<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_28_0326221</id>
	<title>OpenSolaris Or FreeBSD?</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1259403240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Norsefire writes <i>"I am in quite a predicament. I decided a while back to branch out and use a new operating system (currently running Debian). After a bit of searching (trying Gentoo, Gobo and Arch along the way), I decided to use something that isn't Linux. Long story short: I narrowed the choices down to OpenSolaris and FreeBSD, but now I'm stuck. OpenSolaris is commercially backed by Sun, has nice enterprise-y tools in the default install, and best of all, a mature implementation of ZFS. FreeBSD is backed by a foundation, has a minimal default install and a rather new (but recently improved in the <a href="http://bsd.slashdot.org/story/09/11/26/1843233/FreeBSD-80-Released">8.0 release</a>) implementation of ZFS, however it offers the Ports Collection (I quite like the performance boost due to compiling from source, no matter how small it might be) and a bigger community than OpenSolaris. That is just a minimal mention of the differences. I would be interested to see what the Slashdot community thinks of these two operating systems."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Norsefire writes " I am in quite a predicament .
I decided a while back to branch out and use a new operating system ( currently running Debian ) .
After a bit of searching ( trying Gentoo , Gobo and Arch along the way ) , I decided to use something that is n't Linux .
Long story short : I narrowed the choices down to OpenSolaris and FreeBSD , but now I 'm stuck .
OpenSolaris is commercially backed by Sun , has nice enterprise-y tools in the default install , and best of all , a mature implementation of ZFS .
FreeBSD is backed by a foundation , has a minimal default install and a rather new ( but recently improved in the 8.0 release ) implementation of ZFS , however it offers the Ports Collection ( I quite like the performance boost due to compiling from source , no matter how small it might be ) and a bigger community than OpenSolaris .
That is just a minimal mention of the differences .
I would be interested to see what the Slashdot community thinks of these two operating systems .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Norsefire writes "I am in quite a predicament.
I decided a while back to branch out and use a new operating system (currently running Debian).
After a bit of searching (trying Gentoo, Gobo and Arch along the way), I decided to use something that isn't Linux.
Long story short: I narrowed the choices down to OpenSolaris and FreeBSD, but now I'm stuck.
OpenSolaris is commercially backed by Sun, has nice enterprise-y tools in the default install, and best of all, a mature implementation of ZFS.
FreeBSD is backed by a foundation, has a minimal default install and a rather new (but recently improved in the 8.0 release) implementation of ZFS, however it offers the Ports Collection (I quite like the performance boost due to compiling from source, no matter how small it might be) and a bigger community than OpenSolaris.
That is just a minimal mention of the differences.
I would be interested to see what the Slashdot community thinks of these two operating systems.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255740</id>
	<title>Use a VM</title>
	<author>microbox</author>
	<datestamp>1259436240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Use a virtual machine -- it is really much easier once it is set up. If we could start the OS wars from scratch, but with modern hardware, I would argue for a very simple layer that sits just above BIOS, that reads the file system, and lunches different OSes running in virtual machines. If that were standard, then every OS would seamlessly work with the system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Use a virtual machine -- it is really much easier once it is set up .
If we could start the OS wars from scratch , but with modern hardware , I would argue for a very simple layer that sits just above BIOS , that reads the file system , and lunches different OSes running in virtual machines .
If that were standard , then every OS would seamlessly work with the system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use a virtual machine -- it is really much easier once it is set up.
If we could start the OS wars from scratch, but with modern hardware, I would argue for a very simple layer that sits just above BIOS, that reads the file system, and lunches different OSes running in virtual machines.
If that were standard, then every OS would seamlessly work with the system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254876</id>
	<title>Re:Dual boot.</title>
	<author>WgT2</author>
	<datestamp>1259427720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes.</p><p>And if inquirer's goals for using either one are not yet clear, this can help 'em see what each has to offer (for better or worse).</p><p>(Good advice.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes.And if inquirer 's goals for using either one are not yet clear , this can help 'em see what each has to offer ( for better or worse ) .
( Good advice .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.And if inquirer's goals for using either one are not yet clear, this can help 'em see what each has to offer (for better or worse).
(Good advice.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254526</id>
	<title>Re:Go the whole hog...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259423760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why FreeVMS?  Why not just load up a hobbyist version of OpenVMS?  Of course,  hardware might be a issue,  or you could just try it at:</p><p>http://deathrow.vistech.net</p><p>Free accounts on OpenVMS servers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why FreeVMS ?
Why not just load up a hobbyist version of OpenVMS ?
Of course , hardware might be a issue , or you could just try it at : http : //deathrow.vistech.netFree accounts on OpenVMS servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why FreeVMS?
Why not just load up a hobbyist version of OpenVMS?
Of course,  hardware might be a issue,  or you could just try it at:http://deathrow.vistech.netFree accounts on OpenVMS servers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255436</id>
	<title>Going back to FreeBSD from Opensolaris</title>
	<author>umnikke8</author>
	<datestamp>1259433420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been using FreeBSD for quite a while. I decided to jump ship to Opensolaris for ZFS when I brought up a new NAS server. Welp, with FreeBSD 8.0 out now, I'm jumping back. I've had a heck of a time getting apps to work on Opensolaris, the file system is impressive and works great, but if I can't run the apps I want to access the data, it's pointless for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using FreeBSD for quite a while .
I decided to jump ship to Opensolaris for ZFS when I brought up a new NAS server .
Welp , with FreeBSD 8.0 out now , I 'm jumping back .
I 've had a heck of a time getting apps to work on Opensolaris , the file system is impressive and works great , but if I ca n't run the apps I want to access the data , it 's pointless for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been using FreeBSD for quite a while.
I decided to jump ship to Opensolaris for ZFS when I brought up a new NAS server.
Welp, with FreeBSD 8.0 out now, I'm jumping back.
I've had a heck of a time getting apps to work on Opensolaris, the file system is impressive and works great, but if I can't run the apps I want to access the data, it's pointless for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255068</id>
	<title>Re:Only copyleft is "commie", BSD isn't.</title>
	<author>nxtw</author>
	<datestamp>1259429700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In other words we'd like UNIX customers to move to Windows and abandon UNIX.</p></div></blockquote><p>Of course they would.  A company wants more customers.  So Interix "was created solely for the reason of destroying UNIX" in the same way that any company tries to make their products better than competing products.</p><blockquote><div><p>People who are neither working for the good of the "Open Source Community" nor Microsoft? Possibly, in part, Useful idiots? People who would be better to spend their time improving Debian or CentOS? Is Microsoft contributing or not? I know little of this and would be honestly interested to analyse it.</p></div></blockquote><p>I suspect people contribute to these kinds of projects because they use them, not for the only  benefit of helping "the community".  People <i>do</i> use computers for useful work, from time to time.</p><blockquote><div><p>That is what many people say. However the SCO probably lawsuit hasn't really had that much influence on Linux. I'm not convinced that it's true. Certainly this doesn't apply to Minix or many of the other BSD situations. It certainly doesn't explain the success of Mozilla (copyleft) over Mosaic (not).</p></div></blockquote><p>After the BSD lawsuit, the open source BSD distributions were rewritten without infringing code.  This took some time; the non infringing version of FreeBSD wasn't released until 1995.</p><p>The SCO lawsuit had no effect on Linux because it was immediately recognized as nonsense from the beginning.</p><p>In the 90s, Minix <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINIX#Licensing" title="wikipedia.org">couldn't even be freely distributed</a> [wikipedia.org].  As a useful operating system, Minix didn't compare to Linux or BSD back then.</p><p>Netscape was closed source and commercial for a long time.  By the time the Mozilla project was started/Netscape was open sourced, IE (another closed source browser) had already gained significant market share and Mosaic had long been irrelevant.</p><blockquote><div><p>The source they do provide means that any major feature they implement in Linux its self is available to others. That's key. That means that competitors who release features into Linux can do so with the knowledge that major improvements to their features will be available to copy back.</p></div></blockquote><p>The source is always available, yes - and if the feature is useful to others, and someone else has an interest to put that feature in the mainline Linux kernel, they can.  Otherwise, the code will just get stale.</p><blockquote><div><p>I'm not really sure what "community" means in this case. If they provide back their changes then they are in a sense "in" the community. If they don't take advantage of community support and discussion that's their disadvantage.</p></div></blockquote><p>Companies are hardly "in" the community if they do nothing other than honor the GPL obligation to release the source.  The criteria I am using: Do they contribute their useful modifications as patches to the original project or participate in the communities of the projects they use?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words we 'd like UNIX customers to move to Windows and abandon UNIX.Of course they would .
A company wants more customers .
So Interix " was created solely for the reason of destroying UNIX " in the same way that any company tries to make their products better than competing products.People who are neither working for the good of the " Open Source Community " nor Microsoft ?
Possibly , in part , Useful idiots ?
People who would be better to spend their time improving Debian or CentOS ?
Is Microsoft contributing or not ?
I know little of this and would be honestly interested to analyse it.I suspect people contribute to these kinds of projects because they use them , not for the only benefit of helping " the community " .
People do use computers for useful work , from time to time.That is what many people say .
However the SCO probably lawsuit has n't really had that much influence on Linux .
I 'm not convinced that it 's true .
Certainly this does n't apply to Minix or many of the other BSD situations .
It certainly does n't explain the success of Mozilla ( copyleft ) over Mosaic ( not ) .After the BSD lawsuit , the open source BSD distributions were rewritten without infringing code .
This took some time ; the non infringing version of FreeBSD was n't released until 1995.The SCO lawsuit had no effect on Linux because it was immediately recognized as nonsense from the beginning.In the 90s , Minix could n't even be freely distributed [ wikipedia.org ] .
As a useful operating system , Minix did n't compare to Linux or BSD back then.Netscape was closed source and commercial for a long time .
By the time the Mozilla project was started/Netscape was open sourced , IE ( another closed source browser ) had already gained significant market share and Mosaic had long been irrelevant.The source they do provide means that any major feature they implement in Linux its self is available to others .
That 's key .
That means that competitors who release features into Linux can do so with the knowledge that major improvements to their features will be available to copy back.The source is always available , yes - and if the feature is useful to others , and someone else has an interest to put that feature in the mainline Linux kernel , they can .
Otherwise , the code will just get stale.I 'm not really sure what " community " means in this case .
If they provide back their changes then they are in a sense " in " the community .
If they do n't take advantage of community support and discussion that 's their disadvantage.Companies are hardly " in " the community if they do nothing other than honor the GPL obligation to release the source .
The criteria I am using : Do they contribute their useful modifications as patches to the original project or participate in the communities of the projects they use ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words we'd like UNIX customers to move to Windows and abandon UNIX.Of course they would.
A company wants more customers.
So Interix "was created solely for the reason of destroying UNIX" in the same way that any company tries to make their products better than competing products.People who are neither working for the good of the "Open Source Community" nor Microsoft?
Possibly, in part, Useful idiots?
People who would be better to spend their time improving Debian or CentOS?
Is Microsoft contributing or not?
I know little of this and would be honestly interested to analyse it.I suspect people contribute to these kinds of projects because they use them, not for the only  benefit of helping "the community".
People do use computers for useful work, from time to time.That is what many people say.
However the SCO probably lawsuit hasn't really had that much influence on Linux.
I'm not convinced that it's true.
Certainly this doesn't apply to Minix or many of the other BSD situations.
It certainly doesn't explain the success of Mozilla (copyleft) over Mosaic (not).After the BSD lawsuit, the open source BSD distributions were rewritten without infringing code.
This took some time; the non infringing version of FreeBSD wasn't released until 1995.The SCO lawsuit had no effect on Linux because it was immediately recognized as nonsense from the beginning.In the 90s, Minix couldn't even be freely distributed [wikipedia.org].
As a useful operating system, Minix didn't compare to Linux or BSD back then.Netscape was closed source and commercial for a long time.
By the time the Mozilla project was started/Netscape was open sourced, IE (another closed source browser) had already gained significant market share and Mosaic had long been irrelevant.The source they do provide means that any major feature they implement in Linux its self is available to others.
That's key.
That means that competitors who release features into Linux can do so with the knowledge that major improvements to their features will be available to copy back.The source is always available, yes - and if the feature is useful to others, and someone else has an interest to put that feature in the mainline Linux kernel, they can.
Otherwise, the code will just get stale.I'm not really sure what "community" means in this case.
If they provide back their changes then they are in a sense "in" the community.
If they don't take advantage of community support and discussion that's their disadvantage.Companies are hardly "in" the community if they do nothing other than honor the GPL obligation to release the source.
The criteria I am using: Do they contribute their useful modifications as patches to the original project or participate in the communities of the projects they use?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255522</id>
	<title>Re:Why switch operating systems due to it's own sa</title>
	<author>celle</author>
	<datestamp>1259434140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"FreeBSD is more towards a desktop"</p><p>No it isn't. Freebsd's primary focus is and always has been for servers. The motto, "Freebsd, the power to serve". Freebsd is actually working in various directions like most operating systems including Opensolaris.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" FreeBSD is more towards a desktop " No it is n't .
Freebsd 's primary focus is and always has been for servers .
The motto , " Freebsd , the power to serve " .
Freebsd is actually working in various directions like most operating systems including Opensolaris .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"FreeBSD is more towards a desktop"No it isn't.
Freebsd's primary focus is and always has been for servers.
The motto, "Freebsd, the power to serve".
Freebsd is actually working in various directions like most operating systems including Opensolaris.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253976</id>
	<title>Re:Dual boot.</title>
	<author>isabellf</author>
	<datestamp>1259416380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who's moderating this ?!? The user clearly doesn't want some 'dual-boot' system to run a server operating system<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who 's moderating this ? ! ?
The user clearly does n't want some 'dual-boot ' system to run a server operating system .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who's moderating this ?!?
The user clearly doesn't want some 'dual-boot' system to run a server operating system ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30259862</id>
	<title>Re:Try both</title>
	<author>dushkin</author>
	<datestamp>1259487540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"what do you want to do with your computer?"<br>"A whole lot of porn."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" what do you want to do with your computer ?
" " A whole lot of porn .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"what do you want to do with your computer?
""A whole lot of porn.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254532</id>
	<title>OpenSolaris requires too much memory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259423880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love Solaris (particularly DTrace) but OpenSolaris requires too much memory. That's my main peeve with it. I think you can't install on anything that has less than 512MB. Since I usually play with old hardware, I would probably pick FreeBSD for this one reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love Solaris ( particularly DTrace ) but OpenSolaris requires too much memory .
That 's my main peeve with it .
I think you ca n't install on anything that has less than 512MB .
Since I usually play with old hardware , I would probably pick FreeBSD for this one reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love Solaris (particularly DTrace) but OpenSolaris requires too much memory.
That's my main peeve with it.
I think you can't install on anything that has less than 512MB.
Since I usually play with old hardware, I would probably pick FreeBSD for this one reason.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253498</id>
	<title>First Post!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259407080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FUCK YEAH!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FUCK YEAH ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FUCK YEAH!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253896</id>
	<title>Only copyleft is "commie", BSD isn't.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259415000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Restrictive (copyleft) licensed software like the Linux kernel and the GNU toolchain indeed follows a communist philosophy that fails to see the value of free market competition, and instead relies on government force (see gpl-violations.org).</p><p>Public domain software is ideal, but the most permissive (least restrictive) FLOSS software stack you can get today would be based on minimalist "cover our legal butts" licenses like BSD.  Other great permissive software includes Apache, PostgreSQL, Python, LLVM, X, vim, libtorrent, the Xiph codecs, and so on.  Major kudos to Google for releasing Chromium under the BSD license, which for the first time in history finally makes a decent 100\% free software desktop possible!</p><p>The Windows Interix subsystem could have evolved into a great UNIX server platform, but socialist governments (especially in Europe) place severe restrictions on what Microsoft can include in their products, which is the only thing holding them back.  There has been some effort to get Gentoo's portage or NetBSD's pkgsrc working on it, but it never got off the ground.  It seems like the open source community is ostracising Interix for purely irrational anti-capitalist reasons, and that's really a shame - it could have brought the power of UNIX to the &gt;90\% of users who run Windows!  (Yes, there's also Cygwin, but it's embarrassingly slow, buggy, and incomplete.)</p><p>As Stallman's economic fallacies become ever more evident, I expect ever-more developer time to shift to 100\% free (non-copyleft) software, which means there's a very bright long-term future ahead for platforms like FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, NewForkBSD, and even MINIX 4!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Restrictive ( copyleft ) licensed software like the Linux kernel and the GNU toolchain indeed follows a communist philosophy that fails to see the value of free market competition , and instead relies on government force ( see gpl-violations.org ) .Public domain software is ideal , but the most permissive ( least restrictive ) FLOSS software stack you can get today would be based on minimalist " cover our legal butts " licenses like BSD .
Other great permissive software includes Apache , PostgreSQL , Python , LLVM , X , vim , libtorrent , the Xiph codecs , and so on .
Major kudos to Google for releasing Chromium under the BSD license , which for the first time in history finally makes a decent 100 \ % free software desktop possible ! The Windows Interix subsystem could have evolved into a great UNIX server platform , but socialist governments ( especially in Europe ) place severe restrictions on what Microsoft can include in their products , which is the only thing holding them back .
There has been some effort to get Gentoo 's portage or NetBSD 's pkgsrc working on it , but it never got off the ground .
It seems like the open source community is ostracising Interix for purely irrational anti-capitalist reasons , and that 's really a shame - it could have brought the power of UNIX to the &gt; 90 \ % of users who run Windows !
( Yes , there 's also Cygwin , but it 's embarrassingly slow , buggy , and incomplete .
) As Stallman 's economic fallacies become ever more evident , I expect ever-more developer time to shift to 100 \ % free ( non-copyleft ) software , which means there 's a very bright long-term future ahead for platforms like FreeBSD , OpenBSD , NetBSD , NewForkBSD , and even MINIX 4 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Restrictive (copyleft) licensed software like the Linux kernel and the GNU toolchain indeed follows a communist philosophy that fails to see the value of free market competition, and instead relies on government force (see gpl-violations.org).Public domain software is ideal, but the most permissive (least restrictive) FLOSS software stack you can get today would be based on minimalist "cover our legal butts" licenses like BSD.
Other great permissive software includes Apache, PostgreSQL, Python, LLVM, X, vim, libtorrent, the Xiph codecs, and so on.
Major kudos to Google for releasing Chromium under the BSD license, which for the first time in history finally makes a decent 100\% free software desktop possible!The Windows Interix subsystem could have evolved into a great UNIX server platform, but socialist governments (especially in Europe) place severe restrictions on what Microsoft can include in their products, which is the only thing holding them back.
There has been some effort to get Gentoo's portage or NetBSD's pkgsrc working on it, but it never got off the ground.
It seems like the open source community is ostracising Interix for purely irrational anti-capitalist reasons, and that's really a shame - it could have brought the power of UNIX to the &gt;90\% of users who run Windows!
(Yes, there's also Cygwin, but it's embarrassingly slow, buggy, and incomplete.
)As Stallman's economic fallacies become ever more evident, I expect ever-more developer time to shift to 100\% free (non-copyleft) software, which means there's a very bright long-term future ahead for platforms like FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, NewForkBSD, and even MINIX 4!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255846</id>
	<title>Re:Article is trollbait</title>
	<author>godrik</author>
	<datestamp>1259437680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You cannot see how an operating system performs in a virtual environment. Mainly you see none of the why-the-hell-this-driver-is-not-working issues which I believe is the most difficult point in OSes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can not see how an operating system performs in a virtual environment .
Mainly you see none of the why-the-hell-this-driver-is-not-working issues which I believe is the most difficult point in OSes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You cannot see how an operating system performs in a virtual environment.
Mainly you see none of the why-the-hell-this-driver-is-not-working issues which I believe is the most difficult point in OSes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255670</id>
	<title>Re:Only copyleft is "commie", BSD isn't.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259435760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was a little depressed today, but then I read your post. You are so funny! All of a sudden, I realised my life could be so much worse -- I could be labouring under the weight of socialist conspiracy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was a little depressed today , but then I read your post .
You are so funny !
All of a sudden , I realised my life could be so much worse -- I could be labouring under the weight of socialist conspiracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was a little depressed today, but then I read your post.
You are so funny!
All of a sudden, I realised my life could be so much worse -- I could be labouring under the weight of socialist conspiracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256440</id>
	<title>My personal opinion...</title>
	<author>nitejammin</author>
	<datestamp>1259399760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For me OpenSolaris is great, i ran it for a few months but I have always gone back to FreeBSD in the end.  I like the ports tree a lot, its fast and simple to use and very straight forward on location of config files and it always stays that way.  Upgrades and port updating is very painless 99\% of the time. I personally just like FreeBSD better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For me OpenSolaris is great , i ran it for a few months but I have always gone back to FreeBSD in the end .
I like the ports tree a lot , its fast and simple to use and very straight forward on location of config files and it always stays that way .
Upgrades and port updating is very painless 99 \ % of the time .
I personally just like FreeBSD better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For me OpenSolaris is great, i ran it for a few months but I have always gone back to FreeBSD in the end.
I like the ports tree a lot, its fast and simple to use and very straight forward on location of config files and it always stays that way.
Upgrades and port updating is very painless 99\% of the time.
I personally just like FreeBSD better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254388</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1259422140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>switch to it if you really want to, but honestly in ISP and hosting type shops Debian is what I see most</i></p><p>To be fair, what I see in most hosting shops is RedHat (well, Centos). In Enterprises I also see RedHat a lot more than Debian, so I tend to recommend that more than any other distro to people looking to choose a Linux Server OS. For desktops.. I still recommend Ubuntu.</p><p>However, if he's comfortable with Debian, stick to using it. There's something to be said for running what you know - thats the primary reason we have so many Windows shops still<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>switch to it if you really want to , but honestly in ISP and hosting type shops Debian is what I see mostTo be fair , what I see in most hosting shops is RedHat ( well , Centos ) .
In Enterprises I also see RedHat a lot more than Debian , so I tend to recommend that more than any other distro to people looking to choose a Linux Server OS .
For desktops.. I still recommend Ubuntu.However , if he 's comfortable with Debian , stick to using it .
There 's something to be said for running what you know - thats the primary reason we have so many Windows shops still : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>switch to it if you really want to, but honestly in ISP and hosting type shops Debian is what I see mostTo be fair, what I see in most hosting shops is RedHat (well, Centos).
In Enterprises I also see RedHat a lot more than Debian, so I tend to recommend that more than any other distro to people looking to choose a Linux Server OS.
For desktops.. I still recommend Ubuntu.However, if he's comfortable with Debian, stick to using it.
There's something to be said for running what you know - thats the primary reason we have so many Windows shops still :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254304</id>
	<title>Re:Go the whole hog...</title>
	<author>Neil Hodges</author>
	<datestamp>1259421240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gee, that sounds a lot like what <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan\_9\_from\_Bell\_Labs" title="wikipedia.org">Plan 9 from Bell Labs</a> [wikipedia.org] tried to do, at least in terms of distribution, network sharing, and "devices as files."  It's not exactly popular now, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gee , that sounds a lot like what Plan 9 from Bell Labs [ wikipedia.org ] tried to do , at least in terms of distribution , network sharing , and " devices as files .
" It 's not exactly popular now , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gee, that sounds a lot like what Plan 9 from Bell Labs [wikipedia.org] tried to do, at least in terms of distribution, network sharing, and "devices as files.
"  It's not exactly popular now, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254360</id>
	<title>Why not both?</title>
	<author>Cytlid</author>
	<datestamp>1259421960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm currently running Slackware64 13.0, and have been a huge Slack fan since around 3.3.  Currently I run a handful of vm's under kvm.  Including ubuntu, debian, centos, vista, xp, a few Win7's (two betas, rc1 and the final enterprise), opensolaris and now I'm thinking of freebsd 8.0.  Some of my favorites are ubuntu and Win7.  I have about 16 of them all told but only use abour 2-3 at a time.

It's a fantastic way to learn several different things at once.  Run two VMs, focus on OpenSolaris for a week/month then switch to FreeBSD 8.0.  Then run them both at the same time when you're comfortable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm currently running Slackware64 13.0 , and have been a huge Slack fan since around 3.3 .
Currently I run a handful of vm 's under kvm .
Including ubuntu , debian , centos , vista , xp , a few Win7 's ( two betas , rc1 and the final enterprise ) , opensolaris and now I 'm thinking of freebsd 8.0 .
Some of my favorites are ubuntu and Win7 .
I have about 16 of them all told but only use abour 2-3 at a time .
It 's a fantastic way to learn several different things at once .
Run two VMs , focus on OpenSolaris for a week/month then switch to FreeBSD 8.0 .
Then run them both at the same time when you 're comfortable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm currently running Slackware64 13.0, and have been a huge Slack fan since around 3.3.
Currently I run a handful of vm's under kvm.
Including ubuntu, debian, centos, vista, xp, a few Win7's (two betas, rc1 and the final enterprise), opensolaris and now I'm thinking of freebsd 8.0.
Some of my favorites are ubuntu and Win7.
I have about 16 of them all told but only use abour 2-3 at a time.
It's a fantastic way to learn several different things at once.
Run two VMs, focus on OpenSolaris for a week/month then switch to FreeBSD 8.0.
Then run them both at the same time when you're comfortable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254236</id>
	<title>The truth shall set you free</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259420460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is official; Netcraft now confirms: *BSD is dying</p><p>One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming close on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.</p><p>You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.</p><p>FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93\% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.</p><p>Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.</p><p>OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.</p><p>Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.</p><p>All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a cockeyed miracle could save *BSD from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.</p><p>Fact: *BSD is dying</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is official ; Netcraft now confirms : * BSD is dyingOne more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered * BSD community when IDC confirmed that * BSD market share has dropped yet again , now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers .
Coming close on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that * BSD has lost more market share , this news serves to reinforce what we 've known all along .
* BSD is collapsing in complete disarray , as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.You do n't need to be a Kreskin to predict * BSD 's future .
The hand writing is on the wall : * BSD faces a bleak future .
In fact there wo n't be any future at all for * BSD because * BSD is dying .
Things are looking very bad for * BSD .
As many of us are already aware , * BSD continues to lose market share .
Red ink flows like a river of blood.FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all , having lost 93 \ % of its core developers .
The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly .
There can no longer be any doubt : FreeBSD is dying.Let 's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD .
How many users of NetBSD are there ?
Let 's see .
The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1 .
Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users .
BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts .
Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS .
A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the * BSD market .
Therefore there are ( 7000 + 1400 + 700 ) * 4 = 36400 FreeBSD users .
This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek , abysmal sales and so on , FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS .
Now BSDI is also dead , its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.All major surveys show that * BSD has steadily declined in market share .
* BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim .
If * BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers .
* BSD continues to decay .
Nothing short of a cockeyed miracle could save * BSD from its fate at this point in time .
For all practical purposes , * BSD is dead.Fact : * BSD is dying</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is official; Netcraft now confirms: *BSD is dyingOne more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers.
Coming close on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along.
*BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future.
The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future.
In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying.
Things are looking very bad for *BSD.
As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share.
Red ink flows like a river of blood.FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93\% of its core developers.
The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly.
There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD.
How many users of NetBSD are there?
Let's see.
The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1.
Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users.
BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts.
Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS.
A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market.
Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users.
This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS.
Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share.
*BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim.
If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers.
*BSD continues to decay.
Nothing short of a cockeyed miracle could save *BSD from its fate at this point in time.
For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.Fact: *BSD is dying</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254452</id>
	<title>Re:Performance boost?</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1259422920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why wouldn't it? The desktop in front of me has a dual core 64bit processor from AMD from last year, it has a significant number of features added to it to boost efficiency which were not available to the early pentiums, let alone the 486 which the compilers are supposed to allow to run by default. If you're suggesting that removing the older compatibility and using the newer features, I think you need to go back and ask Intel and AMD why they wasted the money developing them in the first place.<br> <br>

Not to mention, the ability to remove cruft that didn't really belong in there to begin with. And the tendency for the package sites to be using older packages. Fundamentally, it's a hard argument to buy that compiling ones own software for ones own personal preference isn't going to run more efficiently than a generic needs to run on many different boxes package.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would n't it ?
The desktop in front of me has a dual core 64bit processor from AMD from last year , it has a significant number of features added to it to boost efficiency which were not available to the early pentiums , let alone the 486 which the compilers are supposed to allow to run by default .
If you 're suggesting that removing the older compatibility and using the newer features , I think you need to go back and ask Intel and AMD why they wasted the money developing them in the first place .
Not to mention , the ability to remove cruft that did n't really belong in there to begin with .
And the tendency for the package sites to be using older packages .
Fundamentally , it 's a hard argument to buy that compiling ones own software for ones own personal preference is n't going to run more efficiently than a generic needs to run on many different boxes package .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why wouldn't it?
The desktop in front of me has a dual core 64bit processor from AMD from last year, it has a significant number of features added to it to boost efficiency which were not available to the early pentiums, let alone the 486 which the compilers are supposed to allow to run by default.
If you're suggesting that removing the older compatibility and using the newer features, I think you need to go back and ask Intel and AMD why they wasted the money developing them in the first place.
Not to mention, the ability to remove cruft that didn't really belong in there to begin with.
And the tendency for the package sites to be using older packages.
Fundamentally, it's a hard argument to buy that compiling ones own software for ones own personal preference isn't going to run more efficiently than a generic needs to run on many different boxes package.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253914</id>
	<title>What are your goals???</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1259415300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Without that information, all you'll get is a bunch of people suggesting their own pet projects.</p><p>Even if you just want to learn and play you might want to have a goal. Do you want to learn to administer ZFS? You seem to be fixated on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without that information , all you 'll get is a bunch of people suggesting their own pet projects.Even if you just want to learn and play you might want to have a goal .
Do you want to learn to administer ZFS ?
You seem to be fixated on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without that information, all you'll get is a bunch of people suggesting their own pet projects.Even if you just want to learn and play you might want to have a goal.
Do you want to learn to administer ZFS?
You seem to be fixated on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256142</id>
	<title>Re:OpenSolaris is desperate</title>
	<author>temojen</author>
	<datestamp>1259440080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a long-term Linux guy (since 1995) I think ZFS integration with Samba, iSCSI Targets, and Zones makes OpenSolaris relevant to me. I am now trying to learn Opensolaris so I can use these on a SOHO server. Sure in a year or two BTRFS may have RAID5-like redundancy, caching and intent logging on SSD, and these features, but OpenSolaris/ZFS has them now. I definitely won't be running any solaris on my netbook (kubuntu), laptop (WinXP), or Macs though.</p><p>I think if the opensolaris community can produce a variant that makes it easy for a less-than-elite user to set up a server with a samba share, some iSCSI targets (for time machine, aperture library, or whatever), and possibly an IMAP server, they can greatly increase the pool to whom they are relevant. Auto-magic HDD management like drobo would help too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a long-term Linux guy ( since 1995 ) I think ZFS integration with Samba , iSCSI Targets , and Zones makes OpenSolaris relevant to me .
I am now trying to learn Opensolaris so I can use these on a SOHO server .
Sure in a year or two BTRFS may have RAID5-like redundancy , caching and intent logging on SSD , and these features , but OpenSolaris/ZFS has them now .
I definitely wo n't be running any solaris on my netbook ( kubuntu ) , laptop ( WinXP ) , or Macs though.I think if the opensolaris community can produce a variant that makes it easy for a less-than-elite user to set up a server with a samba share , some iSCSI targets ( for time machine , aperture library , or whatever ) , and possibly an IMAP server , they can greatly increase the pool to whom they are relevant .
Auto-magic HDD management like drobo would help too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a long-term Linux guy (since 1995) I think ZFS integration with Samba, iSCSI Targets, and Zones makes OpenSolaris relevant to me.
I am now trying to learn Opensolaris so I can use these on a SOHO server.
Sure in a year or two BTRFS may have RAID5-like redundancy, caching and intent logging on SSD, and these features, but OpenSolaris/ZFS has them now.
I definitely won't be running any solaris on my netbook (kubuntu), laptop (WinXP), or Macs though.I think if the opensolaris community can produce a variant that makes it easy for a less-than-elite user to set up a server with a samba share, some iSCSI targets (for time machine, aperture library, or whatever), and possibly an IMAP server, they can greatly increase the pool to whom they are relevant.
Auto-magic HDD management like drobo would help too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255852</id>
	<title>blah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259437680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stick to Debian.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stick to Debian .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stick to Debian.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255164</id>
	<title>Re:Performance boost?</title>
	<author>fimbulvetr</author>
	<datestamp>1259430480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless it's some extreme niche where the shaved cycles really pay off over some time, it seems like a gigantic waste of time for 5\%-15\% here and there. When you use precompiled, you're already looking at diminishing returns WRT compiling performance, but when you're spending your time compiling everything for that extra 3\%, it seems pretty ridiculous. A fraction of that time could be spent flipping burgers to get enough dough to secure yourself a nice SSD which would make totally irrelevant any 1\%-5\% boosts. In fact, you might even get to finish up on the computer earlier, and go have some beers with your newfound supply of money and time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless it 's some extreme niche where the shaved cycles really pay off over some time , it seems like a gigantic waste of time for 5 \ % -15 \ % here and there .
When you use precompiled , you 're already looking at diminishing returns WRT compiling performance , but when you 're spending your time compiling everything for that extra 3 \ % , it seems pretty ridiculous .
A fraction of that time could be spent flipping burgers to get enough dough to secure yourself a nice SSD which would make totally irrelevant any 1 \ % -5 \ % boosts .
In fact , you might even get to finish up on the computer earlier , and go have some beers with your newfound supply of money and time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless it's some extreme niche where the shaved cycles really pay off over some time, it seems like a gigantic waste of time for 5\%-15\% here and there.
When you use precompiled, you're already looking at diminishing returns WRT compiling performance, but when you're spending your time compiling everything for that extra 3\%, it seems pretty ridiculous.
A fraction of that time could be spent flipping burgers to get enough dough to secure yourself a nice SSD which would make totally irrelevant any 1\%-5\% boosts.
In fact, you might even get to finish up on the computer earlier, and go have some beers with your newfound supply of money and time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253900</id>
	<title>Drivers, Drivers, Drivers....</title>
	<author>mangastudent</author>
	<datestamp>1259415060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm using Debian stable right now as the solution for my particular requirements (development desktop that's a good Xen Dom0), but I'd much rather be using a BSD (the first machine I bare metaled was BSD 2.x onto a PDP-11/44 in 1981 (sic)) or Solaris (it took me most of a decade, but I eventually got over their switch to AT&amp;T<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-).

</p><p>The big problems with FreeBSD when I made my decision were no Dom0 support and an immature ZFS, and the problem I've always had with Solaris is <i>solid</i> mass storage device driver support, at least for vaguely affordable controllers that don't require a PCI-X bus. E.g. when I last checked nVidia SATA chipset support was iffy (which was odd since a classic workstation they shipped had a rebadged Tyan motherboard with a nVidia chipset; I've got two of those Tyans in prodution and they're rock solid<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... with Windows XP<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-( hey, I'm not willing to put my parents on Linux or whatever quite yet )).

</p><p>This may have improved since then, but be sure to check for problems in the field.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm using Debian stable right now as the solution for my particular requirements ( development desktop that 's a good Xen Dom0 ) , but I 'd much rather be using a BSD ( the first machine I bare metaled was BSD 2.x onto a PDP-11/44 in 1981 ( sic ) ) or Solaris ( it took me most of a decade , but I eventually got over their switch to AT&amp;T : - ) .
The big problems with FreeBSD when I made my decision were no Dom0 support and an immature ZFS , and the problem I 've always had with Solaris is solid mass storage device driver support , at least for vaguely affordable controllers that do n't require a PCI-X bus .
E.g. when I last checked nVidia SATA chipset support was iffy ( which was odd since a classic workstation they shipped had a rebadged Tyan motherboard with a nVidia chipset ; I 've got two of those Tyans in prodution and they 're rock solid ... with Windows XP : - ( hey , I 'm not willing to put my parents on Linux or whatever quite yet ) ) .
This may have improved since then , but be sure to check for problems in the field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm using Debian stable right now as the solution for my particular requirements (development desktop that's a good Xen Dom0), but I'd much rather be using a BSD (the first machine I bare metaled was BSD 2.x onto a PDP-11/44 in 1981 (sic)) or Solaris (it took me most of a decade, but I eventually got over their switch to AT&amp;T :-).
The big problems with FreeBSD when I made my decision were no Dom0 support and an immature ZFS, and the problem I've always had with Solaris is solid mass storage device driver support, at least for vaguely affordable controllers that don't require a PCI-X bus.
E.g. when I last checked nVidia SATA chipset support was iffy (which was odd since a classic workstation they shipped had a rebadged Tyan motherboard with a nVidia chipset; I've got two of those Tyans in prodution and they're rock solid ... with Windows XP :-( hey, I'm not willing to put my parents on Linux or whatever quite yet )).
This may have improved since then, but be sure to check for problems in the field.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253608</id>
	<title>Grow Up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259409000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't you get a fucking life and make a decision all by your little self. You may even be an adult</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't you get a fucking life and make a decision all by your little self .
You may even be an adult</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't you get a fucking life and make a decision all by your little self.
You may even be an adult</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255440</id>
	<title>KVM/VMware/VirtualBox/etc.</title>
	<author>xaoslaad</author>
	<datestamp>1259433480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I haven't read the article, so you may have answered this; still it seems silly that you haven't considered virtualization to try them both.
<br> <br>
I have hardware running Fedora 12, Windows 7, and OS X 10.6. But that's not enough for me personally. Just for keeping tabs on whats going on with the different operating systems and each ones nuances I like to have several more installed.
<br> <br>
In my case, I use VMware Fusion on my Macbook to run desktop environments on various OS's; Fedora, Windows, Solaris, FreeBSD, and whatever else I can shove on its undersized hard drive... hell building OpenOffice.org 3.1 on my new FreeBSD 8.0 vm, just finished up at some gawd aweful hour this morning completing its setup.
<br> <br>
Not only that you can set up multiple systems to run at the same time and allow them to interact in server/client environments and see each shine in its own right.
<br> <br>
Since my mac is too underpowered to be running multiple VM's I use KVM to launch servers to connect them to as I see fit... hell I have DNS, DHCP, Kerberos, 389 Directory Server, etc. etc.  It's a lot to keep in your head, and fiddling with it until your comfortable with it more than most admins is your key to success. I have lists of other things I want to build up when lulls in personal and work life hit; puppet, ruby, cobbler, more nagios, and so on... By virtue of using virtualization you also become familiar with those technologies... sometimes I'll even download an eval license of Windows Server and go through the effort of promoting it to a DC setting up RIS and another service or two just so I can remember how to do so. I don't even admin windows anymore, but it's still good to know.
<br> <br>
And in the end I can keep the two or three real systems quite clean and problem free, because if I want to try something I do it in a vm, rather than blowing up one of my host/base operating systems...
<br> <br>
That's my two cents; like I said you may have already answered the question, but it just seems silly not to take an approach like this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't read the article , so you may have answered this ; still it seems silly that you have n't considered virtualization to try them both .
I have hardware running Fedora 12 , Windows 7 , and OS X 10.6 .
But that 's not enough for me personally .
Just for keeping tabs on whats going on with the different operating systems and each ones nuances I like to have several more installed .
In my case , I use VMware Fusion on my Macbook to run desktop environments on various OS 's ; Fedora , Windows , Solaris , FreeBSD , and whatever else I can shove on its undersized hard drive... hell building OpenOffice.org 3.1 on my new FreeBSD 8.0 vm , just finished up at some gawd aweful hour this morning completing its setup .
Not only that you can set up multiple systems to run at the same time and allow them to interact in server/client environments and see each shine in its own right .
Since my mac is too underpowered to be running multiple VM 's I use KVM to launch servers to connect them to as I see fit... hell I have DNS , DHCP , Kerberos , 389 Directory Server , etc .
etc. It 's a lot to keep in your head , and fiddling with it until your comfortable with it more than most admins is your key to success .
I have lists of other things I want to build up when lulls in personal and work life hit ; puppet , ruby , cobbler , more nagios , and so on... By virtue of using virtualization you also become familiar with those technologies... sometimes I 'll even download an eval license of Windows Server and go through the effort of promoting it to a DC setting up RIS and another service or two just so I can remember how to do so .
I do n't even admin windows anymore , but it 's still good to know .
And in the end I can keep the two or three real systems quite clean and problem free , because if I want to try something I do it in a vm , rather than blowing up one of my host/base operating systems.. . That 's my two cents ; like I said you may have already answered the question , but it just seems silly not to take an approach like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't read the article, so you may have answered this; still it seems silly that you haven't considered virtualization to try them both.
I have hardware running Fedora 12, Windows 7, and OS X 10.6.
But that's not enough for me personally.
Just for keeping tabs on whats going on with the different operating systems and each ones nuances I like to have several more installed.
In my case, I use VMware Fusion on my Macbook to run desktop environments on various OS's; Fedora, Windows, Solaris, FreeBSD, and whatever else I can shove on its undersized hard drive... hell building OpenOffice.org 3.1 on my new FreeBSD 8.0 vm, just finished up at some gawd aweful hour this morning completing its setup.
Not only that you can set up multiple systems to run at the same time and allow them to interact in server/client environments and see each shine in its own right.
Since my mac is too underpowered to be running multiple VM's I use KVM to launch servers to connect them to as I see fit... hell I have DNS, DHCP, Kerberos, 389 Directory Server, etc.
etc.  It's a lot to keep in your head, and fiddling with it until your comfortable with it more than most admins is your key to success.
I have lists of other things I want to build up when lulls in personal and work life hit; puppet, ruby, cobbler, more nagios, and so on... By virtue of using virtualization you also become familiar with those technologies... sometimes I'll even download an eval license of Windows Server and go through the effort of promoting it to a DC setting up RIS and another service or two just so I can remember how to do so.
I don't even admin windows anymore, but it's still good to know.
And in the end I can keep the two or three real systems quite clean and problem free, because if I want to try something I do it in a vm, rather than blowing up one of my host/base operating systems...
 
That's my two cents; like I said you may have already answered the question, but it just seems silly not to take an approach like this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253674</id>
	<title>Re:Go the whole hog...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1259410140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that they look outdated for at least a decade, and that their paradigms also are outdated.</p><p>I wish someone would come up with something new, that combines all good ideas of all OSes into a new basic architecture, after understanding that, creates some new, modern paradigms, and then re-builds all those good ideas from scratch into those new main paradigms.<br>Which should in itself already result in a load of new possibilities. But some new functions of top, and you have a certain winner.</p><p>The only problem is to get the resources to be able to pull something like that off. Because it is certainly possible. Hell I could do it, if I had the budget to hire the right people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that they look outdated for at least a decade , and that their paradigms also are outdated.I wish someone would come up with something new , that combines all good ideas of all OSes into a new basic architecture , after understanding that , creates some new , modern paradigms , and then re-builds all those good ideas from scratch into those new main paradigms.Which should in itself already result in a load of new possibilities .
But some new functions of top , and you have a certain winner.The only problem is to get the resources to be able to pull something like that off .
Because it is certainly possible .
Hell I could do it , if I had the budget to hire the right people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that they look outdated for at least a decade, and that their paradigms also are outdated.I wish someone would come up with something new, that combines all good ideas of all OSes into a new basic architecture, after understanding that, creates some new, modern paradigms, and then re-builds all those good ideas from scratch into those new main paradigms.Which should in itself already result in a load of new possibilities.
But some new functions of top, and you have a certain winner.The only problem is to get the resources to be able to pull something like that off.
Because it is certainly possible.
Hell I could do it, if I had the budget to hire the right people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254710</id>
	<title>Re:FreeBSD ZFS kernel panics?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259425860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've seen that bit of documentation, and I'm pretty sure it's referring to an older revision of the ZFS code. FreeBSD 8.0 has a much newer version which is supposed to correct a lot of this issues. I personally haven't tried it yet, but people I've talked to say it's a lot more stable now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen that bit of documentation , and I 'm pretty sure it 's referring to an older revision of the ZFS code .
FreeBSD 8.0 has a much newer version which is supposed to correct a lot of this issues .
I personally have n't tried it yet , but people I 've talked to say it 's a lot more stable now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen that bit of documentation, and I'm pretty sure it's referring to an older revision of the ZFS code.
FreeBSD 8.0 has a much newer version which is supposed to correct a lot of this issues.
I personally haven't tried it yet, but people I've talked to say it's a lot more stable now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254790</id>
	<title>Re:FreeBSD is more towards a desktop,</title>
	<author>wexsessa</author>
	<datestamp>1259426760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and if you want it more so, there is PC-BSD
(Free BSD with (good) lipstick).</htmltext>
<tokenext>and if you want it more so , there is PC-BSD ( Free BSD with ( good ) lipstick ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and if you want it more so, there is PC-BSD
(Free BSD with (good) lipstick).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254900</id>
	<title>Re:I have a PROBLEM.</title>
	<author>alfredo</author>
	<datestamp>1259427960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, you can.  First, could you get me some coffee?  Double cream and sugar.  You fly, you buy?


Oh, and pick up my dry cleaning.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , you can .
First , could you get me some coffee ?
Double cream and sugar .
You fly , you buy ?
Oh , and pick up my dry cleaning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, you can.
First, could you get me some coffee?
Double cream and sugar.
You fly, you buy?
Oh, and pick up my dry cleaning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30257100</id>
	<title>Compiling from source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259407680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I quite like the performance boost due to compiling from source"</p><p>Just compiling from source and applying a few more compiler optimizations won't give you a performance improvement most of the time. You can get improvement on some high-performance math applications, rendering, transcoding and such.</p><p>Although, you can get a good improvement on memory footprint of your system and load times by compiling with minimal dependencies. The problem is... unless your distro has a good system in place to manage such customizations on compilations, there's no benefit. So, AFAIK, ports (either FreeBSD or NetBSD) doesn't provide the necessary customization capabilities and convenience tools to really improve performance by compiling your software.</p><p>In short, unless you really care about performance boost for specific applications and you want to spend time optimizing them... just forget about "compiling from source" when choosing a distro. When you choose, if it has ports supports, then great, if not... you don't lose too much,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I quite like the performance boost due to compiling from source " Just compiling from source and applying a few more compiler optimizations wo n't give you a performance improvement most of the time .
You can get improvement on some high-performance math applications , rendering , transcoding and such.Although , you can get a good improvement on memory footprint of your system and load times by compiling with minimal dependencies .
The problem is... unless your distro has a good system in place to manage such customizations on compilations , there 's no benefit .
So , AFAIK , ports ( either FreeBSD or NetBSD ) does n't provide the necessary customization capabilities and convenience tools to really improve performance by compiling your software.In short , unless you really care about performance boost for specific applications and you want to spend time optimizing them... just forget about " compiling from source " when choosing a distro .
When you choose , if it has ports supports , then great , if not... you do n't lose too much,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I quite like the performance boost due to compiling from source"Just compiling from source and applying a few more compiler optimizations won't give you a performance improvement most of the time.
You can get improvement on some high-performance math applications, rendering, transcoding and such.Although, you can get a good improvement on memory footprint of your system and load times by compiling with minimal dependencies.
The problem is... unless your distro has a good system in place to manage such customizations on compilations, there's no benefit.
So, AFAIK, ports (either FreeBSD or NetBSD) doesn't provide the necessary customization capabilities and convenience tools to really improve performance by compiling your software.In short, unless you really care about performance boost for specific applications and you want to spend time optimizing them... just forget about "compiling from source" when choosing a distro.
When you choose, if it has ports supports, then great, if not... you don't lose too much,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256152</id>
	<title>Re:FreeBSD ZFS kernel panics?</title>
	<author>phantomcircuit</author>
	<datestamp>1259440140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yeah, kernel infrastructure that can't cope with running out of memory. That fills me with confidence. Particularly I've run ZFS on OpenSolaris on a 48MB Pentium laptop and it coped fine.</p></div><p>It's not from running out of memory, it's from running out of addressable memory.  Up until 7.2 the FreeBSD kernel could address at most 2GB of kernel memory.  That is no longer a problem, it has been significantly extended to 512GB.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , kernel infrastructure that ca n't cope with running out of memory .
That fills me with confidence .
Particularly I 've run ZFS on OpenSolaris on a 48MB Pentium laptop and it coped fine.It 's not from running out of memory , it 's from running out of addressable memory .
Up until 7.2 the FreeBSD kernel could address at most 2GB of kernel memory .
That is no longer a problem , it has been significantly extended to 512GB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, kernel infrastructure that can't cope with running out of memory.
That fills me with confidence.
Particularly I've run ZFS on OpenSolaris on a 48MB Pentium laptop and it coped fine.It's not from running out of memory, it's from running out of addressable memory.
Up until 7.2 the FreeBSD kernel could address at most 2GB of kernel memory.
That is no longer a problem, it has been significantly extended to 512GB.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30259664</id>
	<title>Re:Go the whole hog...</title>
	<author>jgrahn</author>
	<datestamp>1259525760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Operating system these days are not so much about the kernel, but about what abstractions the kernel offers. The Unix abstraction, i.e. everything is a file, is a good one, and if we think about it in modern terms, it's nothing more than object orientation: a specific class behind each file does specific things with the data it accepts. The same data can be sent to the same file, but the executed code would be different.
</p><p>
So why not make everything object oriented? forget processes and files, think objects. What files lack is retrospection, i.e. what messages accept and what format is the data they accept. That's the next logical progression from processes and files. With the appropriate object-oriented facilities, an O/S would become much more programmable and flexible.</p></div></blockquote><p>
No, it would be the COM object insanity all over again.
The point with the Unix files (input and output streams of characters really) is
that they are untyped.
What you suggest *does* exist, though: ioctl(2). When was the last time you used those?
Right: they're a kludge for special situations, not a new wonderful general idiom.
</p><p>Everybody seems to dislike ESR, but do yourself a favor and go read "The Art of Unix Programming".
It discusses precisely these things.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Operating system these days are not so much about the kernel , but about what abstractions the kernel offers .
The Unix abstraction , i.e .
everything is a file , is a good one , and if we think about it in modern terms , it 's nothing more than object orientation : a specific class behind each file does specific things with the data it accepts .
The same data can be sent to the same file , but the executed code would be different .
So why not make everything object oriented ?
forget processes and files , think objects .
What files lack is retrospection , i.e .
what messages accept and what format is the data they accept .
That 's the next logical progression from processes and files .
With the appropriate object-oriented facilities , an O/S would become much more programmable and flexible .
No , it would be the COM object insanity all over again .
The point with the Unix files ( input and output streams of characters really ) is that they are untyped .
What you suggest * does * exist , though : ioctl ( 2 ) .
When was the last time you used those ?
Right : they 're a kludge for special situations , not a new wonderful general idiom .
Everybody seems to dislike ESR , but do yourself a favor and go read " The Art of Unix Programming " .
It discusses precisely these things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Operating system these days are not so much about the kernel, but about what abstractions the kernel offers.
The Unix abstraction, i.e.
everything is a file, is a good one, and if we think about it in modern terms, it's nothing more than object orientation: a specific class behind each file does specific things with the data it accepts.
The same data can be sent to the same file, but the executed code would be different.
So why not make everything object oriented?
forget processes and files, think objects.
What files lack is retrospection, i.e.
what messages accept and what format is the data they accept.
That's the next logical progression from processes and files.
With the appropriate object-oriented facilities, an O/S would become much more programmable and flexible.
No, it would be the COM object insanity all over again.
The point with the Unix files (input and output streams of characters really) is
that they are untyped.
What you suggest *does* exist, though: ioctl(2).
When was the last time you used those?
Right: they're a kludge for special situations, not a new wonderful general idiom.
Everybody seems to dislike ESR, but do yourself a favor and go read "The Art of Unix Programming".
It discusses precisely these things.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253660</id>
	<title>FreeBSD ZFS kernel panics?</title>
	<author>david.given</author>
	<datestamp>1259409900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does ZFS on FreeBSD still suffer from random kernel panics when it gets low on memory?

</p><p>I'm particularly referring to this bit of documentation:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>To use ZFS, at least 1GB of memory is recommended (for all architectures) but more is helpful as ZFS needs *lots* of memory. Depending on your workload, it may be possible to use ZFS on systems with less memory, but it requires careful tuning to avoid panics from memory exhaustion in the kernel.</p></div><p>Yeah, kernel infrastructure that can't cope with running out of memory. That fills me with confidence. Particularly I've run ZFS on OpenSolaris on a 48MB Pentium laptop and it coped fine.

</p><p>Unfortunately the FreeBSD ZFS pages are a wiki, which means they're badly organised and out of date. I have no idea when the above was written or whether it's still valid. Does anyone know?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does ZFS on FreeBSD still suffer from random kernel panics when it gets low on memory ?
I 'm particularly referring to this bit of documentation : To use ZFS , at least 1GB of memory is recommended ( for all architectures ) but more is helpful as ZFS needs * lots * of memory .
Depending on your workload , it may be possible to use ZFS on systems with less memory , but it requires careful tuning to avoid panics from memory exhaustion in the kernel.Yeah , kernel infrastructure that ca n't cope with running out of memory .
That fills me with confidence .
Particularly I 've run ZFS on OpenSolaris on a 48MB Pentium laptop and it coped fine .
Unfortunately the FreeBSD ZFS pages are a wiki , which means they 're badly organised and out of date .
I have no idea when the above was written or whether it 's still valid .
Does anyone know ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does ZFS on FreeBSD still suffer from random kernel panics when it gets low on memory?
I'm particularly referring to this bit of documentation:To use ZFS, at least 1GB of memory is recommended (for all architectures) but more is helpful as ZFS needs *lots* of memory.
Depending on your workload, it may be possible to use ZFS on systems with less memory, but it requires careful tuning to avoid panics from memory exhaustion in the kernel.Yeah, kernel infrastructure that can't cope with running out of memory.
That fills me with confidence.
Particularly I've run ZFS on OpenSolaris on a 48MB Pentium laptop and it coped fine.
Unfortunately the FreeBSD ZFS pages are a wiki, which means they're badly organised and out of date.
I have no idea when the above was written or whether it's still valid.
Does anyone know?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254810</id>
	<title>Re:Go the whole hog...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259427060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Except that they look outdated for at least a decade</i></p><p>The upright bicycle has essentially used the same design for over 100 years, and nothing has come close to replacing it.  Sometimes you just hit a sweet spot in design, I think UNIX is one of those spots. Sure some places need polish, but the underlying system is very capable and doesn't suffer much for being based on 30 year old ideas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that they look outdated for at least a decadeThe upright bicycle has essentially used the same design for over 100 years , and nothing has come close to replacing it .
Sometimes you just hit a sweet spot in design , I think UNIX is one of those spots .
Sure some places need polish , but the underlying system is very capable and does n't suffer much for being based on 30 year old ideas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that they look outdated for at least a decadeThe upright bicycle has essentially used the same design for over 100 years, and nothing has come close to replacing it.
Sometimes you just hit a sweet spot in design, I think UNIX is one of those spots.
Sure some places need polish, but the underlying system is very capable and doesn't suffer much for being based on 30 year old ideas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255240</id>
	<title>OpenSolaris doomed commercially</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259431200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... at least in its current form.</p><p>The new packaging format combined with a relatively new installer team (that appears to have no enterprise experience whatsoever) has mostly guaranteed that a lot of companies are going to be making an exodus away from Solaris.  With Sun killing Nevada and providing no way to upgrade existing systems to OpenSolaris, businesses running Solaris are, IMHO, much more likely just to migrate away.  If I'm going to be forced to re-install, I might as well install something else.</p><p>As an added bonus, AI (the 'new' OpenSolaris network install) takes all the best features of Jumpstart and throws them away.  AI looks fantastic for blades, desktops, and other really simple configurations but that's about it.  Want to configure more than one disk?  Gotta wait for that to get added. Want to configure naming services? Gotta wait for that to get added.  Want to set eeprom or bios settings before installing?  Sorry, the team doesn't believe in begin/pre scripts.  Want to use a finish/post script to flip a flag?  Sorry, the team doesn't believe in those either.</p><p>At this point, I simply in good conscious recommend anyone to consider using OpenSolaris on anything but hobby gear. Sun has lost the plot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... at least in its current form.The new packaging format combined with a relatively new installer team ( that appears to have no enterprise experience whatsoever ) has mostly guaranteed that a lot of companies are going to be making an exodus away from Solaris .
With Sun killing Nevada and providing no way to upgrade existing systems to OpenSolaris , businesses running Solaris are , IMHO , much more likely just to migrate away .
If I 'm going to be forced to re-install , I might as well install something else.As an added bonus , AI ( the 'new ' OpenSolaris network install ) takes all the best features of Jumpstart and throws them away .
AI looks fantastic for blades , desktops , and other really simple configurations but that 's about it .
Want to configure more than one disk ?
Got ta wait for that to get added .
Want to configure naming services ?
Got ta wait for that to get added .
Want to set eeprom or bios settings before installing ?
Sorry , the team does n't believe in begin/pre scripts .
Want to use a finish/post script to flip a flag ?
Sorry , the team does n't believe in those either.At this point , I simply in good conscious recommend anyone to consider using OpenSolaris on anything but hobby gear .
Sun has lost the plot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... at least in its current form.The new packaging format combined with a relatively new installer team (that appears to have no enterprise experience whatsoever) has mostly guaranteed that a lot of companies are going to be making an exodus away from Solaris.
With Sun killing Nevada and providing no way to upgrade existing systems to OpenSolaris, businesses running Solaris are, IMHO, much more likely just to migrate away.
If I'm going to be forced to re-install, I might as well install something else.As an added bonus, AI (the 'new' OpenSolaris network install) takes all the best features of Jumpstart and throws them away.
AI looks fantastic for blades, desktops, and other really simple configurations but that's about it.
Want to configure more than one disk?
Gotta wait for that to get added.
Want to configure naming services?
Gotta wait for that to get added.
Want to set eeprom or bios settings before installing?
Sorry, the team doesn't believe in begin/pre scripts.
Want to use a finish/post script to flip a flag?
Sorry, the team doesn't believe in those either.At this point, I simply in good conscious recommend anyone to consider using OpenSolaris on anything but hobby gear.
Sun has lost the plot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253698</id>
	<title>use pkgsrc for third party apps</title>
	<author>blymn</author>
	<datestamp>1259410560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
You could try using pkgsrc (http://www.pkgsrc.org/) on opensolaris for third party applications.  There are a lot of packages for opensolaris already but I think that pkgsrc beats them.  Alternatively, you could try your hand at sourcejuicer and feed the apps you want into the opensolaris pool.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You could try using pkgsrc ( http : //www.pkgsrc.org/ ) on opensolaris for third party applications .
There are a lot of packages for opensolaris already but I think that pkgsrc beats them .
Alternatively , you could try your hand at sourcejuicer and feed the apps you want into the opensolaris pool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
You could try using pkgsrc (http://www.pkgsrc.org/) on opensolaris for third party applications.
There are a lot of packages for opensolaris already but I think that pkgsrc beats them.
Alternatively, you could try your hand at sourcejuicer and feed the apps you want into the opensolaris pool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254992</id>
	<title>Re:I have a PROBLEM.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259428980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am your boss, and you're fired.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am your boss , and you 're fired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am your boss, and you're fired.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254508</id>
	<title>Nextenta</title>
	<author>j-cloth</author>
	<datestamp>1259423640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been playing with Nexenta (www.nexenta.org)  for a while with some success. It calls itself GNU/Solaris in the same way that Debian is GNU/Linux. They put an OpenSolaris kernel under a GNU software stack using recompiled Ubuntu packages. Last time I checked they were using Hardy.<br>

Packaged software support isn't as large as with FreeBSD (not all Ubuntu packages are converted), but larger than OpenSolaris (it includes the OpenSolaris packages through apt).<br>

Its main appeal is in combining the power of Solaris with the ease of apt and adds a cool feature called apt-clone that takes a ZFS snapshot before doing any package maintenance allowing clean, trivial rollbacks for testing and error correction. It also supports switching between GNU and Solaris contexts in case you prefer your tar without a -z option.<br>

It's not completely mature at this point so I wouldn't use it in my datacenter, but it's fine for a home server. I haven't tested it on the desktop yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been playing with Nexenta ( www.nexenta.org ) for a while with some success .
It calls itself GNU/Solaris in the same way that Debian is GNU/Linux .
They put an OpenSolaris kernel under a GNU software stack using recompiled Ubuntu packages .
Last time I checked they were using Hardy .
Packaged software support is n't as large as with FreeBSD ( not all Ubuntu packages are converted ) , but larger than OpenSolaris ( it includes the OpenSolaris packages through apt ) .
Its main appeal is in combining the power of Solaris with the ease of apt and adds a cool feature called apt-clone that takes a ZFS snapshot before doing any package maintenance allowing clean , trivial rollbacks for testing and error correction .
It also supports switching between GNU and Solaris contexts in case you prefer your tar without a -z option .
It 's not completely mature at this point so I would n't use it in my datacenter , but it 's fine for a home server .
I have n't tested it on the desktop yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been playing with Nexenta (www.nexenta.org)  for a while with some success.
It calls itself GNU/Solaris in the same way that Debian is GNU/Linux.
They put an OpenSolaris kernel under a GNU software stack using recompiled Ubuntu packages.
Last time I checked they were using Hardy.
Packaged software support isn't as large as with FreeBSD (not all Ubuntu packages are converted), but larger than OpenSolaris (it includes the OpenSolaris packages through apt).
Its main appeal is in combining the power of Solaris with the ease of apt and adds a cool feature called apt-clone that takes a ZFS snapshot before doing any package maintenance allowing clean, trivial rollbacks for testing and error correction.
It also supports switching between GNU and Solaris contexts in case you prefer your tar without a -z option.
It's not completely mature at this point so I wouldn't use it in my datacenter, but it's fine for a home server.
I haven't tested it on the desktop yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253948</id>
	<title>Stick with Linux</title>
	<author>TheRealDamion</author>
	<datestamp>1259415840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I came from a SunOS background but used Linux based distributions at home (Slaskware was the easiest at the time).<br>I the tried NetBSD and FreeBSD and they were okay, I found general responsiveness felt good, not necessarily faster, but more consistant, this was years before low lateny linux kernel.<br>After about 9-12 months, I realised I was spending a lot of my time just trying to get iBCS, Wine and Linux compatibility working so I could be productive.  I realised I wasn't gaining anything from running FreeBSD<br>and was struggling to make it work like a Linux based desktop OS.  As a server I favoured Solaris anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I came from a SunOS background but used Linux based distributions at home ( Slaskware was the easiest at the time ) .I the tried NetBSD and FreeBSD and they were okay , I found general responsiveness felt good , not necessarily faster , but more consistant , this was years before low lateny linux kernel.After about 9-12 months , I realised I was spending a lot of my time just trying to get iBCS , Wine and Linux compatibility working so I could be productive .
I realised I was n't gaining anything from running FreeBSDand was struggling to make it work like a Linux based desktop OS .
As a server I favoured Solaris anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I came from a SunOS background but used Linux based distributions at home (Slaskware was the easiest at the time).I the tried NetBSD and FreeBSD and they were okay, I found general responsiveness felt good, not necessarily faster, but more consistant, this was years before low lateny linux kernel.After about 9-12 months, I realised I was spending a lot of my time just trying to get iBCS, Wine and Linux compatibility working so I could be productive.
I realised I wasn't gaining anything from running FreeBSDand was struggling to make it work like a Linux based desktop OS.
As a server I favoured Solaris anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30262176</id>
	<title>Use them both.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259517600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get Xen or VMWare or whatever you like.</p><p>Run them both.  Use them both.  One will win.</p><p>By the time you find answers to your initial questions, or come up with round two, you will be know about Oracle.</p><p>Hey, there's also Darwin if you love ports so much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get Xen or VMWare or whatever you like.Run them both .
Use them both .
One will win.By the time you find answers to your initial questions , or come up with round two , you will be know about Oracle.Hey , there 's also Darwin if you love ports so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get Xen or VMWare or whatever you like.Run them both.
Use them both.
One will win.By the time you find answers to your initial questions, or come up with round two, you will be know about Oracle.Hey, there's also Darwin if you love ports so much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253858</id>
	<title>Re:self-compiling not such a black/white matter</title>
	<author>caluml</author>
	<datestamp>1259414280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There needs to be a Gentoo Stable version of Gentoo, where packages update very infrequently, but people test the ebuilds to make sure that they work even if you're not updating from the version that was issued 15 minutes ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There needs to be a Gentoo Stable version of Gentoo , where packages update very infrequently , but people test the ebuilds to make sure that they work even if you 're not updating from the version that was issued 15 minutes ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There needs to be a Gentoo Stable version of Gentoo, where packages update very infrequently, but people test the ebuilds to make sure that they work even if you're not updating from the version that was issued 15 minutes ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255036</id>
	<title>Re:Go the whole hog...</title>
	<author>rubycodez</author>
	<datestamp>1259429340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tannenbaum's MINIX 3</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tannenbaum 's MINIX 3</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tannenbaum's MINIX 3</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253534</id>
	<title>I run emacs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259407680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is there an operating system under it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there an operating system under it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there an operating system under it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254278</id>
	<title>Re:Go the whole hog...</title>
	<author>udippel</author>
	<datestamp>1259420940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I wish someone would come up with something new, that combines all good ideas of all OSes into a new basic architecture, after understanding that, creates some new, modern paradigms, and then re-builds all those good ideas from scratch into those new main paradigms.</i></p><p>It exists!<br>Just visit your favourite computer shop and get yourself this shiny new W7-DVD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish someone would come up with something new , that combines all good ideas of all OSes into a new basic architecture , after understanding that , creates some new , modern paradigms , and then re-builds all those good ideas from scratch into those new main paradigms.It exists ! Just visit your favourite computer shop and get yourself this shiny new W7-DVD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish someone would come up with something new, that combines all good ideas of all OSes into a new basic architecture, after understanding that, creates some new, modern paradigms, and then re-builds all those good ideas from scratch into those new main paradigms.It exists!Just visit your favourite computer shop and get yourself this shiny new W7-DVD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254676</id>
	<title>Opensolaris</title>
	<author>hedrick</author>
	<datestamp>1259425560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use Solaris 10 x64 for production, on Sun hardware. On the desktop I use OS X, and to a lesser extent Windows 7 and OpenSolaris. I've tried various Linux distributions and OpenBSD. I used Solaris 9 and older on SPARC, but my recent experience is with Solaris 10 on x64. That's a rather different and more interesting OS than Solaris 6 - 8, particularly the old x86 port.

</p><p>I don't see the performance issues with current versions of Solaris. A couple of years ago when we were setting up I looked at published Java benchmarks, and found Solaris a couple of percent better than Linux. Not enough to matter. It is probably true that OpenSolaris on the desktop is not a good fit for small memory. This is particularly true now that the default install uses ZFS. The design of ZFS assumes a fair amount of memory, because by default it uses a large cache. It's fine on my old 1 GB laptop, and I've used smaller virtual machines, but it's not what I'd choose for a 256 MB Pentium. I should note that ZFS is still under active development. A lot of it involves performance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Solaris 10 x64 for production , on Sun hardware .
On the desktop I use OS X , and to a lesser extent Windows 7 and OpenSolaris .
I 've tried various Linux distributions and OpenBSD .
I used Solaris 9 and older on SPARC , but my recent experience is with Solaris 10 on x64 .
That 's a rather different and more interesting OS than Solaris 6 - 8 , particularly the old x86 port .
I do n't see the performance issues with current versions of Solaris .
A couple of years ago when we were setting up I looked at published Java benchmarks , and found Solaris a couple of percent better than Linux .
Not enough to matter .
It is probably true that OpenSolaris on the desktop is not a good fit for small memory .
This is particularly true now that the default install uses ZFS .
The design of ZFS assumes a fair amount of memory , because by default it uses a large cache .
It 's fine on my old 1 GB laptop , and I 've used smaller virtual machines , but it 's not what I 'd choose for a 256 MB Pentium .
I should note that ZFS is still under active development .
A lot of it involves performance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use Solaris 10 x64 for production, on Sun hardware.
On the desktop I use OS X, and to a lesser extent Windows 7 and OpenSolaris.
I've tried various Linux distributions and OpenBSD.
I used Solaris 9 and older on SPARC, but my recent experience is with Solaris 10 on x64.
That's a rather different and more interesting OS than Solaris 6 - 8, particularly the old x86 port.
I don't see the performance issues with current versions of Solaris.
A couple of years ago when we were setting up I looked at published Java benchmarks, and found Solaris a couple of percent better than Linux.
Not enough to matter.
It is probably true that OpenSolaris on the desktop is not a good fit for small memory.
This is particularly true now that the default install uses ZFS.
The design of ZFS assumes a fair amount of memory, because by default it uses a large cache.
It's fine on my old 1 GB laptop, and I've used smaller virtual machines, but it's not what I'd choose for a 256 MB Pentium.
I should note that ZFS is still under active development.
A lot of it involves performance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254096</id>
	<title>Re:Performance boost?</title>
	<author>AdelieMan</author>
	<datestamp>1259418120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Never used Gentoo I see. You would understand then.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Never used Gentoo I see .
You would understand then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never used Gentoo I see.
You would understand then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255334</id>
	<title>Neither: Nexenta.</title>
	<author>krilli</author>
	<datestamp>1259432340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nexenta is basically the OpenSolaris kernel and the Debian/Ubuntu userland.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nexenta is basically the OpenSolaris kernel and the Debian/Ubuntu userland .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nexenta is basically the OpenSolaris kernel and the Debian/Ubuntu userland.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253794</id>
	<title>Depends on what you are looking for</title>
	<author>mendred</author>
	<datestamp>1259413140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>From reading your post, it looks like you are looking to use a desktop OS (I may be wrong). Also it seems to me that you have tried various distros of linux but are rejecting them because it doesn't hhave ZFS. <br> <br>

Therefore if we are to restrict our options to OpenBSD and FreeBSD i would lean towards FreeBSD simply due to the large no. of apps available through ports.Also i believe driver compatibility is a little better in FreeBSD, especially recently with nvidia cards. <br> <br>

However as another poster said, the best judge is you. therefore install each and try them out and see which works best with your hardware. you may also want to compare desktop responsiveness with Linux, as I believe that recent linux kernels have received further  optimizations for desktop performance.<br> <br>

If its a server OS you are looking for then it depends on what you are using it for (LAMP, file server, DB host etc.). If you are looking to run commercial DBs like Oracle on it, a certified OS like RHEL/Solaris may be a better bet if u plan to   ask for support. Thats a totally different ball game all together and is something on which one can write pages on.<br> <br>

Good luck on whatever you choose to use.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From reading your post , it looks like you are looking to use a desktop OS ( I may be wrong ) .
Also it seems to me that you have tried various distros of linux but are rejecting them because it does n't hhave ZFS .
Therefore if we are to restrict our options to OpenBSD and FreeBSD i would lean towards FreeBSD simply due to the large no .
of apps available through ports.Also i believe driver compatibility is a little better in FreeBSD , especially recently with nvidia cards .
However as another poster said , the best judge is you .
therefore install each and try them out and see which works best with your hardware .
you may also want to compare desktop responsiveness with Linux , as I believe that recent linux kernels have received further optimizations for desktop performance .
If its a server OS you are looking for then it depends on what you are using it for ( LAMP , file server , DB host etc. ) .
If you are looking to run commercial DBs like Oracle on it , a certified OS like RHEL/Solaris may be a better bet if u plan to ask for support .
Thats a totally different ball game all together and is something on which one can write pages on .
Good luck on whatever you choose to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From reading your post, it looks like you are looking to use a desktop OS (I may be wrong).
Also it seems to me that you have tried various distros of linux but are rejecting them because it doesn't hhave ZFS.
Therefore if we are to restrict our options to OpenBSD and FreeBSD i would lean towards FreeBSD simply due to the large no.
of apps available through ports.Also i believe driver compatibility is a little better in FreeBSD, especially recently with nvidia cards.
However as another poster said, the best judge is you.
therefore install each and try them out and see which works best with your hardware.
you may also want to compare desktop responsiveness with Linux, as I believe that recent linux kernels have received further  optimizations for desktop performance.
If its a server OS you are looking for then it depends on what you are using it for (LAMP, file server, DB host etc.).
If you are looking to run commercial DBs like Oracle on it, a certified OS like RHEL/Solaris may be a better bet if u plan to   ask for support.
Thats a totally different ball game all together and is something on which one can write pages on.
Good luck on whatever you choose to use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253540</id>
	<title>Why switch operating systems due to it's own sake?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259407800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You didn't say what's your specific need. If you are just testing out different systems and doing some studying, then the correct answer is probably "Both". If you have specific need then would have been nice if you outlined that. FreeBSD is more towards a desktop, Solaris is more for servers, but you already know that. So if you aren't just doing this out of academic interest, would sure help to know your requirements (and why didn't the Linux flavors work out?).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You did n't say what 's your specific need .
If you are just testing out different systems and doing some studying , then the correct answer is probably " Both " .
If you have specific need then would have been nice if you outlined that .
FreeBSD is more towards a desktop , Solaris is more for servers , but you already know that .
So if you are n't just doing this out of academic interest , would sure help to know your requirements ( and why did n't the Linux flavors work out ?
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You didn't say what's your specific need.
If you are just testing out different systems and doing some studying, then the correct answer is probably "Both".
If you have specific need then would have been nice if you outlined that.
FreeBSD is more towards a desktop, Solaris is more for servers, but you already know that.
So if you aren't just doing this out of academic interest, would sure help to know your requirements (and why didn't the Linux flavors work out?
).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30266574</id>
	<title>Re:Only copyleft is "commie", BSD isn't.</title>
	<author>badkarmadayaccount</author>
	<datestamp>1259516100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How much do you get payed for shilling?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much do you get payed for shilling ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much do you get payed for shilling?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30262194</id>
	<title>OpenSolaris / ZFS rocks</title>
	<author>talexb</author>
	<datestamp>1259517780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My experience with OpenSolaris has been great. I set up an OpenSolaris NFS server with a RAID 1 array using two 300G drives under ZFS, and it's been rock solid.</p><p>A few months ago (I'm not that great of a SysAdmin) I decided I'd better check the health of the server, and discovered that my Secondary IDE channel was gonzo, and that OpenSolaris was reporting that my RAID 1 array was 'degraded', and running on only one drive. (Each drive is on a different IDE channel for redundancy -- guess that was the right decision.)</p><p>I now have a new chassis that I'll be putting that system's three drives into<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. Real Soon Now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My experience with OpenSolaris has been great .
I set up an OpenSolaris NFS server with a RAID 1 array using two 300G drives under ZFS , and it 's been rock solid.A few months ago ( I 'm not that great of a SysAdmin ) I decided I 'd better check the health of the server , and discovered that my Secondary IDE channel was gonzo , and that OpenSolaris was reporting that my RAID 1 array was 'degraded ' , and running on only one drive .
( Each drive is on a different IDE channel for redundancy -- guess that was the right decision .
) I now have a new chassis that I 'll be putting that system 's three drives into .. Real Soon Now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My experience with OpenSolaris has been great.
I set up an OpenSolaris NFS server with a RAID 1 array using two 300G drives under ZFS, and it's been rock solid.A few months ago (I'm not that great of a SysAdmin) I decided I'd better check the health of the server, and discovered that my Secondary IDE channel was gonzo, and that OpenSolaris was reporting that my RAID 1 array was 'degraded', and running on only one drive.
(Each drive is on a different IDE channel for redundancy -- guess that was the right decision.
)I now have a new chassis that I'll be putting that system's three drives into .. Real Soon Now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253952</id>
	<title>Re:Go the whole hog...</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1259415960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A fair post.  You could have made an excellent post, had you told us what you like about them, and what you don't like.  I've played with a bunch of OS's now, and continue testing and playing.  Solaris, for instance, is a nice strong contender in the server field, but it is much more limited as a desktop or workstation OS than most of the Linux flavors, due to a shortage of ported applications.</p><p>I've tried Haiku - can't remember now why I passed it over.  Probably as limited as Solaris as a desktop/workstation, but I'm not sure.</p><p>I'll try the others.</p><p>It would just be nice if you told us what it was that YOU liked or disliked about them.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;^)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A fair post .
You could have made an excellent post , had you told us what you like about them , and what you do n't like .
I 've played with a bunch of OS 's now , and continue testing and playing .
Solaris , for instance , is a nice strong contender in the server field , but it is much more limited as a desktop or workstation OS than most of the Linux flavors , due to a shortage of ported applications.I 've tried Haiku - ca n't remember now why I passed it over .
Probably as limited as Solaris as a desktop/workstation , but I 'm not sure.I 'll try the others.It would just be nice if you told us what it was that YOU liked or disliked about them .
; ^ )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A fair post.
You could have made an excellent post, had you told us what you like about them, and what you don't like.
I've played with a bunch of OS's now, and continue testing and playing.
Solaris, for instance, is a nice strong contender in the server field, but it is much more limited as a desktop or workstation OS than most of the Linux flavors, due to a shortage of ported applications.I've tried Haiku - can't remember now why I passed it over.
Probably as limited as Solaris as a desktop/workstation, but I'm not sure.I'll try the others.It would just be nice if you told us what it was that YOU liked or disliked about them.
;^)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253564</id>
	<title>Linux has more users and software</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259408100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I assume you are looking for a server.  If it's for a desktop, more users and software help a lot.  Although BSD and Solaris are more reliable indeed, the intricately, meticulously designed user-oriented design interface of Linux provides details and config files enough to entertain for generations.  I have never tried out <a href="http://www.gnustep.org/" title="gnustep.org">GnuStep</a> [gnustep.org], however an open source nextstep-like interface seems promising.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I assume you are looking for a server .
If it 's for a desktop , more users and software help a lot .
Although BSD and Solaris are more reliable indeed , the intricately , meticulously designed user-oriented design interface of Linux provides details and config files enough to entertain for generations .
I have never tried out GnuStep [ gnustep.org ] , however an open source nextstep-like interface seems promising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I assume you are looking for a server.
If it's for a desktop, more users and software help a lot.
Although BSD and Solaris are more reliable indeed, the intricately, meticulously designed user-oriented design interface of Linux provides details and config files enough to entertain for generations.
I have never tried out GnuStep [gnustep.org], however an open source nextstep-like interface seems promising.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254352</id>
	<title>Re:Only copyleft is "commie", BSD isn't.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259421900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The GPL *alone* and as  *the only license in the universe-verse-verse-verse* would be vaguely communistic... maybe. (Let's not use the argument "if RMS had his way it would be the only license" because he won't have his way because freedom isn't about forcing your way on everyone else.)</p><p>BUT - as I just hinted at - in the free market there is choice. The choice to sell. The choice to give away. The choice to do everything in between.</p><p>And as netcraft confirms - despite the OpenBSD box in my basement - BSD is dying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The GPL * alone * and as * the only license in the universe-verse-verse-verse * would be vaguely communistic... maybe. ( Let 's not use the argument " if RMS had his way it would be the only license " because he wo n't have his way because freedom is n't about forcing your way on everyone else .
) BUT - as I just hinted at - in the free market there is choice .
The choice to sell .
The choice to give away .
The choice to do everything in between.And as netcraft confirms - despite the OpenBSD box in my basement - BSD is dying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The GPL *alone* and as  *the only license in the universe-verse-verse-verse* would be vaguely communistic... maybe. (Let's not use the argument "if RMS had his way it would be the only license" because he won't have his way because freedom isn't about forcing your way on everyone else.
)BUT - as I just hinted at - in the free market there is choice.
The choice to sell.
The choice to give away.
The choice to do everything in between.And as netcraft confirms - despite the OpenBSD box in my basement - BSD is dying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253642</id>
	<title>self-compiling not such a black/white matter</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1259409660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I quite like the performance boost due to compiling from source, no matter how small it might be.</p></div><p>While I generally agree... (I use Gentoo for years on multiple systems and love/hate it.)<br>What if the boost is smaller than the resources it takes to compile it in the first place?</p><p>If you once compiled gcc, glibc, kdelibs (or all of gnome) java (se) and ghc (with vmem requirements up to 8GB!) in a row, just to go from x.x.x.2 to x.x.x.3, you know what I am talking about. Here that can take a good day. And the gain from not simply keeping the old version is next to nothing, but often still required because of a security hole.</p><p>Here, a weekly update can consist of over 50 packages wanting to be re-compiled. For shit like going from -rc1 to -rc2, or a changed use flag (compile option).</p><p>I wonder if it wouldn&rsquo;t be simpler, to just compile every combination of configure setup / architecture once, and put the binaries on a giant (and I mean bigger-than-google-by-some-magnitudes giant) server.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)<br>(At least if you have multiple similar servers, you can save time by using ccache and "binpkg"es.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I quite like the performance boost due to compiling from source , no matter how small it might be.While I generally agree... ( I use Gentoo for years on multiple systems and love/hate it .
) What if the boost is smaller than the resources it takes to compile it in the first place ? If you once compiled gcc , glibc , kdelibs ( or all of gnome ) java ( se ) and ghc ( with vmem requirements up to 8GB !
) in a row , just to go from x.x.x.2 to x.x.x.3 , you know what I am talking about .
Here that can take a good day .
And the gain from not simply keeping the old version is next to nothing , but often still required because of a security hole.Here , a weekly update can consist of over 50 packages wanting to be re-compiled .
For shit like going from -rc1 to -rc2 , or a changed use flag ( compile option ) .I wonder if it wouldn    t be simpler , to just compile every combination of configure setup / architecture once , and put the binaries on a giant ( and I mean bigger-than-google-by-some-magnitudes giant ) server .
; ) ( At least if you have multiple similar servers , you can save time by using ccache and " binpkg " es .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I quite like the performance boost due to compiling from source, no matter how small it might be.While I generally agree... (I use Gentoo for years on multiple systems and love/hate it.
)What if the boost is smaller than the resources it takes to compile it in the first place?If you once compiled gcc, glibc, kdelibs (or all of gnome) java (se) and ghc (with vmem requirements up to 8GB!
) in a row, just to go from x.x.x.2 to x.x.x.3, you know what I am talking about.
Here that can take a good day.
And the gain from not simply keeping the old version is next to nothing, but often still required because of a security hole.Here, a weekly update can consist of over 50 packages wanting to be re-compiled.
For shit like going from -rc1 to -rc2, or a changed use flag (compile option).I wonder if it wouldn’t be simpler, to just compile every combination of configure setup / architecture once, and put the binaries on a giant (and I mean bigger-than-google-by-some-magnitudes giant) server.
;)(At least if you have multiple similar servers, you can save time by using ccache and "binpkg"es.
)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254872</id>
	<title>Re:FreeBSD ZFS kernel panics?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259427660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The major problem was kernel address space getting fragmented; that's been resolved on amd64 since 7.2 or so, when KVM was extended from the disturbingly anemic 2GB to the current 512GB.</p><p>ZFS itself should autotune fairly well in most environments.  The absolute lower limit on ARC (ZFS's caching infrastructure) is 16MB, but you'll get warnings if you try running it on any system with less than 512MB.  You might get it going on your 48MB laptop, but I wouldn't expect anyone to care much if you don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The major problem was kernel address space getting fragmented ; that 's been resolved on amd64 since 7.2 or so , when KVM was extended from the disturbingly anemic 2GB to the current 512GB.ZFS itself should autotune fairly well in most environments .
The absolute lower limit on ARC ( ZFS 's caching infrastructure ) is 16MB , but you 'll get warnings if you try running it on any system with less than 512MB .
You might get it going on your 48MB laptop , but I would n't expect anyone to care much if you do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The major problem was kernel address space getting fragmented; that's been resolved on amd64 since 7.2 or so, when KVM was extended from the disturbingly anemic 2GB to the current 512GB.ZFS itself should autotune fairly well in most environments.
The absolute lower limit on ARC (ZFS's caching infrastructure) is 16MB, but you'll get warnings if you try running it on any system with less than 512MB.
You might get it going on your 48MB laptop, but I wouldn't expect anyone to care much if you don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254796</id>
	<title>Re:Only copyleft is "commie", BSD isn't.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259426820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Every time someone comes up with a product based on a non copyleft system (OS-X; JunOS, Microsoft's TCP/IP stack, IPSO etc. etc.) the community divides between those working on the product and those working on the OS.This leads to continual weakening of the community.</p> </div><p>Actually this leads to a weakening of the product.</p><p>There have been a few vendors which hardly ever submitted patches back to the community (e.g., Isilon) and when the community (FreeBSD in this case) moved forward, the product was stuck at the older, unsupported version. They then found that it was a pain in the ass to port all of that code forward. If they had given back to the community, or made their changes in a modular fashion (either as kernel modules, or separate subdirs in the case of schedulers), then it would have been easier to move forward with the project / community.</p><p>See also Sun's recent decision to re-license their X11 contributions under the canonical Xorg license. 20+ years of changes will be updated.</p><p>Giving back is just as useful in non-copyleft situation as it is in a copyleft one. It simply allows a product to keep their "secret sauce" to themselves,  and use the "base" system for infrastructure.</p><p>This is a reason why I like the overall design of the BSDs in particular: there's a well-know 'base' system that you can add to (either via Ports or proprietary). With Linux-based system things are a bit of a jumble, and there's no 'base' line. The interdependencies can be quite manic if all you're looking for is a "simply" configuration.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time someone comes up with a product based on a non copyleft system ( OS-X ; JunOS , Microsoft 's TCP/IP stack , IPSO etc .
etc. ) the community divides between those working on the product and those working on the OS.This leads to continual weakening of the community .
Actually this leads to a weakening of the product.There have been a few vendors which hardly ever submitted patches back to the community ( e.g. , Isilon ) and when the community ( FreeBSD in this case ) moved forward , the product was stuck at the older , unsupported version .
They then found that it was a pain in the ass to port all of that code forward .
If they had given back to the community , or made their changes in a modular fashion ( either as kernel modules , or separate subdirs in the case of schedulers ) , then it would have been easier to move forward with the project / community.See also Sun 's recent decision to re-license their X11 contributions under the canonical Xorg license .
20 + years of changes will be updated.Giving back is just as useful in non-copyleft situation as it is in a copyleft one .
It simply allows a product to keep their " secret sauce " to themselves , and use the " base " system for infrastructure.This is a reason why I like the overall design of the BSDs in particular : there 's a well-know 'base ' system that you can add to ( either via Ports or proprietary ) .
With Linux-based system things are a bit of a jumble , and there 's no 'base ' line .
The interdependencies can be quite manic if all you 're looking for is a " simply " configuration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time someone comes up with a product based on a non copyleft system (OS-X; JunOS, Microsoft's TCP/IP stack, IPSO etc.
etc.) the community divides between those working on the product and those working on the OS.This leads to continual weakening of the community.
Actually this leads to a weakening of the product.There have been a few vendors which hardly ever submitted patches back to the community (e.g., Isilon) and when the community (FreeBSD in this case) moved forward, the product was stuck at the older, unsupported version.
They then found that it was a pain in the ass to port all of that code forward.
If they had given back to the community, or made their changes in a modular fashion (either as kernel modules, or separate subdirs in the case of schedulers), then it would have been easier to move forward with the project / community.See also Sun's recent decision to re-license their X11 contributions under the canonical Xorg license.
20+ years of changes will be updated.Giving back is just as useful in non-copyleft situation as it is in a copyleft one.
It simply allows a product to keep their "secret sauce" to themselves,  and use the "base" system for infrastructure.This is a reason why I like the overall design of the BSDs in particular: there's a well-know 'base' system that you can add to (either via Ports or proprietary).
With Linux-based system things are a bit of a jumble, and there's no 'base' line.
The interdependencies can be quite manic if all you're looking for is a "simply" configuration.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255040</id>
	<title>Re:I have a PROBLEM.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259429400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, you have quite a problem there.</p><p>But no worry, these things happen and there are already time-tested solutions for them: Tomorrow when you go into the office,</p><p>1. Go straight into the manager's office, then</p><p>2. Piss on the floor (do not let down your zipper/pants first),</p><p>3. If the manager is in the office, poke out his eyeballs,</p><p>4. Shout "Shit hits the fan! Shit hits the fan!" twenty times, then</p><p>5. Go home (if you are escorted by the security out of the office building, the strategy has worked).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , you have quite a problem there.But no worry , these things happen and there are already time-tested solutions for them : Tomorrow when you go into the office,1 .
Go straight into the manager 's office , then2 .
Piss on the floor ( do not let down your zipper/pants first ) ,3 .
If the manager is in the office , poke out his eyeballs,4 .
Shout " Shit hits the fan !
Shit hits the fan !
" twenty times , then5 .
Go home ( if you are escorted by the security out of the office building , the strategy has worked ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, you have quite a problem there.But no worry, these things happen and there are already time-tested solutions for them: Tomorrow when you go into the office,1.
Go straight into the manager's office, then2.
Piss on the floor (do not let down your zipper/pants first),3.
If the manager is in the office, poke out his eyeballs,4.
Shout "Shit hits the fan!
Shit hits the fan!
" twenty times, then5.
Go home (if you are escorted by the security out of the office building, the strategy has worked).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254120</id>
	<title>What is it for?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259418480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wouldn't it be useful to explain what you want the machine for?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't it be useful to explain what you want the machine for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't it be useful to explain what you want the machine for?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255628</id>
	<title>Re:Performance boost?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259435340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A single anecdote.. therefore, it must be true!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A single anecdote.. therefore , it must be true !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A single anecdote.. therefore, it must be true!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254816</id>
	<title>Re:Linux has more users and software</title>
	<author>Ralish</author>
	<datestamp>1259427180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>meticulously designed user-oriented design interface</p></div><p>.....are you in marketting?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>meticulously designed user-oriented design interface.....are you in marketting ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>meticulously designed user-oriented design interface.....are you in marketting?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254896</id>
	<title>Re:Performance boost?</title>
	<author>assertation</author>
	<datestamp>1259427960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know if it is still true, but generic compilations for distributions used to be behind the latest chips.  If you had a better chip than the older one the distro was compiled for, you wouldn't be getting all of the performance you could get.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if it is still true , but generic compilations for distributions used to be behind the latest chips .
If you had a better chip than the older one the distro was compiled for , you would n't be getting all of the performance you could get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if it is still true, but generic compilations for distributions used to be behind the latest chips.
If you had a better chip than the older one the distro was compiled for, you wouldn't be getting all of the performance you could get.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254624</id>
	<title>All I know, I learned from /. signatures</title>
	<author>mi</author>
	<datestamp>1259424900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Interix was created solely for the reason of destroying UNIX; I think you will find that the "open source community" is completely rational for not working on it. Your complaint is like a person wanting to know why turkeys don't do volunteer work to spread the thanksgiving message. However, there is nothing they could do to stop the Windows community from doing the port. The reason it's not happening is because Microsoft and Microsoft collaborators aren't interested in becoming helpful collaborating members of the community.</p></div></blockquote><p>This reminds me of an insightful observation, I saw in a Slashdot signature years ago: <strong>BSD developers do it, because they love Unix. Linux ones do it, because they hate Microsoft.</strong>

</p><p>Don't get married &mdash; nor pick anything less important either &mdash; out of dislike for something (or someone) else to spite them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interix was created solely for the reason of destroying UNIX ; I think you will find that the " open source community " is completely rational for not working on it .
Your complaint is like a person wanting to know why turkeys do n't do volunteer work to spread the thanksgiving message .
However , there is nothing they could do to stop the Windows community from doing the port .
The reason it 's not happening is because Microsoft and Microsoft collaborators are n't interested in becoming helpful collaborating members of the community.This reminds me of an insightful observation , I saw in a Slashdot signature years ago : BSD developers do it , because they love Unix .
Linux ones do it , because they hate Microsoft .
Do n't get married    nor pick anything less important either    out of dislike for something ( or someone ) else to spite them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interix was created solely for the reason of destroying UNIX; I think you will find that the "open source community" is completely rational for not working on it.
Your complaint is like a person wanting to know why turkeys don't do volunteer work to spread the thanksgiving message.
However, there is nothing they could do to stop the Windows community from doing the port.
The reason it's not happening is because Microsoft and Microsoft collaborators aren't interested in becoming helpful collaborating members of the community.This reminds me of an insightful observation, I saw in a Slashdot signature years ago: BSD developers do it, because they love Unix.
Linux ones do it, because they hate Microsoft.
Don't get married — nor pick anything less important either — out of dislike for something (or someone) else to spite them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255920</id>
	<title>Re:FreeBSD</title>
	<author>godrik</author>
	<datestamp>1259438100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't believe that. FreeBSD is so good you'll lose all your friends!! I'd like to try it, but I already lost them trying Hurd....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe that .
FreeBSD is so good you 'll lose all your friends ! !
I 'd like to try it , but I already lost them trying Hurd... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe that.
FreeBSD is so good you'll lose all your friends!!
I'd like to try it, but I already lost them trying Hurd....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254542</id>
	<title>Re:Performance boost?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259423940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a site about the many retardations of Gentoo ricers compiling their ultra-fast code from source.</p><p>http://funroll-loops.info/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a site about the many retardations of Gentoo ricers compiling their ultra-fast code from source.http : //funroll-loops.info/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a site about the many retardations of Gentoo ricers compiling their ultra-fast code from source.http://funroll-loops.info/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254130</id>
	<title>FreeBSD</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1259418540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With Oracle trying to take control, you cant be assured of its future.  With FreeBSD, you can. I would worry less about the performance differences and think about the long term stability and true openness. Don't want your eggs in a leaky basket. You can buy commercial FreeBSD support, if that is a business requirement.</p><p>Also, I agree ports are great ( unless its close to a new release.. they tend to get stale and out of sync ), but i don't see an issue with the 'minimal default install'.  You want bloat off the line? You can create custom 'install sets' if you really think you need the extras at install time, and not 'admin time'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With Oracle trying to take control , you cant be assured of its future .
With FreeBSD , you can .
I would worry less about the performance differences and think about the long term stability and true openness .
Do n't want your eggs in a leaky basket .
You can buy commercial FreeBSD support , if that is a business requirement.Also , I agree ports are great ( unless its close to a new release.. they tend to get stale and out of sync ) , but i do n't see an issue with the 'minimal default install' .
You want bloat off the line ?
You can create custom 'install sets ' if you really think you need the extras at install time , and not 'admin time' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With Oracle trying to take control, you cant be assured of its future.
With FreeBSD, you can.
I would worry less about the performance differences and think about the long term stability and true openness.
Don't want your eggs in a leaky basket.
You can buy commercial FreeBSD support, if that is a business requirement.Also, I agree ports are great ( unless its close to a new release.. they tend to get stale and out of sync ), but i don't see an issue with the 'minimal default install'.
You want bloat off the line?
You can create custom 'install sets' if you really think you need the extras at install time, and not 'admin time'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254292</id>
	<title>Re:Only copyleft is "commie", BSD isn't.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259421060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>anti capitalist? maybe the floss crowd doesn't want to help a for-pay software stack when they themselves don't get a piece o fthe pie.  In the floss world, they are 'paid' with the contributions of others.  If they were to work with 'interix' they gain nothing except a more powerful competitor who wants to crush open source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>anti capitalist ?
maybe the floss crowd does n't want to help a for-pay software stack when they themselves do n't get a piece o fthe pie .
In the floss world , they are 'paid ' with the contributions of others .
If they were to work with 'interix ' they gain nothing except a more powerful competitor who wants to crush open source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>anti capitalist?
maybe the floss crowd doesn't want to help a for-pay software stack when they themselves don't get a piece o fthe pie.
In the floss world, they are 'paid' with the contributions of others.
If they were to work with 'interix' they gain nothing except a more powerful competitor who wants to crush open source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253928</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>funkboy</author>
	<datestamp>1259415540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What makes you want to blow away something you're already running &amp; comfortable with?  You give no reason for switching away from Debian.</p><p>Suggestions:</p><p>
&nbsp; - For Linux, Debian is pretty much the granddaddy, and can likely be wrangled to do whatever you want.  You seem the explorative type.  If you're comfortable with Debian, figure out how to do whatever it is you're interested in on Debian and get on with it.  Changing distros won't change your life.</p><p>
&nbsp; - For other OSs, you're blessed to live in the age where you can just grab virtualbox, fire up a VM of whatever it is you wan to play with, and fiddle with it.  When I was messing with all this I had 5 crappy old noisy minitower PCs around my desk (and a NeXT on top of it, which was what I actually used as my workstation becuase it Just Worked).  If you're really really impressed by something that you've monkeyed with in your VMs for a while, switch to it if you really want to, but honestly in ISP and hosting type shops Debian is what I see most.</p><p>
&nbsp; - It sounds like you want slowlaris or FreeBSD just to get ZFS, presumably because you have an ever-expanding collection of media, pr0n, und w4r3z and want to be able to just add disks to your storage pool on the fly and all the other spiffy stuff that ZFS does.  If you want to kick the tires on a new filesystem technology, may I suggest that you grab the latest iso release of DragonFlyBSD and check out HAMMER?  It's really a lot simpler to use than ZFS, and personally I feel it's really designed The Right Way.</p><p>
&nbsp; - If you really want a challenge, get a Mac (or buy yourself Snow Leopard and make yourself a hackintosh) and learn how to use the powerful and complicated tools that make Mac OS X Server work.  Things are very different from the way other unixen do things, and I find messing with them and learning how they work to be very satisfying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes you want to blow away something you 're already running &amp; comfortable with ?
You give no reason for switching away from Debian.Suggestions :   - For Linux , Debian is pretty much the granddaddy , and can likely be wrangled to do whatever you want .
You seem the explorative type .
If you 're comfortable with Debian , figure out how to do whatever it is you 're interested in on Debian and get on with it .
Changing distros wo n't change your life .
  - For other OSs , you 're blessed to live in the age where you can just grab virtualbox , fire up a VM of whatever it is you wan to play with , and fiddle with it .
When I was messing with all this I had 5 crappy old noisy minitower PCs around my desk ( and a NeXT on top of it , which was what I actually used as my workstation becuase it Just Worked ) .
If you 're really really impressed by something that you 've monkeyed with in your VMs for a while , switch to it if you really want to , but honestly in ISP and hosting type shops Debian is what I see most .
  - It sounds like you want slowlaris or FreeBSD just to get ZFS , presumably because you have an ever-expanding collection of media , pr0n , und w4r3z and want to be able to just add disks to your storage pool on the fly and all the other spiffy stuff that ZFS does .
If you want to kick the tires on a new filesystem technology , may I suggest that you grab the latest iso release of DragonFlyBSD and check out HAMMER ?
It 's really a lot simpler to use than ZFS , and personally I feel it 's really designed The Right Way .
  - If you really want a challenge , get a Mac ( or buy yourself Snow Leopard and make yourself a hackintosh ) and learn how to use the powerful and complicated tools that make Mac OS X Server work .
Things are very different from the way other unixen do things , and I find messing with them and learning how they work to be very satisfying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes you want to blow away something you're already running &amp; comfortable with?
You give no reason for switching away from Debian.Suggestions:
  - For Linux, Debian is pretty much the granddaddy, and can likely be wrangled to do whatever you want.
You seem the explorative type.
If you're comfortable with Debian, figure out how to do whatever it is you're interested in on Debian and get on with it.
Changing distros won't change your life.
  - For other OSs, you're blessed to live in the age where you can just grab virtualbox, fire up a VM of whatever it is you wan to play with, and fiddle with it.
When I was messing with all this I had 5 crappy old noisy minitower PCs around my desk (and a NeXT on top of it, which was what I actually used as my workstation becuase it Just Worked).
If you're really really impressed by something that you've monkeyed with in your VMs for a while, switch to it if you really want to, but honestly in ISP and hosting type shops Debian is what I see most.
  - It sounds like you want slowlaris or FreeBSD just to get ZFS, presumably because you have an ever-expanding collection of media, pr0n, und w4r3z and want to be able to just add disks to your storage pool on the fly and all the other spiffy stuff that ZFS does.
If you want to kick the tires on a new filesystem technology, may I suggest that you grab the latest iso release of DragonFlyBSD and check out HAMMER?
It's really a lot simpler to use than ZFS, and personally I feel it's really designed The Right Way.
  - If you really want a challenge, get a Mac (or buy yourself Snow Leopard and make yourself a hackintosh) and learn how to use the powerful and complicated tools that make Mac OS X Server work.
Things are very different from the way other unixen do things, and I find messing with them and learning how they work to be very satisfying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255088</id>
	<title>Re:Performance boost?</title>
	<author>sam0737</author>
	<datestamp>1259429820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because the binaries official compiled are usually targetted for large set of device? Like all i686? So it can't make use of the latest instruction set (something like SSE4). The out of execution timing/branch prediction behavior/cache stuff...<br><br>If compiled by one-self, the Makefile will usually choose to optimize for your current CPU. So expect when you change to another CPU, everything might suddenly stopped working.<br><br>Those AMD64 binaries may have less differences, since much less new instruction set has been invented since then.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the binaries official compiled are usually targetted for large set of device ?
Like all i686 ?
So it ca n't make use of the latest instruction set ( something like SSE4 ) .
The out of execution timing/branch prediction behavior/cache stuff...If compiled by one-self , the Makefile will usually choose to optimize for your current CPU .
So expect when you change to another CPU , everything might suddenly stopped working.Those AMD64 binaries may have less differences , since much less new instruction set has been invented since then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the binaries official compiled are usually targetted for large set of device?
Like all i686?
So it can't make use of the latest instruction set (something like SSE4).
The out of execution timing/branch prediction behavior/cache stuff...If compiled by one-self, the Makefile will usually choose to optimize for your current CPU.
So expect when you change to another CPU, everything might suddenly stopped working.Those AMD64 binaries may have less differences, since much less new instruction set has been invented since then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253996</id>
	<title>Use CP/M</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259416680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since you're not telling us what you're actually planning to do with the OS, might as well advice some random OS based on no reason whatsoever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since you 're not telling us what you 're actually planning to do with the OS , might as well advice some random OS based on no reason whatsoever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since you're not telling us what you're actually planning to do with the OS, might as well advice some random OS based on no reason whatsoever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256404</id>
	<title>Re:Why my path too was Linux = FreeBSD = Solaris</title>
	<author>linimon</author>
	<datestamp>1259399460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>fwiw, FreeBSD 5.x was the "learning experience" where SMP was completely rewritten.  No one mourned when we retired that branch.

6.x was far more stable than 5.x, and 7.0 built on that by adding more scalability.  (7.0 was much better than any<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.0 release of anything I've ever seen).  8.0, which was just announced, contains even more scability work in the network stack and USB.

So, FreeBSD has come a long way since the 5.x times.</htmltext>
<tokenext>fwiw , FreeBSD 5.x was the " learning experience " where SMP was completely rewritten .
No one mourned when we retired that branch .
6.x was far more stable than 5.x , and 7.0 built on that by adding more scalability .
( 7.0 was much better than any .0 release of anything I 've ever seen ) .
8.0 , which was just announced , contains even more scability work in the network stack and USB .
So , FreeBSD has come a long way since the 5.x times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fwiw, FreeBSD 5.x was the "learning experience" where SMP was completely rewritten.
No one mourned when we retired that branch.
6.x was far more stable than 5.x, and 7.0 built on that by adding more scalability.
(7.0 was much better than any .0 release of anything I've ever seen).
8.0, which was just announced, contains even more scability work in the network stack and USB.
So, FreeBSD has come a long way since the 5.x times.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254748</id>
	<title>Re:Only copyleft is "commie", BSD isn't.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259426220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is it that we always deal with the word "communist" as a pejorative? Free software is one of the few examples in the world of successful communism at work: from each, according to their ability, to each, according to their need. The objection to communism historically--and a fair one, I say--is that it just doesn't work. And that instituting it at a nation state level causes nothing but misery. But volunteer-only based communism, in a context where it has proven itself effective? To object to that is just small minded, and mean spirited.</p><p>Windows could have NEVER been a good Unix. Unix is based on the philosophy of elegant, minimalist components working together to compose a whole. Windows is an intractable monolith that not even programmers inside Microsoft know very well (yes, this is a problem that even Microsoft recognizes internally).</p><p>There won't be a sudden shift of developer time to non copyleft software. Most developers are somewhat jealous of their code. The GPL provides them an emotional lozenge to chew on, where the less restrictive licenses lead them to fear that some commercial company is going to grab up their code without giving them credit and so forth. The emotional lozenge of the GPL: "at least my code, and anything based on it, will always be free".</p><p>C//</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it that we always deal with the word " communist " as a pejorative ?
Free software is one of the few examples in the world of successful communism at work : from each , according to their ability , to each , according to their need .
The objection to communism historically--and a fair one , I say--is that it just does n't work .
And that instituting it at a nation state level causes nothing but misery .
But volunteer-only based communism , in a context where it has proven itself effective ?
To object to that is just small minded , and mean spirited.Windows could have NEVER been a good Unix .
Unix is based on the philosophy of elegant , minimalist components working together to compose a whole .
Windows is an intractable monolith that not even programmers inside Microsoft know very well ( yes , this is a problem that even Microsoft recognizes internally ) .There wo n't be a sudden shift of developer time to non copyleft software .
Most developers are somewhat jealous of their code .
The GPL provides them an emotional lozenge to chew on , where the less restrictive licenses lead them to fear that some commercial company is going to grab up their code without giving them credit and so forth .
The emotional lozenge of the GPL : " at least my code , and anything based on it , will always be free " .C//</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it that we always deal with the word "communist" as a pejorative?
Free software is one of the few examples in the world of successful communism at work: from each, according to their ability, to each, according to their need.
The objection to communism historically--and a fair one, I say--is that it just doesn't work.
And that instituting it at a nation state level causes nothing but misery.
But volunteer-only based communism, in a context where it has proven itself effective?
To object to that is just small minded, and mean spirited.Windows could have NEVER been a good Unix.
Unix is based on the philosophy of elegant, minimalist components working together to compose a whole.
Windows is an intractable monolith that not even programmers inside Microsoft know very well (yes, this is a problem that even Microsoft recognizes internally).There won't be a sudden shift of developer time to non copyleft software.
Most developers are somewhat jealous of their code.
The GPL provides them an emotional lozenge to chew on, where the less restrictive licenses lead them to fear that some commercial company is going to grab up their code without giving them credit and so forth.
The emotional lozenge of the GPL: "at least my code, and anything based on it, will always be free".C//</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253762</id>
	<title>Re:Performance boost?</title>
	<author>Klaus\_1250</author>
	<datestamp>1259412240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why would code compiled on your system run any faster than the same code on someone else's system?</p></div><p>Because many pre-compiled packages use conservative optimization flags and may lack specific code paths for certain processors and instruction sets. They might also have chosen a compiler which doesn't produce the fastest code around. I'm not sure how it stands today, but a few years back, ICC produced code up to 30\% faster than GCC or MSVC.</p><p>The difference all depends on the type of application of course. Overall, you might only see a performance difference of 1-5\%, but for specific parts of the application, performance increase may be anywhere between 10 to 200\%.</p><p>Last, compiling yourself also means you can choose what gets compiled and what not. Which in turns reduces diskspace and memory usage of the executable and may increase security and performance a bit. For things like Kernels and such, you need to compile it yourself if you want support for specific things (ALTQ for PF under FreeBSD for instance).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would code compiled on your system run any faster than the same code on someone else 's system ? Because many pre-compiled packages use conservative optimization flags and may lack specific code paths for certain processors and instruction sets .
They might also have chosen a compiler which does n't produce the fastest code around .
I 'm not sure how it stands today , but a few years back , ICC produced code up to 30 \ % faster than GCC or MSVC.The difference all depends on the type of application of course .
Overall , you might only see a performance difference of 1-5 \ % , but for specific parts of the application , performance increase may be anywhere between 10 to 200 \ % .Last , compiling yourself also means you can choose what gets compiled and what not .
Which in turns reduces diskspace and memory usage of the executable and may increase security and performance a bit .
For things like Kernels and such , you need to compile it yourself if you want support for specific things ( ALTQ for PF under FreeBSD for instance ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would code compiled on your system run any faster than the same code on someone else's system?Because many pre-compiled packages use conservative optimization flags and may lack specific code paths for certain processors and instruction sets.
They might also have chosen a compiler which doesn't produce the fastest code around.
I'm not sure how it stands today, but a few years back, ICC produced code up to 30\% faster than GCC or MSVC.The difference all depends on the type of application of course.
Overall, you might only see a performance difference of 1-5\%, but for specific parts of the application, performance increase may be anywhere between 10 to 200\%.Last, compiling yourself also means you can choose what gets compiled and what not.
Which in turns reduces diskspace and memory usage of the executable and may increase security and performance a bit.
For things like Kernels and such, you need to compile it yourself if you want support for specific things (ALTQ for PF under FreeBSD for instance).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253834</id>
	<title>Re:Article is trollbait</title>
	<author>BountyX</author>
	<datestamp>1259414040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>bmo is right, just stay...you have no real reason to switch, unless you want a different package management system, which doesn't seem to be the case. I was thinking about switching to BSD myself and decided not to because I was happy with my Fedora install and the BSD's are a tad bit behind on performance compared to Linux according to <a href="http://bulk.fefe.de/scalability/" title="bulk.fefe.de">these benchmarks</a> [bulk.fefe.de] ( I know they are a little outdated, but do include kernel 2.6).</htmltext>
<tokenext>bmo is right , just stay...you have no real reason to switch , unless you want a different package management system , which does n't seem to be the case .
I was thinking about switching to BSD myself and decided not to because I was happy with my Fedora install and the BSD 's are a tad bit behind on performance compared to Linux according to these benchmarks [ bulk.fefe.de ] ( I know they are a little outdated , but do include kernel 2.6 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bmo is right, just stay...you have no real reason to switch, unless you want a different package management system, which doesn't seem to be the case.
I was thinking about switching to BSD myself and decided not to because I was happy with my Fedora install and the BSD's are a tad bit behind on performance compared to Linux according to these benchmarks [bulk.fefe.de] ( I know they are a little outdated, but do include kernel 2.6).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30257566</id>
	<title>Re:Debian GNU/kFreeBSD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259412840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about suggesting something that is not in a very highly and unstable alpha condition? Have you ever used it? I have, and it's not ready for prime time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about suggesting something that is not in a very highly and unstable alpha condition ?
Have you ever used it ?
I have , and it 's not ready for prime time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about suggesting something that is not in a very highly and unstable alpha condition?
Have you ever used it?
I have, and it's not ready for prime time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254720</id>
	<title>Re:Only copyleft is "commie", BSD isn't.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259425980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow...</p><p>First, GPL software is hardly "communist", nor is it anti-free market. If a commercial software developer can't compete with free, that's just too bad.</p><p>Second, it doesn't rely on "government force" either. It uses exactly the same copyright laws that commercial software uses. It just uses them differently - it covers purely redistribution, and imposes no limits at all on use (or modification, if you don't distribute those modifications).</p><p>As for Internix... That was never included in anything but the high end business versions of Windows, and typically only the server versions. It was intended to move businesses off of Unix onto Windows NT, and to allow Windows NT to gain FIPS 151-2 certification (which requires a POSIX implementation). It was entirely commercial until 2004, when one version was released for free, but only worked on Windows XP Professional. Subsequent versions only work on the server or high-end business versions of Windows (Ultimate and Enterprise, as of Windows 7). Considering that it relies on an insanely expensive version of Windows that most people won't have access to, required a lot of extra work to install, and until very recently only provided limited capabilities, is it any wonder that hardly anybody pays attention to it?</p><p>Microsoft was never prevented from including this in Windows. They just chose not to - it provides absolutely no benefit whatsoever to most of their user base, while providing an incentive to not write native Windows applications - what's the point if the same application could otherwise run on Windows (via the Unix subsystem), Mac OS X (which is Unix), Linux (which is almost Unix), and any commercial Unix system they cared to compile it for?</p><p>It also wouldn't have been possible without some GPL-licensed code, most notably GCC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow...First , GPL software is hardly " communist " , nor is it anti-free market .
If a commercial software developer ca n't compete with free , that 's just too bad.Second , it does n't rely on " government force " either .
It uses exactly the same copyright laws that commercial software uses .
It just uses them differently - it covers purely redistribution , and imposes no limits at all on use ( or modification , if you do n't distribute those modifications ) .As for Internix... That was never included in anything but the high end business versions of Windows , and typically only the server versions .
It was intended to move businesses off of Unix onto Windows NT , and to allow Windows NT to gain FIPS 151-2 certification ( which requires a POSIX implementation ) .
It was entirely commercial until 2004 , when one version was released for free , but only worked on Windows XP Professional .
Subsequent versions only work on the server or high-end business versions of Windows ( Ultimate and Enterprise , as of Windows 7 ) .
Considering that it relies on an insanely expensive version of Windows that most people wo n't have access to , required a lot of extra work to install , and until very recently only provided limited capabilities , is it any wonder that hardly anybody pays attention to it ? Microsoft was never prevented from including this in Windows .
They just chose not to - it provides absolutely no benefit whatsoever to most of their user base , while providing an incentive to not write native Windows applications - what 's the point if the same application could otherwise run on Windows ( via the Unix subsystem ) , Mac OS X ( which is Unix ) , Linux ( which is almost Unix ) , and any commercial Unix system they cared to compile it for ? It also would n't have been possible without some GPL-licensed code , most notably GCC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow...First, GPL software is hardly "communist", nor is it anti-free market.
If a commercial software developer can't compete with free, that's just too bad.Second, it doesn't rely on "government force" either.
It uses exactly the same copyright laws that commercial software uses.
It just uses them differently - it covers purely redistribution, and imposes no limits at all on use (or modification, if you don't distribute those modifications).As for Internix... That was never included in anything but the high end business versions of Windows, and typically only the server versions.
It was intended to move businesses off of Unix onto Windows NT, and to allow Windows NT to gain FIPS 151-2 certification (which requires a POSIX implementation).
It was entirely commercial until 2004, when one version was released for free, but only worked on Windows XP Professional.
Subsequent versions only work on the server or high-end business versions of Windows (Ultimate and Enterprise, as of Windows 7).
Considering that it relies on an insanely expensive version of Windows that most people won't have access to, required a lot of extra work to install, and until very recently only provided limited capabilities, is it any wonder that hardly anybody pays attention to it?Microsoft was never prevented from including this in Windows.
They just chose not to - it provides absolutely no benefit whatsoever to most of their user base, while providing an incentive to not write native Windows applications - what's the point if the same application could otherwise run on Windows (via the Unix subsystem), Mac OS X (which is Unix), Linux (which is almost Unix), and any commercial Unix system they cared to compile it for?It also wouldn't have been possible without some GPL-licensed code, most notably GCC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30257950</id>
	<title>Amusing timing on this question....</title>
	<author>MrPerfekt</author>
	<datestamp>1259416800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I started my unix-life about 13 years ago with FreeBSD. It was the 2.x.x era. It was young but super stable and used by many Internet power houses like Yahoo. Long story short, I eventually migrated mainly to Linux on my personal servers. I've been using Gentoo for about 5 years now. Now, I want a file-system to store all my stuff on my home server that is superior to ext3.</p><p>This quest has brought me back full circle to FreeBSD 8. I've used ZFS professionally for many years now and is my preference. So my first thought was to use OpenSolaris. Unfortunately, I was saddened to see that my old but still perfectly working 3ware 8xxx SATA cards are unsupported in Solaris. That left me with FreeBSD which had 3ware support and happily stable ZFS support.</p><p>Moral of the story is that while OpenSolaris has expanded hardware support here and there, it's still woefully short of "anything you might have laying around" type of support which is essential for the home hobbyist. Interestingly, while I'm sure there have been many under-the-hood changes over the years, FreeBSD from a user's perspective is still near identical to how it was all those years ago. That is somewhat disappointing because the menu-interface should've been drastically improved years ago. Seriously, why would I want to hit "Cancel" to move to the next menu?</p><p>But it gets the job done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I started my unix-life about 13 years ago with FreeBSD .
It was the 2.x.x era .
It was young but super stable and used by many Internet power houses like Yahoo .
Long story short , I eventually migrated mainly to Linux on my personal servers .
I 've been using Gentoo for about 5 years now .
Now , I want a file-system to store all my stuff on my home server that is superior to ext3.This quest has brought me back full circle to FreeBSD 8 .
I 've used ZFS professionally for many years now and is my preference .
So my first thought was to use OpenSolaris .
Unfortunately , I was saddened to see that my old but still perfectly working 3ware 8xxx SATA cards are unsupported in Solaris .
That left me with FreeBSD which had 3ware support and happily stable ZFS support.Moral of the story is that while OpenSolaris has expanded hardware support here and there , it 's still woefully short of " anything you might have laying around " type of support which is essential for the home hobbyist .
Interestingly , while I 'm sure there have been many under-the-hood changes over the years , FreeBSD from a user 's perspective is still near identical to how it was all those years ago .
That is somewhat disappointing because the menu-interface should 've been drastically improved years ago .
Seriously , why would I want to hit " Cancel " to move to the next menu ? But it gets the job done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I started my unix-life about 13 years ago with FreeBSD.
It was the 2.x.x era.
It was young but super stable and used by many Internet power houses like Yahoo.
Long story short, I eventually migrated mainly to Linux on my personal servers.
I've been using Gentoo for about 5 years now.
Now, I want a file-system to store all my stuff on my home server that is superior to ext3.This quest has brought me back full circle to FreeBSD 8.
I've used ZFS professionally for many years now and is my preference.
So my first thought was to use OpenSolaris.
Unfortunately, I was saddened to see that my old but still perfectly working 3ware 8xxx SATA cards are unsupported in Solaris.
That left me with FreeBSD which had 3ware support and happily stable ZFS support.Moral of the story is that while OpenSolaris has expanded hardware support here and there, it's still woefully short of "anything you might have laying around" type of support which is essential for the home hobbyist.
Interestingly, while I'm sure there have been many under-the-hood changes over the years, FreeBSD from a user's perspective is still near identical to how it was all those years ago.
That is somewhat disappointing because the menu-interface should've been drastically improved years ago.
Seriously, why would I want to hit "Cancel" to move to the next menu?But it gets the job done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256864</id>
	<title>Software Packages</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259404380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OpenSolaris is a great OS for a number of uses (and since I don't know exactly what yours is, I can't be more specific).</p><p>However, if you are coming from Debian, then OpenSolaris will probably disappoint you considerably in terms of the available packages in the repos. As you know, the OpenSolaris community is not very mature, and there are very few packages available compared to a popular GNU/Linux like Debian. Also, unless you pay Sun for a support subscription, there are NO package updates (not even security) in the stable repositories, except once every 6 months according to the release cycle.</p><p>BSD has a bit more of a community behind it, and probably makes a better desktop OS for someone used to Linux. For a server dedicated to a particular task, OpenSolaris might be ideal, though. Again, it boils down to what your intended usage scenario is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OpenSolaris is a great OS for a number of uses ( and since I do n't know exactly what yours is , I ca n't be more specific ) .However , if you are coming from Debian , then OpenSolaris will probably disappoint you considerably in terms of the available packages in the repos .
As you know , the OpenSolaris community is not very mature , and there are very few packages available compared to a popular GNU/Linux like Debian .
Also , unless you pay Sun for a support subscription , there are NO package updates ( not even security ) in the stable repositories , except once every 6 months according to the release cycle.BSD has a bit more of a community behind it , and probably makes a better desktop OS for someone used to Linux .
For a server dedicated to a particular task , OpenSolaris might be ideal , though .
Again , it boils down to what your intended usage scenario is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OpenSolaris is a great OS for a number of uses (and since I don't know exactly what yours is, I can't be more specific).However, if you are coming from Debian, then OpenSolaris will probably disappoint you considerably in terms of the available packages in the repos.
As you know, the OpenSolaris community is not very mature, and there are very few packages available compared to a popular GNU/Linux like Debian.
Also, unless you pay Sun for a support subscription, there are NO package updates (not even security) in the stable repositories, except once every 6 months according to the release cycle.BSD has a bit more of a community behind it, and probably makes a better desktop OS for someone used to Linux.
For a server dedicated to a particular task, OpenSolaris might be ideal, though.
Again, it boils down to what your intended usage scenario is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30257044</id>
	<title>Re:FreeVMS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259407020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SunOS 4 that reminds me of installing it on 386 hardware long ago. Most people think that Opensolaris were the first X86 version but it was not. We did install SunOS 4 in 1989 or 1990.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SunOS 4 that reminds me of installing it on 386 hardware long ago .
Most people think that Opensolaris were the first X86 version but it was not .
We did install SunOS 4 in 1989 or 1990 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SunOS 4 that reminds me of installing it on 386 hardware long ago.
Most people think that Opensolaris were the first X86 version but it was not.
We did install SunOS 4 in 1989 or 1990.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253958</id>
	<title>Re:What?Christmas sale, free shipping discounts</title>
	<author>Johnson1985</author>
	<datestamp>1259416020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.coolforsale.com/" title="coolforsale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolforsale.com/</a> [coolforsale.com]
Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello, In order to meet Christmas, Site launched Christmas spree, welcome new and old customers come to participate in the  there are unexpected surprises, look forward to your arrival. Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is "Best quality, Best reputation , Best services". Your satisfaction is our main pursue. You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs.
Ladies and Gentlemen  weicome  to  my  coolforsale.com.Here,there  are   the   most   fashion   products . Pass by but don't   miss  it.Select  your  favorite  clothing!  Welcome  to come  next   time ! Thank you!     <a href="http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76" title="coolforsale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76</a> [coolforsale.com] (Tracksuit w)
ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket,
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33
Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35
Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35
Tshirts (Polo<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
free shipping
Thanks!!! Advance wish you a merry Christmas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.coolforsale.com/ [ coolforsale.com ] Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello , In order to meet Christmas , Site launched Christmas spree , welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises , look forward to your arrival .
Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is " Best quality , Best reputation , Best services " .
Your satisfaction is our main pursue .
You can find the best products from us , meeting your different needs .
Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products .
Pass by but do n't miss it.Select your favorite clothing !
Welcome to come next time !
Thank you !
http : //www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp ? id = s76 [ coolforsale.com ] ( Tracksuit w ) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket , Air jordan ( 1-24 ) shoes $ 33 Nike shox ( R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3 ) $ 35 Handbags ( Coach lv fendi d&amp;g ) $ 35 Tshirts ( Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste ) $ 16 free shipping Thanks ! ! !
Advance wish you a merry Christmas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.coolforsale.com/ [coolforsale.com]
Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello, In order to meet Christmas, Site launched Christmas spree, welcome new and old customers come to participate in the  there are unexpected surprises, look forward to your arrival.
Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is "Best quality, Best reputation , Best services".
Your satisfaction is our main pursue.
You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs.
Ladies and Gentlemen  weicome  to  my  coolforsale.com.Here,there  are   the   most   fashion   products .
Pass by but don't   miss  it.Select  your  favorite  clothing!
Welcome  to come  next   time !
Thank you!
http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76 [coolforsale.com] (Tracksuit w)
ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket,
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33
Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35
Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
free shipping
Thanks!!!
Advance wish you a merry Christmas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253532</id>
	<title>They're both good. What are you doing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259407620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're looking to learn something new, OpenSolaris is the way I'd go. Lots of commercial enterprises use Solaris, so you're learning a skill that is of direct to a great many businesses.</p><p>Of course, that's not to say that Solaris is the only Unix out there - I'm certain that FreeBSD is used in commercial enterprises as well, just not at as high a level as Solaris is. And, ultimately, learning the idiosyncrasies of more than one Unix environment means that you're well placed to adapt if (for example) you find yourself maintaining an AIX or HP-UX host - you've already had the pain of dealing with the differences between FreeBSD/Solaris and Linux, so the next step won't be quite so difficult.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're looking to learn something new , OpenSolaris is the way I 'd go .
Lots of commercial enterprises use Solaris , so you 're learning a skill that is of direct to a great many businesses.Of course , that 's not to say that Solaris is the only Unix out there - I 'm certain that FreeBSD is used in commercial enterprises as well , just not at as high a level as Solaris is .
And , ultimately , learning the idiosyncrasies of more than one Unix environment means that you 're well placed to adapt if ( for example ) you find yourself maintaining an AIX or HP-UX host - you 've already had the pain of dealing with the differences between FreeBSD/Solaris and Linux , so the next step wo n't be quite so difficult .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're looking to learn something new, OpenSolaris is the way I'd go.
Lots of commercial enterprises use Solaris, so you're learning a skill that is of direct to a great many businesses.Of course, that's not to say that Solaris is the only Unix out there - I'm certain that FreeBSD is used in commercial enterprises as well, just not at as high a level as Solaris is.
And, ultimately, learning the idiosyncrasies of more than one Unix environment means that you're well placed to adapt if (for example) you find yourself maintaining an AIX or HP-UX host - you've already had the pain of dealing with the differences between FreeBSD/Solaris and Linux, so the next step won't be quite so difficult.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30258260</id>
	<title>Re:FreeBSD ZFS kernel panics?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259420700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A fellow has asked the freebsd-stable mailing list that exact question, and still to date there have been 0 responses.</p><p>http://koitsu.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/freebsd-and-zfs-is-it-truly-stable/</p><p>Apparently people are seeing better stability in general with FreeBSD 8.0 (which just came out), but there are some claims of serious performance degradation as a result of ARC thrashing.  Patches are being tested in -CURRENT for this problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A fellow has asked the freebsd-stable mailing list that exact question , and still to date there have been 0 responses.http : //koitsu.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/freebsd-and-zfs-is-it-truly-stable/Apparently people are seeing better stability in general with FreeBSD 8.0 ( which just came out ) , but there are some claims of serious performance degradation as a result of ARC thrashing .
Patches are being tested in -CURRENT for this problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A fellow has asked the freebsd-stable mailing list that exact question, and still to date there have been 0 responses.http://koitsu.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/freebsd-and-zfs-is-it-truly-stable/Apparently people are seeing better stability in general with FreeBSD 8.0 (which just came out), but there are some claims of serious performance degradation as a result of ARC thrashing.
Patches are being tested in -CURRENT for this problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256264</id>
	<title>Re:Linux has more users and software</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259441280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I assume you are looking for a server.  If it's for a desktop, more users and software help a lot.  Although BSD and Solaris are more reliable indeed, the intricately, <b>meticulously designed</b> user-oriented design interface of Linux provides details and config files enough to entertain for generations.  I have never tried out <a href="http://www.gnustep.org/" title="gnustep.org" rel="nofollow">GnuStep</a> [gnustep.org], however an open source nextstep-like interface seems promising.</p></div><p>"Meticulously designed"?!?!?!</p><p>What interface are you using, and where did you find it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I assume you are looking for a server .
If it 's for a desktop , more users and software help a lot .
Although BSD and Solaris are more reliable indeed , the intricately , meticulously designed user-oriented design interface of Linux provides details and config files enough to entertain for generations .
I have never tried out GnuStep [ gnustep.org ] , however an open source nextstep-like interface seems promising .
" Meticulously designed " ? ! ? ! ?
! What interface are you using , and where did you find it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I assume you are looking for a server.
If it's for a desktop, more users and software help a lot.
Although BSD and Solaris are more reliable indeed, the intricately, meticulously designed user-oriented design interface of Linux provides details and config files enough to entertain for generations.
I have never tried out GnuStep [gnustep.org], however an open source nextstep-like interface seems promising.
"Meticulously designed"?!?!?
!What interface are you using, and where did you find it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254778</id>
	<title>Re:Only copyleft is "commie", BSD isn't.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259426580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But some organizations that do use Linux and GNU software don't contribute much back - consider many of the consumer electronics devices that run GPL software, such as consumer broadband routers.  Some provide the source as required by the GPL, but not much else - for example, the Linux source used might be available, but the wifi driver might be a binary module.  These organizations don't really stay in the community <i>or</i> fork; they provide the GPL source code for whatever they use, including the modifications.</p><p>These organizations use GPL software because it's cheaper; their "contributions" to the community might amount to being mostly useless to anyone, or only useful to those who want to hack the devices the software runs on.  What exactly am I going to do with the GPL source code used  by my TV, for example?</p></div><p>The fact that this is possible is one of the greatest benefits of the GPL.  Device makers get to save a substantial amount of development cost by not re-inventing the wheel, provided they agree to release the GPL source, including any modifications.  They also get to keep their secret sauce.  This is a huge win for device makers as well as for users.  We all get more stable, more cost-effective software and hardware.  And sometimes, we even get really great hackable pieces of hardware for dirt cheap (with routers being the prime example).  Through the hard work of the community we can turn a cheap commodity router into an enterprise class device, at least from a software feature standpoint.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But some organizations that do use Linux and GNU software do n't contribute much back - consider many of the consumer electronics devices that run GPL software , such as consumer broadband routers .
Some provide the source as required by the GPL , but not much else - for example , the Linux source used might be available , but the wifi driver might be a binary module .
These organizations do n't really stay in the community or fork ; they provide the GPL source code for whatever they use , including the modifications.These organizations use GPL software because it 's cheaper ; their " contributions " to the community might amount to being mostly useless to anyone , or only useful to those who want to hack the devices the software runs on .
What exactly am I going to do with the GPL source code used by my TV , for example ? The fact that this is possible is one of the greatest benefits of the GPL .
Device makers get to save a substantial amount of development cost by not re-inventing the wheel , provided they agree to release the GPL source , including any modifications .
They also get to keep their secret sauce .
This is a huge win for device makers as well as for users .
We all get more stable , more cost-effective software and hardware .
And sometimes , we even get really great hackable pieces of hardware for dirt cheap ( with routers being the prime example ) .
Through the hard work of the community we can turn a cheap commodity router into an enterprise class device , at least from a software feature standpoint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But some organizations that do use Linux and GNU software don't contribute much back - consider many of the consumer electronics devices that run GPL software, such as consumer broadband routers.
Some provide the source as required by the GPL, but not much else - for example, the Linux source used might be available, but the wifi driver might be a binary module.
These organizations don't really stay in the community or fork; they provide the GPL source code for whatever they use, including the modifications.These organizations use GPL software because it's cheaper; their "contributions" to the community might amount to being mostly useless to anyone, or only useful to those who want to hack the devices the software runs on.
What exactly am I going to do with the GPL source code used  by my TV, for example?The fact that this is possible is one of the greatest benefits of the GPL.
Device makers get to save a substantial amount of development cost by not re-inventing the wheel, provided they agree to release the GPL source, including any modifications.
They also get to keep their secret sauce.
This is a huge win for device makers as well as for users.
We all get more stable, more cost-effective software and hardware.
And sometimes, we even get really great hackable pieces of hardware for dirt cheap (with routers being the prime example).
Through the hard work of the community we can turn a cheap commodity router into an enterprise class device, at least from a software feature standpoint.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30257336</id>
	<title>Re:Performance boost?</title>
	<author>rsax</author>
	<datestamp>1259410440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know you're just replying to the original post but IMO the real benefit of using FreeBSD ports (over binary packages like debs or rpms) is less about performance optimization and more about tailoring the features.  For example if you wanted LDAP authentication support for the latest version of PostgreSQL you could provide that option to make and then the port installation results in your new package with the feature you wanted.  You end up using the OS's package management tools to maintain the software with all the extra options you require.  Now with Debian or RHEL if you wanted that same feature and the package maintainer didn't compile that in then you have to download the source and do it yourself.  This is fine if you don't mind that, or if you have time to commit to that, or if you're only customizing a few packages but otherwise it can become unwieldy.  Sure you could write your own scripts to maintain a build environment for all these different packages with extra features but it's so much easier and cleaner with Ports.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know you 're just replying to the original post but IMO the real benefit of using FreeBSD ports ( over binary packages like debs or rpms ) is less about performance optimization and more about tailoring the features .
For example if you wanted LDAP authentication support for the latest version of PostgreSQL you could provide that option to make and then the port installation results in your new package with the feature you wanted .
You end up using the OS 's package management tools to maintain the software with all the extra options you require .
Now with Debian or RHEL if you wanted that same feature and the package maintainer did n't compile that in then you have to download the source and do it yourself .
This is fine if you do n't mind that , or if you have time to commit to that , or if you 're only customizing a few packages but otherwise it can become unwieldy .
Sure you could write your own scripts to maintain a build environment for all these different packages with extra features but it 's so much easier and cleaner with Ports .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know you're just replying to the original post but IMO the real benefit of using FreeBSD ports (over binary packages like debs or rpms) is less about performance optimization and more about tailoring the features.
For example if you wanted LDAP authentication support for the latest version of PostgreSQL you could provide that option to make and then the port installation results in your new package with the feature you wanted.
You end up using the OS's package management tools to maintain the software with all the extra options you require.
Now with Debian or RHEL if you wanted that same feature and the package maintainer didn't compile that in then you have to download the source and do it yourself.
This is fine if you don't mind that, or if you have time to commit to that, or if you're only customizing a few packages but otherwise it can become unwieldy.
Sure you could write your own scripts to maintain a build environment for all these different packages with extra features but it's so much easier and cleaner with Ports.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253968</id>
	<title>I've been Happy with Both</title>
	<author>N9VLS</author>
	<datestamp>1259416200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm quite happy with both OpenSolaris and FreeBSD as desktops, as well as servers.</p><p>You didn't specify what your primary goals are for the system in question-- if you're looking for a general purpose web surfing/light development machine, OpenSolaris should be fine for you-- as long as you have at least a gigabyte of memory and a moderately fast processor.</p><p>FreeBSD's a lot less resource intensive in my experience-- I'm currently supporting two sites that still have Pentium III/600-based servers with uptimes approaching a year each.  (Last reboot for each was due to a multi-day power outage.)</p><p>If you have VirtualBox installed, give both FreeBSD and OpenSolaris a whirl, see what you think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm quite happy with both OpenSolaris and FreeBSD as desktops , as well as servers.You did n't specify what your primary goals are for the system in question-- if you 're looking for a general purpose web surfing/light development machine , OpenSolaris should be fine for you-- as long as you have at least a gigabyte of memory and a moderately fast processor.FreeBSD 's a lot less resource intensive in my experience-- I 'm currently supporting two sites that still have Pentium III/600-based servers with uptimes approaching a year each .
( Last reboot for each was due to a multi-day power outage .
) If you have VirtualBox installed , give both FreeBSD and OpenSolaris a whirl , see what you think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm quite happy with both OpenSolaris and FreeBSD as desktops, as well as servers.You didn't specify what your primary goals are for the system in question-- if you're looking for a general purpose web surfing/light development machine, OpenSolaris should be fine for you-- as long as you have at least a gigabyte of memory and a moderately fast processor.FreeBSD's a lot less resource intensive in my experience-- I'm currently supporting two sites that still have Pentium III/600-based servers with uptimes approaching a year each.
(Last reboot for each was due to a multi-day power outage.
)If you have VirtualBox installed, give both FreeBSD and OpenSolaris a whirl, see what you think.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254250</id>
	<title>Re:Dual boot.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259420580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, the server equivalent of dual booting is virtualisation and there is some wisdom in first deciding which application and then taking the best OS for that.  If the question was "which server OS should be standardise on Solaris or FreeBSD" in which case the answer is "neither; use CentOS/RedHat; CentOS for development and staff home computers and RedHat in production".  Since the question is about learning, probably the best answer is OpenBSD since that's more different from Linux than the others.  Since the original question is between FreeBSD and OpenSolaris, I guess I would have to finally say start with FreeBSD since it's more BSD like and more likely to have the hardware support.  Alternatively, try one and if it doesn't work, try the other.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the server equivalent of dual booting is virtualisation and there is some wisdom in first deciding which application and then taking the best OS for that .
If the question was " which server OS should be standardise on Solaris or FreeBSD " in which case the answer is " neither ; use CentOS/RedHat ; CentOS for development and staff home computers and RedHat in production " .
Since the question is about learning , probably the best answer is OpenBSD since that 's more different from Linux than the others .
Since the original question is between FreeBSD and OpenSolaris , I guess I would have to finally say start with FreeBSD since it 's more BSD like and more likely to have the hardware support .
Alternatively , try one and if it does n't work , try the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the server equivalent of dual booting is virtualisation and there is some wisdom in first deciding which application and then taking the best OS for that.
If the question was "which server OS should be standardise on Solaris or FreeBSD" in which case the answer is "neither; use CentOS/RedHat; CentOS for development and staff home computers and RedHat in production".
Since the question is about learning, probably the best answer is OpenBSD since that's more different from Linux than the others.
Since the original question is between FreeBSD and OpenSolaris, I guess I would have to finally say start with FreeBSD since it's more BSD like and more likely to have the hardware support.
Alternatively, try one and if it doesn't work, try the other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254182</id>
	<title>No free security updates for OpenSolaris</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259419740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remeber that you don't get any free security updates for OpenSolaris. That means you are stuck with the security problems and bugs until the next release,</p><p>Of course you can buy support from Sun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remeber that you do n't get any free security updates for OpenSolaris .
That means you are stuck with the security problems and bugs until the next release,Of course you can buy support from Sun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remeber that you don't get any free security updates for OpenSolaris.
That means you are stuck with the security problems and bugs until the next release,Of course you can buy support from Sun.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255238</id>
	<title>Re:Go the whole hog...</title>
	<author>toddestan</author>
	<datestamp>1259431080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OSX is anything but that.  It's built upon BSD, which is based on the Unix's from the 70's and 80's.  The clunky (imho) interface is derived from the original Mac OS which was designed to be used on a 9" monochrome screen.  It may be pretty spiffy, but the paradigms behind it are decades old.  If we had to do over from scratch here in 2009, I don't think we'd end up with OSX again.</p><p>The closest thing I can think of to a completely new architecture combining the best of what is out there with new paradigms designed for modern PCs was BeOS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OSX is anything but that .
It 's built upon BSD , which is based on the Unix 's from the 70 's and 80 's .
The clunky ( imho ) interface is derived from the original Mac OS which was designed to be used on a 9 " monochrome screen .
It may be pretty spiffy , but the paradigms behind it are decades old .
If we had to do over from scratch here in 2009 , I do n't think we 'd end up with OSX again.The closest thing I can think of to a completely new architecture combining the best of what is out there with new paradigms designed for modern PCs was BeOS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OSX is anything but that.
It's built upon BSD, which is based on the Unix's from the 70's and 80's.
The clunky (imho) interface is derived from the original Mac OS which was designed to be used on a 9" monochrome screen.
It may be pretty spiffy, but the paradigms behind it are decades old.
If we had to do over from scratch here in 2009, I don't think we'd end up with OSX again.The closest thing I can think of to a completely new architecture combining the best of what is out there with new paradigms designed for modern PCs was BeOS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253806</id>
	<title>GNU Hurd</title>
	<author>Lord Lode</author>
	<datestamp>1259413440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about GNU Hurd, that's something really different.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about GNU Hurd , that 's something really different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about GNU Hurd, that's something really different.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255524</id>
	<title>Re:FreeBSD ZFS kernel panics?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259434260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How did you get OpenSolaris on 48MB Pentium? I have tried to install it on my old laptop which has 128MB of RAM and I could not get very far in the installation process. I got an error saying that OpenSolaris required 512MB of RAM (I believe).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How did you get OpenSolaris on 48MB Pentium ?
I have tried to install it on my old laptop which has 128MB of RAM and I could not get very far in the installation process .
I got an error saying that OpenSolaris required 512MB of RAM ( I believe ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How did you get OpenSolaris on 48MB Pentium?
I have tried to install it on my old laptop which has 128MB of RAM and I could not get very far in the installation process.
I got an error saying that OpenSolaris required 512MB of RAM (I believe).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254534</id>
	<title>Re:Only copyleft is "commie", BSD isn't.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259423880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No! I totally agree with the last point you quote. Apple can ship whatever they want, all in house software for every need. Every Linux distro comes with lots of prebundled apps. MS can't even ship a web browser or multimedia app. As foul as the IE market share was earned, MS is now prevented from making a full fledged competing product. Their competition is Ubuntu, with OOo, Totem, GIMP (at least for now), Firefox, Evolution, and anything else you can imagine as click and run. Even OS X comes with stuff like Quicktime, iTunes, and Safari.</p><p>Forcing MS to be compatible is good. Forcing them to allow their customers freedom fo choice by uncoupling stuff is great. Forcing MS to either nag or deny their users while advertising competition. That is just insane and unfair, and places them in a position where competing with free is even more difficult that just the sticker price.</p><p>There is no excuse for what Microsoft *has* done. But two wrongs won't make a right either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No !
I totally agree with the last point you quote .
Apple can ship whatever they want , all in house software for every need .
Every Linux distro comes with lots of prebundled apps .
MS ca n't even ship a web browser or multimedia app .
As foul as the IE market share was earned , MS is now prevented from making a full fledged competing product .
Their competition is Ubuntu , with OOo , Totem , GIMP ( at least for now ) , Firefox , Evolution , and anything else you can imagine as click and run .
Even OS X comes with stuff like Quicktime , iTunes , and Safari.Forcing MS to be compatible is good .
Forcing them to allow their customers freedom fo choice by uncoupling stuff is great .
Forcing MS to either nag or deny their users while advertising competition .
That is just insane and unfair , and places them in a position where competing with free is even more difficult that just the sticker price.There is no excuse for what Microsoft * has * done .
But two wrongs wo n't make a right either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No!
I totally agree with the last point you quote.
Apple can ship whatever they want, all in house software for every need.
Every Linux distro comes with lots of prebundled apps.
MS can't even ship a web browser or multimedia app.
As foul as the IE market share was earned, MS is now prevented from making a full fledged competing product.
Their competition is Ubuntu, with OOo, Totem, GIMP (at least for now), Firefox, Evolution, and anything else you can imagine as click and run.
Even OS X comes with stuff like Quicktime, iTunes, and Safari.Forcing MS to be compatible is good.
Forcing them to allow their customers freedom fo choice by uncoupling stuff is great.
Forcing MS to either nag or deny their users while advertising competition.
That is just insane and unfair, and places them in a position where competing with free is even more difficult that just the sticker price.There is no excuse for what Microsoft *has* done.
But two wrongs won't make a right either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254298</id>
	<title>Re:Go the whole hog...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259421180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>BAHAHAHAHA!</htmltext>
<tokenext>BAHAHAHAHA !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BAHAHAHAHA!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30274426</id>
	<title>Re:Only copyleft is "commie", BSD isn't.</title>
	<author>bolthole</author>
	<datestamp>1259574480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Free software is one of the few examples in the world of successful communism at work:"</p><p>No it isnt. specifically, GPL is. But not all "free software" is GPL'd or equivalent.</p><p>"The emotional lozenge of the GPL: "at least my code, and anything based on it, will always be free"."</p><p>personally, as a software author, I'd rather have, "at least my code, will always be MINE".<br>The GPL takes that away from me, and substitutes, "my code, will now always belong to everyone ELSE"(ie: pure communism). Which is why I avoid the GPL.<br>Not because I am anti-communism specifically, but simply because I like My code,to STAY My code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Free software is one of the few examples in the world of successful communism at work : " No it isnt .
specifically , GPL is .
But not all " free software " is GPL 'd or equivalent .
" The emotional lozenge of the GPL : " at least my code , and anything based on it , will always be free " .
" personally , as a software author , I 'd rather have , " at least my code , will always be MINE " .The GPL takes that away from me , and substitutes , " my code , will now always belong to everyone ELSE " ( ie : pure communism ) .
Which is why I avoid the GPL.Not because I am anti-communism specifically , but simply because I like My code,to STAY My code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Free software is one of the few examples in the world of successful communism at work:"No it isnt.
specifically, GPL is.
But not all "free software" is GPL'd or equivalent.
"The emotional lozenge of the GPL: "at least my code, and anything based on it, will always be free".
"personally, as a software author, I'd rather have, "at least my code, will always be MINE".The GPL takes that away from me, and substitutes, "my code, will now always belong to everyone ELSE"(ie: pure communism).
Which is why I avoid the GPL.Not because I am anti-communism specifically, but simply because I like My code,to STAY My code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253574</id>
	<title>Try both</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259408220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Make a VM of each system and see what you like.  The other question is what do you want to do with your system?  Run it on your laptop? Use it as a web server?  A directory server?  Or something else?</p><p>This is question is like being asked by a computer illiterate user "What kind of computer should I get?"  I always ask "Well what do you want to do? If you want to surf the web, maybe type a paper or two, get a netbook, if you want to play games, get a desktop, if you need to carry it to school or work..."  It all depends on what will best preform the functions you're looking for.</p><p>If your goal is to learn, try both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Make a VM of each system and see what you like .
The other question is what do you want to do with your system ?
Run it on your laptop ?
Use it as a web server ?
A directory server ?
Or something else ? This is question is like being asked by a computer illiterate user " What kind of computer should I get ?
" I always ask " Well what do you want to do ?
If you want to surf the web , maybe type a paper or two , get a netbook , if you want to play games , get a desktop , if you need to carry it to school or work... " It all depends on what will best preform the functions you 're looking for.If your goal is to learn , try both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make a VM of each system and see what you like.
The other question is what do you want to do with your system?
Run it on your laptop?
Use it as a web server?
A directory server?
Or something else?This is question is like being asked by a computer illiterate user "What kind of computer should I get?
"  I always ask "Well what do you want to do?
If you want to surf the web, maybe type a paper or two, get a netbook, if you want to play games, get a desktop, if you need to carry it to school or work..."  It all depends on what will best preform the functions you're looking for.If your goal is to learn, try both.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254454</id>
	<title>Re:Article is trollbait</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259422920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>&gt; Switch to OpenSolaris</p><p>No, just no, not unless you have a specific reason to. As a desktop? They don't call it Slowaris for nothing, y'know.</p></div><p>Way to keep the troll alive.   I know you are just trying to get a rise out of people, but come on, digging up a term from like 1995 isn't very convincing.    I personally run Solaris (and production systems at work) because there is nothing in the space that scales like it.   Even for single thread applications (and only one of them) with no memory requirements it is just as fast (now at least, early x86 versions of Solaris didn't perform as well as their SPARC counterparts) as FreeBSD, Linux, Windows, etc.</p><p>I could go on to bash Linux et al but, but what would be the point?  What ever suits your needs the best is the best OS.   Oh, I remember, this is slashdot, we make uninformed, brash comments  here now.   In 2000, this was a forum for killing FUD, now it is hear to spread FUD.</p><p>To the original poster, I think, if you want a better debate, you should take it to serverfault.com</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Switch to OpenSolarisNo , just no , not unless you have a specific reason to .
As a desktop ?
They do n't call it Slowaris for nothing , y'know.Way to keep the troll alive .
I know you are just trying to get a rise out of people , but come on , digging up a term from like 1995 is n't very convincing .
I personally run Solaris ( and production systems at work ) because there is nothing in the space that scales like it .
Even for single thread applications ( and only one of them ) with no memory requirements it is just as fast ( now at least , early x86 versions of Solaris did n't perform as well as their SPARC counterparts ) as FreeBSD , Linux , Windows , etc.I could go on to bash Linux et al but , but what would be the point ?
What ever suits your needs the best is the best OS .
Oh , I remember , this is slashdot , we make uninformed , brash comments here now .
In 2000 , this was a forum for killing FUD , now it is hear to spread FUD.To the original poster , I think , if you want a better debate , you should take it to serverfault.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Switch to OpenSolarisNo, just no, not unless you have a specific reason to.
As a desktop?
They don't call it Slowaris for nothing, y'know.Way to keep the troll alive.
I know you are just trying to get a rise out of people, but come on, digging up a term from like 1995 isn't very convincing.
I personally run Solaris (and production systems at work) because there is nothing in the space that scales like it.
Even for single thread applications (and only one of them) with no memory requirements it is just as fast (now at least, early x86 versions of Solaris didn't perform as well as their SPARC counterparts) as FreeBSD, Linux, Windows, etc.I could go on to bash Linux et al but, but what would be the point?
What ever suits your needs the best is the best OS.
Oh, I remember, this is slashdot, we make uninformed, brash comments  here now.
In 2000, this was a forum for killing FUD, now it is hear to spread FUD.To the original poster, I think, if you want a better debate, you should take it to serverfault.com
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254030</id>
	<title>Re:Performance boost?</title>
	<author>AlexLibman</author>
	<datestamp>1259417100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I get at least a 10\% performance boot recompiling i386 binaries for pentium4 with all gcc optimisations.  Even more importantly, you get your packages to include the libraries you need and avoid those you don't.  Most precompiled distros are getting really bloated, and you can't uninstall many things you don't need because whoever compiled another package decided to link it with everything plus the kitchen sink.</p><p>The more settings are set at compile-time, the faster a package runs.  Compiling also allows for greater hardware flexibility, including having your software take full advantage of all the hardware you have on your system: CPU's, graphics, sound, specialty network adapters, and so on.  In the future, hardware platforms will continue to become ever-more diverse.  An ideal compilation for a server with 256 128-bit CPU's is very different than the ideal compilation for a wristwatch!</p><p>Precompiled packages become a self-fulfilling prophecy that discourages market innovation.  Imagine you're a small-time electronics manufacturer in Taiwan and you want to release a hardware product that would boost performance of certain applications 50\%, but it will only work if the software is compiled to take advantage of that.  If your target customers are running precompiled distros, your product launch is no-go until you convince the distro maintainers to compile all their packages your way, or you have to set up your own package repository for your clients.  If your target customers are running Gentoo, on the other hand, after installing your hardware they'll just have to set a new USE flag and re-emerge!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I get at least a 10 \ % performance boot recompiling i386 binaries for pentium4 with all gcc optimisations .
Even more importantly , you get your packages to include the libraries you need and avoid those you do n't .
Most precompiled distros are getting really bloated , and you ca n't uninstall many things you do n't need because whoever compiled another package decided to link it with everything plus the kitchen sink.The more settings are set at compile-time , the faster a package runs .
Compiling also allows for greater hardware flexibility , including having your software take full advantage of all the hardware you have on your system : CPU 's , graphics , sound , specialty network adapters , and so on .
In the future , hardware platforms will continue to become ever-more diverse .
An ideal compilation for a server with 256 128-bit CPU 's is very different than the ideal compilation for a wristwatch ! Precompiled packages become a self-fulfilling prophecy that discourages market innovation .
Imagine you 're a small-time electronics manufacturer in Taiwan and you want to release a hardware product that would boost performance of certain applications 50 \ % , but it will only work if the software is compiled to take advantage of that .
If your target customers are running precompiled distros , your product launch is no-go until you convince the distro maintainers to compile all their packages your way , or you have to set up your own package repository for your clients .
If your target customers are running Gentoo , on the other hand , after installing your hardware they 'll just have to set a new USE flag and re-emerge !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get at least a 10\% performance boot recompiling i386 binaries for pentium4 with all gcc optimisations.
Even more importantly, you get your packages to include the libraries you need and avoid those you don't.
Most precompiled distros are getting really bloated, and you can't uninstall many things you don't need because whoever compiled another package decided to link it with everything plus the kitchen sink.The more settings are set at compile-time, the faster a package runs.
Compiling also allows for greater hardware flexibility, including having your software take full advantage of all the hardware you have on your system: CPU's, graphics, sound, specialty network adapters, and so on.
In the future, hardware platforms will continue to become ever-more diverse.
An ideal compilation for a server with 256 128-bit CPU's is very different than the ideal compilation for a wristwatch!Precompiled packages become a self-fulfilling prophecy that discourages market innovation.
Imagine you're a small-time electronics manufacturer in Taiwan and you want to release a hardware product that would boost performance of certain applications 50\%, but it will only work if the software is compiled to take advantage of that.
If your target customers are running precompiled distros, your product launch is no-go until you convince the distro maintainers to compile all their packages your way, or you have to set up your own package repository for your clients.
If your target customers are running Gentoo, on the other hand, after installing your hardware they'll just have to set a new USE flag and re-emerge!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253902</id>
	<title>Re:Go the whole hog...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259415060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is already such a thing. It's called Mac OS X.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is already such a thing .
It 's called Mac OS X .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is already such a thing.
It's called Mac OS X.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253504</id>
	<title>Go the whole hog...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259407140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rather than playing with just another un*x clone, try something like <a href="http://www.haiku-os.org/" title="haiku-os.org">Haiku</a> [haiku-os.org] or <a href="http://www.freevms.net/" title="freevms.net">FreeVMS</a> [freevms.net] or my personal favourite <a href="http://plan9.bell-labs.com/plan9/" title="bell-labs.com">Plan 9</a> [bell-labs.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather than playing with just another un * x clone , try something like Haiku [ haiku-os.org ] or FreeVMS [ freevms.net ] or my personal favourite Plan 9 [ bell-labs.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather than playing with just another un*x clone, try something like Haiku [haiku-os.org] or FreeVMS [freevms.net] or my personal favourite Plan 9 [bell-labs.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255878</id>
	<title>Re:Article is trollbait</title>
	<author>godrik</author>
	<datestamp>1259437860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just wanted to say I understand your need in trying something else. I wanted some change a few monthes ago. I tried dragonflyBSD for a few weeks. The system was way too experimental and has too much out-of-date documentation to be used by someone that don't want to do OS level programming. I finnlay reverted back to debian. But I was very happy of having tried something else.</p><p>I might give a try to freebsd in the next monthes. Perhaps through debian/kfreebsd. Or perhaps I'll give a look at hurd. So keep us posted!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just wanted to say I understand your need in trying something else .
I wanted some change a few monthes ago .
I tried dragonflyBSD for a few weeks .
The system was way too experimental and has too much out-of-date documentation to be used by someone that do n't want to do OS level programming .
I finnlay reverted back to debian .
But I was very happy of having tried something else.I might give a try to freebsd in the next monthes .
Perhaps through debian/kfreebsd .
Or perhaps I 'll give a look at hurd .
So keep us posted !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just wanted to say I understand your need in trying something else.
I wanted some change a few monthes ago.
I tried dragonflyBSD for a few weeks.
The system was way too experimental and has too much out-of-date documentation to be used by someone that don't want to do OS level programming.
I finnlay reverted back to debian.
But I was very happy of having tried something else.I might give a try to freebsd in the next monthes.
Perhaps through debian/kfreebsd.
Or perhaps I'll give a look at hurd.
So keep us posted!
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256630</id>
	<title>Re:Go the whole hog...</title>
	<author>Spaseboy</author>
	<datestamp>1259401500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Haiku is not multi-user and in this day and age of malware, that's absolutely essential.  Furthermore, I have a lot of other gripes about the current version of Haiku.  Haiku is kind of like what if Classic Mac OS had melded A/UX into itself.  Haiku suffers from many of the same issues Mac OS Classic had and just happens to have a few benefits from a Unix-like design.</p><p>I would rather have seen the Haiku interface developers work on Haiku as a desktop environment for Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Haiku is not multi-user and in this day and age of malware , that 's absolutely essential .
Furthermore , I have a lot of other gripes about the current version of Haiku .
Haiku is kind of like what if Classic Mac OS had melded A/UX into itself .
Haiku suffers from many of the same issues Mac OS Classic had and just happens to have a few benefits from a Unix-like design.I would rather have seen the Haiku interface developers work on Haiku as a desktop environment for Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haiku is not multi-user and in this day and age of malware, that's absolutely essential.
Furthermore, I have a lot of other gripes about the current version of Haiku.
Haiku is kind of like what if Classic Mac OS had melded A/UX into itself.
Haiku suffers from many of the same issues Mac OS Classic had and just happens to have a few benefits from a Unix-like design.I would rather have seen the Haiku interface developers work on Haiku as a desktop environment for Linux.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255242</id>
	<title>Re:Performance boost?</title>
	<author>Deanalator</author>
	<datestamp>1259431200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.  I'm pretty sure the ubuntu build engineers know a bit more about optimizing their builds than most gentoo users.  The ubuntu security team also reevaluates security trade-offs for every release, and adjusts which security flags they compile with accordingly.  Not sure if other distros have caught up, but for a while ubuntu was the only distro that gave users a hardened and optimized build environment by default.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
I 'm pretty sure the ubuntu build engineers know a bit more about optimizing their builds than most gentoo users .
The ubuntu security team also reevaluates security trade-offs for every release , and adjusts which security flags they compile with accordingly .
Not sure if other distros have caught up , but for a while ubuntu was the only distro that gave users a hardened and optimized build environment by default .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
I'm pretty sure the ubuntu build engineers know a bit more about optimizing their builds than most gentoo users.
The ubuntu security team also reevaluates security trade-offs for every release, and adjusts which security flags they compile with accordingly.
Not sure if other distros have caught up, but for a while ubuntu was the only distro that gave users a hardened and optimized build environment by default.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30265690</id>
	<title>Re:Article is trollbait</title>
	<author>BOFHelsinki</author>
	<datestamp>1259508900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Meta-mods, take parent away from Troll. That one's obviously unfair. <br> <br>

Norsefire, thanks for bothering to explain your question. I was interested in the feedback as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meta-mods , take parent away from Troll .
That one 's obviously unfair .
Norsefire , thanks for bothering to explain your question .
I was interested in the feedback as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meta-mods, take parent away from Troll.
That one's obviously unfair.
Norsefire, thanks for bothering to explain your question.
I was interested in the feedback as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254064</id>
	<title>Re:Go the whole hog...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259417700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Haha, no.. no, it isn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Haha , no.. no , it is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haha, no.. no, it isn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253752</id>
	<title>Re:Article is trollbait</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259412060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well said, Sir!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well said , Sir !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well said, Sir!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255028</id>
	<title>Re:Article is trollbait</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259429280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;But don't forget that ZFS has its own overhead, so if you don't have a use for it, you're wasting your time and your system resources.</p><p>You want to know what the overhead of ZFS is?  It's the stupid hard disk, just like every other damn filesystem.  Otherwise, on a multi-core processor, the kernel just uses CPU resources that were probably never even being used in the first place.  Otherwise, ZFS gives you de-duplication, snapshots, incremental snapshot replication to a remote host, and file integrity backup.</p><p>Sooner or later laptops will ship with both a hard drive and room for a 1.8 inch SSD disk.  Combining those two would make ZFS the best filesystem choice out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; But do n't forget that ZFS has its own overhead , so if you do n't have a use for it , you 're wasting your time and your system resources.You want to know what the overhead of ZFS is ?
It 's the stupid hard disk , just like every other damn filesystem .
Otherwise , on a multi-core processor , the kernel just uses CPU resources that were probably never even being used in the first place .
Otherwise , ZFS gives you de-duplication , snapshots , incremental snapshot replication to a remote host , and file integrity backup.Sooner or later laptops will ship with both a hard drive and room for a 1.8 inch SSD disk .
Combining those two would make ZFS the best filesystem choice out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;But don't forget that ZFS has its own overhead, so if you don't have a use for it, you're wasting your time and your system resources.You want to know what the overhead of ZFS is?
It's the stupid hard disk, just like every other damn filesystem.
Otherwise, on a multi-core processor, the kernel just uses CPU resources that were probably never even being used in the first place.
Otherwise, ZFS gives you de-duplication, snapshots, incremental snapshot replication to a remote host, and file integrity backup.Sooner or later laptops will ship with both a hard drive and room for a 1.8 inch SSD disk.
Combining those two would make ZFS the best filesystem choice out there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255964</id>
	<title>Re:Performance boost?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259438580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which applied at the time considering that there was a huge difference between Pentium and old 386. It doesn't apply now that all 64 bits have the same instruction set.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which applied at the time considering that there was a huge difference between Pentium and old 386 .
It does n't apply now that all 64 bits have the same instruction set .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which applied at the time considering that there was a huge difference between Pentium and old 386.
It doesn't apply now that all 64 bits have the same instruction set.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253490</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259407020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those are commie Operating Systems you have there. Get some Windows 7 and be a good patriot.</p><p>Just think about what you're saying in the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those are commie Operating Systems you have there .
Get some Windows 7 and be a good patriot.Just think about what you 're saying in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those are commie Operating Systems you have there.
Get some Windows 7 and be a good patriot.Just think about what you're saying in the future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254588</id>
	<title>Re:Go the whole hog...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259424360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>1998 called -- they want their sluggish microkernel back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1998 called -- they want their sluggish microkernel back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1998 called -- they want their sluggish microkernel back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255038</id>
	<title>Insufficient data</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259429400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't make a recommendation because you have not clarified your end use.  If you are using it personally, I'd recommend BSD.  It is a good too to learn the basics of UNIX, and build a great OS from.  If you are going to use it in a business desktop, the amount of configuration and upkeep becomes prohibitive.  Given your choices, I would use Solaris because of ease of use and support for business.  If used in a business server role, it depends on the expected services and the organization, but I'd probably deploy BSD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't make a recommendation because you have not clarified your end use .
If you are using it personally , I 'd recommend BSD .
It is a good too to learn the basics of UNIX , and build a great OS from .
If you are going to use it in a business desktop , the amount of configuration and upkeep becomes prohibitive .
Given your choices , I would use Solaris because of ease of use and support for business .
If used in a business server role , it depends on the expected services and the organization , but I 'd probably deploy BSD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't make a recommendation because you have not clarified your end use.
If you are using it personally, I'd recommend BSD.
It is a good too to learn the basics of UNIX, and build a great OS from.
If you are going to use it in a business desktop, the amount of configuration and upkeep becomes prohibitive.
Given your choices, I would use Solaris because of ease of use and support for business.
If used in a business server role, it depends on the expected services and the organization, but I'd probably deploy BSD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253536</id>
	<title>Performance boost?</title>
	<author>scsirob</author>
	<datestamp>1259407680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am always surprised when people make this claim about compiling from source giving a performance boost. Why would code compiled on your system run any faster than the same code on someone else's system?</p><p>Unless you know how to tweak the compiler flags for this particular app (and know them better than the developer who distributes the binaries), the binary delivered with the distribution will be just as quick as the one you compile yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am always surprised when people make this claim about compiling from source giving a performance boost .
Why would code compiled on your system run any faster than the same code on someone else 's system ? Unless you know how to tweak the compiler flags for this particular app ( and know them better than the developer who distributes the binaries ) , the binary delivered with the distribution will be just as quick as the one you compile yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am always surprised when people make this claim about compiling from source giving a performance boost.
Why would code compiled on your system run any faster than the same code on someone else's system?Unless you know how to tweak the compiler flags for this particular app (and know them better than the developer who distributes the binaries), the binary delivered with the distribution will be just as quick as the one you compile yourself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254598</id>
	<title>FreeBSD</title>
	<author>sunfly</author>
	<datestamp>1259424600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For the community.  I hear they have pot luck dinners every Sunday afternoon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the community .
I hear they have pot luck dinners every Sunday afternoon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the community.
I hear they have pot luck dinners every Sunday afternoon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254098</id>
	<title>Embarrassment of riches</title>
	<author>ewg</author>
	<datestamp>1259418180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What a treat to even be able to have this discussion: which of the many capable, mature, free options to adopt. Thank you, open source movement!</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a treat to even be able to have this discussion : which of the many capable , mature , free options to adopt .
Thank you , open source movement !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a treat to even be able to have this discussion: which of the many capable, mature, free options to adopt.
Thank you, open source movement!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254104</id>
	<title>Re:Only copyleft is "commie", BSD isn't.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259418300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Restrictive (copyleft) licensed software like the Linux kernel and the GNU toolchain indeed follows a communist philosophy that fails to see the value of free market competition, and instead relies on government force (see gpl-violations.org).</i>
</p><p>No it doesn't.
</p><p>It raises the bar for competition. It allows everyone to start from a more advanced position, the whole "Shoulders of Giants" thing.
</p><p>We are very lucky to live in a world with GPL software. The GPL has succeeded in allowing real progress to flourish where monopolies have stifled progress in an unregulated "free" market.
</p><p> <i>The Windows Interix subsystem could have evolved into a great UNIX server platform, but socialist governments (especially in Europe) place severe restrictions on what Microsoft can include in their products, which is the only thing holding them back.</i>
</p><p>The double-speak of a Microsoft apologist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Restrictive ( copyleft ) licensed software like the Linux kernel and the GNU toolchain indeed follows a communist philosophy that fails to see the value of free market competition , and instead relies on government force ( see gpl-violations.org ) .
No it does n't .
It raises the bar for competition .
It allows everyone to start from a more advanced position , the whole " Shoulders of Giants " thing .
We are very lucky to live in a world with GPL software .
The GPL has succeeded in allowing real progress to flourish where monopolies have stifled progress in an unregulated " free " market .
The Windows Interix subsystem could have evolved into a great UNIX server platform , but socialist governments ( especially in Europe ) place severe restrictions on what Microsoft can include in their products , which is the only thing holding them back .
The double-speak of a Microsoft apologist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Restrictive (copyleft) licensed software like the Linux kernel and the GNU toolchain indeed follows a communist philosophy that fails to see the value of free market competition, and instead relies on government force (see gpl-violations.org).
No it doesn't.
It raises the bar for competition.
It allows everyone to start from a more advanced position, the whole "Shoulders of Giants" thing.
We are very lucky to live in a world with GPL software.
The GPL has succeeded in allowing real progress to flourish where monopolies have stifled progress in an unregulated "free" market.
The Windows Interix subsystem could have evolved into a great UNIX server platform, but socialist governments (especially in Europe) place severe restrictions on what Microsoft can include in their products, which is the only thing holding them back.
The double-speak of a Microsoft apologist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256186</id>
	<title>Re:FreeBSD ZFS kernel panics?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259440320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FreeBSD 8 increases the kernel memory limit from 2GB to 512GB specifically to accommodate ZFS users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FreeBSD 8 increases the kernel memory limit from 2GB to 512GB specifically to accommodate ZFS users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FreeBSD 8 increases the kernel memory limit from 2GB to 512GB specifically to accommodate ZFS users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253796</id>
	<title>Re:Performance boost?</title>
	<author>sqldr</author>
	<datestamp>1259413200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Memory usage and load times with library linkage.  It always amuses me when on certain systems, as a result of downloading KDE, it pulls in libraries which are linked against other libraries, which in turn are compiled with GTK support.  I don't use GTK anywhere, and yet I have its code sitting in my memory, needlessly.  If you compile it yourself, you don't have these needless dependencies.</p><p>That said, the difference in loading times is negligible, and I haven't had an OCD approach to software installation for a while.  I also trust the likes of $DISTRO's packagers to have a lot more experience in compiling software than I have, since, er, that's what they do all day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Memory usage and load times with library linkage .
It always amuses me when on certain systems , as a result of downloading KDE , it pulls in libraries which are linked against other libraries , which in turn are compiled with GTK support .
I do n't use GTK anywhere , and yet I have its code sitting in my memory , needlessly .
If you compile it yourself , you do n't have these needless dependencies.That said , the difference in loading times is negligible , and I have n't had an OCD approach to software installation for a while .
I also trust the likes of $ DISTRO 's packagers to have a lot more experience in compiling software than I have , since , er , that 's what they do all day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Memory usage and load times with library linkage.
It always amuses me when on certain systems, as a result of downloading KDE, it pulls in libraries which are linked against other libraries, which in turn are compiled with GTK support.
I don't use GTK anywhere, and yet I have its code sitting in my memory, needlessly.
If you compile it yourself, you don't have these needless dependencies.That said, the difference in loading times is negligible, and I haven't had an OCD approach to software installation for a while.
I also trust the likes of $DISTRO's packagers to have a lot more experience in compiling software than I have, since, er, that's what they do all day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255392</id>
	<title>Re:Only copyleft is "commie", BSD isn't.</title>
	<author>EdIII</author>
	<datestamp>1259433060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's probably not indented for people who want a complete GNU system</p></div></blockquote><p>I didn't realize the people who wanted a complete GNU system needed different levels of indentation in the source code!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's probably not indented for people who want a complete GNU systemI did n't realize the people who wanted a complete GNU system needed different levels of indentation in the source code !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's probably not indented for people who want a complete GNU systemI didn't realize the people who wanted a complete GNU system needed different levels of indentation in the source code!
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253556</id>
	<title>Nobody will probably help you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259408040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because you forgot to write down the most important part of your question: for which purpose is this server intended.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because you forgot to write down the most important part of your question : for which purpose is this server intended .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because you forgot to write down the most important part of your question: for which purpose is this server intended.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254012</id>
	<title>Re:Article is trollbait</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1259416860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>No, just no, not unless you have a specific reason to. As a desktop? They don't call it Slowaris for nothing, y'know</p></div></blockquote><p>It's the long boot time that gives it the name (and makes its appearance in a Stargate episode amusing when they need the gate going in 20 seconds and the machine controlling it is still showing the openboot prompt).  Once it's running it isn't slow.  I'm running it on some pretty old sparc hardware and it runs quite well.  NFS on linux for one thing has not yet caught up so it's faster in some areas, and zones are nice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , just no , not unless you have a specific reason to .
As a desktop ?
They do n't call it Slowaris for nothing , y'knowIt 's the long boot time that gives it the name ( and makes its appearance in a Stargate episode amusing when they need the gate going in 20 seconds and the machine controlling it is still showing the openboot prompt ) .
Once it 's running it is n't slow .
I 'm running it on some pretty old sparc hardware and it runs quite well .
NFS on linux for one thing has not yet caught up so it 's faster in some areas , and zones are nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, just no, not unless you have a specific reason to.
As a desktop?
They don't call it Slowaris for nothing, y'knowIt's the long boot time that gives it the name (and makes its appearance in a Stargate episode amusing when they need the gate going in 20 seconds and the machine controlling it is still showing the openboot prompt).
Once it's running it isn't slow.
I'm running it on some pretty old sparc hardware and it runs quite well.
NFS on linux for one thing has not yet caught up so it's faster in some areas, and zones are nice.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253624</id>
	<title>Re:Performance boost?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259409420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I only have my own anecdote about this, but I kind of like it.</p><p>Back around '00, I had several computers (I still do, but that's beside the point).  I had my main desktop, and I had this nice old Pentium 200.  I also had a TV-card (Hauppage, I think).  If I tried using the TV-card on my main desktop, it would be hellishly slow for doing other things.  In addition to some of my screen being covered by the TV-window, of course.</p><p>So, I installed the Hauppage card in the P200, which was running stock FreeBSD.  It worked, sort of, but the machine was almost unusable for other things.</p><p>I tuned the kernel, fiddled with compiler flags, and remade the world.</p><p>And what do you think?  The entire machine went from lurching slow to usable, while displaying TV.  It was the "little extra boost" that was needed.</p><p>Now, of course, I don't think it would be of much use to me in most cases these days - as machines have grown so extremely much faster since back then.  But, it's the story I tell whenever people ask about performance boosts from recompiling everything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I only have my own anecdote about this , but I kind of like it.Back around '00 , I had several computers ( I still do , but that 's beside the point ) .
I had my main desktop , and I had this nice old Pentium 200 .
I also had a TV-card ( Hauppage , I think ) .
If I tried using the TV-card on my main desktop , it would be hellishly slow for doing other things .
In addition to some of my screen being covered by the TV-window , of course.So , I installed the Hauppage card in the P200 , which was running stock FreeBSD .
It worked , sort of , but the machine was almost unusable for other things.I tuned the kernel , fiddled with compiler flags , and remade the world.And what do you think ?
The entire machine went from lurching slow to usable , while displaying TV .
It was the " little extra boost " that was needed.Now , of course , I do n't think it would be of much use to me in most cases these days - as machines have grown so extremely much faster since back then .
But , it 's the story I tell whenever people ask about performance boosts from recompiling everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I only have my own anecdote about this, but I kind of like it.Back around '00, I had several computers (I still do, but that's beside the point).
I had my main desktop, and I had this nice old Pentium 200.
I also had a TV-card (Hauppage, I think).
If I tried using the TV-card on my main desktop, it would be hellishly slow for doing other things.
In addition to some of my screen being covered by the TV-window, of course.So, I installed the Hauppage card in the P200, which was running stock FreeBSD.
It worked, sort of, but the machine was almost unusable for other things.I tuned the kernel, fiddled with compiler flags, and remade the world.And what do you think?
The entire machine went from lurching slow to usable, while displaying TV.
It was the "little extra boost" that was needed.Now, of course, I don't think it would be of much use to me in most cases these days - as machines have grown so extremely much faster since back then.
But, it's the story I tell whenever people ask about performance boosts from recompiling everything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254956</id>
	<title>Re:Go the whole hog...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259428620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Plan9, yes.  FreeVMS? I didn't like playing with it when I had to pay for it. Nor did I think much of their hardware.  Haven't tried Haiku yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plan9 , yes .
FreeVMS ? I did n't like playing with it when I had to pay for it .
Nor did I think much of their hardware .
Have n't tried Haiku yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plan9, yes.
FreeVMS? I didn't like playing with it when I had to pay for it.
Nor did I think much of their hardware.
Haven't tried Haiku yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30277556</id>
	<title>Re:Go the whole hog...</title>
	<author>Jake Dodgie</author>
	<datestamp>1259587320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone did that already it was called BeOS, it was awesome, it also bombed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone did that already it was called BeOS , it was awesome , it also bombed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone did that already it was called BeOS, it was awesome, it also bombed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254368</id>
	<title>Re:Only copyleft is "commie", BSD isn't.</title>
	<author>nxtw</author>
	<datestamp>1259422020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Interix was created solely for the reason of destroying UNIX</p></div></blockquote><p>Do you have any proof?</p><blockquote><div><p>However, there is nothing they could do to stop the Windows community from doing the port. The reason it's not happening is because Microsoft and Microsoft collaborators aren't interested in becoming helpful collaborating members of the community.</p></div></blockquote><p>What would you consider the <a href="http://www.suacommunity.com/SUA.aspx" title="suacommunity.com" rel="nofollow">SUA community</a> [suacommunity.com]?</p><blockquote><div><p>Which leads to the question why didn't Microsoft just go ahead and fix it. Answer; because then it would be difficult to kill it later. Interix might be a sane choice for an organisation which was trying to eliminate old UNIX installs and just had a few applications which were difficult to rewrite at the current time.</p></div></blockquote><p>I think this is the target audience: organizations who want to run UNIX applications on Windows in a supported way.  It's probably not indented for people who want a complete GNU system.  (Recent packages ship with GCC and GDB, but otherwise come with BSD or SVR4-derived utilities.)</p><blockquote><div><p>Some of the other systems you mentioned should be, logically, looking at their design and historical position before Linux really took off and the number of products developed from them which could have contributed to their develomement dominating the market. However they have failed. The reason is simple. Every time someone comes up with a product based on a non copyleft system (OS-X; JunOS, Microsoft's TCP/IP stack, IPSO etc. etc.) the community divides between those working on the product and those working on the OS</p></div></blockquote><p>Surely the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL\_v.\_BSDi" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">BSD lawsuit</a> [wikipedia.org] had something to do with Linux taking off instead of BSD?</p><blockquote><div><p>Compare with Linux where the majority of contributions actually come from commercial organisations where the GPL has allowed those organisations to stay in the community instead of being forced to fork.</p></div></blockquote><p>Many of these contributions come from organizations that have an interest of advancing Linux in general.<br>But some organizations that do use Linux and GNU software don't contribute much back - consider many of the consumer electronics devices that run GPL software, such as consumer broadband routers.  Some provide the source as required by the GPL, but not much else - for example, the Linux source used might be available, but the wifi driver might be a binary module.  These organizations don't really stay in the community <i>or</i> fork; they provide the GPL source code for whatever they use, including the modifications.</p><p>These organizations use GPL software because it's cheaper; their "contributions" to the community might amount to being mostly useless to anyone, or only useful to those who want to hack the devices the software runs on.  What exactly am I going to do with the GPL source code used  by my TV, for example?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interix was created solely for the reason of destroying UNIXDo you have any proof ? However , there is nothing they could do to stop the Windows community from doing the port .
The reason it 's not happening is because Microsoft and Microsoft collaborators are n't interested in becoming helpful collaborating members of the community.What would you consider the SUA community [ suacommunity.com ] ? Which leads to the question why did n't Microsoft just go ahead and fix it .
Answer ; because then it would be difficult to kill it later .
Interix might be a sane choice for an organisation which was trying to eliminate old UNIX installs and just had a few applications which were difficult to rewrite at the current time.I think this is the target audience : organizations who want to run UNIX applications on Windows in a supported way .
It 's probably not indented for people who want a complete GNU system .
( Recent packages ship with GCC and GDB , but otherwise come with BSD or SVR4-derived utilities .
) Some of the other systems you mentioned should be , logically , looking at their design and historical position before Linux really took off and the number of products developed from them which could have contributed to their develomement dominating the market .
However they have failed .
The reason is simple .
Every time someone comes up with a product based on a non copyleft system ( OS-X ; JunOS , Microsoft 's TCP/IP stack , IPSO etc .
etc. ) the community divides between those working on the product and those working on the OSSurely the BSD lawsuit [ wikipedia.org ] had something to do with Linux taking off instead of BSD ? Compare with Linux where the majority of contributions actually come from commercial organisations where the GPL has allowed those organisations to stay in the community instead of being forced to fork.Many of these contributions come from organizations that have an interest of advancing Linux in general.But some organizations that do use Linux and GNU software do n't contribute much back - consider many of the consumer electronics devices that run GPL software , such as consumer broadband routers .
Some provide the source as required by the GPL , but not much else - for example , the Linux source used might be available , but the wifi driver might be a binary module .
These organizations do n't really stay in the community or fork ; they provide the GPL source code for whatever they use , including the modifications.These organizations use GPL software because it 's cheaper ; their " contributions " to the community might amount to being mostly useless to anyone , or only useful to those who want to hack the devices the software runs on .
What exactly am I going to do with the GPL source code used by my TV , for example ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interix was created solely for the reason of destroying UNIXDo you have any proof?However, there is nothing they could do to stop the Windows community from doing the port.
The reason it's not happening is because Microsoft and Microsoft collaborators aren't interested in becoming helpful collaborating members of the community.What would you consider the SUA community [suacommunity.com]?Which leads to the question why didn't Microsoft just go ahead and fix it.
Answer; because then it would be difficult to kill it later.
Interix might be a sane choice for an organisation which was trying to eliminate old UNIX installs and just had a few applications which were difficult to rewrite at the current time.I think this is the target audience: organizations who want to run UNIX applications on Windows in a supported way.
It's probably not indented for people who want a complete GNU system.
(Recent packages ship with GCC and GDB, but otherwise come with BSD or SVR4-derived utilities.
)Some of the other systems you mentioned should be, logically, looking at their design and historical position before Linux really took off and the number of products developed from them which could have contributed to their develomement dominating the market.
However they have failed.
The reason is simple.
Every time someone comes up with a product based on a non copyleft system (OS-X; JunOS, Microsoft's TCP/IP stack, IPSO etc.
etc.) the community divides between those working on the product and those working on the OSSurely the BSD lawsuit [wikipedia.org] had something to do with Linux taking off instead of BSD?Compare with Linux where the majority of contributions actually come from commercial organisations where the GPL has allowed those organisations to stay in the community instead of being forced to fork.Many of these contributions come from organizations that have an interest of advancing Linux in general.But some organizations that do use Linux and GNU software don't contribute much back - consider many of the consumer electronics devices that run GPL software, such as consumer broadband routers.
Some provide the source as required by the GPL, but not much else - for example, the Linux source used might be available, but the wifi driver might be a binary module.
These organizations don't really stay in the community or fork; they provide the GPL source code for whatever they use, including the modifications.These organizations use GPL software because it's cheaper; their "contributions" to the community might amount to being mostly useless to anyone, or only useful to those who want to hack the devices the software runs on.
What exactly am I going to do with the GPL source code used  by my TV, for example?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30258040</id>
	<title>Re:Go the whole hog...</title>
	<author>Lally Singh</author>
	<datestamp>1259417700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The research required for something better hasn't had funding for decades.  Modern UNIX has been good 'nuff.   It's got plenty of problems, but none big enough to justify a research budget big enough to rethink the OS.</p><p>Actually, it's only really been Sun pushing things forward recently, and it's mostly incremental.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The research required for something better has n't had funding for decades .
Modern UNIX has been good 'nuff .
It 's got plenty of problems , but none big enough to justify a research budget big enough to rethink the OS.Actually , it 's only really been Sun pushing things forward recently , and it 's mostly incremental .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The research required for something better hasn't had funding for decades.
Modern UNIX has been good 'nuff.
It's got plenty of problems, but none big enough to justify a research budget big enough to rethink the OS.Actually, it's only really been Sun pushing things forward recently, and it's mostly incremental.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30257050</id>
	<title>Re:Go the whole hog...</title>
	<author>Anonymous Showered</author>
	<datestamp>1259407080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OSX?</htmltext>
<tokenext>OSX ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OSX?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253864</id>
	<title>Re:FreeVMS</title>
	<author>bpechter</author>
	<datestamp>1259414460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Instead of FreeVMS which isn't ready for prime time... Get the OpenVMS hobbiest edition, load up SimH and run OpenVMS on a real emulated Vax.  For fun you could boot OpenBSD, NetBSD or BSD4.x on the emulated Vax.</p><p>As far as Solaris vs. BSD -- I run 'em both here.  Solaris mostly on Sparc and BSD on x86.  I've done Solaris x86<br>and it's ok, but it's really fun to set up a jumpstart server and load up some old Sparcs.</p><p>I've even got SunOS 4.1.4 up...</p><p>Take a look at the software available on the <a href="http://www.openvmshobbyist.com/" title="openvmshobbyist.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.openvmshobbyist.com/</a> [openvmshobbyist.com] site.   A ton of VMS languages including C, ADA, Pascal, Macro32... TCP/IP and Clustering.</p><p><a href="http://simh.trailing-edge.com/" title="trailing-edge.com" rel="nofollow">http://simh.trailing-edge.com/</a> [trailing-edge.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of FreeVMS which is n't ready for prime time... Get the OpenVMS hobbiest edition , load up SimH and run OpenVMS on a real emulated Vax .
For fun you could boot OpenBSD , NetBSD or BSD4.x on the emulated Vax.As far as Solaris vs. BSD -- I run 'em both here .
Solaris mostly on Sparc and BSD on x86 .
I 've done Solaris x86and it 's ok , but it 's really fun to set up a jumpstart server and load up some old Sparcs.I 've even got SunOS 4.1.4 up...Take a look at the software available on the http : //www.openvmshobbyist.com/ [ openvmshobbyist.com ] site .
A ton of VMS languages including C , ADA , Pascal , Macro32... TCP/IP and Clustering.http : //simh.trailing-edge.com/ [ trailing-edge.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of FreeVMS which isn't ready for prime time... Get the OpenVMS hobbiest edition, load up SimH and run OpenVMS on a real emulated Vax.
For fun you could boot OpenBSD, NetBSD or BSD4.x on the emulated Vax.As far as Solaris vs. BSD -- I run 'em both here.
Solaris mostly on Sparc and BSD on x86.
I've done Solaris x86and it's ok, but it's really fun to set up a jumpstart server and load up some old Sparcs.I've even got SunOS 4.1.4 up...Take a look at the software available on the http://www.openvmshobbyist.com/ [openvmshobbyist.com] site.
A ton of VMS languages including C, ADA, Pascal, Macro32... TCP/IP and Clustering.http://simh.trailing-edge.com/ [trailing-edge.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30260188</id>
	<title>OpenSolaris.</title>
	<author>hotfireball</author>
	<datestamp>1259495100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depends. If you want something to do with TCP/IP stack, maybe FreeBSD is more convenient. Speed is same, after you tuned Solaris TCP/IP stack from conservative-soft-and-slow to aggressive, as it is by default in FreeBSD. As of OS itself, it is very cool that FreeBSD finally got 13th version of ZFS, working through kernel mapping, but I prefer *native* ZFS Pool version of 22 that does not hangs with kernel panic, faster Java (I do need it) and better memory management...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) In fact, may folks forgive me, but BSD is too old and great candidate for museum. I would bet on Solaris, since it is much more advanced than FreeBSD (look for COMSTAR or Crossbow projects, for example). Additionally, if you need Java, then it has problems with threads on FreeBSD -- hence Yahoo! was decided to go with PHP instead Java (although they do really wanted Java, but all FreeBSD's won't allow that go smoothly). I also think that FreeBSD is quite good for routers (again: pf is somewhat more advanced than ipf, and OpenSolaris is using older Quagga). But there is no much way to port pf to OpenSolaris due to kernel differences. But I would think twice if I need application server[s] or mail -- Solaris is better here.</p><p>Both systems are stable.</p><p>Also I do like OpenSolaris release is scheduled each 6 months, while I really hate FreeBSD release depends on Moon phase, Solar interference waves and an atmosphere speed on Jupiter...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends .
If you want something to do with TCP/IP stack , maybe FreeBSD is more convenient .
Speed is same , after you tuned Solaris TCP/IP stack from conservative-soft-and-slow to aggressive , as it is by default in FreeBSD .
As of OS itself , it is very cool that FreeBSD finally got 13th version of ZFS , working through kernel mapping , but I prefer * native * ZFS Pool version of 22 that does not hangs with kernel panic , faster Java ( I do need it ) and better memory management... : - ) In fact , may folks forgive me , but BSD is too old and great candidate for museum .
I would bet on Solaris , since it is much more advanced than FreeBSD ( look for COMSTAR or Crossbow projects , for example ) .
Additionally , if you need Java , then it has problems with threads on FreeBSD -- hence Yahoo !
was decided to go with PHP instead Java ( although they do really wanted Java , but all FreeBSD 's wo n't allow that go smoothly ) .
I also think that FreeBSD is quite good for routers ( again : pf is somewhat more advanced than ipf , and OpenSolaris is using older Quagga ) .
But there is no much way to port pf to OpenSolaris due to kernel differences .
But I would think twice if I need application server [ s ] or mail -- Solaris is better here.Both systems are stable.Also I do like OpenSolaris release is scheduled each 6 months , while I really hate FreeBSD release depends on Moon phase , Solar interference waves and an atmosphere speed on Jupiter.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends.
If you want something to do with TCP/IP stack, maybe FreeBSD is more convenient.
Speed is same, after you tuned Solaris TCP/IP stack from conservative-soft-and-slow to aggressive, as it is by default in FreeBSD.
As of OS itself, it is very cool that FreeBSD finally got 13th version of ZFS, working through kernel mapping, but I prefer *native* ZFS Pool version of 22 that does not hangs with kernel panic, faster Java (I do need it) and better memory management... :-) In fact, may folks forgive me, but BSD is too old and great candidate for museum.
I would bet on Solaris, since it is much more advanced than FreeBSD (look for COMSTAR or Crossbow projects, for example).
Additionally, if you need Java, then it has problems with threads on FreeBSD -- hence Yahoo!
was decided to go with PHP instead Java (although they do really wanted Java, but all FreeBSD's won't allow that go smoothly).
I also think that FreeBSD is quite good for routers (again: pf is somewhat more advanced than ipf, and OpenSolaris is using older Quagga).
But there is no much way to port pf to OpenSolaris due to kernel differences.
But I would think twice if I need application server[s] or mail -- Solaris is better here.Both systems are stable.Also I do like OpenSolaris release is scheduled each 6 months, while I really hate FreeBSD release depends on Moon phase, Solar interference waves and an atmosphere speed on Jupiter...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253860</id>
	<title>Sure thing bro</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259414460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; Corporation vs not-for-profit</p><p>&gt;Doesn't make any difference, bro, unless you are trying to start a flamewar. It either does what you want or it's crap.</p><p>There speaks a man who believes that is on the winning team and has a bigger slice of the cake. Technical questions are just one part of the equation bro. Ethical considerations are important to some people y'know.</p><p>Chill out dude.</p><p>(Ethical: look it up in the dictionary)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Corporation vs not-for-profit &gt; Does n't make any difference , bro , unless you are trying to start a flamewar .
It either does what you want or it 's crap.There speaks a man who believes that is on the winning team and has a bigger slice of the cake .
Technical questions are just one part of the equation bro .
Ethical considerations are important to some people y'know.Chill out dude .
( Ethical : look it up in the dictionary )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; Corporation vs not-for-profit&gt;Doesn't make any difference, bro, unless you are trying to start a flamewar.
It either does what you want or it's crap.There speaks a man who believes that is on the winning team and has a bigger slice of the cake.
Technical questions are just one part of the equation bro.
Ethical considerations are important to some people y'know.Chill out dude.
(Ethical: look it up in the dictionary)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30260874</id>
	<title>Re:I have a PROBLEM.</title>
	<author>Nefarious Wheel</author>
	<datestamp>1259504820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am in quite a predicament. My boss hired me because I bullshitted my way through an interview, but really I don't know shit from shinola when it comes to servers and operating systems and such. I can play WoW... HELP ME PLEASE.</p></div><p>Calm down, take a deep breath.  Think of it as a leveling exercise, with quests.  Imagine the interviewer has a giant yellow exclamation point above his head. Read the dialogue.  Make sure you're prepared, then - go get the experience and come back.  Your interviewer may then have a question for you...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am in quite a predicament .
My boss hired me because I bullshitted my way through an interview , but really I do n't know shit from shinola when it comes to servers and operating systems and such .
I can play WoW... HELP ME PLEASE.Calm down , take a deep breath .
Think of it as a leveling exercise , with quests .
Imagine the interviewer has a giant yellow exclamation point above his head .
Read the dialogue .
Make sure you 're prepared , then - go get the experience and come back .
Your interviewer may then have a question for you.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am in quite a predicament.
My boss hired me because I bullshitted my way through an interview, but really I don't know shit from shinola when it comes to servers and operating systems and such.
I can play WoW... HELP ME PLEASE.Calm down, take a deep breath.
Think of it as a leveling exercise, with quests.
Imagine the interviewer has a giant yellow exclamation point above his head.
Read the dialogue.
Make sure you're prepared, then - go get the experience and come back.
Your interviewer may then have a question for you...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253964</id>
	<title>Re:Go the whole hog...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259416080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hear ya.  I was *hoping* that Google was going to do as much with their ChromeOS.  Unfortunately, I'm not much intrigued with the tangent they have gone off on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear ya .
I was * hoping * that Google was going to do as much with their ChromeOS .
Unfortunately , I 'm not much intrigued with the tangent they have gone off on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear ya.
I was *hoping* that Google was going to do as much with their ChromeOS.
Unfortunately, I'm not much intrigued with the tangent they have gone off on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254798</id>
	<title>Re:Only copyleft is "commie", BSD isn't.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259426940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last paragraph makes little sense, probably because you are asserting some false assumptions as truths. If a system like OS X or the MS TCP/IP comes about, it doesn't fork the community. The community has nothing to do with it. That's the magic of BSD... companies can do what they want, and the community is unphased by it. Interix is OpenBSD 3.0, ported shamelessly by MS. Did OpenBSD fork? No. Did they die out? No. Did they threaten legal action of any kind? No. Worst thing they did was mock MS and urge them to donate to further development of the next version they might jack. The community kept on doing it's own thing.</p><p>When FreeBSD became the basis of OS X, the community did not fork. Some devs may have been hired to work on OS X, but the community kept on trucking. Had Apple never dripped a bit of code back into FreeBSD, FreeBSD would still be around just the same.</p><p>The myth that BSD code is less free because it can be closed by adopting vendors is hilarious. If TiVo had used FreeBSD as a basis instead, sure their changes could have been sealed... but svn.freebsd.org would live on, no different that before TiVo did their checkout. If TiVo gave back, it would great, but nothing dire would happen if they didn't. In fact... nothing at all would happen if they didn't. Should you so decide, you can do a checkout yourself and make your own DVR. (The community still wouldn't care!)</p><p>You should acquaint yourself with Jordan K. Hubbard and Matt Olander.</p><p>Hubbard co-founded the FreeBSD Project, and is also one of the big dogs of OS X development. I guess the best term would be "Admiral Hubbard" since he is more or less the Captain of both ships.</p><p>Olander is the founder of PC-BSD, which makes no attempts to hide the fact that it's pure FreeBSD under the hood. Some @pcbsd.org people are @freebsd.org as well, since committing fixes upstream means less work maintaining proprietary patchsets to keep pace with the ongoing FreeBSD work.</p><p>They are not required to do anything to help FreeBSD, but they they still do. If either of these people took a different attitude and approach to FreeBSD, I will again point out, not a damn thing would change about the FreeDOM or openness of the project.</p><p>Compare these two with XChat, which is now only updated as Windows shareware, while the original *nix port exists largely in name only after a GPL debacle (that was covered by Slashdot at the time). Zed wouldn't have had any issue had he been using BSD/ICS code. And noone would have cared anyway!</p><p>Disclaimer! I maintain ports in the FreeBSD ports tree!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last paragraph makes little sense , probably because you are asserting some false assumptions as truths .
If a system like OS X or the MS TCP/IP comes about , it does n't fork the community .
The community has nothing to do with it .
That 's the magic of BSD... companies can do what they want , and the community is unphased by it .
Interix is OpenBSD 3.0 , ported shamelessly by MS. Did OpenBSD fork ?
No. Did they die out ?
No. Did they threaten legal action of any kind ?
No. Worst thing they did was mock MS and urge them to donate to further development of the next version they might jack .
The community kept on doing it 's own thing.When FreeBSD became the basis of OS X , the community did not fork .
Some devs may have been hired to work on OS X , but the community kept on trucking .
Had Apple never dripped a bit of code back into FreeBSD , FreeBSD would still be around just the same.The myth that BSD code is less free because it can be closed by adopting vendors is hilarious .
If TiVo had used FreeBSD as a basis instead , sure their changes could have been sealed... but svn.freebsd.org would live on , no different that before TiVo did their checkout .
If TiVo gave back , it would great , but nothing dire would happen if they did n't .
In fact... nothing at all would happen if they did n't .
Should you so decide , you can do a checkout yourself and make your own DVR .
( The community still would n't care !
) You should acquaint yourself with Jordan K. Hubbard and Matt Olander.Hubbard co-founded the FreeBSD Project , and is also one of the big dogs of OS X development .
I guess the best term would be " Admiral Hubbard " since he is more or less the Captain of both ships.Olander is the founder of PC-BSD , which makes no attempts to hide the fact that it 's pure FreeBSD under the hood .
Some @ pcbsd.org people are @ freebsd.org as well , since committing fixes upstream means less work maintaining proprietary patchsets to keep pace with the ongoing FreeBSD work.They are not required to do anything to help FreeBSD , but they they still do .
If either of these people took a different attitude and approach to FreeBSD , I will again point out , not a damn thing would change about the FreeDOM or openness of the project.Compare these two with XChat , which is now only updated as Windows shareware , while the original * nix port exists largely in name only after a GPL debacle ( that was covered by Slashdot at the time ) .
Zed would n't have had any issue had he been using BSD/ICS code .
And noone would have cared anyway ! Disclaimer !
I maintain ports in the FreeBSD ports tree !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last paragraph makes little sense, probably because you are asserting some false assumptions as truths.
If a system like OS X or the MS TCP/IP comes about, it doesn't fork the community.
The community has nothing to do with it.
That's the magic of BSD... companies can do what they want, and the community is unphased by it.
Interix is OpenBSD 3.0, ported shamelessly by MS. Did OpenBSD fork?
No. Did they die out?
No. Did they threaten legal action of any kind?
No. Worst thing they did was mock MS and urge them to donate to further development of the next version they might jack.
The community kept on doing it's own thing.When FreeBSD became the basis of OS X, the community did not fork.
Some devs may have been hired to work on OS X, but the community kept on trucking.
Had Apple never dripped a bit of code back into FreeBSD, FreeBSD would still be around just the same.The myth that BSD code is less free because it can be closed by adopting vendors is hilarious.
If TiVo had used FreeBSD as a basis instead, sure their changes could have been sealed... but svn.freebsd.org would live on, no different that before TiVo did their checkout.
If TiVo gave back, it would great, but nothing dire would happen if they didn't.
In fact... nothing at all would happen if they didn't.
Should you so decide, you can do a checkout yourself and make your own DVR.
(The community still wouldn't care!
)You should acquaint yourself with Jordan K. Hubbard and Matt Olander.Hubbard co-founded the FreeBSD Project, and is also one of the big dogs of OS X development.
I guess the best term would be "Admiral Hubbard" since he is more or less the Captain of both ships.Olander is the founder of PC-BSD, which makes no attempts to hide the fact that it's pure FreeBSD under the hood.
Some @pcbsd.org people are @freebsd.org as well, since committing fixes upstream means less work maintaining proprietary patchsets to keep pace with the ongoing FreeBSD work.They are not required to do anything to help FreeBSD, but they they still do.
If either of these people took a different attitude and approach to FreeBSD, I will again point out, not a damn thing would change about the FreeDOM or openness of the project.Compare these two with XChat, which is now only updated as Windows shareware, while the original *nix port exists largely in name only after a GPL debacle (that was covered by Slashdot at the time).
Zed wouldn't have had any issue had he been using BSD/ICS code.
And noone would have cared anyway!Disclaimer!
I maintain ports in the FreeBSD ports tree!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30257150</id>
	<title>OpenSolaris refused to run on a Tyan</title>
	<author>Mr. Protocol</author>
	<datestamp>1259408460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OpenSolaris is a pain to run on hardware which requires drivers not present in the base system.  Their mechanism for adding drivers at boot time is arcane.  Nevertheless I built a huge ZFS tank on a Tyan mobo and ran OpenSolaris on it (had to add Broadcom ethernet and Areca RAID card drivers to the mix).</p><p>When I recently tried to upgrade, the latest OpenSolaris flat-out refused to run on that motherboard.  Something had happened in the development of the OS that collided violently with the motherboard BIOS, and upgrading to the latest BIOS didn't help a bit (though Tyan's release notes said it had introduced BIOS changes to support Solaris u1, u2 and u3, Solaris is now up to u8).</p><p>After a week of struggling I gave up.  The box now runs FreeBSD 8.0-RELEASE, which came up out of the box with no problems whatsoever.  I just hope the ZFS is as stable as they claim it now is.</p><p>Moral: You can try to boot OpenSolaris.  If and when that doesn't work, FreeBSD is your only other stable ZFS option right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OpenSolaris is a pain to run on hardware which requires drivers not present in the base system .
Their mechanism for adding drivers at boot time is arcane .
Nevertheless I built a huge ZFS tank on a Tyan mobo and ran OpenSolaris on it ( had to add Broadcom ethernet and Areca RAID card drivers to the mix ) .When I recently tried to upgrade , the latest OpenSolaris flat-out refused to run on that motherboard .
Something had happened in the development of the OS that collided violently with the motherboard BIOS , and upgrading to the latest BIOS did n't help a bit ( though Tyan 's release notes said it had introduced BIOS changes to support Solaris u1 , u2 and u3 , Solaris is now up to u8 ) .After a week of struggling I gave up .
The box now runs FreeBSD 8.0-RELEASE , which came up out of the box with no problems whatsoever .
I just hope the ZFS is as stable as they claim it now is.Moral : You can try to boot OpenSolaris .
If and when that does n't work , FreeBSD is your only other stable ZFS option right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OpenSolaris is a pain to run on hardware which requires drivers not present in the base system.
Their mechanism for adding drivers at boot time is arcane.
Nevertheless I built a huge ZFS tank on a Tyan mobo and ran OpenSolaris on it (had to add Broadcom ethernet and Areca RAID card drivers to the mix).When I recently tried to upgrade, the latest OpenSolaris flat-out refused to run on that motherboard.
Something had happened in the development of the OS that collided violently with the motherboard BIOS, and upgrading to the latest BIOS didn't help a bit (though Tyan's release notes said it had introduced BIOS changes to support Solaris u1, u2 and u3, Solaris is now up to u8).After a week of struggling I gave up.
The box now runs FreeBSD 8.0-RELEASE, which came up out of the box with no problems whatsoever.
I just hope the ZFS is as stable as they claim it now is.Moral: You can try to boot OpenSolaris.
If and when that doesn't work, FreeBSD is your only other stable ZFS option right now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255580</id>
	<title>Go for OpenSolaris as a dev machine.</title>
	<author>kallisti5</author>
	<datestamp>1259434800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd say go for OpenSolaris.<br> <br>

The plus to learning OpenSolaris is that Solaris has a massive business market share compared to FreeBSD, working as a tech supporting an "enterprise" monitoring application which supports Solaris, FreeBSD, and others I can say this confidently.  The most common use of Solaris right now is NFS file servers and Oracle database servers. Working with OpenSolaris will make it easy to get experience in both.<br> <br>

If your looking for something to replace your Debian box... don't do it, OpenSolaris is not Linux and you will find the learning curve and lack of software too much to handle on your primary box. If you are looking to learn a new non-linux os and have an extra moderately powered system to play with which is not your primary rig.. go for OpenSolaris.

If you find bugs, be sure to report them to Sun.. they will usually respond within 2 days!  I recommend using the latest and greatest image from genunix.org.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say go for OpenSolaris .
The plus to learning OpenSolaris is that Solaris has a massive business market share compared to FreeBSD , working as a tech supporting an " enterprise " monitoring application which supports Solaris , FreeBSD , and others I can say this confidently .
The most common use of Solaris right now is NFS file servers and Oracle database servers .
Working with OpenSolaris will make it easy to get experience in both .
If your looking for something to replace your Debian box... do n't do it , OpenSolaris is not Linux and you will find the learning curve and lack of software too much to handle on your primary box .
If you are looking to learn a new non-linux os and have an extra moderately powered system to play with which is not your primary rig.. go for OpenSolaris .
If you find bugs , be sure to report them to Sun.. they will usually respond within 2 days !
I recommend using the latest and greatest image from genunix.org .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say go for OpenSolaris.
The plus to learning OpenSolaris is that Solaris has a massive business market share compared to FreeBSD, working as a tech supporting an "enterprise" monitoring application which supports Solaris, FreeBSD, and others I can say this confidently.
The most common use of Solaris right now is NFS file servers and Oracle database servers.
Working with OpenSolaris will make it easy to get experience in both.
If your looking for something to replace your Debian box... don't do it, OpenSolaris is not Linux and you will find the learning curve and lack of software too much to handle on your primary box.
If you are looking to learn a new non-linux os and have an extra moderately powered system to play with which is not your primary rig.. go for OpenSolaris.
If you find bugs, be sure to report them to Sun.. they will usually respond within 2 days!
I recommend using the latest and greatest image from genunix.org.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255248</id>
	<title>Re:Go the whole hog...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259431260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Operating system these days are not so much about the kernel, but about what abstractions the kernel offers. The Unix abstraction, i.e. everything is a file, is a good one, and if we think about it in modern terms, it's nothing more than object orientation: a specific class behind each file does specific things with the data it accepts. The same data can be sent to the same file, but the executed code would be different.</p><p>So why not make everything object oriented? forget processes and files, think objects. What files lack is retrospection, i.e. what messages accept and what format is the data they accept. That's the next logical progression from processes and files. With the appropriate object-oriented facilities, an O/S would become much more programmable and flexible.</p><p>For example, I wait for the day that you will be able to change window decoration color by 'right-click/select color'. Right now, no UI does that, simply because the system is not object-oriented enough.</p><p>Another example is searching. Filesystems have to support metadata in order to allow the user to store information in them. With object orientation + retrospection, each object has a nice set of properties discoverable at run-time, and hence no support for metadata exists. And the search can be extended to everything that is an object.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Operating system these days are not so much about the kernel , but about what abstractions the kernel offers .
The Unix abstraction , i.e .
everything is a file , is a good one , and if we think about it in modern terms , it 's nothing more than object orientation : a specific class behind each file does specific things with the data it accepts .
The same data can be sent to the same file , but the executed code would be different.So why not make everything object oriented ?
forget processes and files , think objects .
What files lack is retrospection , i.e .
what messages accept and what format is the data they accept .
That 's the next logical progression from processes and files .
With the appropriate object-oriented facilities , an O/S would become much more programmable and flexible.For example , I wait for the day that you will be able to change window decoration color by 'right-click/select color' .
Right now , no UI does that , simply because the system is not object-oriented enough.Another example is searching .
Filesystems have to support metadata in order to allow the user to store information in them .
With object orientation + retrospection , each object has a nice set of properties discoverable at run-time , and hence no support for metadata exists .
And the search can be extended to everything that is an object .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Operating system these days are not so much about the kernel, but about what abstractions the kernel offers.
The Unix abstraction, i.e.
everything is a file, is a good one, and if we think about it in modern terms, it's nothing more than object orientation: a specific class behind each file does specific things with the data it accepts.
The same data can be sent to the same file, but the executed code would be different.So why not make everything object oriented?
forget processes and files, think objects.
What files lack is retrospection, i.e.
what messages accept and what format is the data they accept.
That's the next logical progression from processes and files.
With the appropriate object-oriented facilities, an O/S would become much more programmable and flexible.For example, I wait for the day that you will be able to change window decoration color by 'right-click/select color'.
Right now, no UI does that, simply because the system is not object-oriented enough.Another example is searching.
Filesystems have to support metadata in order to allow the user to store information in them.
With object orientation + retrospection, each object has a nice set of properties discoverable at run-time, and hence no support for metadata exists.
And the search can be extended to everything that is an object.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254804</id>
	<title>I'd say OpenSolaris</title>
	<author>mediis</author>
	<datestamp>1259427000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or even Solaris proper. Solaris 10 changed the game from the ground up, much to the point where it's Unix on roids. Run levels have been replaced with milestones, init.d has been replaced with SMF and the contract file system. Dtrace makes life worth living. Look, vmstat is great; but with Dtrace you can recreate vmstat/iostat/mpstat from the ground up! Get the picture of what this tool can do for you?!?! Containers/Zones for virtual hosts. OpenCluster for building and working with an HA cluster. Crossbow, for building whole networks inside your machine.</p><p>I think my only complaint about OpenSolaris is packages. After 8 years of Debian apt calls I find *Solaris to be a little too retro-RedHat (before YUM) for dependencies and new software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or even Solaris proper .
Solaris 10 changed the game from the ground up , much to the point where it 's Unix on roids .
Run levels have been replaced with milestones , init.d has been replaced with SMF and the contract file system .
Dtrace makes life worth living .
Look , vmstat is great ; but with Dtrace you can recreate vmstat/iostat/mpstat from the ground up !
Get the picture of what this tool can do for you ? ! ? !
Containers/Zones for virtual hosts .
OpenCluster for building and working with an HA cluster .
Crossbow , for building whole networks inside your machine.I think my only complaint about OpenSolaris is packages .
After 8 years of Debian apt calls I find * Solaris to be a little too retro-RedHat ( before YUM ) for dependencies and new software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or even Solaris proper.
Solaris 10 changed the game from the ground up, much to the point where it's Unix on roids.
Run levels have been replaced with milestones, init.d has been replaced with SMF and the contract file system.
Dtrace makes life worth living.
Look, vmstat is great; but with Dtrace you can recreate vmstat/iostat/mpstat from the ground up!
Get the picture of what this tool can do for you?!?!
Containers/Zones for virtual hosts.
OpenCluster for building and working with an HA cluster.
Crossbow, for building whole networks inside your machine.I think my only complaint about OpenSolaris is packages.
After 8 years of Debian apt calls I find *Solaris to be a little too retro-RedHat (before YUM) for dependencies and new software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254270</id>
	<title>Re:FreeBSD ZFS kernel panics?</title>
	<author>value\_added</author>
	<datestamp>1259420760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Yeah, kernel infrastructure that can't cope with running out of memory. That fills me with confidence. Particularly I've run ZFS on OpenSolaris on a 48MB Pentium laptop and it coped fine.</i></p><p>And your point is what?  That you want to use ZFS on a 48MB laptop?  Whether a 2-line warning against using ZFS in low-memory environments fills you with confidence isn't much more than an uninformed opinion, is it? The caveat that ZFS is new, the recommendations, and the reasons for those recommendations are clearly spelled out in the documentation.  A fairer (preliminary) judgment would be to evaluate the requirements (reasonable at face value, and more so if you took the time to investigate the implementation), and weigh the experiences of those who rely on ZFS in production environments.  FWIW, I use ZFS on my home systems and have had zero issues.</p><p><i>Unfortunately the FreeBSD ZFS pages are a wiki, which means they're badly organised and out of date. I have no idea when the above was written or whether it's still valid. Does anyone know?</i></p><p>Another wild-assed opinion.  If by "FreeBSD ZFS pages" you mean documentation, that's found where it always is, in the well-written manpages, the Handbook, and the source code.  The existence of one or more Wikis is irrelevant.  Unless, of course, we're talking about Linux where the term documentation is regrettably synonymous with wikis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , kernel infrastructure that ca n't cope with running out of memory .
That fills me with confidence .
Particularly I 've run ZFS on OpenSolaris on a 48MB Pentium laptop and it coped fine.And your point is what ?
That you want to use ZFS on a 48MB laptop ?
Whether a 2-line warning against using ZFS in low-memory environments fills you with confidence is n't much more than an uninformed opinion , is it ?
The caveat that ZFS is new , the recommendations , and the reasons for those recommendations are clearly spelled out in the documentation .
A fairer ( preliminary ) judgment would be to evaluate the requirements ( reasonable at face value , and more so if you took the time to investigate the implementation ) , and weigh the experiences of those who rely on ZFS in production environments .
FWIW , I use ZFS on my home systems and have had zero issues.Unfortunately the FreeBSD ZFS pages are a wiki , which means they 're badly organised and out of date .
I have no idea when the above was written or whether it 's still valid .
Does anyone know ? Another wild-assed opinion .
If by " FreeBSD ZFS pages " you mean documentation , that 's found where it always is , in the well-written manpages , the Handbook , and the source code .
The existence of one or more Wikis is irrelevant .
Unless , of course , we 're talking about Linux where the term documentation is regrettably synonymous with wikis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, kernel infrastructure that can't cope with running out of memory.
That fills me with confidence.
Particularly I've run ZFS on OpenSolaris on a 48MB Pentium laptop and it coped fine.And your point is what?
That you want to use ZFS on a 48MB laptop?
Whether a 2-line warning against using ZFS in low-memory environments fills you with confidence isn't much more than an uninformed opinion, is it?
The caveat that ZFS is new, the recommendations, and the reasons for those recommendations are clearly spelled out in the documentation.
A fairer (preliminary) judgment would be to evaluate the requirements (reasonable at face value, and more so if you took the time to investigate the implementation), and weigh the experiences of those who rely on ZFS in production environments.
FWIW, I use ZFS on my home systems and have had zero issues.Unfortunately the FreeBSD ZFS pages are a wiki, which means they're badly organised and out of date.
I have no idea when the above was written or whether it's still valid.
Does anyone know?Another wild-assed opinion.
If by "FreeBSD ZFS pages" you mean documentation, that's found where it always is, in the well-written manpages, the Handbook, and the source code.
The existence of one or more Wikis is irrelevant.
Unless, of course, we're talking about Linux where the term documentation is regrettably synonymous with wikis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253654</id>
	<title>Re:Performance boost?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259409780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I personally don't care about the little performance gain from the flags. BUT you can get a lot of performance and customization options if you compile it from source because there are many options available for you only if you compile it. A simple example: try installing pidgin from ports, and you will see a bunch of options you probably never saw before! You can disable networks you don't use, enable some underground ones, etc. Now try compiling apache and other server stuff...</p><p>It is time consuming, but ports make it really easy for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally do n't care about the little performance gain from the flags .
BUT you can get a lot of performance and customization options if you compile it from source because there are many options available for you only if you compile it .
A simple example : try installing pidgin from ports , and you will see a bunch of options you probably never saw before !
You can disable networks you do n't use , enable some underground ones , etc .
Now try compiling apache and other server stuff...It is time consuming , but ports make it really easy for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally don't care about the little performance gain from the flags.
BUT you can get a lot of performance and customization options if you compile it from source because there are many options available for you only if you compile it.
A simple example: try installing pidgin from ports, and you will see a bunch of options you probably never saw before!
You can disable networks you don't use, enable some underground ones, etc.
Now try compiling apache and other server stuff...It is time consuming, but ports make it really easy for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253870</id>
	<title>Re:Debian GNU/kFreeBSD</title>
	<author>BountyX</author>
	<datestamp>1259414520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here is a review of <a href="http://talkgeektome.us/debian-gnu-kfreebsd.xhtml" title="talkgeektome.us"> Debian GNU/kFreeBSD</a> [talkgeektome.us] for those unfamiliar with it. It was one of the only recent ones I could find.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is a review of Debian GNU/kFreeBSD [ talkgeektome.us ] for those unfamiliar with it .
It was one of the only recent ones I could find .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is a review of  Debian GNU/kFreeBSD [talkgeektome.us] for those unfamiliar with it.
It was one of the only recent ones I could find.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254626</id>
	<title>FreeBSD</title>
	<author>DaMattster</author>
	<datestamp>1259424900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would go with FreeBSD.  FreeBSD is known for its high reliability and some of the root DNS servers use it.  But, I would not use ZFS.  ZFS has an achilles heal as we discovered.  If you loose a volume in a ZFS setup, you cannot remove the volume.  This caused us to scrap its use.  I really like the BSDs.  FreeBSD by itself, addressed 95\% of our computing needs.  For the remainder, we use OpenBSD.  These two operating systems, when combined, give use a powerful platform.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would go with FreeBSD .
FreeBSD is known for its high reliability and some of the root DNS servers use it .
But , I would not use ZFS .
ZFS has an achilles heal as we discovered .
If you loose a volume in a ZFS setup , you can not remove the volume .
This caused us to scrap its use .
I really like the BSDs .
FreeBSD by itself , addressed 95 \ % of our computing needs .
For the remainder , we use OpenBSD .
These two operating systems , when combined , give use a powerful platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would go with FreeBSD.
FreeBSD is known for its high reliability and some of the root DNS servers use it.
But, I would not use ZFS.
ZFS has an achilles heal as we discovered.
If you loose a volume in a ZFS setup, you cannot remove the volume.
This caused us to scrap its use.
I really like the BSDs.
FreeBSD by itself, addressed 95\% of our computing needs.
For the remainder, we use OpenBSD.
These two operating systems, when combined, give use a powerful platform.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30257458</id>
	<title>FreeBSD all the way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259411700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look.  OK.  I haven't posted on slashdot for about three years.</p><p>This topic gets me off the fence.  Please more topics like this.  K'Thanx.</p><ul><li><br>With <b>OpenSolaris</b>, what do you get?<ul><li>become Larry Ellison's b*tch!</li><li>legacy "me-too" Sun Microsystems patches</li><li>x86 as a secondary platform</li><li>binary packages that are ported by someone who had to be paid to do it</li></ul></li></ul><ul><li><br>With <b>FreeBSD</b> what do you get?<ul><li>realtime responsive security updates</li><li>large responsive community for help / support</li><li>closer proximity to OpenBSD influence</li><li>x86 as primary platform</li><li>the unparalleled ports system!</li></ul></li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look .
OK. I have n't posted on slashdot for about three years.This topic gets me off the fence .
Please more topics like this .
K'Thanx.With OpenSolaris , what do you get ? become Larry Ellison 's b * tch ! legacy " me-too " Sun Microsystems patchesx86 as a secondary platformbinary packages that are ported by someone who had to be paid to do itWith FreeBSD what do you get ? realtime responsive security updateslarge responsive community for help / supportcloser proximity to OpenBSD influencex86 as primary platformthe unparalleled ports system !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look.
OK.  I haven't posted on slashdot for about three years.This topic gets me off the fence.
Please more topics like this.
K'Thanx.With OpenSolaris, what do you get?become Larry Ellison's b*tch!legacy "me-too" Sun Microsystems patchesx86 as a secondary platformbinary packages that are ported by someone who had to be paid to do itWith FreeBSD what do you get?realtime responsive security updateslarge responsive community for help / supportcloser proximity to OpenBSD influencex86 as primary platformthe unparalleled ports system!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254622</id>
	<title>Re:Go the whole hog...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259424900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you want a mainframe?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you want a mainframe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you want a mainframe?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253496</id>
	<title>Dual boot.</title>
	<author>Lando242</author>
	<datestamp>1259407080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dual boot and use them both. Any other world endingly difficult questions you need answered for?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dual boot and use them both .
Any other world endingly difficult questions you need answered for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dual boot and use them both.
Any other world endingly difficult questions you need answered for?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253826</id>
	<title>I have a PROBLEM.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259413920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am in quite a predicament. My boss hired me because I bullshitted my way through an interview, but really I don't know shit from shinola when it comes to servers and operating systems and such. I can play WoW... HELP ME PLEASE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am in quite a predicament .
My boss hired me because I bullshitted my way through an interview , but really I do n't know shit from shinola when it comes to servers and operating systems and such .
I can play WoW... HELP ME PLEASE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am in quite a predicament.
My boss hired me because I bullshitted my way through an interview, but really I don't know shit from shinola when it comes to servers and operating systems and such.
I can play WoW... HELP ME PLEASE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254554</id>
	<title>Re:OpenSolaris is desperate</title>
	<author>nxtw</author>
	<datestamp>1259424120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Sun had a great history but they just aren't as relevant anymore, there is little they have that redhat ( for example ) don't.</p></div></blockquote><p>Solaris has two features compelling to me: Zones and ZFS.</p><p>The lack of a comparable feature to Zones (or even FreeBSD jails) in the mainline Linux kernel / major distributions is disappointing.  There's <a href="http://wiki.openvz.org/Main\_Page" title="openvz.org">OpenVZ</a> [openvz.org], which I like and use, but it's a fairly significant patch on top of the Linux kernel.  They don't track the mainline Linux kernel (which doesn't both me; I run CentOS 5).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sun had a great history but they just are n't as relevant anymore , there is little they have that redhat ( for example ) do n't.Solaris has two features compelling to me : Zones and ZFS.The lack of a comparable feature to Zones ( or even FreeBSD jails ) in the mainline Linux kernel / major distributions is disappointing .
There 's OpenVZ [ openvz.org ] , which I like and use , but it 's a fairly significant patch on top of the Linux kernel .
They do n't track the mainline Linux kernel ( which does n't both me ; I run CentOS 5 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sun had a great history but they just aren't as relevant anymore, there is little they have that redhat ( for example ) don't.Solaris has two features compelling to me: Zones and ZFS.The lack of a comparable feature to Zones (or even FreeBSD jails) in the mainline Linux kernel / major distributions is disappointing.
There's OpenVZ [openvz.org], which I like and use, but it's a fairly significant patch on top of the Linux kernel.
They don't track the mainline Linux kernel (which doesn't both me; I run CentOS 5).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256168</id>
	<title>Re:I have a PROBLEM.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259440260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear sir or madam,<br>I am starting an investment banking firm and am in need of such people with your skills.  Please contact with me with your resume and to schedule an interview.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear sir or madam,I am starting an investment banking firm and am in need of such people with your skills .
Please contact with me with your resume and to schedule an interview .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear sir or madam,I am starting an investment banking firm and am in need of such people with your skills.
Please contact with me with your resume and to schedule an interview.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254234</id>
	<title>Re:Only copyleft is "commie", BSD isn't.</title>
	<author>therealkevinkretz</author>
	<datestamp>1259420460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Restrictive (copyleft) licensed software like the Linux kernel and the GNU toolchain indeed follows a communist philosophy that fails to see the value of free market competition, and instead relies on government force (see gpl-violations.org)."


Idiot.  Relying on "government force" to enforce contracts isn't "communist".  In fact, even among most libertarians, enforcement of contract is considered one of the basic and vary legitimate functions of government.

There's nothing "anti-free-market" about a collaborative effort; every pursuit that's not for-profit isn't "anti-capitalist".

Communism is *compulsory* sharing of work and work product you own.  Taking someone else's and using it on the terms they've placed on it isn't compulsory - you don't have to use it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Restrictive ( copyleft ) licensed software like the Linux kernel and the GNU toolchain indeed follows a communist philosophy that fails to see the value of free market competition , and instead relies on government force ( see gpl-violations.org ) .
" Idiot .
Relying on " government force " to enforce contracts is n't " communist " .
In fact , even among most libertarians , enforcement of contract is considered one of the basic and vary legitimate functions of government .
There 's nothing " anti-free-market " about a collaborative effort ; every pursuit that 's not for-profit is n't " anti-capitalist " .
Communism is * compulsory * sharing of work and work product you own .
Taking someone else 's and using it on the terms they 've placed on it is n't compulsory - you do n't have to use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Restrictive (copyleft) licensed software like the Linux kernel and the GNU toolchain indeed follows a communist philosophy that fails to see the value of free market competition, and instead relies on government force (see gpl-violations.org).
"


Idiot.
Relying on "government force" to enforce contracts isn't "communist".
In fact, even among most libertarians, enforcement of contract is considered one of the basic and vary legitimate functions of government.
There's nothing "anti-free-market" about a collaborative effort; every pursuit that's not for-profit isn't "anti-capitalist".
Communism is *compulsory* sharing of work and work product you own.
Taking someone else's and using it on the terms they've placed on it isn't compulsory - you don't have to use it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253980</id>
	<title>Re:Go the whole hog...</title>
	<author>smash</author>
	<datestamp>1259416440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, problem is that what you propose will result in another 10-25 years worth of development and mistakes in implementation to get back to where we are today (in terms of stability, feature set, and correctness under real world operating conditions).  During which time the "old, outdated" operating systems will have moved on and left you behind (HURD, I'm looking at you).
<p>
What problems are you trying to solve?  Re-writing code for the sake of rewriting code to make it look shiny or do shiny type things is all well and good, but if there is no real world problem to mitigate you're basically putting effort into a non-problem - effort that could be put to better use solving problems we do have - such as improving existing code.
</p><p>
Its easy to look at the current platforms out there and think that you could do better if you had the resources, but you're starting from so far behind.  And with coding, you can't always just throw more programming hours at it.  This is what Microsoft has done with Windows and look where they're at - it works, but no one knows how exactly (including coders within MS - hence the big project for minwin).
</p><p>
I guess my point is this:  re-inventing the wheel for the sake of reinvention (eg, the linux way of "not invented here!" for many things) is wasted effort.  Think long and hard before going down that path, but if you do - good luck with it.  Many talented and intelligent people have tried and just added yet another fragment to the software universe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , problem is that what you propose will result in another 10-25 years worth of development and mistakes in implementation to get back to where we are today ( in terms of stability , feature set , and correctness under real world operating conditions ) .
During which time the " old , outdated " operating systems will have moved on and left you behind ( HURD , I 'm looking at you ) .
What problems are you trying to solve ?
Re-writing code for the sake of rewriting code to make it look shiny or do shiny type things is all well and good , but if there is no real world problem to mitigate you 're basically putting effort into a non-problem - effort that could be put to better use solving problems we do have - such as improving existing code .
Its easy to look at the current platforms out there and think that you could do better if you had the resources , but you 're starting from so far behind .
And with coding , you ca n't always just throw more programming hours at it .
This is what Microsoft has done with Windows and look where they 're at - it works , but no one knows how exactly ( including coders within MS - hence the big project for minwin ) .
I guess my point is this : re-inventing the wheel for the sake of reinvention ( eg , the linux way of " not invented here !
" for many things ) is wasted effort .
Think long and hard before going down that path , but if you do - good luck with it .
Many talented and intelligent people have tried and just added yet another fragment to the software universe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, problem is that what you propose will result in another 10-25 years worth of development and mistakes in implementation to get back to where we are today (in terms of stability, feature set, and correctness under real world operating conditions).
During which time the "old, outdated" operating systems will have moved on and left you behind (HURD, I'm looking at you).
What problems are you trying to solve?
Re-writing code for the sake of rewriting code to make it look shiny or do shiny type things is all well and good, but if there is no real world problem to mitigate you're basically putting effort into a non-problem - effort that could be put to better use solving problems we do have - such as improving existing code.
Its easy to look at the current platforms out there and think that you could do better if you had the resources, but you're starting from so far behind.
And with coding, you can't always just throw more programming hours at it.
This is what Microsoft has done with Windows and look where they're at - it works, but no one knows how exactly (including coders within MS - hence the big project for minwin).
I guess my point is this:  re-inventing the wheel for the sake of reinvention (eg, the linux way of "not invented here!
" for many things) is wasted effort.
Think long and hard before going down that path, but if you do - good luck with it.
Many talented and intelligent people have tried and just added yet another fragment to the software universe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253836</id>
	<title>hm</title>
	<author>Danzigism</author>
	<datestamp>1259414100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Although I always enjoy the opportunity to recommend FreeBSD to somebody, I didn't really get an explanation of your needs. Are you going to be running servers? Desktop? Or just having fun? I imagine that you're just going to have some fun since you just want to learn something new. In that case I'd definitely go with FreeBSD. It is a great "learning" OS and is well documented thanks to the <a href="http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/handbook/" title="freebsd.org">Handbook</a> [freebsd.org]. The<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/ports collection has the source code for just about any piece of software you'd ever need, and the dependencies are all taken care of for you. You get some pretty awesome hardware support, server daemons are incredibly easy to configure, it is robust as all hell, doesn't use a lot of resources, can also make a great desktop OS, lots of smart people on IRC you can get help from, and countless amounts of other things. Additionally I'd go with FreeBSD because there are a large percentage of servers on the internet use this OS. If IT is your profession, it definitely won't hurt to learn FreeBSD. All you need to know is,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/rc.conf and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/ports. Then you just move on from there<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) Good luck!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although I always enjoy the opportunity to recommend FreeBSD to somebody , I did n't really get an explanation of your needs .
Are you going to be running servers ?
Desktop ? Or just having fun ?
I imagine that you 're just going to have some fun since you just want to learn something new .
In that case I 'd definitely go with FreeBSD .
It is a great " learning " OS and is well documented thanks to the Handbook [ freebsd.org ] .
The /usr/ports collection has the source code for just about any piece of software you 'd ever need , and the dependencies are all taken care of for you .
You get some pretty awesome hardware support , server daemons are incredibly easy to configure , it is robust as all hell , does n't use a lot of resources , can also make a great desktop OS , lots of smart people on IRC you can get help from , and countless amounts of other things .
Additionally I 'd go with FreeBSD because there are a large percentage of servers on the internet use this OS .
If IT is your profession , it definitely wo n't hurt to learn FreeBSD .
All you need to know is , /etc/rc.conf and /usr/ports .
Then you just move on from there : - ) Good luck !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although I always enjoy the opportunity to recommend FreeBSD to somebody, I didn't really get an explanation of your needs.
Are you going to be running servers?
Desktop? Or just having fun?
I imagine that you're just going to have some fun since you just want to learn something new.
In that case I'd definitely go with FreeBSD.
It is a great "learning" OS and is well documented thanks to the Handbook [freebsd.org].
The /usr/ports collection has the source code for just about any piece of software you'd ever need, and the dependencies are all taken care of for you.
You get some pretty awesome hardware support, server daemons are incredibly easy to configure, it is robust as all hell, doesn't use a lot of resources, can also make a great desktop OS, lots of smart people on IRC you can get help from, and countless amounts of other things.
Additionally I'd go with FreeBSD because there are a large percentage of servers on the internet use this OS.
If IT is your profession, it definitely won't hurt to learn FreeBSD.
All you need to know is, /etc/rc.conf and /usr/ports.
Then you just move on from there :-) Good luck!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254722</id>
	<title>Re:Only copyleft is "commie", BSD isn't.</title>
	<author>Ralish</author>
	<datestamp>1259426040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I agree with much of what you say, it doesn't exactly help your case when you layer your own post with fairly fanciful and stupid assertions, while rebutting the exact same in the GPs post. For one, the BSA aren't Microsoft's enforcers anymore than the RIAA are the Bee Gees' enforcers. They are a group that exists to enforce copyright and software licences, and while I don't agree with much of their policy or their actions in enforcing it, suggesting they are some puppet of Microsoft's is just absurd. Check the BSA membership, it's full of huge industry giants many of them direct competitors of Microsoft's; IBM, Apple, Dell, Adobe, Symantec, RSA, to name just a few. Further, military style raids might be a slight exaggeration, like calling the GPL communist or anti-capitalist for example.</p><p>But one point in particular I'd like to address is your assertions on the Interix system. Firstly, I think it's absurd to suggest that Interix was "created solely for the reason of destroying UNIX". Where's your proof? What leads you to this conclusion? Or does providing compatibility now (much like a huge number of other projects, like Wine) automatically entail an objective of destroying the target platform? Unix (and Unix-like) systems have always played and continue to play a major role in computing, and this is a good thing, surely some degree of compatibility with these systems at the API level is a good thing?  This is a large part of what Interix does, it provides a POSIX implementation on Windows as well as a Unix-like environment for development and productivity. So you have the POSIX API, Csh/Korn shells, a large set of Unix utilities, compiler, libraries and headers, and a lot more. The idea is to provide a Unix environment on Windows for migration, compatibility and development.</p><p>Cygwin I suspect wasn't "fixed" by Microsoft for several reasons. One would be that Interix/Cygwin began development around the same time, another would be whether the developers would be receptive to development efforts by Microsoft, another might be legal concerns and all the usual licensing crap, but perhaps most of all, the way they accomplish their functionality is very different. Cygwin provides a POSIX implementation and Unix-like environment \_ON TOP\_ of the Win32 API. This is done through a DLL (cygwin1.dll) which translates POSIX calls into Win32 calls which in turn call into the NT Native API. Interix by contrast does not use Win32 at all, but runs directly on top of the POSIX subsystem, thus, Interix apps go POSIX Subsystem -&gt; NT Native API. Of course, you still have to use the Win32 API as that's what the Windows OS is primarily built on, but the POSIX subsystem runs alongside it and Interix on top of it. This is indeed the point of the NT Native API and much of the NT design; the Native API is (as the name implies) the base API for the NT OS and environment subsystems run on top of it providing an API for client applications. The Windows API is one such subsystem and the one that 99\% of people use, POSIX is another, Win16 is another (I think?), and in the past there has been a (fairly crippled) OS/2 subsystem, and possibly others.</p><p>This affords some unique functionality for Interix in that it can do things at the API level that the Win32 API doesn't really support, simple example: fork(). The Win32 API to my knowledge has no real fork() equivalent, however, this is supported by the POSIX subsystem. The reason is that the Native API does support fork() but does not expose it through Win32 (but does through POSIX). Clearly, the Cygwin developers have worked around this, although how they've done it I'm not sure. Perhaps they translate fork() calls to loose Win32 equivalents? Or they call directly into the Native API (possible, but strongly discouraged)? Whatever, my point is the implementations of these two environments are very different, and I suspect they offer varying functionality as well as differing in actual POSIX implementation. I gather there's quite a nice Interix community, and Microsoft has put a</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree with much of what you say , it does n't exactly help your case when you layer your own post with fairly fanciful and stupid assertions , while rebutting the exact same in the GPs post .
For one , the BSA are n't Microsoft 's enforcers anymore than the RIAA are the Bee Gees ' enforcers .
They are a group that exists to enforce copyright and software licences , and while I do n't agree with much of their policy or their actions in enforcing it , suggesting they are some puppet of Microsoft 's is just absurd .
Check the BSA membership , it 's full of huge industry giants many of them direct competitors of Microsoft 's ; IBM , Apple , Dell , Adobe , Symantec , RSA , to name just a few .
Further , military style raids might be a slight exaggeration , like calling the GPL communist or anti-capitalist for example.But one point in particular I 'd like to address is your assertions on the Interix system .
Firstly , I think it 's absurd to suggest that Interix was " created solely for the reason of destroying UNIX " .
Where 's your proof ?
What leads you to this conclusion ?
Or does providing compatibility now ( much like a huge number of other projects , like Wine ) automatically entail an objective of destroying the target platform ?
Unix ( and Unix-like ) systems have always played and continue to play a major role in computing , and this is a good thing , surely some degree of compatibility with these systems at the API level is a good thing ?
This is a large part of what Interix does , it provides a POSIX implementation on Windows as well as a Unix-like environment for development and productivity .
So you have the POSIX API , Csh/Korn shells , a large set of Unix utilities , compiler , libraries and headers , and a lot more .
The idea is to provide a Unix environment on Windows for migration , compatibility and development.Cygwin I suspect was n't " fixed " by Microsoft for several reasons .
One would be that Interix/Cygwin began development around the same time , another would be whether the developers would be receptive to development efforts by Microsoft , another might be legal concerns and all the usual licensing crap , but perhaps most of all , the way they accomplish their functionality is very different .
Cygwin provides a POSIX implementation and Unix-like environment \ _ON TOP \ _ of the Win32 API .
This is done through a DLL ( cygwin1.dll ) which translates POSIX calls into Win32 calls which in turn call into the NT Native API .
Interix by contrast does not use Win32 at all , but runs directly on top of the POSIX subsystem , thus , Interix apps go POSIX Subsystem - &gt; NT Native API .
Of course , you still have to use the Win32 API as that 's what the Windows OS is primarily built on , but the POSIX subsystem runs alongside it and Interix on top of it .
This is indeed the point of the NT Native API and much of the NT design ; the Native API is ( as the name implies ) the base API for the NT OS and environment subsystems run on top of it providing an API for client applications .
The Windows API is one such subsystem and the one that 99 \ % of people use , POSIX is another , Win16 is another ( I think ?
) , and in the past there has been a ( fairly crippled ) OS/2 subsystem , and possibly others.This affords some unique functionality for Interix in that it can do things at the API level that the Win32 API does n't really support , simple example : fork ( ) .
The Win32 API to my knowledge has no real fork ( ) equivalent , however , this is supported by the POSIX subsystem .
The reason is that the Native API does support fork ( ) but does not expose it through Win32 ( but does through POSIX ) .
Clearly , the Cygwin developers have worked around this , although how they 've done it I 'm not sure .
Perhaps they translate fork ( ) calls to loose Win32 equivalents ?
Or they call directly into the Native API ( possible , but strongly discouraged ) ?
Whatever , my point is the implementations of these two environments are very different , and I suspect they offer varying functionality as well as differing in actual POSIX implementation .
I gather there 's quite a nice Interix community , and Microsoft has put a</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree with much of what you say, it doesn't exactly help your case when you layer your own post with fairly fanciful and stupid assertions, while rebutting the exact same in the GPs post.
For one, the BSA aren't Microsoft's enforcers anymore than the RIAA are the Bee Gees' enforcers.
They are a group that exists to enforce copyright and software licences, and while I don't agree with much of their policy or their actions in enforcing it, suggesting they are some puppet of Microsoft's is just absurd.
Check the BSA membership, it's full of huge industry giants many of them direct competitors of Microsoft's; IBM, Apple, Dell, Adobe, Symantec, RSA, to name just a few.
Further, military style raids might be a slight exaggeration, like calling the GPL communist or anti-capitalist for example.But one point in particular I'd like to address is your assertions on the Interix system.
Firstly, I think it's absurd to suggest that Interix was "created solely for the reason of destroying UNIX".
Where's your proof?
What leads you to this conclusion?
Or does providing compatibility now (much like a huge number of other projects, like Wine) automatically entail an objective of destroying the target platform?
Unix (and Unix-like) systems have always played and continue to play a major role in computing, and this is a good thing, surely some degree of compatibility with these systems at the API level is a good thing?
This is a large part of what Interix does, it provides a POSIX implementation on Windows as well as a Unix-like environment for development and productivity.
So you have the POSIX API, Csh/Korn shells, a large set of Unix utilities, compiler, libraries and headers, and a lot more.
The idea is to provide a Unix environment on Windows for migration, compatibility and development.Cygwin I suspect wasn't "fixed" by Microsoft for several reasons.
One would be that Interix/Cygwin began development around the same time, another would be whether the developers would be receptive to development efforts by Microsoft, another might be legal concerns and all the usual licensing crap, but perhaps most of all, the way they accomplish their functionality is very different.
Cygwin provides a POSIX implementation and Unix-like environment \_ON TOP\_ of the Win32 API.
This is done through a DLL (cygwin1.dll) which translates POSIX calls into Win32 calls which in turn call into the NT Native API.
Interix by contrast does not use Win32 at all, but runs directly on top of the POSIX subsystem, thus, Interix apps go POSIX Subsystem -&gt; NT Native API.
Of course, you still have to use the Win32 API as that's what the Windows OS is primarily built on, but the POSIX subsystem runs alongside it and Interix on top of it.
This is indeed the point of the NT Native API and much of the NT design; the Native API is (as the name implies) the base API for the NT OS and environment subsystems run on top of it providing an API for client applications.
The Windows API is one such subsystem and the one that 99\% of people use, POSIX is another, Win16 is another (I think?
), and in the past there has been a (fairly crippled) OS/2 subsystem, and possibly others.This affords some unique functionality for Interix in that it can do things at the API level that the Win32 API doesn't really support, simple example: fork().
The Win32 API to my knowledge has no real fork() equivalent, however, this is supported by the POSIX subsystem.
The reason is that the Native API does support fork() but does not expose it through Win32 (but does through POSIX).
Clearly, the Cygwin developers have worked around this, although how they've done it I'm not sure.
Perhaps they translate fork() calls to loose Win32 equivalents?
Or they call directly into the Native API (possible, but strongly discouraged)?
Whatever, my point is the implementations of these two environments are very different, and I suspect they offer varying functionality as well as differing in actual POSIX implementation.
I gather there's quite a nice Interix community, and Microsoft has put a</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256774</id>
	<title>Re:I have a PROBLEM.</title>
	<author>jwt3k</author>
	<datestamp>1259403120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://media.photobucket.com/image/recent/TxLawdog2/art-of-survival.jpg?o=2" title="photobucket.com" rel="nofollow">http://media.photobucket.com/image/recent/TxLawdog2/art-of-survival.jpg?o=2</a> [photobucket.com]

Be the fox.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //media.photobucket.com/image/recent/TxLawdog2/art-of-survival.jpg ? o = 2 [ photobucket.com ] Be the fox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://media.photobucket.com/image/recent/TxLawdog2/art-of-survival.jpg?o=2 [photobucket.com]

Be the fox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255888</id>
	<title>Why wasting time compiling?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259437980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The OP claims that compiling from source optimizes things. Well, years ago, maybe, when we had everything compiled for 386 and when we had p4 with mmx instructions not used. But since everyone switched to 64 bits, exactly what optimization are we talking about here? Unless I really missed something, the only new instructions since the move to 64 bits are the ones for virtualization, which is nothing that concerns packages here. So what's the (enormous) loss of time to compile everything benefits here?</p><p>Since I found libtool broken once in FreeBSD for a period of 4 days in the ports, I decided it was a totally broken distribution that didn't deserve any attention at all. Maybe I was unlucky, someone would say? Nah... there can't be such thing, it only means that ports are NOT tested in FreeBSD, that is it: you can't have something as important as libtool entering BROKEN in ANY distribution without some serious questioning on the quality. And that's just an example here...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The OP claims that compiling from source optimizes things .
Well , years ago , maybe , when we had everything compiled for 386 and when we had p4 with mmx instructions not used .
But since everyone switched to 64 bits , exactly what optimization are we talking about here ?
Unless I really missed something , the only new instructions since the move to 64 bits are the ones for virtualization , which is nothing that concerns packages here .
So what 's the ( enormous ) loss of time to compile everything benefits here ? Since I found libtool broken once in FreeBSD for a period of 4 days in the ports , I decided it was a totally broken distribution that did n't deserve any attention at all .
Maybe I was unlucky , someone would say ?
Nah... there ca n't be such thing , it only means that ports are NOT tested in FreeBSD , that is it : you ca n't have something as important as libtool entering BROKEN in ANY distribution without some serious questioning on the quality .
And that 's just an example here.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The OP claims that compiling from source optimizes things.
Well, years ago, maybe, when we had everything compiled for 386 and when we had p4 with mmx instructions not used.
But since everyone switched to 64 bits, exactly what optimization are we talking about here?
Unless I really missed something, the only new instructions since the move to 64 bits are the ones for virtualization, which is nothing that concerns packages here.
So what's the (enormous) loss of time to compile everything benefits here?Since I found libtool broken once in FreeBSD for a period of 4 days in the ports, I decided it was a totally broken distribution that didn't deserve any attention at all.
Maybe I was unlucky, someone would say?
Nah... there can't be such thing, it only means that ports are NOT tested in FreeBSD, that is it: you can't have something as important as libtool entering BROKEN in ANY distribution without some serious questioning on the quality.
And that's just an example here...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253672</id>
	<title>It looks you are looking for a free sollution..</title>
	<author>Nikolai D.</author>
	<datestamp>1259410140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>IMHO
for server CentOS
for desktop Ubuntu
for workstaion Fedora

(otherwise i had of sayd
for home Mac
for office Win
everything else Linux)

The rest isnt serious (maybe even practical is what i mean) enough.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
hf</htmltext>
<tokenext>IMHO for server CentOS for desktop Ubuntu for workstaion Fedora ( otherwise i had of sayd for home Mac for office Win everything else Linux ) The rest isnt serious ( maybe even practical is what i mean ) enough .
: ) hf</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMHO
for server CentOS
for desktop Ubuntu
for workstaion Fedora

(otherwise i had of sayd
for home Mac
for office Win
everything else Linux)

The rest isnt serious (maybe even practical is what i mean) enough.
:)
hf</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253936</id>
	<title>Re:Article is trollbait</title>
	<author>Norsefire</author>
	<datestamp>1259415720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I knew when I was composing this question that someone would accuse it of being trolling or flamebait, this is the internet after all and any attempt to compare things on the internet must be trolling, right?<p><div class="quote"><p>You have been trolled.</p></div><p>Nope. They are the distros I tried. Gentoo for its compiled-from-source nature, Gobo for its new approach on the filesystem, and Arch because it was recommended that I try it. All had their hangups but if I was sticking with Linux I would probably use Arch.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Still trolled by gentoo -O flag weenies, aren't we?</p></div><p>I also like setting compile-time options, applying patches etc. that you can't do with packages.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This is a good choice</p></div><p>Yeah<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but I feel like a change<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>No, just no, not unless you have a specific reason to. As a desktop? They don't call it Slowaris for nothing, y'know.</p></div><p>Now who's trolling/flambating?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, it is Sun, after all. They did write the bloody thing. But don't forget that ZFS has its own overhead, so if you don't have a use for it, you're wasting your time and your system resources.</p></div><p>I have plenty of use for ZFS, it was one the main factors in narrowing my choice down to FreeBSD and OSOL.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Why? Not unless you have a specific reason to. You're already running a stable operating system that works on your hardware. Have you looked to see if the drivers you want are available? If it supports your hardware, go for it. If not, why put yourself through hell?</p></div><p>I have both OSOL and FreeBSD installed already. But there's only one of me so I can't use both. So I wanted to see what the general opinion about those two was.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Doesn't make any difference, bro, unless you are trying to start a flamewar. It either does what you want or it's crap.</p></div><p>No it doesn't, I was merely mentioning some differences.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I knew when I was composing this question that someone would accuse it of being trolling or flamebait , this is the internet after all and any attempt to compare things on the internet must be trolling , right ? You have been trolled.Nope .
They are the distros I tried .
Gentoo for its compiled-from-source nature , Gobo for its new approach on the filesystem , and Arch because it was recommended that I try it .
All had their hangups but if I was sticking with Linux I would probably use Arch.Still trolled by gentoo -O flag weenies , are n't we ? I also like setting compile-time options , applying patches etc .
that you ca n't do with packages.This is a good choiceYeah ... but I feel like a change : - ) No , just no , not unless you have a specific reason to .
As a desktop ?
They do n't call it Slowaris for nothing , y'know.Now who 's trolling/flambating ? Well , it is Sun , after all .
They did write the bloody thing .
But do n't forget that ZFS has its own overhead , so if you do n't have a use for it , you 're wasting your time and your system resources.I have plenty of use for ZFS , it was one the main factors in narrowing my choice down to FreeBSD and OSOL.Why ?
Not unless you have a specific reason to .
You 're already running a stable operating system that works on your hardware .
Have you looked to see if the drivers you want are available ?
If it supports your hardware , go for it .
If not , why put yourself through hell ? I have both OSOL and FreeBSD installed already .
But there 's only one of me so I ca n't use both .
So I wanted to see what the general opinion about those two was.Does n't make any difference , bro , unless you are trying to start a flamewar .
It either does what you want or it 's crap.No it does n't , I was merely mentioning some differences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I knew when I was composing this question that someone would accuse it of being trolling or flamebait, this is the internet after all and any attempt to compare things on the internet must be trolling, right?You have been trolled.Nope.
They are the distros I tried.
Gentoo for its compiled-from-source nature, Gobo for its new approach on the filesystem, and Arch because it was recommended that I try it.
All had their hangups but if I was sticking with Linux I would probably use Arch.Still trolled by gentoo -O flag weenies, aren't we?I also like setting compile-time options, applying patches etc.
that you can't do with packages.This is a good choiceYeah ... but I feel like a change :-)No, just no, not unless you have a specific reason to.
As a desktop?
They don't call it Slowaris for nothing, y'know.Now who's trolling/flambating?Well, it is Sun, after all.
They did write the bloody thing.
But don't forget that ZFS has its own overhead, so if you don't have a use for it, you're wasting your time and your system resources.I have plenty of use for ZFS, it was one the main factors in narrowing my choice down to FreeBSD and OSOL.Why?
Not unless you have a specific reason to.
You're already running a stable operating system that works on your hardware.
Have you looked to see if the drivers you want are available?
If it supports your hardware, go for it.
If not, why put yourself through hell?I have both OSOL and FreeBSD installed already.
But there's only one of me so I can't use both.
So I wanted to see what the general opinion about those two was.Doesn't make any difference, bro, unless you are trying to start a flamewar.
It either does what you want or it's crap.No it doesn't, I was merely mentioning some differences.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253706</id>
	<title>Debian GNU/kFreeBSD</title>
	<author>lord\_rob the only on</author>
	<datestamp>1259411040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are used to Debian ?  Then try <a href="http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/" title="debian.org">Debian GNU/kFreeBSD</a> [debian.org].</p><p>The Debian distro on top of a FreeBSD kernel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are used to Debian ?
Then try Debian GNU/kFreeBSD [ debian.org ] .The Debian distro on top of a FreeBSD kernel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are used to Debian ?
Then try Debian GNU/kFreeBSD [debian.org].The Debian distro on top of a FreeBSD kernel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255734</id>
	<title>Big Business or Web Tinkering?</title>
	<author>revcorrupt</author>
	<datestamp>1259436240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is going to be a difficult question that entirely depends on what you are planning to do.</p><p>If you plan to learn business based programs I would suggest OpenSolaris. It is more in line with big business than any *BSD will ever be. You will find that fortune 500 companies use Oracle, Symantec Veritas products (cluster service, Volume manager, NetBackup etc..), or require Solaris for other business applications. The only other major *nix flavors in big business is HP-UX, AIX, and Linux. For the most part HP-UX and AIX are going bye bye and being replaced by big Linux boxes.</p><p>On the other hand, if you like the Web and want to learn to program, Try out FreeBSD. It has a much more open structure and an open user base that is more than willing to help solve complex problems.</p><p>Hope this helps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is going to be a difficult question that entirely depends on what you are planning to do.If you plan to learn business based programs I would suggest OpenSolaris .
It is more in line with big business than any * BSD will ever be .
You will find that fortune 500 companies use Oracle , Symantec Veritas products ( cluster service , Volume manager , NetBackup etc.. ) , or require Solaris for other business applications .
The only other major * nix flavors in big business is HP-UX , AIX , and Linux .
For the most part HP-UX and AIX are going bye bye and being replaced by big Linux boxes.On the other hand , if you like the Web and want to learn to program , Try out FreeBSD .
It has a much more open structure and an open user base that is more than willing to help solve complex problems.Hope this helps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is going to be a difficult question that entirely depends on what you are planning to do.If you plan to learn business based programs I would suggest OpenSolaris.
It is more in line with big business than any *BSD will ever be.
You will find that fortune 500 companies use Oracle, Symantec Veritas products (cluster service, Volume manager, NetBackup etc..), or require Solaris for other business applications.
The only other major *nix flavors in big business is HP-UX, AIX, and Linux.
For the most part HP-UX and AIX are going bye bye and being replaced by big Linux boxes.On the other hand, if you like the Web and want to learn to program, Try out FreeBSD.
It has a much more open structure and an open user base that is more than willing to help solve complex problems.Hope this helps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254004</id>
	<title>why not Solaris proper?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259416800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ran 8, ran 9 for 10 years, now I am running Solaris 10. Server with SunRays.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ran 8 , ran 9 for 10 years , now I am running Solaris 10 .
Server with SunRays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ran 8, ran 9 for 10 years, now I am running Solaris 10.
Server with SunRays.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254990</id>
	<title>OpenSolaris: ZFS and zones!</title>
	<author>TerminaMorte</author>
	<datestamp>1259428920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been in the same boat, trying to find a good OS that has ZFS (without having to take such a huge performance hit from zfs-fuse).<br> <br>
FreeBSD would freeze under heavy load; from what research I did on it, it seemed like a zfs bug with FreeBSD 8.<br> <br>
OpenSolaris on the other hand is a pretty nice desktop (Gnome is pretty much the same everywhere...) and it has a lot of useful packages in it's repository. Flash was installed out of the box, and installing Songbird and Eclipse took only three mouse clicks.
<br> <br>
Give OpenSolaris a try (assuming it has support for your hardware).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been in the same boat , trying to find a good OS that has ZFS ( without having to take such a huge performance hit from zfs-fuse ) .
FreeBSD would freeze under heavy load ; from what research I did on it , it seemed like a zfs bug with FreeBSD 8 .
OpenSolaris on the other hand is a pretty nice desktop ( Gnome is pretty much the same everywhere... ) and it has a lot of useful packages in it 's repository .
Flash was installed out of the box , and installing Songbird and Eclipse took only three mouse clicks .
Give OpenSolaris a try ( assuming it has support for your hardware ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been in the same boat, trying to find a good OS that has ZFS (without having to take such a huge performance hit from zfs-fuse).
FreeBSD would freeze under heavy load; from what research I did on it, it seemed like a zfs bug with FreeBSD 8.
OpenSolaris on the other hand is a pretty nice desktop (Gnome is pretty much the same everywhere...) and it has a lot of useful packages in it's repository.
Flash was installed out of the box, and installing Songbird and Eclipse took only three mouse clicks.
Give OpenSolaris a try (assuming it has support for your hardware).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30257380</id>
	<title>Re:I have a PROBLEM.</title>
	<author>Kusuriya</author>
	<datestamp>1259411040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just pay me a salary of 145k a year and ill do your job for you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just pay me a salary of 145k a year and ill do your job for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just pay me a salary of 145k a year and ill do your job for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255974</id>
	<title>Why my path too was Linux = FreeBSD = Solaris</title>
	<author>tcpiplab</author>
	<datestamp>1259438700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If, like me, what you didn't like about Linux was the often shallow and generic help documentation and the constant sense of being a beta tester, despite running "stable" releases, then IMHO you may not like FreeBSD. Disclaimer: I stopped using FreeBSD shortly after the 4.8 to 5.0 upgrade. Disclaimer2: I run the commercial release of Solaris 10, having only run OpenSolaris for a few weeks.

But if you are primarily concerned with performance and uptime then FreeBSD might be for you. As for the ports system, while it seems to have more apps than most Linuxes, not all the apps in the ports system install as seamlessly as others. You'll also encounter some ports that are behind the current rev of that app. If you want to install many apps for learning and experimentation then, in my experience most app install systems (Linux's RPM, Debian's aptget, FreeBSD's ports) require you to retreat to installing from source about 25\% of the time.

And finally, I've found nothing else quite as solid and well designed as Solaris' Service Management Facility tools (svcadm, svccfg, svcs, etc). It really gives you a lot of visibility into, and control over, the various dependencies an app needs and the various states a daemon can be in.  Good luck.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If , like me , what you did n't like about Linux was the often shallow and generic help documentation and the constant sense of being a beta tester , despite running " stable " releases , then IMHO you may not like FreeBSD .
Disclaimer : I stopped using FreeBSD shortly after the 4.8 to 5.0 upgrade .
Disclaimer2 : I run the commercial release of Solaris 10 , having only run OpenSolaris for a few weeks .
But if you are primarily concerned with performance and uptime then FreeBSD might be for you .
As for the ports system , while it seems to have more apps than most Linuxes , not all the apps in the ports system install as seamlessly as others .
You 'll also encounter some ports that are behind the current rev of that app .
If you want to install many apps for learning and experimentation then , in my experience most app install systems ( Linux 's RPM , Debian 's aptget , FreeBSD 's ports ) require you to retreat to installing from source about 25 \ % of the time .
And finally , I 've found nothing else quite as solid and well designed as Solaris ' Service Management Facility tools ( svcadm , svccfg , svcs , etc ) .
It really gives you a lot of visibility into , and control over , the various dependencies an app needs and the various states a daemon can be in .
Good luck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If, like me, what you didn't like about Linux was the often shallow and generic help documentation and the constant sense of being a beta tester, despite running "stable" releases, then IMHO you may not like FreeBSD.
Disclaimer: I stopped using FreeBSD shortly after the 4.8 to 5.0 upgrade.
Disclaimer2: I run the commercial release of Solaris 10, having only run OpenSolaris for a few weeks.
But if you are primarily concerned with performance and uptime then FreeBSD might be for you.
As for the ports system, while it seems to have more apps than most Linuxes, not all the apps in the ports system install as seamlessly as others.
You'll also encounter some ports that are behind the current rev of that app.
If you want to install many apps for learning and experimentation then, in my experience most app install systems (Linux's RPM, Debian's aptget, FreeBSD's ports) require you to retreat to installing from source about 25\% of the time.
And finally, I've found nothing else quite as solid and well designed as Solaris' Service Management Facility tools (svcadm, svccfg, svcs, etc).
It really gives you a lot of visibility into, and control over, the various dependencies an app needs and the various states a daemon can be in.
Good luck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255918</id>
	<title>Re:Why switch operating systems due to it's own sa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259438100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>FreeBSD is more towards a desktop, Solaris is more for servers, but you already know that.</p></div><p>Not sure why you think that.  FreeBSD's tagline is "The Power to Serve."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FreeBSD is more towards a desktop , Solaris is more for servers , but you already know that.Not sure why you think that .
FreeBSD 's tagline is " The Power to Serve .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FreeBSD is more towards a desktop, Solaris is more for servers, but you already know that.Not sure why you think that.
FreeBSD's tagline is "The Power to Serve.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254160</id>
	<title>Re:Only copyleft is "commie", BSD isn't.</title>
	<author>rtfa-troll</author>
	<datestamp>1259419200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this weren't moderated as interesting, I'd be afraid to answer for fear of feeding stupid trols, but since it is, lets go ahead.</p><blockquote><div><p>Restrictive (copyleft) licensed software like the Linux kernel and the GNU toolchain indeed follows a communist philosophy that fails to see the value of free market competition, and instead relies on government force (see gpl-violations.org).</p></div></blockquote><p>There's a certain stupidity in modern "soundbite" thinking that seems to think that by labelling something you thereby make it bad.  This leads people to stuipdly stretch those labels as far as they think they can make them stick.  Here is a perfect example.  The GPL requires certain actions to avoid restrictions in copying.  Microsoft's licenses restrict all copying with small exceptions.  The FSF occasionally goes to court to try to get organisations to follow their license.  The BSA, Microsoft's enforcers, regularly carry out military style raids on their customers searching for violations, let alone what they do to actual pirates.  If you believe that this makes the FSF, the free software movement or whatever communist then you must believe that commercial software producers are all ultra communists and Microsoft is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comintern" title="wikipedia.org">Comintern</a> [wikipedia.org] its self.  If you really did believe that and weren't just making a debating point, you could easily find yourself being declared clinically insane.</p><blockquote><div><p>[...] There has been some effort to get Gentoo's portage or NetBSD's pkgsrc working on it, but it never got off the ground. It seems like the open source community is ostracising Interix for purely irrational anti-capitalist reasons, and that's really a shame [...]</p></div></blockquote><p>Interix was created solely for the reason of destroying UNIX; I think you will find that the "open source community" is completely rational for not working on it.  Your complaint is like a person wanting to know why turkeys don't do volunteer work to spread the thanksgiving message.  However, there is nothing they could do to stop the Windows community from doing the port.  The reason it's not happening is because Microsoft and Microsoft collaborators aren't interested in becoming helpful collaborating members of the community.</p><blockquote><div><p>[...] (Yes, there's also Cygwin, but it's embarrassingly slow, buggy, and incomplete.)</p></div></blockquote><p>Which leads to the question why didn't Microsoft just go ahead and fix it.  Answer; because then it would be difficult to kill it later.  Interix might be a sane choice for an organisation which was trying to eliminate old UNIX installs and just had a few applications which were difficult to rewrite at the current time.  It's not something anyone sane would base their future on.</p><blockquote><div><p>As Stallman's economic fallacies become ever more evident,  I expect ever-more developer time to shift to 100\% free (non-copyleft)</p></div></blockquote><p>This is the funniest and most ironic statement of your entire post.  Stallman never claimed to be an economist and from the beginning said "do this because it's the moral thing even though it will lose you money".  The irony comes from the fact that he was wrong.  In fact the GPL is an excellent choice as part of a commercial strategy.  Either dual license model for sofware with narrow developer interest or through the free (as in beer) software + expensive support model.

</p><p>Some of the other systems you mentioned should be, logically, looking at their design and historical position before Linux really took off and the number of products developed from them which could have contributed to their develomement dominating the market.  However they have failed.  The reason is simple.  Every time someone comes up with a product based on a non copyleft system (OS-X; JunOS, Microsoft's TCP/IP stack, IPSO etc. etc.) the community divides between those working on the product and those working on the OS.  This leads to continual weakening of the community.  Compare with Linux where the majority of contributions actually come from commercial organisations where the GPL has allowed those organisations to stay in the community instead of being forced to fork.

 software, which means there's a very bright long-term future ahead for platforms like FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, NewForkBSD, and even MINIX 4!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this were n't moderated as interesting , I 'd be afraid to answer for fear of feeding stupid trols , but since it is , lets go ahead.Restrictive ( copyleft ) licensed software like the Linux kernel and the GNU toolchain indeed follows a communist philosophy that fails to see the value of free market competition , and instead relies on government force ( see gpl-violations.org ) .There 's a certain stupidity in modern " soundbite " thinking that seems to think that by labelling something you thereby make it bad .
This leads people to stuipdly stretch those labels as far as they think they can make them stick .
Here is a perfect example .
The GPL requires certain actions to avoid restrictions in copying .
Microsoft 's licenses restrict all copying with small exceptions .
The FSF occasionally goes to court to try to get organisations to follow their license .
The BSA , Microsoft 's enforcers , regularly carry out military style raids on their customers searching for violations , let alone what they do to actual pirates .
If you believe that this makes the FSF , the free software movement or whatever communist then you must believe that commercial software producers are all ultra communists and Microsoft is Comintern [ wikipedia.org ] its self .
If you really did believe that and were n't just making a debating point , you could easily find yourself being declared clinically insane. [ .. .
] There has been some effort to get Gentoo 's portage or NetBSD 's pkgsrc working on it , but it never got off the ground .
It seems like the open source community is ostracising Interix for purely irrational anti-capitalist reasons , and that 's really a shame [ ... ] Interix was created solely for the reason of destroying UNIX ; I think you will find that the " open source community " is completely rational for not working on it .
Your complaint is like a person wanting to know why turkeys do n't do volunteer work to spread the thanksgiving message .
However , there is nothing they could do to stop the Windows community from doing the port .
The reason it 's not happening is because Microsoft and Microsoft collaborators are n't interested in becoming helpful collaborating members of the community. [ .. .
] ( Yes , there 's also Cygwin , but it 's embarrassingly slow , buggy , and incomplete .
) Which leads to the question why did n't Microsoft just go ahead and fix it .
Answer ; because then it would be difficult to kill it later .
Interix might be a sane choice for an organisation which was trying to eliminate old UNIX installs and just had a few applications which were difficult to rewrite at the current time .
It 's not something anyone sane would base their future on.As Stallman 's economic fallacies become ever more evident , I expect ever-more developer time to shift to 100 \ % free ( non-copyleft ) This is the funniest and most ironic statement of your entire post .
Stallman never claimed to be an economist and from the beginning said " do this because it 's the moral thing even though it will lose you money " .
The irony comes from the fact that he was wrong .
In fact the GPL is an excellent choice as part of a commercial strategy .
Either dual license model for sofware with narrow developer interest or through the free ( as in beer ) software + expensive support model .
Some of the other systems you mentioned should be , logically , looking at their design and historical position before Linux really took off and the number of products developed from them which could have contributed to their develomement dominating the market .
However they have failed .
The reason is simple .
Every time someone comes up with a product based on a non copyleft system ( OS-X ; JunOS , Microsoft 's TCP/IP stack , IPSO etc .
etc. ) the community divides between those working on the product and those working on the OS .
This leads to continual weakening of the community .
Compare with Linux where the majority of contributions actually come from commercial organisations where the GPL has allowed those organisations to stay in the community instead of being forced to fork .
software , which means there 's a very bright long-term future ahead for platforms like FreeBSD , OpenBSD , NetBSD , NewForkBSD , and even MINIX 4 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this weren't moderated as interesting, I'd be afraid to answer for fear of feeding stupid trols, but since it is, lets go ahead.Restrictive (copyleft) licensed software like the Linux kernel and the GNU toolchain indeed follows a communist philosophy that fails to see the value of free market competition, and instead relies on government force (see gpl-violations.org).There's a certain stupidity in modern "soundbite" thinking that seems to think that by labelling something you thereby make it bad.
This leads people to stuipdly stretch those labels as far as they think they can make them stick.
Here is a perfect example.
The GPL requires certain actions to avoid restrictions in copying.
Microsoft's licenses restrict all copying with small exceptions.
The FSF occasionally goes to court to try to get organisations to follow their license.
The BSA, Microsoft's enforcers, regularly carry out military style raids on their customers searching for violations, let alone what they do to actual pirates.
If you believe that this makes the FSF, the free software movement or whatever communist then you must believe that commercial software producers are all ultra communists and Microsoft is Comintern [wikipedia.org] its self.
If you really did believe that and weren't just making a debating point, you could easily find yourself being declared clinically insane.[...
] There has been some effort to get Gentoo's portage or NetBSD's pkgsrc working on it, but it never got off the ground.
It seems like the open source community is ostracising Interix for purely irrational anti-capitalist reasons, and that's really a shame [...]Interix was created solely for the reason of destroying UNIX; I think you will find that the "open source community" is completely rational for not working on it.
Your complaint is like a person wanting to know why turkeys don't do volunteer work to spread the thanksgiving message.
However, there is nothing they could do to stop the Windows community from doing the port.
The reason it's not happening is because Microsoft and Microsoft collaborators aren't interested in becoming helpful collaborating members of the community.[...
] (Yes, there's also Cygwin, but it's embarrassingly slow, buggy, and incomplete.
)Which leads to the question why didn't Microsoft just go ahead and fix it.
Answer; because then it would be difficult to kill it later.
Interix might be a sane choice for an organisation which was trying to eliminate old UNIX installs and just had a few applications which were difficult to rewrite at the current time.
It's not something anyone sane would base their future on.As Stallman's economic fallacies become ever more evident,  I expect ever-more developer time to shift to 100\% free (non-copyleft)This is the funniest and most ironic statement of your entire post.
Stallman never claimed to be an economist and from the beginning said "do this because it's the moral thing even though it will lose you money".
The irony comes from the fact that he was wrong.
In fact the GPL is an excellent choice as part of a commercial strategy.
Either dual license model for sofware with narrow developer interest or through the free (as in beer) software + expensive support model.
Some of the other systems you mentioned should be, logically, looking at their design and historical position before Linux really took off and the number of products developed from them which could have contributed to their develomement dominating the market.
However they have failed.
The reason is simple.
Every time someone comes up with a product based on a non copyleft system (OS-X; JunOS, Microsoft's TCP/IP stack, IPSO etc.
etc.) the community divides between those working on the product and those working on the OS.
This leads to continual weakening of the community.
Compare with Linux where the majority of contributions actually come from commercial organisations where the GPL has allowed those organisations to stay in the community instead of being forced to fork.
software, which means there's a very bright long-term future ahead for platforms like FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, NewForkBSD, and even MINIX 4!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254650</id>
	<title>Re:OpenSolaris is desperate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259425320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Solaris / Glassfish / MySQL / Netbeans with DTrace bolted on is a pretty compelling development stack. Being a recent convert I can attest to the fact that Sun has finally gotten their software house in order. The sad part is that it happened too late and the only hope is that Oracle does not tamper with it. Sun as far as offerings finnaly looks like the Sun of 15 years ago. I for one hope that their current breed of solutions survive in tacked, as it is the first non MS development stack that I have seen that rivals the intergration of Microsofts development platform (Visual Studio, IIS, MSSQL) (which was the one thing they where really good at).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Solaris / Glassfish / MySQL / Netbeans with DTrace bolted on is a pretty compelling development stack .
Being a recent convert I can attest to the fact that Sun has finally gotten their software house in order .
The sad part is that it happened too late and the only hope is that Oracle does not tamper with it .
Sun as far as offerings finnaly looks like the Sun of 15 years ago .
I for one hope that their current breed of solutions survive in tacked , as it is the first non MS development stack that I have seen that rivals the intergration of Microsofts development platform ( Visual Studio , IIS , MSSQL ) ( which was the one thing they where really good at ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Solaris / Glassfish / MySQL / Netbeans with DTrace bolted on is a pretty compelling development stack.
Being a recent convert I can attest to the fact that Sun has finally gotten their software house in order.
The sad part is that it happened too late and the only hope is that Oracle does not tamper with it.
Sun as far as offerings finnaly looks like the Sun of 15 years ago.
I for one hope that their current breed of solutions survive in tacked, as it is the first non MS development stack that I have seen that rivals the intergration of Microsofts development platform (Visual Studio, IIS, MSSQL) (which was the one thing they where really good at).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30269524</id>
	<title>OS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259593620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>opensolaris does have a packaging system but last I checked it did not have a whole lot of different software packages. The ports collection has everything you could want. If you are going to go with opensolaris check whether the software you plan on using is there or be willing<br>to compile and/or package your own.</p><p>The freebsd zfs implentation is pretty mature now in 8.0 but it's not the newest version and it doesn't have all the latest features that opensolaris does. This isn't neccessarily a bad thing though, look at the differences and see if you actually need those newer features now.</p><p>What are you going to use this box for? Overall it really comes down to looking at what requirements you have for the box and looking at which of the 2 meets those requirements the best. If you can't decide then just try them both and see which one you like better. Thats what I did and I settled on freebsd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>opensolaris does have a packaging system but last I checked it did not have a whole lot of different software packages .
The ports collection has everything you could want .
If you are going to go with opensolaris check whether the software you plan on using is there or be willingto compile and/or package your own.The freebsd zfs implentation is pretty mature now in 8.0 but it 's not the newest version and it does n't have all the latest features that opensolaris does .
This is n't neccessarily a bad thing though , look at the differences and see if you actually need those newer features now.What are you going to use this box for ?
Overall it really comes down to looking at what requirements you have for the box and looking at which of the 2 meets those requirements the best .
If you ca n't decide then just try them both and see which one you like better .
Thats what I did and I settled on freebsd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>opensolaris does have a packaging system but last I checked it did not have a whole lot of different software packages.
The ports collection has everything you could want.
If you are going to go with opensolaris check whether the software you plan on using is there or be willingto compile and/or package your own.The freebsd zfs implentation is pretty mature now in 8.0 but it's not the newest version and it doesn't have all the latest features that opensolaris does.
This isn't neccessarily a bad thing though, look at the differences and see if you actually need those newer features now.What are you going to use this box for?
Overall it really comes down to looking at what requirements you have for the box and looking at which of the 2 meets those requirements the best.
If you can't decide then just try them both and see which one you like better.
Thats what I did and I settled on freebsd.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255502</id>
	<title>Depends on the target application</title>
	<author>GoVirtual</author>
	<datestamp>1259433960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The choice of one over the other depends on the application.  For a desktop environment, OpenSolaris is not very user friendly as it is derived from System V.  FreeBSD, especially with the ports collection, can be used to create a very customizable desktop experience on par with Linux, and the BSD flavor of the OS interface provides for a much more navigable filesystem and user interface than OpenSolaris.  If ZFS is key to your application, then OpenSolaris is the way to go, I doubt that even recent forks of FreeBSD have the most recent capabilities that have been integrated into the ZFS project (real time storage deduplication, pluggable storage modules for iSCSI, FCoE, FC etc).  You would be hard pressed to find anything that can rival OpenSolaris on the storage backend, FreeBSD (or any other OS for that matter) doesn't get close in the storage realm.

Performance between the two is probably negligible given recent performance enhancements to FreeBSD.  With OpenSolaris you have Zones for virtualization, in FreeBSD jails - both similar concepts but implemented differently.

Licensing would be something to look at as well.  The BSD license is truly open source, meaning that you could create derivative works from the FreeBSD OS and rebrand it as your own product with no attribution back to the FreeBSD project.  OpenSolaris has a more restrictive license than BSD so if the final product is say an appliance or a turnkey VM that includes the OS, the BSD license would be much more amenable to redistribution and rebranding as opposed to pretty much everything else out there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The choice of one over the other depends on the application .
For a desktop environment , OpenSolaris is not very user friendly as it is derived from System V. FreeBSD , especially with the ports collection , can be used to create a very customizable desktop experience on par with Linux , and the BSD flavor of the OS interface provides for a much more navigable filesystem and user interface than OpenSolaris .
If ZFS is key to your application , then OpenSolaris is the way to go , I doubt that even recent forks of FreeBSD have the most recent capabilities that have been integrated into the ZFS project ( real time storage deduplication , pluggable storage modules for iSCSI , FCoE , FC etc ) .
You would be hard pressed to find anything that can rival OpenSolaris on the storage backend , FreeBSD ( or any other OS for that matter ) does n't get close in the storage realm .
Performance between the two is probably negligible given recent performance enhancements to FreeBSD .
With OpenSolaris you have Zones for virtualization , in FreeBSD jails - both similar concepts but implemented differently .
Licensing would be something to look at as well .
The BSD license is truly open source , meaning that you could create derivative works from the FreeBSD OS and rebrand it as your own product with no attribution back to the FreeBSD project .
OpenSolaris has a more restrictive license than BSD so if the final product is say an appliance or a turnkey VM that includes the OS , the BSD license would be much more amenable to redistribution and rebranding as opposed to pretty much everything else out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The choice of one over the other depends on the application.
For a desktop environment, OpenSolaris is not very user friendly as it is derived from System V.  FreeBSD, especially with the ports collection, can be used to create a very customizable desktop experience on par with Linux, and the BSD flavor of the OS interface provides for a much more navigable filesystem and user interface than OpenSolaris.
If ZFS is key to your application, then OpenSolaris is the way to go, I doubt that even recent forks of FreeBSD have the most recent capabilities that have been integrated into the ZFS project (real time storage deduplication, pluggable storage modules for iSCSI, FCoE, FC etc).
You would be hard pressed to find anything that can rival OpenSolaris on the storage backend, FreeBSD (or any other OS for that matter) doesn't get close in the storage realm.
Performance between the two is probably negligible given recent performance enhancements to FreeBSD.
With OpenSolaris you have Zones for virtualization, in FreeBSD jails - both similar concepts but implemented differently.
Licensing would be something to look at as well.
The BSD license is truly open source, meaning that you could create derivative works from the FreeBSD OS and rebrand it as your own product with no attribution back to the FreeBSD project.
OpenSolaris has a more restrictive license than BSD so if the final product is say an appliance or a turnkey VM that includes the OS, the BSD license would be much more amenable to redistribution and rebranding as opposed to pretty much everything else out there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254170</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259419440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where are communist countries on the map? I bet "patriot" like u doesn't know much about communism at all... what speaking about OSes!</p><p>I used to live 16 years in cominist county and there was much more freedom than police country like US, ruled by magacorps and market interest. Leave man alone or help with question he asked. Shame on you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where are communist countries on the map ?
I bet " patriot " like u does n't know much about communism at all... what speaking about OSes ! I used to live 16 years in cominist county and there was much more freedom than police country like US , ruled by magacorps and market interest .
Leave man alone or help with question he asked .
Shame on you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where are communist countries on the map?
I bet "patriot" like u doesn't know much about communism at all... what speaking about OSes!I used to live 16 years in cominist county and there was much more freedom than police country like US, ruled by magacorps and market interest.
Leave man alone or help with question he asked.
Shame on you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254094</id>
	<title>Re:Dual boot.</title>
	<author>BrokenHalo</author>
	<datestamp>1259418120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The user clearly doesn't want some 'dual-boot' system to run a server operating system<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</i> <br> <br>
The OP fails to mention what he actually wants the OS for, other than mentioning that he likes "enterprisy" solutions. It's difficult to offer useful suggestions when all he wants is something that isn't Linux, but can't (or won't) articulate why.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The user clearly does n't want some 'dual-boot ' system to run a server operating system .. . The OP fails to mention what he actually wants the OS for , other than mentioning that he likes " enterprisy " solutions .
It 's difficult to offer useful suggestions when all he wants is something that is n't Linux , but ca n't ( or wo n't ) articulate why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The user clearly doesn't want some 'dual-boot' system to run a server operating system ...  
The OP fails to mention what he actually wants the OS for, other than mentioning that he likes "enterprisy" solutions.
It's difficult to offer useful suggestions when all he wants is something that isn't Linux, but can't (or won't) articulate why.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254100</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>N9VLS</author>
	<datestamp>1259418180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For Linux, Debian is pretty much the granddaddy, and can likely be wrangled to do whatever you want.  You seem the explorative type.  If you're comfortable with Debian, figure out how to do whatever it is you're interested in on Debian and get on with it.  Changing distros won't change your life.</p></div><p>Pretty much *any* distro can be wrangled to do whatever you want, it's just a measure of how much pain you're willing to endure in the process.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For Linux , Debian is pretty much the granddaddy , and can likely be wrangled to do whatever you want .
You seem the explorative type .
If you 're comfortable with Debian , figure out how to do whatever it is you 're interested in on Debian and get on with it .
Changing distros wo n't change your life.Pretty much * any * distro can be wrangled to do whatever you want , it 's just a measure of how much pain you 're willing to endure in the process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For Linux, Debian is pretty much the granddaddy, and can likely be wrangled to do whatever you want.
You seem the explorative type.
If you're comfortable with Debian, figure out how to do whatever it is you're interested in on Debian and get on with it.
Changing distros won't change your life.Pretty much *any* distro can be wrangled to do whatever you want, it's just a measure of how much pain you're willing to endure in the process.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254138</id>
	<title>Re:Go the whole hog...</title>
	<author>MrMr</author>
	<datestamp>1259418660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the only problem is resources I presume you are asking for more resources than Microsoft has offer?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the only problem is resources I presume you are asking for more resources than Microsoft has offer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the only problem is resources I presume you are asking for more resources than Microsoft has offer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254340</id>
	<title>Re:OpenSolaris is desperate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259421720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its a good point there. I work with a Microsoft shop but somewhere along the line they decided to support Oracle databases running on Redhat. Since then, I'd say the majority of our customers running Oracle have plumped for Redhat (the others won't until they upgrade). I wonder if Oracle will be trying to scrap this in favour of Solaris (not OpenSolaris surely) and charge lots of money, but I doubt any of them will migrate - migrating from Windows to Redhat makes a lot of sense, even if the cost is roughly the same overall. Migrating to a more expensive Solaris OS probably won't.</p><p>Sun made itself as irrelevant as anyone else, they were the Apple of the server world, selling overpriced hardware that wasn't much good compared to the equivalent you could get from IBM (we did this, 2 pedestal servers, the IBM was 4x the computing power, cheaper, and a much better build quality). It wasn't Linux that killed them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its a good point there .
I work with a Microsoft shop but somewhere along the line they decided to support Oracle databases running on Redhat .
Since then , I 'd say the majority of our customers running Oracle have plumped for Redhat ( the others wo n't until they upgrade ) .
I wonder if Oracle will be trying to scrap this in favour of Solaris ( not OpenSolaris surely ) and charge lots of money , but I doubt any of them will migrate - migrating from Windows to Redhat makes a lot of sense , even if the cost is roughly the same overall .
Migrating to a more expensive Solaris OS probably wo n't.Sun made itself as irrelevant as anyone else , they were the Apple of the server world , selling overpriced hardware that was n't much good compared to the equivalent you could get from IBM ( we did this , 2 pedestal servers , the IBM was 4x the computing power , cheaper , and a much better build quality ) .
It was n't Linux that killed them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its a good point there.
I work with a Microsoft shop but somewhere along the line they decided to support Oracle databases running on Redhat.
Since then, I'd say the majority of our customers running Oracle have plumped for Redhat (the others won't until they upgrade).
I wonder if Oracle will be trying to scrap this in favour of Solaris (not OpenSolaris surely) and charge lots of money, but I doubt any of them will migrate - migrating from Windows to Redhat makes a lot of sense, even if the cost is roughly the same overall.
Migrating to a more expensive Solaris OS probably won't.Sun made itself as irrelevant as anyone else, they were the Apple of the server world, selling overpriced hardware that wasn't much good compared to the equivalent you could get from IBM (we did this, 2 pedestal servers, the IBM was 4x the computing power, cheaper, and a much better build quality).
It wasn't Linux that killed them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256298</id>
	<title>Re:I have a PROBLEM.</title>
	<author>tcpiplab</author>
	<datestamp>1259441580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Awesome! Maybe this means the economy is picking up! In the dotcom days tons of guys like you got hired. The problem was that, when the economy fell apart, the places that hired the don't-know-shit guys didn't lay all of them off. So some of those dummies are now in management...and they have an instinct to hire people who know as little, or less, than they know. You gotta love the corporate world. Anyway, if you intend to continue not knowing shit, then you should get into technical sales. You already have some bullshitting skills, you won't have to work as hard, and you'll make a lot of money. Just don't look at yourself in the mirror and you'll be fine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Awesome !
Maybe this means the economy is picking up !
In the dotcom days tons of guys like you got hired .
The problem was that , when the economy fell apart , the places that hired the do n't-know-shit guys did n't lay all of them off .
So some of those dummies are now in management...and they have an instinct to hire people who know as little , or less , than they know .
You got ta love the corporate world .
Anyway , if you intend to continue not knowing shit , then you should get into technical sales .
You already have some bullshitting skills , you wo n't have to work as hard , and you 'll make a lot of money .
Just do n't look at yourself in the mirror and you 'll be fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Awesome!
Maybe this means the economy is picking up!
In the dotcom days tons of guys like you got hired.
The problem was that, when the economy fell apart, the places that hired the don't-know-shit guys didn't lay all of them off.
So some of those dummies are now in management...and they have an instinct to hire people who know as little, or less, than they know.
You gotta love the corporate world.
Anyway, if you intend to continue not knowing shit, then you should get into technical sales.
You already have some bullshitting skills, you won't have to work as hard, and you'll make a lot of money.
Just don't look at yourself in the mirror and you'll be fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256812</id>
	<title>Re:Go the whole hog...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259403600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>dabbled with Plan 9 about 8 years ago . . .<br>whats new?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>dabbled with Plan 9 about 8 years ago .
. .whats new ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>dabbled with Plan 9 about 8 years ago .
. .whats new?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253576</id>
	<title>My take on this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259408280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been using FreeBSD since somewhere around 1999-2000 and I've also played around a bit with various versions of Solaris and the way I look at it is:</p><p>If you want to learn something that you can put on your resum&#233; then Solaris is probably the better choice, likewise if you want mature ZFS support, other than that I'd have to say that FreeBSD is the better choice for most people but as a long time FreeBSD user I suspect I'm quite biased, FreeBSD has always made a lot of sense to me, it's well-organized and I just happen to like the simplicity and sane layout that it has. But yeah, neither OS is Debian/Ubuntu and you'll have to learn their little peculiarities (and there's no point fighting it, trying to dump all software into<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr and making<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/local a symlink to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr because that's how your Linux distro of choice did it isn't going to fly with FreeBSD, just accept that when you install software it goes in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/local and be happy with it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).</p><p>(Yes, I once (1998-ish) saw what was a large Linux distro at the time pull that stunt)</p><p>/Mikael</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using FreeBSD since somewhere around 1999-2000 and I 've also played around a bit with various versions of Solaris and the way I look at it is : If you want to learn something that you can put on your resum   then Solaris is probably the better choice , likewise if you want mature ZFS support , other than that I 'd have to say that FreeBSD is the better choice for most people but as a long time FreeBSD user I suspect I 'm quite biased , FreeBSD has always made a lot of sense to me , it 's well-organized and I just happen to like the simplicity and sane layout that it has .
But yeah , neither OS is Debian/Ubuntu and you 'll have to learn their little peculiarities ( and there 's no point fighting it , trying to dump all software into /usr and making /usr/local a symlink to /usr because that 's how your Linux distro of choice did it is n't going to fly with FreeBSD , just accept that when you install software it goes in /usr/local and be happy with it : ) .
( Yes , I once ( 1998-ish ) saw what was a large Linux distro at the time pull that stunt ) /Mikael</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been using FreeBSD since somewhere around 1999-2000 and I've also played around a bit with various versions of Solaris and the way I look at it is:If you want to learn something that you can put on your resumé then Solaris is probably the better choice, likewise if you want mature ZFS support, other than that I'd have to say that FreeBSD is the better choice for most people but as a long time FreeBSD user I suspect I'm quite biased, FreeBSD has always made a lot of sense to me, it's well-organized and I just happen to like the simplicity and sane layout that it has.
But yeah, neither OS is Debian/Ubuntu and you'll have to learn their little peculiarities (and there's no point fighting it, trying to dump all software into /usr and making /usr/local a symlink to /usr because that's how your Linux distro of choice did it isn't going to fly with FreeBSD, just accept that when you install software it goes in /usr/local and be happy with it :).
(Yes, I once (1998-ish) saw what was a large Linux distro at the time pull that stunt)/Mikael</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253950</id>
	<title>Re:Go the whole hog...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259415900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>try Darwin which is the base of OS X</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>try Darwin which is the base of OS X</tokentext>
<sentencetext>try Darwin which is the base of OS X</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253562</id>
	<title>Article is trollbait</title>
	<author>bmo</author>
	<datestamp>1259408100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Goddamnit, is this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/g/?</p><p>&gt; gentoo, gobo, arch</p><p>You have been trolled.</p><p>&gt; compiling from source no matter how little performance boost it gives</p><p>Still trolled by gentoo -O flag weenies, aren't we?</p><p>&gt; using Debian</p><p>This is a good choice</p><p>&gt; Switch to OpenSolaris</p><p>No, just no, not unless you have a specific reason to. As a desktop? They don't call it Slowaris for nothing, y'know.</p><p>&gt; Mature ZFS</p><p>Well, it is Sun, after all.  They did write the bloody thing.  But don't forget that ZFS has its own overhead, so if you don't have a use for it, you're wasting your time and your system resources.</p><p>&gt; FreeBSD</p><p>Why?  Not unless you have a specific reason to.  You're already running a stable operating system that works on your hardware.  Have you looked to see if the drivers you want are available?  If it supports your hardware, go for it.  If not, why put yourself through hell?</p><p>&gt; Corporation vs not-for-profit</p><p>Doesn't make any difference, bro, unless you are trying to start a flamewar.  It either does what you want or it's crap.</p><p>8/10, would rage again.</p><p>--<br>BMO</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Goddamnit , is this /g/ ? &gt; gentoo , gobo , archYou have been trolled. &gt; compiling from source no matter how little performance boost it givesStill trolled by gentoo -O flag weenies , are n't we ? &gt; using DebianThis is a good choice &gt; Switch to OpenSolarisNo , just no , not unless you have a specific reason to .
As a desktop ?
They do n't call it Slowaris for nothing , y'know. &gt; Mature ZFSWell , it is Sun , after all .
They did write the bloody thing .
But do n't forget that ZFS has its own overhead , so if you do n't have a use for it , you 're wasting your time and your system resources. &gt; FreeBSDWhy ?
Not unless you have a specific reason to .
You 're already running a stable operating system that works on your hardware .
Have you looked to see if the drivers you want are available ?
If it supports your hardware , go for it .
If not , why put yourself through hell ? &gt; Corporation vs not-for-profitDoes n't make any difference , bro , unless you are trying to start a flamewar .
It either does what you want or it 's crap.8/10 , would rage again.--BMO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Goddamnit, is this /g/?&gt; gentoo, gobo, archYou have been trolled.&gt; compiling from source no matter how little performance boost it givesStill trolled by gentoo -O flag weenies, aren't we?&gt; using DebianThis is a good choice&gt; Switch to OpenSolarisNo, just no, not unless you have a specific reason to.
As a desktop?
They don't call it Slowaris for nothing, y'know.&gt; Mature ZFSWell, it is Sun, after all.
They did write the bloody thing.
But don't forget that ZFS has its own overhead, so if you don't have a use for it, you're wasting your time and your system resources.&gt; FreeBSDWhy?
Not unless you have a specific reason to.
You're already running a stable operating system that works on your hardware.
Have you looked to see if the drivers you want are available?
If it supports your hardware, go for it.
If not, why put yourself through hell?&gt; Corporation vs not-for-profitDoesn't make any difference, bro, unless you are trying to start a flamewar.
It either does what you want or it's crap.8/10, would rage again.--BMO</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253644</id>
	<title>FreeBSD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259409720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've used both as my primary desktop (each for a few months) and if you want to try something new, go with FreeBSD.  OpenSolaris felt like GNU/Solaris, which it mostly is, with a few Sun coded things (I think it was libc and a few more of the libraries).  FreeBSD was all about fine control:  I found myself wanting to recompile the kernel and playing with rc scripts and asking my OpenBSD-using friend so many questions he demanded I switch to Linux:-D<br>

Plus, when you've spent a whole night figuring out why KDE won't compile correctly on FreeBSD....it feels good, like you've accomplished something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've used both as my primary desktop ( each for a few months ) and if you want to try something new , go with FreeBSD .
OpenSolaris felt like GNU/Solaris , which it mostly is , with a few Sun coded things ( I think it was libc and a few more of the libraries ) .
FreeBSD was all about fine control : I found myself wanting to recompile the kernel and playing with rc scripts and asking my OpenBSD-using friend so many questions he demanded I switch to Linux : -D Plus , when you 've spent a whole night figuring out why KDE wo n't compile correctly on FreeBSD....it feels good , like you 've accomplished something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've used both as my primary desktop (each for a few months) and if you want to try something new, go with FreeBSD.
OpenSolaris felt like GNU/Solaris, which it mostly is, with a few Sun coded things (I think it was libc and a few more of the libraries).
FreeBSD was all about fine control:  I found myself wanting to recompile the kernel and playing with rc scripts and asking my OpenBSD-using friend so many questions he demanded I switch to Linux:-D

Plus, when you've spent a whole night figuring out why KDE won't compile correctly on FreeBSD....it feels good, like you've accomplished something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256692</id>
	<title>Re:I have a PROBLEM.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259402160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Roll a Palladin or Druid and everyone will invite you to raids. Especially if you go heals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Roll a Palladin or Druid and everyone will invite you to raids .
Especially if you go heals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Roll a Palladin or Druid and everyone will invite you to raids.
Especially if you go heals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30257118</id>
	<title>Both are good OS's</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259408040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've used (and am using) both OpenSolaris and FreeBSD (with OpenBSD in an appliance role).  Both are exceptionally good OS's, and there is a lot of "sharing" between them--ZFS, DTrace, jails/zones, etc.  As for which one I'd choose in a pinch, it would depend upon the requirements.  FreeBSD has a much better community via ports at this time.  OpenSolaris--while there--just doesn't seem to be as handy, complete or easy.  If one is coming from the Solaris world, OpenSolaris would have a much lower learning curve, but FreeBSD isn't that far behind.  FreeBSD also does have Linux binary compatability, and am not certain about OpenSolaris.<br>Commercial software will probably be a wash, with OpenSolaris winning by a nose.  Desktop--haven't used OpenSolaris in such a role, but have FreeBSD and don't really like it as much.</p><p>For those concerned about Oracle's position on OpenSolaris post-merger, my guess is that Oracle will keep it and begin a migration away from Linux as their core open source OS.  After all, much better to be gatekeeper for the kernel than one of hundreds in Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've used ( and am using ) both OpenSolaris and FreeBSD ( with OpenBSD in an appliance role ) .
Both are exceptionally good OS 's , and there is a lot of " sharing " between them--ZFS , DTrace , jails/zones , etc .
As for which one I 'd choose in a pinch , it would depend upon the requirements .
FreeBSD has a much better community via ports at this time .
OpenSolaris--while there--just does n't seem to be as handy , complete or easy .
If one is coming from the Solaris world , OpenSolaris would have a much lower learning curve , but FreeBSD is n't that far behind .
FreeBSD also does have Linux binary compatability , and am not certain about OpenSolaris.Commercial software will probably be a wash , with OpenSolaris winning by a nose .
Desktop--have n't used OpenSolaris in such a role , but have FreeBSD and do n't really like it as much.For those concerned about Oracle 's position on OpenSolaris post-merger , my guess is that Oracle will keep it and begin a migration away from Linux as their core open source OS .
After all , much better to be gatekeeper for the kernel than one of hundreds in Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've used (and am using) both OpenSolaris and FreeBSD (with OpenBSD in an appliance role).
Both are exceptionally good OS's, and there is a lot of "sharing" between them--ZFS, DTrace, jails/zones, etc.
As for which one I'd choose in a pinch, it would depend upon the requirements.
FreeBSD has a much better community via ports at this time.
OpenSolaris--while there--just doesn't seem to be as handy, complete or easy.
If one is coming from the Solaris world, OpenSolaris would have a much lower learning curve, but FreeBSD isn't that far behind.
FreeBSD also does have Linux binary compatability, and am not certain about OpenSolaris.Commercial software will probably be a wash, with OpenSolaris winning by a nose.
Desktop--haven't used OpenSolaris in such a role, but have FreeBSD and don't really like it as much.For those concerned about Oracle's position on OpenSolaris post-merger, my guess is that Oracle will keep it and begin a migration away from Linux as their core open source OS.
After all, much better to be gatekeeper for the kernel than one of hundreds in Linux.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30270304</id>
	<title>Why not Linux</title>
	<author>assertation</author>
	<datestamp>1259598780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't want to start a religious war, but why not Linux?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want to start a religious war , but why not Linux ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want to start a religious war, but why not Linux?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256912</id>
	<title>Re:FreeBSD ZFS kernel panics?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259405040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anecdotally,</p><p>The FreeBSD implementation has had some big changes (or maybe I should phrase that "fixes") and isn't the fragile thing it used to be when that documentation was written. I can confirm that running a big rsync used to panic my machine and that the problem appears to be fixed; it no longer blinks.</p><p>Also, as a sidenote, go read the OpenSolaris mailing lists for a bit -- they had ZFS panic issues related to intent cache memory early on. I'd grab citations myself but since I'm typing on a 3" screen I'll just say this: no kernel copes well with running out of memory... Sun's was no better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anecdotally,The FreeBSD implementation has had some big changes ( or maybe I should phrase that " fixes " ) and is n't the fragile thing it used to be when that documentation was written .
I can confirm that running a big rsync used to panic my machine and that the problem appears to be fixed ; it no longer blinks.Also , as a sidenote , go read the OpenSolaris mailing lists for a bit -- they had ZFS panic issues related to intent cache memory early on .
I 'd grab citations myself but since I 'm typing on a 3 " screen I 'll just say this : no kernel copes well with running out of memory... Sun 's was no better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anecdotally,The FreeBSD implementation has had some big changes (or maybe I should phrase that "fixes") and isn't the fragile thing it used to be when that documentation was written.
I can confirm that running a big rsync used to panic my machine and that the problem appears to be fixed; it no longer blinks.Also, as a sidenote, go read the OpenSolaris mailing lists for a bit -- they had ZFS panic issues related to intent cache memory early on.
I'd grab citations myself but since I'm typing on a 3" screen I'll just say this: no kernel copes well with running out of memory... Sun's was no better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253664</id>
	<title>OpenSolaris is desperate</title>
	<author>1s44c</author>
	<datestamp>1259409960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OpenSolaris is Sun's desperate attempt to keep up with Linux. Sun had a great history but they just aren't as relevant anymore, there is little they have that redhat ( for example ) don't. Solaris just isn't in a position to make any kind of comeback at this point.</p><p>It's pretty sad that Linux has taken market share from good companies like Sun at least as much as Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OpenSolaris is Sun 's desperate attempt to keep up with Linux .
Sun had a great history but they just are n't as relevant anymore , there is little they have that redhat ( for example ) do n't .
Solaris just is n't in a position to make any kind of comeback at this point.It 's pretty sad that Linux has taken market share from good companies like Sun at least as much as Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OpenSolaris is Sun's desperate attempt to keep up with Linux.
Sun had a great history but they just aren't as relevant anymore, there is little they have that redhat ( for example ) don't.
Solaris just isn't in a position to make any kind of comeback at this point.It's pretty sad that Linux has taken market share from good companies like Sun at least as much as Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254690</id>
	<title>Re:Article is trollbait</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259425620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1459590&amp;cid=30253562" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">#30253562</a> [slashdot.org]<br>&gt; Implying Slashdot isn't<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/g/ without implying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext># 30253562 [ slashdot.org ] &gt; Implying Slashdot is n't /g/ without implying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>#30253562 [slashdot.org]&gt; Implying Slashdot isn't /g/ without implying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254894</id>
	<title>Re:Only copyleft is "commie", BSD isn't.</title>
	<author>rtfa-troll</author>
	<datestamp>1259427900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Interix was created solely for the reason of destroying UNIX</p></div><div><blockquote><div><p>Do you have any proof?</p></div> </blockquote></div> </blockquote><p>You ask as if I was accusing Microsoft of being especially evil.  This isn't another big secret like the the way they <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091125232420218" title="groklaw.net">carefully arrange APIs to disadvantage other companies that develop for Windows</a> [groklaw.net].  In fact let's just ask them.

</p><p>from <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2000/feb00/interixpr.mspx" title="microsoft.com">an MS press release&gt;:</a> [microsoft.com]</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It allows users with UNIX environments to take advantage of the benefits of the Windows environment without having to rewrite critical applications. In addition, users can immediately use the full Windows-based application development environment to develop native Win32&#174;  API-based applications.</p></div><p>In other words we'd like UNIX customers to move to Windows and abandon UNIX.

</p><p>from the same MS press release:</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Interix 2.2 brings Microsoft customers one step closer to its vision of a <strong>single desktop computer for all uses</strong> by providing a complete enterprise platform to run all Windows-based, UNIX and Internet applications.</p></div><p>In other words, we'd like you to <strong>only</strong> use Windows.

</p><p>In fact there is nothing wrong with this <em>as such</em>.  The normal way the free market works is by competition in which one company tries to destroy another companies products by getting people to use their own.  What could easily be wrong is if they were, for example, ensuring some of their own software in a market where they had used illegal tactics to become a dominant player were only available on their own platform so that their competitors could not try to do the same to them.

</p><p>It interests me why the MS astroturfers are so touchy about this topic?  Could it be that MS has something to hide on this topic?</p><blockquote><div><p>What would you consider the <a href="http://www.suacommunity.com/SUA.aspx" title="suacommunity.com">SUA community</a> [suacommunity.com]?</p></div> </blockquote><p>People who are neither working for the good of the "Open Source Community" nor Microsoft?  Possibly, in part, Useful idiots?  People who would be better to spend their time improving Debian or CentOS?  Is Microsoft contributing or not?  I know little of this and would be honestly interested to analyse it.</p><blockquote><div><p>I think this is the target audience: organizations who want to run UNIX applications on Windows in a supported way.  It's probably not indented for people who want a complete GNU system.  (Recent packages ship with GCC and GDB, but otherwise come with BSD or SVR4-derived utilities.)</p></div> </blockquote><p>Agreed.</p><blockquote><div><p>Surely the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL\_v.\_BSDi" title="wikipedia.org">BSD lawsuit</a> [wikipedia.org] had something to do with Linux taking off instead of BSD?</p></div> </blockquote><p>That is what many people say.  However the SCO probably lawsuit hasn't really had that much influence on Linux.  I'm not convinced that it's true. Certainly this doesn't apply to Minix or many of the other BSD situations.  It certainly doesn't explain the success of Mozilla (copyleft) over Mosaic (not).</p><blockquote><div><p>[...] But some organizations that do use Linux and GNU software don't contribute much back - consider many of the consumer electronics devices that run GPL software, such as consumer broadband routers.  Some provide the source as required by the GPL, but not much else  - for example, the Linux source used might be available, but the wifi driver might be a binary module.</p></div></blockquote><p>The source they do provide means that any major feature they implement in Linux its self is available to others.  That's key.  That means that competitors who release features into Linux can do so with the knowledge that major improvements to their features will be available to copy back.

</p><p>As far as the binary module thing goes; this is an exception to the GPL introduced by Linus Torvalds.  Almost certainly if the kernel people didn't make this exeption things would be better.  This is hardly an argument against copyleft.</p><blockquote><div><p>  These organizations don't really stay in the community <i>or</i> fork; they provide the GPL source code for whatever they use, including the modifications.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm not really sure what "community" means in this case.  If they provide back their changes then they are in a sense "in" the community.  If they don't take advantage of community support and discussion that's their disadvantage.</p><blockquote><div><p>These organizations use GPL software because it's cheaper; their "contributions" to the community might amount to being mostly useless to anyone, or only useful to those who want to hack the devices the software runs on.  What exactly am I going to do with the GPL source code used  by my TV, for example?</p></div></blockquote><p>You?  Probably nothing.  Another TV manufacturer?  Know that they are getting a tested component which does work for real TV use.  The bug fixes alone after testing in a multimedia system are probably useful.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interix was created solely for the reason of destroying UNIXDo you have any proof ?
You ask as if I was accusing Microsoft of being especially evil .
This is n't another big secret like the the way they carefully arrange APIs to disadvantage other companies that develop for Windows [ groklaw.net ] .
In fact let 's just ask them .
from an MS press release &gt; : [ microsoft.com ] It allows users with UNIX environments to take advantage of the benefits of the Windows environment without having to rewrite critical applications .
In addition , users can immediately use the full Windows-based application development environment to develop native Win32   API-based applications.In other words we 'd like UNIX customers to move to Windows and abandon UNIX .
from the same MS press release : Interix 2.2 brings Microsoft customers one step closer to its vision of a single desktop computer for all uses by providing a complete enterprise platform to run all Windows-based , UNIX and Internet applications.In other words , we 'd like you to only use Windows .
In fact there is nothing wrong with this as such .
The normal way the free market works is by competition in which one company tries to destroy another companies products by getting people to use their own .
What could easily be wrong is if they were , for example , ensuring some of their own software in a market where they had used illegal tactics to become a dominant player were only available on their own platform so that their competitors could not try to do the same to them .
It interests me why the MS astroturfers are so touchy about this topic ?
Could it be that MS has something to hide on this topic ? What would you consider the SUA community [ suacommunity.com ] ?
People who are neither working for the good of the " Open Source Community " nor Microsoft ?
Possibly , in part , Useful idiots ?
People who would be better to spend their time improving Debian or CentOS ?
Is Microsoft contributing or not ?
I know little of this and would be honestly interested to analyse it.I think this is the target audience : organizations who want to run UNIX applications on Windows in a supported way .
It 's probably not indented for people who want a complete GNU system .
( Recent packages ship with GCC and GDB , but otherwise come with BSD or SVR4-derived utilities .
) Agreed.Surely the BSD lawsuit [ wikipedia.org ] had something to do with Linux taking off instead of BSD ?
That is what many people say .
However the SCO probably lawsuit has n't really had that much influence on Linux .
I 'm not convinced that it 's true .
Certainly this does n't apply to Minix or many of the other BSD situations .
It certainly does n't explain the success of Mozilla ( copyleft ) over Mosaic ( not ) . [ .. .
] But some organizations that do use Linux and GNU software do n't contribute much back - consider many of the consumer electronics devices that run GPL software , such as consumer broadband routers .
Some provide the source as required by the GPL , but not much else - for example , the Linux source used might be available , but the wifi driver might be a binary module.The source they do provide means that any major feature they implement in Linux its self is available to others .
That 's key .
That means that competitors who release features into Linux can do so with the knowledge that major improvements to their features will be available to copy back .
As far as the binary module thing goes ; this is an exception to the GPL introduced by Linus Torvalds .
Almost certainly if the kernel people did n't make this exeption things would be better .
This is hardly an argument against copyleft .
These organizations do n't really stay in the community or fork ; they provide the GPL source code for whatever they use , including the modifications.I 'm not really sure what " community " means in this case .
If they provide back their changes then they are in a sense " in " the community .
If they do n't take advantage of community support and discussion that 's their disadvantage.These organizations use GPL software because it 's cheaper ; their " contributions " to the community might amount to being mostly useless to anyone , or only useful to those who want to hack the devices the software runs on .
What exactly am I going to do with the GPL source code used by my TV , for example ? You ?
Probably nothing .
Another TV manufacturer ?
Know that they are getting a tested component which does work for real TV use .
The bug fixes alone after testing in a multimedia system are probably useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interix was created solely for the reason of destroying UNIXDo you have any proof?
You ask as if I was accusing Microsoft of being especially evil.
This isn't another big secret like the the way they carefully arrange APIs to disadvantage other companies that develop for Windows [groklaw.net].
In fact let's just ask them.
from an MS press release&gt;: [microsoft.com]It allows users with UNIX environments to take advantage of the benefits of the Windows environment without having to rewrite critical applications.
In addition, users can immediately use the full Windows-based application development environment to develop native Win32®  API-based applications.In other words we'd like UNIX customers to move to Windows and abandon UNIX.
from the same MS press release: Interix 2.2 brings Microsoft customers one step closer to its vision of a single desktop computer for all uses by providing a complete enterprise platform to run all Windows-based, UNIX and Internet applications.In other words, we'd like you to only use Windows.
In fact there is nothing wrong with this as such.
The normal way the free market works is by competition in which one company tries to destroy another companies products by getting people to use their own.
What could easily be wrong is if they were, for example, ensuring some of their own software in a market where they had used illegal tactics to become a dominant player were only available on their own platform so that their competitors could not try to do the same to them.
It interests me why the MS astroturfers are so touchy about this topic?
Could it be that MS has something to hide on this topic?What would you consider the SUA community [suacommunity.com]?
People who are neither working for the good of the "Open Source Community" nor Microsoft?
Possibly, in part, Useful idiots?
People who would be better to spend their time improving Debian or CentOS?
Is Microsoft contributing or not?
I know little of this and would be honestly interested to analyse it.I think this is the target audience: organizations who want to run UNIX applications on Windows in a supported way.
It's probably not indented for people who want a complete GNU system.
(Recent packages ship with GCC and GDB, but otherwise come with BSD or SVR4-derived utilities.
) Agreed.Surely the BSD lawsuit [wikipedia.org] had something to do with Linux taking off instead of BSD?
That is what many people say.
However the SCO probably lawsuit hasn't really had that much influence on Linux.
I'm not convinced that it's true.
Certainly this doesn't apply to Minix or many of the other BSD situations.
It certainly doesn't explain the success of Mozilla (copyleft) over Mosaic (not).[...
] But some organizations that do use Linux and GNU software don't contribute much back - consider many of the consumer electronics devices that run GPL software, such as consumer broadband routers.
Some provide the source as required by the GPL, but not much else  - for example, the Linux source used might be available, but the wifi driver might be a binary module.The source they do provide means that any major feature they implement in Linux its self is available to others.
That's key.
That means that competitors who release features into Linux can do so with the knowledge that major improvements to their features will be available to copy back.
As far as the binary module thing goes; this is an exception to the GPL introduced by Linus Torvalds.
Almost certainly if the kernel people didn't make this exeption things would be better.
This is hardly an argument against copyleft.
These organizations don't really stay in the community or fork; they provide the GPL source code for whatever they use, including the modifications.I'm not really sure what "community" means in this case.
If they provide back their changes then they are in a sense "in" the community.
If they don't take advantage of community support and discussion that's their disadvantage.These organizations use GPL software because it's cheaper; their "contributions" to the community might amount to being mostly useless to anyone, or only useful to those who want to hack the devices the software runs on.
What exactly am I going to do with the GPL source code used  by my TV, for example?You?
Probably nothing.
Another TV manufacturer?
Know that they are getting a tested component which does work for real TV use.
The bug fixes alone after testing in a multimedia system are probably useful.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254566</id>
	<title>Re:Go the whole hog...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259424180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not likely to happen anytime soon. Face it, OS distributions are the future because they allow for the replacing of various systems easily. But no way would a OS that re-implements everything get ahead, it would forever be playing catchup.</p><p>The Linux distribution model is great. If you dont like something, you can just replace it. Over time, it may be possible to move towards new idealized OSs by evolving the various OS systems.</p><p>Right now, in fact, the only thing hindering Linux is the lack of choice in kernels. If you could replace Linux itself with a new kernel that implements a diffrent OS archetecture other then direct UNIX, then one can start moving towards new ideas. Right now, the only things changing are userland, not the core of the OS. More choice in this one area and I believe that evolution could do as you desire, and probably in less amount of time given more people would be unknowningly taking part (to programers, it would just be a matter of cross-OS compatibility after all).</p><p>(note, by choice of kernels, I dont mean more *nix kernels, I mean more kernels that are very very diffrent. Like having a Windows-like kernel: sure, it would have to support POSIX calls for compatibility, but it could also do new things no UNIX-like would ever do; not sure what exactly, but then again, I'm not implementing any kernels).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not likely to happen anytime soon .
Face it , OS distributions are the future because they allow for the replacing of various systems easily .
But no way would a OS that re-implements everything get ahead , it would forever be playing catchup.The Linux distribution model is great .
If you dont like something , you can just replace it .
Over time , it may be possible to move towards new idealized OSs by evolving the various OS systems.Right now , in fact , the only thing hindering Linux is the lack of choice in kernels .
If you could replace Linux itself with a new kernel that implements a diffrent OS archetecture other then direct UNIX , then one can start moving towards new ideas .
Right now , the only things changing are userland , not the core of the OS .
More choice in this one area and I believe that evolution could do as you desire , and probably in less amount of time given more people would be unknowningly taking part ( to programers , it would just be a matter of cross-OS compatibility after all ) .
( note , by choice of kernels , I dont mean more * nix kernels , I mean more kernels that are very very diffrent .
Like having a Windows-like kernel : sure , it would have to support POSIX calls for compatibility , but it could also do new things no UNIX-like would ever do ; not sure what exactly , but then again , I 'm not implementing any kernels ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not likely to happen anytime soon.
Face it, OS distributions are the future because they allow for the replacing of various systems easily.
But no way would a OS that re-implements everything get ahead, it would forever be playing catchup.The Linux distribution model is great.
If you dont like something, you can just replace it.
Over time, it may be possible to move towards new idealized OSs by evolving the various OS systems.Right now, in fact, the only thing hindering Linux is the lack of choice in kernels.
If you could replace Linux itself with a new kernel that implements a diffrent OS archetecture other then direct UNIX, then one can start moving towards new ideas.
Right now, the only things changing are userland, not the core of the OS.
More choice in this one area and I believe that evolution could do as you desire, and probably in less amount of time given more people would be unknowningly taking part (to programers, it would just be a matter of cross-OS compatibility after all).
(note, by choice of kernels, I dont mean more *nix kernels, I mean more kernels that are very very diffrent.
Like having a Windows-like kernel: sure, it would have to support POSIX calls for compatibility, but it could also do new things no UNIX-like would ever do; not sure what exactly, but then again, I'm not implementing any kernels).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254824</id>
	<title>Re:Dual boot.</title>
	<author>codeguy007</author>
	<datestamp>1259427240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or you could use Vmware or VirtualBox and run both at the same time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or you could use Vmware or VirtualBox and run both at the same time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or you could use Vmware or VirtualBox and run both at the same time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253538</id>
	<title>OpenSolaris is more supported</title>
	<author>vanilla\_face</author>
	<datestamp>1259407800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>When it comes to things like flash, acroread, nvidia drivers, fluendo (multimedia plugins, DVD Player), skype etc being supported, having the commercial entity behind OpenSolaris does seem to help...I think behind the scenes Sun offer some sort of incentive to these companies to support OpenSolaris.

I do like that FreeBSD is backed by a foundation though, it is much more reassuring to an open source project to know that its backing entity wont dump them the next day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When it comes to things like flash , acroread , nvidia drivers , fluendo ( multimedia plugins , DVD Player ) , skype etc being supported , having the commercial entity behind OpenSolaris does seem to help...I think behind the scenes Sun offer some sort of incentive to these companies to support OpenSolaris .
I do like that FreeBSD is backed by a foundation though , it is much more reassuring to an open source project to know that its backing entity wont dump them the next day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When it comes to things like flash, acroread, nvidia drivers, fluendo (multimedia plugins, DVD Player), skype etc being supported, having the commercial entity behind OpenSolaris does seem to help...I think behind the scenes Sun offer some sort of incentive to these companies to support OpenSolaris.
I do like that FreeBSD is backed by a foundation though, it is much more reassuring to an open source project to know that its backing entity wont dump them the next day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253788</id>
	<title>Re:Performance boost?</title>
	<author>Bogtha</author>
	<datestamp>1259412840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>Why would code compiled on your system run any faster than <strong>the same code</strong> on someone else's system?</i> </p></div> </blockquote><p>
Emphasis mine.  You are making an unwarranted assumption - that it <em>is</em> the same code.  When compiling a port, you can often set flags to change which functionality is compiled into the port.  For example, if you are running a server, you can specify that support for X11 should be omitted.  Generic binaries can't be as flexible.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would code compiled on your system run any faster than the same code on someone else 's system ?
Emphasis mine .
You are making an unwarranted assumption - that it is the same code .
When compiling a port , you can often set flags to change which functionality is compiled into the port .
For example , if you are running a server , you can specify that support for X11 should be omitted .
Generic binaries ca n't be as flexible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Why would code compiled on your system run any faster than the same code on someone else's system?
Emphasis mine.
You are making an unwarranted assumption - that it is the same code.
When compiling a port, you can often set flags to change which functionality is compiled into the port.
For example, if you are running a server, you can specify that support for X11 should be omitted.
Generic binaries can't be as flexible.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30257046</id>
	<title>You should use Windows, and I'm serious.</title>
	<author>Zlurg</author>
	<datestamp>1259407020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's why:

You're asking for someone else's opinion on what OS to use, and I don't care how you slice it, you're going to get more pro-Windoze opinions than anything else.  If you limit your audience to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. then all you're doing is wearing the required uniform of a nonconformist and robbing yourself of the very decision making power you portend in your post, making you clueless, in which case you should run Windows because you can't handle the root.

You have put the cart before the horse and remanded it to the duty of scapegoat messenger, because you lack the foresight to think about what mission it is that you want this computer to do.  You want to be on a winning team and say YOUR OS is the one most Slashdotters recommended.  You're insecure and seek the approval of a controlled majority, therefore you should use Windows.

You know how to spell ZFS but you clearly can't appreciate it because you differentiate the two sample OSes by revision number.  Therefore you should run Windows, which doesn't have ZFS, and therefore you will not be burdened by silly minor revision numbers.

You are comparing an apple and an orange, and you lack the creative power to use an Apple for whatever this bizarre computer role is, therefore you deserve a lemon: Windows.

Get your ass to Fry's, you miserable piece of shit, and buy the goddamned OS that will give you a phone number to call when you can't figure out how the fuck to operate the program you buy next summer based on whatever will be hot at that time.  You are a high-maintenance burden on the FOSS community and someone should be paid for putting up with your talking-the-talk from the wheelchair you need someone else to push.

Idiot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's why : You 're asking for someone else 's opinion on what OS to use , and I do n't care how you slice it , you 're going to get more pro-Windoze opinions than anything else .
If you limit your audience to / .
then all you 're doing is wearing the required uniform of a nonconformist and robbing yourself of the very decision making power you portend in your post , making you clueless , in which case you should run Windows because you ca n't handle the root .
You have put the cart before the horse and remanded it to the duty of scapegoat messenger , because you lack the foresight to think about what mission it is that you want this computer to do .
You want to be on a winning team and say YOUR OS is the one most Slashdotters recommended .
You 're insecure and seek the approval of a controlled majority , therefore you should use Windows .
You know how to spell ZFS but you clearly ca n't appreciate it because you differentiate the two sample OSes by revision number .
Therefore you should run Windows , which does n't have ZFS , and therefore you will not be burdened by silly minor revision numbers .
You are comparing an apple and an orange , and you lack the creative power to use an Apple for whatever this bizarre computer role is , therefore you deserve a lemon : Windows .
Get your ass to Fry 's , you miserable piece of shit , and buy the goddamned OS that will give you a phone number to call when you ca n't figure out how the fuck to operate the program you buy next summer based on whatever will be hot at that time .
You are a high-maintenance burden on the FOSS community and someone should be paid for putting up with your talking-the-talk from the wheelchair you need someone else to push .
Idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's why:

You're asking for someone else's opinion on what OS to use, and I don't care how you slice it, you're going to get more pro-Windoze opinions than anything else.
If you limit your audience to /.
then all you're doing is wearing the required uniform of a nonconformist and robbing yourself of the very decision making power you portend in your post, making you clueless, in which case you should run Windows because you can't handle the root.
You have put the cart before the horse and remanded it to the duty of scapegoat messenger, because you lack the foresight to think about what mission it is that you want this computer to do.
You want to be on a winning team and say YOUR OS is the one most Slashdotters recommended.
You're insecure and seek the approval of a controlled majority, therefore you should use Windows.
You know how to spell ZFS but you clearly can't appreciate it because you differentiate the two sample OSes by revision number.
Therefore you should run Windows, which doesn't have ZFS, and therefore you will not be burdened by silly minor revision numbers.
You are comparing an apple and an orange, and you lack the creative power to use an Apple for whatever this bizarre computer role is, therefore you deserve a lemon: Windows.
Get your ass to Fry's, you miserable piece of shit, and buy the goddamned OS that will give you a phone number to call when you can't figure out how the fuck to operate the program you buy next summer based on whatever will be hot at that time.
You are a high-maintenance burden on the FOSS community and someone should be paid for putting up with your talking-the-talk from the wheelchair you need someone else to push.
Idiot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254470</id>
	<title>Re:Article is trollbait</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1259423100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're not trying hard enough. Isn't virtualbox available for both OSes?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're not trying hard enough .
Is n't virtualbox available for both OSes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're not trying hard enough.
Isn't virtualbox available for both OSes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255896</id>
	<title>Nexenta</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1259437980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You probably want Nexenta.  Only slightly behind OpenSolaris in terms of the Solaris kernel.  Ubuntu userland, ZFS/GRUB-integrated apt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You probably want Nexenta .
Only slightly behind OpenSolaris in terms of the Solaris kernel .
Ubuntu userland , ZFS/GRUB-integrated apt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You probably want Nexenta.
Only slightly behind OpenSolaris in terms of the Solaris kernel.
Ubuntu userland, ZFS/GRUB-integrated apt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254014</id>
	<title>both</title>
	<author>smash</author>
	<datestamp>1259416920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Test each in a VM and see what you think.  I've run Solaris x86 back in the day (2.6) and compared to linux or bsd - its slow.  It can handle load gracefully without stumbling, but if you're running a benchmark or relying on high throughput for fairly serialized tasks - its not really what its intended for.
<p>
If you need the features (or paid sun support) though, go for it - but FreeBSD has most of the feature set these days and is much faster.  Ports are also way easier than obtaining package X from source and then running into whatever undiscovered bugs exist in that particular package under opensolaris becuase you happen to be the first one to actually run it on that platform.
</p><p>
It REALLY depends on your intended purpose as to which OS is best - the only one who can really answer that, whilst taking into account your previous history, skillset andn willingness to learn/fiddle is you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Test each in a VM and see what you think .
I 've run Solaris x86 back in the day ( 2.6 ) and compared to linux or bsd - its slow .
It can handle load gracefully without stumbling , but if you 're running a benchmark or relying on high throughput for fairly serialized tasks - its not really what its intended for .
If you need the features ( or paid sun support ) though , go for it - but FreeBSD has most of the feature set these days and is much faster .
Ports are also way easier than obtaining package X from source and then running into whatever undiscovered bugs exist in that particular package under opensolaris becuase you happen to be the first one to actually run it on that platform .
It REALLY depends on your intended purpose as to which OS is best - the only one who can really answer that , whilst taking into account your previous history , skillset andn willingness to learn/fiddle is you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Test each in a VM and see what you think.
I've run Solaris x86 back in the day (2.6) and compared to linux or bsd - its slow.
It can handle load gracefully without stumbling, but if you're running a benchmark or relying on high throughput for fairly serialized tasks - its not really what its intended for.
If you need the features (or paid sun support) though, go for it - but FreeBSD has most of the feature set these days and is much faster.
Ports are also way easier than obtaining package X from source and then running into whatever undiscovered bugs exist in that particular package under opensolaris becuase you happen to be the first one to actually run it on that platform.
It REALLY depends on your intended purpose as to which OS is best - the only one who can really answer that, whilst taking into account your previous history, skillset andn willingness to learn/fiddle is you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253702</id>
	<title>Re:Performance boost?</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1259410980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I understand it, though the x86 instruction set is the standard, there are</p><p>1- optional elements to it: MMX, SSE1/2/3/4... I assume one-size-fits-all code either shuns these subsets, or branches. Both cases diminish performance.</p><p>2- Various underlying micro-architectures. So code compiled specifically for one will perform better than a generic compile: cache sizes/alignment, register count/swap...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I understand it , though the x86 instruction set is the standard , there are1- optional elements to it : MMX , SSE1/2/3/4... I assume one-size-fits-all code either shuns these subsets , or branches .
Both cases diminish performance.2- Various underlying micro-architectures .
So code compiled specifically for one will perform better than a generic compile : cache sizes/alignment , register count/swap.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I understand it, though the x86 instruction set is the standard, there are1- optional elements to it: MMX, SSE1/2/3/4... I assume one-size-fits-all code either shuns these subsets, or branches.
Both cases diminish performance.2- Various underlying micro-architectures.
So code compiled specifically for one will perform better than a generic compile: cache sizes/alignment, register count/swap...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254332</id>
	<title>Re:Go the whole hog...</title>
	<author>hot soldering iron</author>
	<datestamp>1259421600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, that would depend upon what role this OS is going to play. Server? He did mention he liked OpenSolaris enterprise tools. Desktop? The Ports Collection opens up a lot of compatible linux software. Do you need a semi-truck or a motorcycle? But you also left out <a href="http://web.syllable.org/pages/index.html" title="syllable.org">Syllable</a> [syllable.org], a linux/BeOS hybrid, in server and desktop edition, <a href="http://www.freedos.org/" title="freedos.org">FreeDOS</a> [freedos.org] for those nostalgic moments, or <a href="http://www.menuetos.net/" title="menuetos.net">MenuetOS</a> [menuetos.net] for when you really want to get your freak on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , that would depend upon what role this OS is going to play .
Server ? He did mention he liked OpenSolaris enterprise tools .
Desktop ? The Ports Collection opens up a lot of compatible linux software .
Do you need a semi-truck or a motorcycle ?
But you also left out Syllable [ syllable.org ] , a linux/BeOS hybrid , in server and desktop edition , FreeDOS [ freedos.org ] for those nostalgic moments , or MenuetOS [ menuetos.net ] for when you really want to get your freak on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, that would depend upon what role this OS is going to play.
Server? He did mention he liked OpenSolaris enterprise tools.
Desktop? The Ports Collection opens up a lot of compatible linux software.
Do you need a semi-truck or a motorcycle?
But you also left out Syllable [syllable.org], a linux/BeOS hybrid, in server and desktop edition, FreeDOS [freedos.org] for those nostalgic moments, or MenuetOS [menuetos.net] for when you really want to get your freak on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253504</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30257044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30258040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30259664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30257050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30265690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30257566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30257380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30277556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30258260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30259862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30257336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30266574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30274426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0326221_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30260874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0326221.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0326221.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0326221.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253762
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30257336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253624
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255628
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255964
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0326221.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0326221.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0326221.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0326221.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256440
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0326221.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0326221.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0326221.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253936
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254470
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255846
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255878
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30265690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0326221.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253794
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0326221.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256264
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0326221.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0326221.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253608
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0326221.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253534
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0326221.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30259862
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0326221.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253498
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0326221.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254182
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0326221.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0326221.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0326221.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30257566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0326221.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30257150
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0326221.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0326221.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253996
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0326221.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253976
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254250
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253826
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30257380
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256692
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30260874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254900
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255040
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256774
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254824
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0326221.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253864
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30257044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253674
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253950
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254138
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30257050
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253980
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30258040
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255248
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30259664
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253964
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255036
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254304
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253902
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254588
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254298
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254064
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255238
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254566
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30277556
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254622
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254526
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0326221.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30258260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30256152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0326221.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253896
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254292
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254352
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254104
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30266574
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255670
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254720
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254160
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254624
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254368
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255392
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254894
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30255068
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254778
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254722
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254798
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254796
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254234
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254748
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30274426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30254170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0326221.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0326221.30253836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
