algorithms are a setback from the Gopher [wikipedia.org] era, right?
LOL.You and the moron who modded you up.
LOL. LMAO at you, you poor thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30104140</id>
	<title>Re:Leave well alone!</title>
	<author>smash</author>
	<datestamp>1258224420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The current version is near-perfect and the new one seems to have lost all the good points and added nothing.</p></div></blockquote><p>
So they're following the lead set by KDE with KDE 4.x vs 3.x?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The current version is near-perfect and the new one seems to have lost all the good points and added nothing .
So they 're following the lead set by KDE with KDE 4.x vs 3.x ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The current version is near-perfect and the new one seems to have lost all the good points and added nothing.
So they're following the lead set by KDE with KDE 4.x vs 3.x?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096640</id>
	<title>No.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258205520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before I get used to that, I'd rather get used to another desktop environment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before I get used to that , I 'd rather get used to another desktop environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before I get used to that, I'd rather get used to another desktop environment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096110</id>
	<title>Re:How can xterm be improved?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258195680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>1.) Install Gentoo Linux<br>
2.) <tt>USE="-alsa -cups -dbus -gstreamer -kde -gnome -mono -opengl" emerge xfce4-meta firefox terminal openoffice eclipse-sdk</tt> <br>
<br>
I am aware that <i>xfce4-meta</i> contains unneccessary cruft but you should be able to deal with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
) Install Gentoo Linux 2 .
) USE = " -alsa -cups -dbus -gstreamer -kde -gnome -mono -opengl " emerge xfce4-meta firefox terminal openoffice eclipse-sdk I am aware that xfce4-meta contains unneccessary cruft but you should be able to deal with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
) Install Gentoo Linux
2.
) USE="-alsa -cups -dbus -gstreamer -kde -gnome -mono -opengl" emerge xfce4-meta firefox terminal openoffice eclipse-sdk 

I am aware that xfce4-meta contains unneccessary cruft but you should be able to deal with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096810</id>
	<title>Re:Who needs GNOME when Windows is affordable</title>
	<author>TrancePhreak</author>
	<datestamp>1258208100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"1. I don't worry about firewalls, or anti-virus software"</p></div></blockquote><p>
Your computer is still hackable.</p><blockquote><div><p>2. Complete incremental backup of computer to network drive, usb drive, whatever.<br>
3. nfs, and sshfs. They really are awesome. Windows/mac users don't even know what they are missing.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Also available on OSX &amp; Windows. It sounds like you just don't know much about these two.</p><blockquote><div><p>4. New OS every few months, FREE. FOREVER..</p></div></blockquote><p>
Sounds like you're too busy upgrading all the time to actually use anything anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" 1 .
I do n't worry about firewalls , or anti-virus software " Your computer is still hackable.2 .
Complete incremental backup of computer to network drive , usb drive , whatever .
3. nfs , and sshfs .
They really are awesome .
Windows/mac users do n't even know what they are missing .
Also available on OSX &amp; Windows .
It sounds like you just do n't know much about these two.4 .
New OS every few months , FREE .
FOREVER. . Sounds like you 're too busy upgrading all the time to actually use anything anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"1.
I don't worry about firewalls, or anti-virus software"
Your computer is still hackable.2.
Complete incremental backup of computer to network drive, usb drive, whatever.
3. nfs, and sshfs.
They really are awesome.
Windows/mac users don't even know what they are missing.
Also available on OSX &amp; Windows.
It sounds like you just don't know much about these two.4.
New OS every few months, FREE.
FOREVER..
Sounds like you're too busy upgrading all the time to actually use anything anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095618</id>
	<title>Who to blame for the delay?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258229760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like <a href="http://mail.gnome.org/archives/devel-announce-list/2009-November/msg00002.html" title="gnome.org">ice cream, Batman, and football</a> [gnome.org] are the culprits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like ice cream , Batman , and football [ gnome.org ] are the culprits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like ice cream, Batman, and football [gnome.org] are the culprits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096148</id>
	<title>Re:Feel Like I've Been Punched In The Stomach</title>
	<author>fnj</author>
	<datestamp>1258196940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep.  Gnome 3 is a mental disorder.  It's what happens when you spend all your time dreaming about how to come up with a new UI paradigm when there is already a highly satisfactory, perfectly usable, and well accepted paradigm that has stood the test of time, and that no one is complaining about.  It is new for the sake of new.  Kde 4 was much the same thing, but at least they optimized their infrastructure and cleaned up some rough edges in the process (while hopelessly screwing up some basic stuff).</p><p>Despair not, however.  There is still Xfce, and it shows no sign of succumbing to a mental disorder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep .
Gnome 3 is a mental disorder .
It 's what happens when you spend all your time dreaming about how to come up with a new UI paradigm when there is already a highly satisfactory , perfectly usable , and well accepted paradigm that has stood the test of time , and that no one is complaining about .
It is new for the sake of new .
Kde 4 was much the same thing , but at least they optimized their infrastructure and cleaned up some rough edges in the process ( while hopelessly screwing up some basic stuff ) .Despair not , however .
There is still Xfce , and it shows no sign of succumbing to a mental disorder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep.
Gnome 3 is a mental disorder.
It's what happens when you spend all your time dreaming about how to come up with a new UI paradigm when there is already a highly satisfactory, perfectly usable, and well accepted paradigm that has stood the test of time, and that no one is complaining about.
It is new for the sake of new.
Kde 4 was much the same thing, but at least they optimized their infrastructure and cleaned up some rough edges in the process (while hopelessly screwing up some basic stuff).Despair not, however.
There is still Xfce, and it shows no sign of succumbing to a mental disorder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096364</id>
	<title>Re:How can xterm be improved?</title>
	<author>devent</author>
	<datestamp>1258201260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In KDE4 I so exactly the same. Hit the KDE icon, I menu pops up. I enter 'fire' and hit enter. I enter 'wo' and hit enter for OpenOffice.org Word.

Linux have this for about 1 year now, since KDE4 came up. What's more convenient, I can setup any hot key I want for any application. For example, Win+W is Firefox, Win+F is file manager, Win+C is calculator and so on.

There is more. Hit Alt+F2 and you get the KRunner, which you can use the same way as the menu I described before. And you can use it as a calculator, to open a location and more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In KDE4 I so exactly the same .
Hit the KDE icon , I menu pops up .
I enter 'fire ' and hit enter .
I enter 'wo ' and hit enter for OpenOffice.org Word .
Linux have this for about 1 year now , since KDE4 came up .
What 's more convenient , I can setup any hot key I want for any application .
For example , Win + W is Firefox , Win + F is file manager , Win + C is calculator and so on .
There is more .
Hit Alt + F2 and you get the KRunner , which you can use the same way as the menu I described before .
And you can use it as a calculator , to open a location and more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In KDE4 I so exactly the same.
Hit the KDE icon, I menu pops up.
I enter 'fire' and hit enter.
I enter 'wo' and hit enter for OpenOffice.org Word.
Linux have this for about 1 year now, since KDE4 came up.
What's more convenient, I can setup any hot key I want for any application.
For example, Win+W is Firefox, Win+F is file manager, Win+C is calculator and so on.
There is more.
Hit Alt+F2 and you get the KRunner, which you can use the same way as the menu I described before.
And you can use it as a calculator, to open a location and more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097288</id>
	<title>Re:WTH</title>
	<author>mat128</author>
	<datestamp>1258212420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>GNOME has used two bars in the past (one at the top and one at the bottom) to accomplish the same and there really isn't any need to.</p></div><p>I use GNOME everyday and I can tell you that having 2 bars is very useful (and you can edit everything, including removing panels if you dont like having 2 of em).<br>I personally have the applications list on the bottom one (like Windows) and on the top, I have a bunch of shortcuts to everything I need to use quickly (term, firefox, etc.) and it's very good. It's even more useful when you have 2 screens, you get to have 2 different applications panels and you can distinguish which window is on which screen, unlike Windows.</p><p>I need to have everything I need quickly accessible, ala Windows "Quick Launch". I used to have my windows taskbar 2 units high (in XP and earlier) because I needed more space for the shortcuts. GNOME's solution to this is more elegant, IMO.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>GNOME has used two bars in the past ( one at the top and one at the bottom ) to accomplish the same and there really is n't any need to.I use GNOME everyday and I can tell you that having 2 bars is very useful ( and you can edit everything , including removing panels if you dont like having 2 of em ) .I personally have the applications list on the bottom one ( like Windows ) and on the top , I have a bunch of shortcuts to everything I need to use quickly ( term , firefox , etc .
) and it 's very good .
It 's even more useful when you have 2 screens , you get to have 2 different applications panels and you can distinguish which window is on which screen , unlike Windows.I need to have everything I need quickly accessible , ala Windows " Quick Launch " .
I used to have my windows taskbar 2 units high ( in XP and earlier ) because I needed more space for the shortcuts .
GNOME 's solution to this is more elegant , IMO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GNOME has used two bars in the past (one at the top and one at the bottom) to accomplish the same and there really isn't any need to.I use GNOME everyday and I can tell you that having 2 bars is very useful (and you can edit everything, including removing panels if you dont like having 2 of em).I personally have the applications list on the bottom one (like Windows) and on the top, I have a bunch of shortcuts to everything I need to use quickly (term, firefox, etc.
) and it's very good.
It's even more useful when you have 2 screens, you get to have 2 different applications panels and you can distinguish which window is on which screen, unlike Windows.I need to have everything I need quickly accessible, ala Windows "Quick Launch".
I used to have my windows taskbar 2 units high (in XP and earlier) because I needed more space for the shortcuts.
GNOME's solution to this is more elegant, IMO.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096042</id>
	<title>Re:WTH</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258194660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When they said "redefine how users interact" they meant "this will make sure everyone switches to KDE".</p><p>Does it still let you have moveable, resizeable windows on your screen or did they decide that is too confusing for people?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When they said " redefine how users interact " they meant " this will make sure everyone switches to KDE " .Does it still let you have moveable , resizeable windows on your screen or did they decide that is too confusing for people ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When they said "redefine how users interact" they meant "this will make sure everyone switches to KDE".Does it still let you have moveable, resizeable windows on your screen or did they decide that is too confusing for people?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096478</id>
	<title>Automatic window arrangement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258202880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If you open more windows in the current desktop, the windows are automatically arranged to give you the best possible view."</p><p>Just one question: Are the GNOME guys on crack?</p><p>I put my windos  where they are on purpose. Don't go around moving them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If you open more windows in the current desktop , the windows are automatically arranged to give you the best possible view .
" Just one question : Are the GNOME guys on crack ? I put my windos where they are on purpose .
Do n't go around moving them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If you open more windows in the current desktop, the windows are automatically arranged to give you the best possible view.
"Just one question: Are the GNOME guys on crack?I put my windos  where they are on purpose.
Don't go around moving them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30103340</id>
	<title>Stability</title>
	<author>ChrisMaple</author>
	<datestamp>1258216440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope they use the extra time to make things stable, organized, configurable and documented. More descriptive tooltips would help, too.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I recently installed Fedora 11 and in only 3 weeks I've lost the abilty to see the top of the cube, to focus on no windows, to zoom using the scroll wheel, and to bring up a menu by clicking over the desktop. Compiz configuration is hopelessly disorganized. Advice from user forums points to menu entries that don't exist and suggest changes that have no effect.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; On the plus side, gnome has the first edge flip I've ever used that is good enough that I don't turn it off after a few days. Now if they'd only make an option to require an ALT key or button press for edge flip and I'd be a lot happier.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Also, it crashes occasionally, but I don't know for sure that the fault is with gnome and not firefox or something else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope they use the extra time to make things stable , organized , configurable and documented .
More descriptive tooltips would help , too .
      I recently installed Fedora 11 and in only 3 weeks I 've lost the abilty to see the top of the cube , to focus on no windows , to zoom using the scroll wheel , and to bring up a menu by clicking over the desktop .
Compiz configuration is hopelessly disorganized .
Advice from user forums points to menu entries that do n't exist and suggest changes that have no effect .
      On the plus side , gnome has the first edge flip I 've ever used that is good enough that I do n't turn it off after a few days .
Now if they 'd only make an option to require an ALT key or button press for edge flip and I 'd be a lot happier .
      Also , it crashes occasionally , but I do n't know for sure that the fault is with gnome and not firefox or something else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope they use the extra time to make things stable, organized, configurable and documented.
More descriptive tooltips would help, too.
      I recently installed Fedora 11 and in only 3 weeks I've lost the abilty to see the top of the cube, to focus on no windows, to zoom using the scroll wheel, and to bring up a menu by clicking over the desktop.
Compiz configuration is hopelessly disorganized.
Advice from user forums points to menu entries that don't exist and suggest changes that have no effect.
      On the plus side, gnome has the first edge flip I've ever used that is good enough that I don't turn it off after a few days.
Now if they'd only make an option to require an ALT key or button press for edge flip and I'd be a lot happier.
      Also, it crashes occasionally, but I don't know for sure that the fault is with gnome and not firefox or something else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095982</id>
	<title>yes! f4.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258193580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>volume of NetBSD fi8st organization Areao. It is the</htmltext>
<tokenext>volume of NetBSD fi8st organization Areao .
It is the</tokentext>
<sentencetext>volume of NetBSD fi8st organization Areao.
It is the</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096980</id>
	<title>Nerds against Gnomes campaign!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258209780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can we get some sort of campaign going against some of the changes in the Gnome 3 Shell? Architecture changes and performance impovements? Yes please! Altered usability and workflow? No thank you.</p><p>Gnome already works!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we get some sort of campaign going against some of the changes in the Gnome 3 Shell ?
Architecture changes and performance impovements ?
Yes please !
Altered usability and workflow ?
No thank you.Gnome already works !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we get some sort of campaign going against some of the changes in the Gnome 3 Shell?
Architecture changes and performance impovements?
Yes please!
Altered usability and workflow?
No thank you.Gnome already works!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096846</id>
	<title>Re:WTH</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1258208520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Gnome3 looks unusable anyways, delay it forever.<br>&gt; Go through the early tour and tell me that is more<br>&gt; usable. I've no idea wtf they were thinking.<br><br>"How can we make this more *different* from what long-time users want and expect, so that they have a harder time configuring it back toward normal behavior and an even harder time adjusting to the idiosyncrasies that can't be configured away?"<br><br>This is what the Gnome developers have been thinking ever since they started work on version 2.0.  It has become their modus operandi.  (Microsoft has now started to do the same thing, with the inability to turn off the $#@! "improvements" and get back the normal "classic" behavior in Seven like you could do in previous versions.  Thus, they have started down the Gnome path.)<br><br>You want to see a useful Gnome desktop environment, that can be easily configured to behave in the desirable fashion?  Use version 1.4 sometime.  The downside is, it's basically impossible to use modern applications with it, because of library version dependency conflicts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Gnome3 looks unusable anyways , delay it forever. &gt; Go through the early tour and tell me that is more &gt; usable .
I 've no idea wtf they were thinking .
" How can we make this more * different * from what long-time users want and expect , so that they have a harder time configuring it back toward normal behavior and an even harder time adjusting to the idiosyncrasies that ca n't be configured away ?
" This is what the Gnome developers have been thinking ever since they started work on version 2.0 .
It has become their modus operandi .
( Microsoft has now started to do the same thing , with the inability to turn off the $ # @ !
" improvements " and get back the normal " classic " behavior in Seven like you could do in previous versions .
Thus , they have started down the Gnome path .
) You want to see a useful Gnome desktop environment , that can be easily configured to behave in the desirable fashion ?
Use version 1.4 sometime .
The downside is , it 's basically impossible to use modern applications with it , because of library version dependency conflicts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Gnome3 looks unusable anyways, delay it forever.&gt; Go through the early tour and tell me that is more&gt; usable.
I've no idea wtf they were thinking.
"How can we make this more *different* from what long-time users want and expect, so that they have a harder time configuring it back toward normal behavior and an even harder time adjusting to the idiosyncrasies that can't be configured away?
"This is what the Gnome developers have been thinking ever since they started work on version 2.0.
It has become their modus operandi.
(Microsoft has now started to do the same thing, with the inability to turn off the $#@!
"improvements" and get back the normal "classic" behavior in Seven like you could do in previous versions.
Thus, they have started down the Gnome path.
)You want to see a useful Gnome desktop environment, that can be easily configured to behave in the desirable fashion?
Use version 1.4 sometime.
The downside is, it's basically impossible to use modern applications with it, because of library version dependency conflicts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30102936</id>
	<title>Re:Glad it's delayed. It's rubbish.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258210980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously? It's humiliating that after two decades, Linux still doesn't have a half-usable desktop manager. What do you think makes Windows popular? Is it the stability or the power? Or is it the fact that any idiot can use it?</p><p>Perhaps you should rethink your business model before only members of High IQ societies can use your intimidating GUI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously ?
It 's humiliating that after two decades , Linux still does n't have a half-usable desktop manager .
What do you think makes Windows popular ?
Is it the stability or the power ?
Or is it the fact that any idiot can use it ? Perhaps you should rethink your business model before only members of High IQ societies can use your intimidating GUI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously?
It's humiliating that after two decades, Linux still doesn't have a half-usable desktop manager.
What do you think makes Windows popular?
Is it the stability or the power?
Or is it the fact that any idiot can use it?Perhaps you should rethink your business model before only members of High IQ societies can use your intimidating GUI.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096158</id>
	<title>Re:Who needs GNOME when Windows is affordable</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1258197120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>3. nfs, and sshfs. They really are awesome. Windows/mac users don't even know what they are missing.</p></div></blockquote><p>You are aware that OS X natively supports NFS and MacFUSE works exactly like Linux FUSE?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>3. nfs , and sshfs .
They really are awesome .
Windows/mac users do n't even know what they are missing.You are aware that OS X natively supports NFS and MacFUSE works exactly like Linux FUSE ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3. nfs, and sshfs.
They really are awesome.
Windows/mac users don't even know what they are missing.You are aware that OS X natively supports NFS and MacFUSE works exactly like Linux FUSE?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096282</id>
	<title>It ain't broke so they fixed it...</title>
	<author>Cornwallis</author>
	<datestamp>1258199460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It looks like the task bar is missing. It looks like you have to click more to get where you want to go. It looks shiny. If I wanted all that I'd go to windows. Maybe I will. Windows 7 isn't bad at all. Hopefully when 3.0 IS released it will be customizable to get it back to where it was!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks like the task bar is missing .
It looks like you have to click more to get where you want to go .
It looks shiny .
If I wanted all that I 'd go to windows .
Maybe I will .
Windows 7 is n't bad at all .
Hopefully when 3.0 IS released it will be customizable to get it back to where it was !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It looks like the task bar is missing.
It looks like you have to click more to get where you want to go.
It looks shiny.
If I wanted all that I'd go to windows.
Maybe I will.
Windows 7 isn't bad at all.
Hopefully when 3.0 IS released it will be customizable to get it back to where it was!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30124732</id>
	<title>Everyone's an 'expert'</title>
	<author>erictheturtle</author>
	<datestamp>1258382040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Windows sucks. Gnome sucks. KDE sucks. etc, etc, ad naseum. The consistent theme I see in these comments is that everyone is an expert. "Designing a GUI is simple, you simply..." "Why aren't they doing this simple..." "I would like to see them add a simple..." Be prepared to have your mind blown:<br>
<br>
It isn't simple.<br>
<br>
Do you have any idea how challenging it is to design a desktop that basically meets the needs of <i> <b>EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE PLANET</b> </i>. Not just programmers. Not just open-source proponents. Not just mom and dad. Not just the elderly. Not just the young. Not just those with 2 iPhones and 6 computers. Not just artists. Not just professionals. Not just luddites. Not just English speakers. Not just multilingual. Not just those who can see. Not just those who can hear. Not just those that are colorblind.<br>
<br>
Everyone.<br>
<br>
Where do you find the balance between simplicity and capability? What conventions are most of the millions of people going to be familiar/comfortable with? Should new conventions be established despite them being unfamiliar?<br>
<br>
One thing Microsoft has over open-source community projects: enormous amounts of research. Even with all that, it's still going to be hard. The majority of users will probably dislike it, simply because you have to design it for everyone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows sucks .
Gnome sucks .
KDE sucks .
etc , etc , ad naseum .
The consistent theme I see in these comments is that everyone is an expert .
" Designing a GUI is simple , you simply... " " Why are n't they doing this simple... " " I would like to see them add a simple... " Be prepared to have your mind blown : It is n't simple .
Do you have any idea how challenging it is to design a desktop that basically meets the needs of EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE PLANET .
Not just programmers .
Not just open-source proponents .
Not just mom and dad .
Not just the elderly .
Not just the young .
Not just those with 2 iPhones and 6 computers .
Not just artists .
Not just professionals .
Not just luddites .
Not just English speakers .
Not just multilingual .
Not just those who can see .
Not just those who can hear .
Not just those that are colorblind .
Everyone . Where do you find the balance between simplicity and capability ?
What conventions are most of the millions of people going to be familiar/comfortable with ?
Should new conventions be established despite them being unfamiliar ?
One thing Microsoft has over open-source community projects : enormous amounts of research .
Even with all that , it 's still going to be hard .
The majority of users will probably dislike it , simply because you have to design it for everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows sucks.
Gnome sucks.
KDE sucks.
etc, etc, ad naseum.
The consistent theme I see in these comments is that everyone is an expert.
"Designing a GUI is simple, you simply..." "Why aren't they doing this simple..." "I would like to see them add a simple..." Be prepared to have your mind blown:

It isn't simple.
Do you have any idea how challenging it is to design a desktop that basically meets the needs of  EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE PLANET .
Not just programmers.
Not just open-source proponents.
Not just mom and dad.
Not just the elderly.
Not just the young.
Not just those with 2 iPhones and 6 computers.
Not just artists.
Not just professionals.
Not just luddites.
Not just English speakers.
Not just multilingual.
Not just those who can see.
Not just those who can hear.
Not just those that are colorblind.
Everyone.

Where do you find the balance between simplicity and capability?
What conventions are most of the millions of people going to be familiar/comfortable with?
Should new conventions be established despite them being unfamiliar?
One thing Microsoft has over open-source community projects: enormous amounts of research.
Even with all that, it's still going to be hard.
The majority of users will probably dislike it, simply because you have to design it for everyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097228</id>
	<title>DOn't like gnome</title>
	<author>Sam36</author>
	<datestamp>1258212000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am pretty flippant about gnome</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am pretty flippant about gnome</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am pretty flippant about gnome</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095936</id>
	<title>What GNOME really needs</title>
	<author>salarelv</author>
	<datestamp>1258192320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What GNOME really needs (in my mind):
 * better dual screen support
 * customizable virtual desktops (different layouts for work, entertainment etc) - would be cool if the second display could be one virtual desktop
 * fixed theme management (everything should be configured from one place)
 * "run as root" in the menu under right mouse click
 * "open terminal in current location"
 * better drag&amp;drop
 * better networking configuration (usb and bluetooth modems) - like to see why something isn't working.
etc

gnome doesn't need new menus..these are already great.
maybe a search bar for programs in the application menu. like in win7 and mac</htmltext>
<tokenext>What GNOME really needs ( in my mind ) : * better dual screen support * customizable virtual desktops ( different layouts for work , entertainment etc ) - would be cool if the second display could be one virtual desktop * fixed theme management ( everything should be configured from one place ) * " run as root " in the menu under right mouse click * " open terminal in current location " * better drag&amp;drop * better networking configuration ( usb and bluetooth modems ) - like to see why something is n't working .
etc gnome does n't need new menus..these are already great .
maybe a search bar for programs in the application menu .
like in win7 and mac</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What GNOME really needs (in my mind):
 * better dual screen support
 * customizable virtual desktops (different layouts for work, entertainment etc) - would be cool if the second display could be one virtual desktop
 * fixed theme management (everything should be configured from one place)
 * "run as root" in the menu under right mouse click
 * "open terminal in current location"
 * better drag&amp;drop
 * better networking configuration (usb and bluetooth modems) - like to see why something isn't working.
etc

gnome doesn't need new menus..these are already great.
maybe a search bar for programs in the application menu.
like in win7 and mac</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099222</id>
	<title>Re:WTH</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1258225800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, it's almost as if they're trying to... improve the user experience by... changing things... shocking!</p><p>Seriously, the only way to make people like you happy is to do absolutely nothing: you've cemented your mind about one particular UI and your mind is now closed for new accounts. You're the exact same as the wags who constantly whine about the Office 2007 interface, but haven't used it. Or who bitched and moans when Firefox *improves* the way the URL search box works. Bah to you.</p><p>Considering that the GUI is *still* the weakest part of all Linux distributions, I welcome any improvements to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , it 's almost as if they 're trying to... improve the user experience by... changing things... shocking ! Seriously , the only way to make people like you happy is to do absolutely nothing : you 've cemented your mind about one particular UI and your mind is now closed for new accounts .
You 're the exact same as the wags who constantly whine about the Office 2007 interface , but have n't used it .
Or who bitched and moans when Firefox * improves * the way the URL search box works .
Bah to you.Considering that the GUI is * still * the weakest part of all Linux distributions , I welcome any improvements to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, it's almost as if they're trying to... improve the user experience by... changing things... shocking!Seriously, the only way to make people like you happy is to do absolutely nothing: you've cemented your mind about one particular UI and your mind is now closed for new accounts.
You're the exact same as the wags who constantly whine about the Office 2007 interface, but haven't used it.
Or who bitched and moans when Firefox *improves* the way the URL search box works.
Bah to you.Considering that the GUI is *still* the weakest part of all Linux distributions, I welcome any improvements to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095708</id>
	<title>Good decision</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258231380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well done! Many times open-source projects compromise on quality (usually on features rather than stability) to make sure they make it on the scheduled release cycle. Often this is not possible, and it should be acknowledged. </p><p>For example, one particular Ubuntu release (thankfully only one), was released too early, according to me. I considered it a disaster, even though almost everything worked. A delay is always better than a bad release.</p><p>Thank you, guys at GNOME, for reinforcing your commitment to making GNOME 3 a better experience and not a let down. I hope that everyone will appreciate that this delay is better for GNOME in the long run in terms of how much people believe the claims for future releases and the quality it produces.</p><p> <i>Remember, no one believes Mark Shuttleworth when he says that "X.YZ" release will have a new look (Hardy, Intrepid, Jaunty, Karmic have all had those promises made). At least we know we'll get all those awesome features in GNOME, even if it means waiting for six months more.</i> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well done !
Many times open-source projects compromise on quality ( usually on features rather than stability ) to make sure they make it on the scheduled release cycle .
Often this is not possible , and it should be acknowledged .
For example , one particular Ubuntu release ( thankfully only one ) , was released too early , according to me .
I considered it a disaster , even though almost everything worked .
A delay is always better than a bad release.Thank you , guys at GNOME , for reinforcing your commitment to making GNOME 3 a better experience and not a let down .
I hope that everyone will appreciate that this delay is better for GNOME in the long run in terms of how much people believe the claims for future releases and the quality it produces .
Remember , no one believes Mark Shuttleworth when he says that " X.YZ " release will have a new look ( Hardy , Intrepid , Jaunty , Karmic have all had those promises made ) .
At least we know we 'll get all those awesome features in GNOME , even if it means waiting for six months more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well done!
Many times open-source projects compromise on quality (usually on features rather than stability) to make sure they make it on the scheduled release cycle.
Often this is not possible, and it should be acknowledged.
For example, one particular Ubuntu release (thankfully only one), was released too early, according to me.
I considered it a disaster, even though almost everything worked.
A delay is always better than a bad release.Thank you, guys at GNOME, for reinforcing your commitment to making GNOME 3 a better experience and not a let down.
I hope that everyone will appreciate that this delay is better for GNOME in the long run in terms of how much people believe the claims for future releases and the quality it produces.
Remember, no one believes Mark Shuttleworth when he says that "X.YZ" release will have a new look (Hardy, Intrepid, Jaunty, Karmic have all had those promises made).
At least we know we'll get all those awesome features in GNOME, even if it means waiting for six months more. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30103124</id>
	<title>Get your bi-focals ready</title>
	<author>lsatenstein</author>
	<datestamp>1258213680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I watched the demo or mockup for Gnome 3.0 and from what I saw, the main screen is constantly shrunk, as activities are opened up and displayed.

With the shrinking comes a scaling down of the displayed window, including font size.  I already have trouble with fonts the size of 8 pixals; My crt monitor can handle the resolution to 2000x1500 but my eyes cannot. Time to rethink functionality. Perhaps it is best to design for dual monitors, or monitors with screen ratios of 2 to 1.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I watched the demo or mockup for Gnome 3.0 and from what I saw , the main screen is constantly shrunk , as activities are opened up and displayed .
With the shrinking comes a scaling down of the displayed window , including font size .
I already have trouble with fonts the size of 8 pixals ; My crt monitor can handle the resolution to 2000x1500 but my eyes can not .
Time to rethink functionality .
Perhaps it is best to design for dual monitors , or monitors with screen ratios of 2 to 1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I watched the demo or mockup for Gnome 3.0 and from what I saw, the main screen is constantly shrunk, as activities are opened up and displayed.
With the shrinking comes a scaling down of the displayed window, including font size.
I already have trouble with fonts the size of 8 pixals; My crt monitor can handle the resolution to 2000x1500 but my eyes cannot.
Time to rethink functionality.
Perhaps it is best to design for dual monitors, or monitors with screen ratios of 2 to 1.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30098616</id>
	<title>Re:WTH</title>
	<author>celle</author>
	<datestamp>1258222260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...people are saying "I hate where GNOME is going with GNOME 3, I'm switching to KDE!"."</p><p>I've actually dumped them both and gone back to twm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...people are saying " I hate where GNOME is going with GNOME 3 , I 'm switching to KDE ! " .
" I 've actually dumped them both and gone back to twm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...people are saying "I hate where GNOME is going with GNOME 3, I'm switching to KDE!".
"I've actually dumped them both and gone back to twm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095590</id>
	<title>KDE 4!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258229340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is your chance buddy. Shine on !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is your chance buddy .
Shine on !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is your chance buddy.
Shine on !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095682</id>
	<title>Fire the whole team</title>
	<author>boudie2</author>
	<datestamp>1258230780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Until then the Gnome developers can just keep using their Apple laptops running OS X, as that seems to be all they ever to write about.
Makes me wonder if they even use Gnome.
In the meantime, I'll be sticking to Fluxbox.
While they keep making things for Joe Average (who won't use Linux).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until then the Gnome developers can just keep using their Apple laptops running OS X , as that seems to be all they ever to write about .
Makes me wonder if they even use Gnome .
In the meantime , I 'll be sticking to Fluxbox .
While they keep making things for Joe Average ( who wo n't use Linux ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until then the Gnome developers can just keep using their Apple laptops running OS X, as that seems to be all they ever to write about.
Makes me wonder if they even use Gnome.
In the meantime, I'll be sticking to Fluxbox.
While they keep making things for Joe Average (who won't use Linux).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30106746</id>
	<title>Re:WTH</title>
	<author>Yfrwlf</author>
	<datestamp>1258310040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh but what if you didn't mean to double click?  Would you then make it require a triple click?  Where does it end?  How about you click on something only if you want to open it?  Requiring a second click for "verification" is just silly and pointless.  I think you're used to double-clicking, so that when you tried moving to a single click desktop, you made mistakes because you weren't used to opening things with a single click.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh but what if you did n't mean to double click ?
Would you then make it require a triple click ?
Where does it end ?
How about you click on something only if you want to open it ?
Requiring a second click for " verification " is just silly and pointless .
I think you 're used to double-clicking , so that when you tried moving to a single click desktop , you made mistakes because you were n't used to opening things with a single click .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh but what if you didn't mean to double click?
Would you then make it require a triple click?
Where does it end?
How about you click on something only if you want to open it?
Requiring a second click for "verification" is just silly and pointless.
I think you're used to double-clicking, so that when you tried moving to a single click desktop, you made mistakes because you weren't used to opening things with a single click.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096760</id>
	<title>Re:Please fix the window manager</title>
	<author>egr</author>
	<datestamp>1258207260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't have this bug, you must have an old version</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't have this bug , you must have an old version</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't have this bug, you must have an old version</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095622</id>
	<title>Re:taking the time to get it right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258229820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>That isn't true. Blizzard rarely releases a game on time, they are of the up-most quality, and they are money driven. <br> <br>
I'm glad that we can make such broad sweeping generalizations these days, that Microsoft now represents the entire private sector.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is n't true .
Blizzard rarely releases a game on time , they are of the up-most quality , and they are money driven .
I 'm glad that we can make such broad sweeping generalizations these days , that Microsoft now represents the entire private sector .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That isn't true.
Blizzard rarely releases a game on time, they are of the up-most quality, and they are money driven.
I'm glad that we can make such broad sweeping generalizations these days, that Microsoft now represents the entire private sector.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095692</id>
	<title>Feel Like I've Been Punched In The Stomach</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258231200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Gnome3 looks unusable anyways"</p><p>I just switched to Ubuntu 9.10 it has been ok. Very rough, buggy, and unpolished compared to Windows but I really wanted to soldier on.</p><p>Seeing this Gnome 3 garbage just makes me want to throw my hands up and go right back to Windows.</p><p>Something is very, very wrong with the Gnome developers to have them honestly thinking this fiasco of an effort is going to attract anyone but the most diehard of existing Linux users.</p><p>Grow the fuck Gnome devs. No one wants yet another retarded attempt at 'reinventing' the desktop. It's a solved problem. People have work to do with their computers. Gnome 3 is nothing but juvinille wanking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Gnome3 looks unusable anyways " I just switched to Ubuntu 9.10 it has been ok. Very rough , buggy , and unpolished compared to Windows but I really wanted to soldier on.Seeing this Gnome 3 garbage just makes me want to throw my hands up and go right back to Windows.Something is very , very wrong with the Gnome developers to have them honestly thinking this fiasco of an effort is going to attract anyone but the most diehard of existing Linux users.Grow the fuck Gnome devs .
No one wants yet another retarded attempt at 'reinventing ' the desktop .
It 's a solved problem .
People have work to do with their computers .
Gnome 3 is nothing but juvinille wanking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Gnome3 looks unusable anyways"I just switched to Ubuntu 9.10 it has been ok. Very rough, buggy, and unpolished compared to Windows but I really wanted to soldier on.Seeing this Gnome 3 garbage just makes me want to throw my hands up and go right back to Windows.Something is very, very wrong with the Gnome developers to have them honestly thinking this fiasco of an effort is going to attract anyone but the most diehard of existing Linux users.Grow the fuck Gnome devs.
No one wants yet another retarded attempt at 'reinventing' the desktop.
It's a solved problem.
People have work to do with their computers.
Gnome 3 is nothing but juvinille wanking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097564</id>
	<title>Re:Leave well alone!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258214580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>millions? really?</p><p>do you have a source?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>millions ?
really ? do you have a source ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>millions?
really?do you have a source?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096084</id>
	<title>Re:As long as it dont gets mono infested.</title>
	<author>X0563511</author>
	<datestamp>1258195320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Between mono and <a href="http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/Screencasts" title="gnome.org">this</a> [gnome.org] you may just want to start switching early.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Between mono and this [ gnome.org ] you may just want to start switching early .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Between mono and this [gnome.org] you may just want to start switching early.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096014</id>
	<title>Re:taking the time to get it right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258194360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>they are of the up-most quality</p></div><p>Indeed. You might almost say they're of "utmost" quality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>they are of the up-most qualityIndeed .
You might almost say they 're of " utmost " quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they are of the up-most qualityIndeed.
You might almost say they're of "utmost" quality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095862</id>
	<title>Not going to comment about the actual product...</title>
	<author>asaz989</author>
	<datestamp>1258190760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...but from an Ubuntu scheduling perspective this sounds like good news. The last thing Ubuntu needs for its next LTS release (10.04) is a big new jump to GNOME 3. It'll be nice to have an LTS that will let less bleeding-edge users wait until GNOME 3 has a year and a half of polish, integration, and (most importantly) actual user feedback to upgrade, while still retaining full support</p><p>Plus, it'll be just plain interesting to see how Mark Shuttleworth reacts to this frankly rather iffy-looking overhaul. (Oh well, so much for not commenting about it.) Although let's be nice - the screenshots in the link seem to be design mockups, while in the actual screencasts they seem to have solved the billions-of-elipses problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...but from an Ubuntu scheduling perspective this sounds like good news .
The last thing Ubuntu needs for its next LTS release ( 10.04 ) is a big new jump to GNOME 3 .
It 'll be nice to have an LTS that will let less bleeding-edge users wait until GNOME 3 has a year and a half of polish , integration , and ( most importantly ) actual user feedback to upgrade , while still retaining full supportPlus , it 'll be just plain interesting to see how Mark Shuttleworth reacts to this frankly rather iffy-looking overhaul .
( Oh well , so much for not commenting about it .
) Although let 's be nice - the screenshots in the link seem to be design mockups , while in the actual screencasts they seem to have solved the billions-of-elipses problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but from an Ubuntu scheduling perspective this sounds like good news.
The last thing Ubuntu needs for its next LTS release (10.04) is a big new jump to GNOME 3.
It'll be nice to have an LTS that will let less bleeding-edge users wait until GNOME 3 has a year and a half of polish, integration, and (most importantly) actual user feedback to upgrade, while still retaining full supportPlus, it'll be just plain interesting to see how Mark Shuttleworth reacts to this frankly rather iffy-looking overhaul.
(Oh well, so much for not commenting about it.
) Although let's be nice - the screenshots in the link seem to be design mockups, while in the actual screencasts they seem to have solved the billions-of-elipses problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095632</id>
	<title>GNOME Shell == Clusterfuck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258229940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do we laugh or cry? It's like KDE and Gnome are in some sort of frantic struggle for who can botch desktop Linux the most.</p><p>I hope some commercial company like Google puts grownups to work like they did with Android on some replacement for these two basketcase projects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do we laugh or cry ?
It 's like KDE and Gnome are in some sort of frantic struggle for who can botch desktop Linux the most.I hope some commercial company like Google puts grownups to work like they did with Android on some replacement for these two basketcase projects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do we laugh or cry?
It's like KDE and Gnome are in some sort of frantic struggle for who can botch desktop Linux the most.I hope some commercial company like Google puts grownups to work like they did with Android on some replacement for these two basketcase projects.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096436</id>
	<title>Re:Based on Mono</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258202280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks, the subject line is all I needed to know about it... So LXDE it is!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks , the subject line is all I needed to know about it... So LXDE it is !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks, the subject line is all I needed to know about it... So LXDE it is!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30102908</id>
	<title>Re:Who needs GNOME when Windows is affordable</title>
	<author>Yunzil</author>
	<datestamp>1258210680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>1. I don't worry about firewalls, or anti-virus software.</i></p><p>Sucker.</p><p><i>4. New OS every few months, FREE. FOREVER..</i></p><p>This is a good thing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
I do n't worry about firewalls , or anti-virus software.Sucker.4 .
New OS every few months , FREE .
FOREVER..This is a good thing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
I don't worry about firewalls, or anti-virus software.Sucker.4.
New OS every few months, FREE.
FOREVER..This is a good thing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096254</id>
	<title>Re:Well at Least...</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1258199040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tons of unique things come from the FOSS ppl<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... they just don't make it mainstream until other people have it. BTW try running KDE and you'll see a shit ton of next 5 years stuff. Some of it might catch on some won't but a lot of it is new and innovative.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tons of unique things come from the FOSS ppl ... they just do n't make it mainstream until other people have it .
BTW try running KDE and you 'll see a shit ton of next 5 years stuff .
Some of it might catch on some wo n't but a lot of it is new and innovative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tons of unique things come from the FOSS ppl ... they just don't make it mainstream until other people have it.
BTW try running KDE and you'll see a shit ton of next 5 years stuff.
Some of it might catch on some won't but a lot of it is new and innovative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095952</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30100182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30108278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30098484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30098364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30109208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30098048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30102220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30105036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30106746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30109278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30109694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30102844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30098036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30100832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30098396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30192296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30101298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30102908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30104866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30103276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30100400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30103610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30098234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30102388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30100870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30104140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30101456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30103350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30104728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30100182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30192392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30098894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30098124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30098920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30102936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30101078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30100270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30098616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30100244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30106974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30103478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30100612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30102410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30109122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30102460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_0312247_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_0312247.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095622
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096014
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30100400
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097892
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30100832
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_0312247.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095590
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_0312247.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30100244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30192296
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_0312247.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096084
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_0312247.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095932
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_0312247.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30098048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096110
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30098124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095920
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096744
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095702
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096016
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095896
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095736
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096732
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097732
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30102220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30104866
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096492
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30098234
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099048
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30101078
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30098484
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097744
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30104728
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096642
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30109122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_0312247.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_0312247.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099034
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_0312247.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097088
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_0312247.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_0312247.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095950
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30102908
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096158
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30106974
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30098036
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30098364
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30101456
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30102388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30098920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_0312247.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_0312247.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_0312247.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_0312247.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096594
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_0312247.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096180
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30098396
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097564
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096692
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099114
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30101298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30104140
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30109208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30105036
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_0312247.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_0312247.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_0312247.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_0312247.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096846
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30098894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096184
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099268
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096808
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30103350
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30106746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095692
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096148
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096186
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30102410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095842
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096550
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30109278
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30098616
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095894
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096898
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30102844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096008
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095794
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30102460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_0312247.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_0312247.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096484
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30103478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097876
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_0312247.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30100182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30108278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30192392
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_0312247.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096126
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_0312247.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_0312247.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_0312247.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30103276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_0312247.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30095960
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096264
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30100870
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099538
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096232
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30109694
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30100612
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096548
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30103610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097348
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096096
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096952
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30102936
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30100270
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30099494
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30097492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_0312247.30096472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
