<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_12_135209</id>
	<title>GNOME Developer Suggests Split From GNU Project</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1260627360000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>blozza2070 writes <i>"In a recent posting from Philip Van Hoof, he <a href="http://www.pwnage.ca/?p=433">suggests that GNOME split off from the GNU Project</a> and has proposed a vote. He was informed he will need 10\% of members to agree for a vote to be put forth. At the same time, David Schlesinger (on the GNOME Advisory Board) has agreed on a vote. Stormy Peters said she doesn't agree with this, but then gave everyone instructions on how to proceed with a vote. She mentioned that roughly 20 members are needed to agree."</i>
The mailing list server is timing out as of this writing, but <a href="http://www.itwire.com/content/view/29995/1090/">iTWire has the Cliff's notes</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>blozza2070 writes " In a recent posting from Philip Van Hoof , he suggests that GNOME split off from the GNU Project and has proposed a vote .
He was informed he will need 10 \ % of members to agree for a vote to be put forth .
At the same time , David Schlesinger ( on the GNOME Advisory Board ) has agreed on a vote .
Stormy Peters said she does n't agree with this , but then gave everyone instructions on how to proceed with a vote .
She mentioned that roughly 20 members are needed to agree .
" The mailing list server is timing out as of this writing , but iTWire has the Cliff 's notes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>blozza2070 writes "In a recent posting from Philip Van Hoof, he suggests that GNOME split off from the GNU Project and has proposed a vote.
He was informed he will need 10\% of members to agree for a vote to be put forth.
At the same time, David Schlesinger (on the GNOME Advisory Board) has agreed on a vote.
Stormy Peters said she doesn't agree with this, but then gave everyone instructions on how to proceed with a vote.
She mentioned that roughly 20 members are needed to agree.
"
The mailing list server is timing out as of this writing, but iTWire has the Cliff's notes.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414652</id>
	<title>Do not want Silverlight</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260638640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am glad this controversy came up because I was not following GNOME development and had no idea how hard they were working to integrate with proprietary "cross-platform technologies" like Silverlight.  To me the appeal of Linux is that it *doesn't* rely on the MS model of giving Web applications full access to the OS.  The real "benefit" to end users from ActiveX, Silverlight,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, etc is they expose the users to all kinds of Trojan horses and malware.  If GNOME has drunk the Microsoft kool-aid of doing away with any kind of application sandboxing, then to hell with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am glad this controversy came up because I was not following GNOME development and had no idea how hard they were working to integrate with proprietary " cross-platform technologies " like Silverlight .
To me the appeal of Linux is that it * does n't * rely on the MS model of giving Web applications full access to the OS .
The real " benefit " to end users from ActiveX , Silverlight , .NET , etc is they expose the users to all kinds of Trojan horses and malware .
If GNOME has drunk the Microsoft kool-aid of doing away with any kind of application sandboxing , then to hell with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am glad this controversy came up because I was not following GNOME development and had no idea how hard they were working to integrate with proprietary "cross-platform technologies" like Silverlight.
To me the appeal of Linux is that it *doesn't* rely on the MS model of giving Web applications full access to the OS.
The real "benefit" to end users from ActiveX, Silverlight, .NET, etc is they expose the users to all kinds of Trojan horses and malware.
If GNOME has drunk the Microsoft kool-aid of doing away with any kind of application sandboxing, then to hell with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414754</id>
	<title>Re:Gnome#</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1260639240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;Remember, MS can void its "promises" over<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET at any moment, the EEE is is progressing well.
<br> <br>
No, they can't.  If you make a "promise" that causes someone else to take an action, it's the same as having a contract and you can be sued.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Remember , MS can void its " promises " over .NET at any moment , the EEE is is progressing well .
No , they ca n't .
If you make a " promise " that causes someone else to take an action , it 's the same as having a contract and you can be sued .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Remember, MS can void its "promises" over .NET at any moment, the EEE is is progressing well.
No, they can't.
If you make a "promise" that causes someone else to take an action, it's the same as having a contract and you can be sued.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413922</id>
	<title>Re:Why would he suggest that?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260633060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>So in other words: the Gnome folks (those who love Microsoft technologies) is telling the FSF folks to get bent. I image Microsoft is very pleased with this new direction with Gnome. I predict in 5 years, perhaps less Microsoft will have maneuvered these short sighted individuals to accepting Microsoft to buy Gnome. By that time it will have forked and these "forward" thinking Gnome folks will have changee the license making it possible. It is unfortunate some of the Gnome folks are so blinded to not realize just the kind of manipulation they have been exposed to; it is the proverbial frog+cold water+a fire.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So in other words : the Gnome folks ( those who love Microsoft technologies ) is telling the FSF folks to get bent .
I image Microsoft is very pleased with this new direction with Gnome .
I predict in 5 years , perhaps less Microsoft will have maneuvered these short sighted individuals to accepting Microsoft to buy Gnome .
By that time it will have forked and these " forward " thinking Gnome folks will have changee the license making it possible .
It is unfortunate some of the Gnome folks are so blinded to not realize just the kind of manipulation they have been exposed to ; it is the proverbial frog + cold water + a fire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So in other words: the Gnome folks (those who love Microsoft technologies) is telling the FSF folks to get bent.
I image Microsoft is very pleased with this new direction with Gnome.
I predict in 5 years, perhaps less Microsoft will have maneuvered these short sighted individuals to accepting Microsoft to buy Gnome.
By that time it will have forked and these "forward" thinking Gnome folks will have changee the license making it possible.
It is unfortunate some of the Gnome folks are so blinded to not realize just the kind of manipulation they have been exposed to; it is the proverbial frog+cold water+a fire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30425132</id>
	<title>Re:GNOME slides further into irrelevancy.</title>
	<author>bonch</author>
	<datestamp>1260699300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too bad KDE is so horrible to use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad KDE is so horrible to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad KDE is so horrible to use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414676</id>
	<title>Re:Because?</title>
	<author>Timothy Brownawell</author>
	<datestamp>1260638760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So it has to do with Gnome refusing to flagging propietary software as such.</p></div><p>No, it has to do with them (specifically, their blog aggregator) refusing to demonize it and ban all (non-negative?) reference to it.</p><p>
Posts like <a href="http://www.ogmaciel.com/?p=771" title="ogmaciel.com">this</a> [ogmaciel.com] were apparently interpreted (by Stallman) as "promoting" proprietary software (VMWare, in this case), which led to</p><blockquote><div><p>GNOME should not provide proprietary software developers with a platform to present non-free software as a good or legitimate thing.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
and then</p><blockquote><div><p>GNOME is part of the GNU Project, and it ought to support the free software movement. The most minimal support for the free software movement is to refrain from going directly against it; that is, to avoid presenting proprietary software as legitimate.</p></div>
</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So it has to do with Gnome refusing to flagging propietary software as such.No , it has to do with them ( specifically , their blog aggregator ) refusing to demonize it and ban all ( non-negative ?
) reference to it .
Posts like this [ ogmaciel.com ] were apparently interpreted ( by Stallman ) as " promoting " proprietary software ( VMWare , in this case ) , which led toGNOME should not provide proprietary software developers with a platform to present non-free software as a good or legitimate thing .
and thenGNOME is part of the GNU Project , and it ought to support the free software movement .
The most minimal support for the free software movement is to refrain from going directly against it ; that is , to avoid presenting proprietary software as legitimate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it has to do with Gnome refusing to flagging propietary software as such.No, it has to do with them (specifically, their blog aggregator) refusing to demonize it and ban all (non-negative?
) reference to it.
Posts like this [ogmaciel.com] were apparently interpreted (by Stallman) as "promoting" proprietary software (VMWare, in this case), which led toGNOME should not provide proprietary software developers with a platform to present non-free software as a good or legitimate thing.
and thenGNOME is part of the GNU Project, and it ought to support the free software movement.
The most minimal support for the free software movement is to refrain from going directly against it; that is, to avoid presenting proprietary software as legitimate.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416222</id>
	<title>important</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260649440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How can all of this be more important than getting the most basic features of their GUI right?<br>
See <a href="http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=47948" title="gnome.org" rel="nofollow">http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=47948</a> [gnome.org] for a bug that has been open for wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too long.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can all of this be more important than getting the most basic features of their GUI right ?
See http : //bugzilla.gnome.org/show \ _bug.cgi ? id = 47948 [ gnome.org ] for a bug that has been open for wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can all of this be more important than getting the most basic features of their GUI right?
See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=47948 [gnome.org] for a bug that has been open for wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too long.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414994</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone post the root cause?</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1260640920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stallman believes that access to source code that the user can modifiy to meet his needs is a right.  Denying that right is therefore illegitimate in the way denying any right is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stallman believes that access to source code that the user can modifiy to meet his needs is a right .
Denying that right is therefore illegitimate in the way denying any right is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stallman believes that access to source code that the user can modifiy to meet his needs is a right.
Denying that right is therefore illegitimate in the way denying any right is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30422282</id>
	<title>Does anyone actually follow Silverlight progress?</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1260716580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guys, you are fighting for Silverlight clone's banner ad and the RMS/GNU finally said "Please, get serious" to them right?</p><p>Here is Silverlight 4 preview: <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/03/silverlight\_4\_review/" title="theregister.co.uk">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/03/silverlight\_4\_review/</a> [theregister.co.uk]</p><p>Silverlight has already gave up the "MS Flash" promise. It will have better features on Windows and less features on OS X, which is officially supported, not by some hack plugin. These guys are running Silverlight ad, do they know where Silverlight is heading? It is designed/coded on MS Visual Studio for God's sake (check screenshot at page). It was taken as a complete joke on OS X land, with pathetic download numbers and people not even caring to flame on comments.</p><p>Flash on the other hand, will unify on a SINGLE spec, the demos/betas are already there so it is working... We speak about potentially half a billion devices in 2-3 years of time frame including MS Windows Mobile and iPhone.</p><p>Just to let you know, Silverlight is not going anywhere but MS spent so much money so they can't say "We give up." No reason to fight over a born dead plugin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guys , you are fighting for Silverlight clone 's banner ad and the RMS/GNU finally said " Please , get serious " to them right ? Here is Silverlight 4 preview : http : //www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/03/silverlight \ _4 \ _review/ [ theregister.co.uk ] Silverlight has already gave up the " MS Flash " promise .
It will have better features on Windows and less features on OS X , which is officially supported , not by some hack plugin .
These guys are running Silverlight ad , do they know where Silverlight is heading ?
It is designed/coded on MS Visual Studio for God 's sake ( check screenshot at page ) .
It was taken as a complete joke on OS X land , with pathetic download numbers and people not even caring to flame on comments.Flash on the other hand , will unify on a SINGLE spec , the demos/betas are already there so it is working... We speak about potentially half a billion devices in 2-3 years of time frame including MS Windows Mobile and iPhone.Just to let you know , Silverlight is not going anywhere but MS spent so much money so they ca n't say " We give up .
" No reason to fight over a born dead plugin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guys, you are fighting for Silverlight clone's banner ad and the RMS/GNU finally said "Please, get serious" to them right?Here is Silverlight 4 preview: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/03/silverlight\_4\_review/ [theregister.co.uk]Silverlight has already gave up the "MS Flash" promise.
It will have better features on Windows and less features on OS X, which is officially supported, not by some hack plugin.
These guys are running Silverlight ad, do they know where Silverlight is heading?
It is designed/coded on MS Visual Studio for God's sake (check screenshot at page).
It was taken as a complete joke on OS X land, with pathetic download numbers and people not even caring to flame on comments.Flash on the other hand, will unify on a SINGLE spec, the demos/betas are already there so it is working... We speak about potentially half a billion devices in 2-3 years of time frame including MS Windows Mobile and iPhone.Just to let you know, Silverlight is not going anywhere but MS spent so much money so they can't say "We give up.
" No reason to fight over a born dead plugin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418330</id>
	<title>Re:Gnome#</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1260621360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Remember, MS can void its "promises" over<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET at any moment</p></div><p>That's simply wrong as a matter of law. Such promises are legally binding under contract law.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember , MS can void its " promises " over .NET at any momentThat 's simply wrong as a matter of law .
Such promises are legally binding under contract law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Remember, MS can void its "promises" over .NET at any momentThat's simply wrong as a matter of law.
Such promises are legally binding under contract law.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416140</id>
	<title>Re:Please refer to Stallman Properly</title>
	<author>nstlgc</author>
	<datestamp>1260648780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Think about that. If the FOSS foundation revoked the authorization of the Gnome Project to label themselves as a FOSS project, how many Distro's would quit using it? Damn near all of them and I can already hear the screams of rage from the Debian Folks in regards to Gnome because it violates their FREE SOFTWARE TENANTS and COMMITMENT. They might still offer Gnome but it couldn't be in the Base distro anylonger since it wouldn't meet their definition would it?</i>
I think this highlights a small but important problem with the "FOSS" name - the fact that I need approval from RMS to label my program as "free and open source software" despite the fact that it is in fact "free", "open source" and "software". Compare to a company calling themselves "Userfriendly Software" and forbidding anyone else to label their software as such.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Think about that .
If the FOSS foundation revoked the authorization of the Gnome Project to label themselves as a FOSS project , how many Distro 's would quit using it ?
Damn near all of them and I can already hear the screams of rage from the Debian Folks in regards to Gnome because it violates their FREE SOFTWARE TENANTS and COMMITMENT .
They might still offer Gnome but it could n't be in the Base distro anylonger since it would n't meet their definition would it ?
I think this highlights a small but important problem with the " FOSS " name - the fact that I need approval from RMS to label my program as " free and open source software " despite the fact that it is in fact " free " , " open source " and " software " .
Compare to a company calling themselves " Userfriendly Software " and forbidding anyone else to label their software as such .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think about that.
If the FOSS foundation revoked the authorization of the Gnome Project to label themselves as a FOSS project, how many Distro's would quit using it?
Damn near all of them and I can already hear the screams of rage from the Debian Folks in regards to Gnome because it violates their FREE SOFTWARE TENANTS and COMMITMENT.
They might still offer Gnome but it couldn't be in the Base distro anylonger since it wouldn't meet their definition would it?
I think this highlights a small but important problem with the "FOSS" name - the fact that I need approval from RMS to label my program as "free and open source software" despite the fact that it is in fact "free", "open source" and "software".
Compare to a company calling themselves "Userfriendly Software" and forbidding anyone else to label their software as such.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413942</id>
	<title>Can someone post the root cause?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260633300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I seem to be missing something. "avoid presenting proprietary software as legitimate."?!!!
I really don't understand why "proprietary" can't be "legitimate". What ever it is, can someone post the reason why RMS made such a remark?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to be missing something .
" avoid presenting proprietary software as legitimate. " ? ! ! !
I really do n't understand why " proprietary " ca n't be " legitimate " .
What ever it is , can someone post the reason why RMS made such a remark ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to be missing something.
"avoid presenting proprietary software as legitimate."?!!!
I really don't understand why "proprietary" can't be "legitimate".
What ever it is, can someone post the reason why RMS made such a remark?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415866</id>
	<title>Re:GNOME slides further into irrelevancy.</title>
	<author>Randle\_Revar</author>
	<datestamp>1260646500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;There is little innovation happening</p><p>That's a laugh.<br>Clutter, gnome shell, zeitgeist, telepathy, tracker. And many totally cross-DE projects have a much stronger connection to the Gnome community, even if KDE is using them: dbus, the *kits, PA, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; There is little innovation happeningThat 's a laugh.Clutter , gnome shell , zeitgeist , telepathy , tracker .
And many totally cross-DE projects have a much stronger connection to the Gnome community , even if KDE is using them : dbus , the * kits , PA , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;There is little innovation happeningThat's a laugh.Clutter, gnome shell, zeitgeist, telepathy, tracker.
And many totally cross-DE projects have a much stronger connection to the Gnome community, even if KDE is using them: dbus, the *kits, PA, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415058</id>
	<title>Re:Gnome#</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260641520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The whole situation amuses me given that the only reason Gnome exists is because back during KDE 1.x days it was "OMG QT is too proprietary!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole situation amuses me given that the only reason Gnome exists is because back during KDE 1.x days it was " OMG QT is too proprietary !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole situation amuses me given that the only reason Gnome exists is because back during KDE 1.x days it was "OMG QT is too proprietary!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416268</id>
	<title>Re:It's straightforward</title>
	<author>Rycross</author>
	<datestamp>1260649680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's begging the question.  Those with a "hate-on" for Stallman likely see no moral or ethical dilemma with proprietary software.  You're assuming that its imminently clear and universally agreed upon that proprietary software is unethical and immoral, when this is actually not the case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's begging the question .
Those with a " hate-on " for Stallman likely see no moral or ethical dilemma with proprietary software .
You 're assuming that its imminently clear and universally agreed upon that proprietary software is unethical and immoral , when this is actually not the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's begging the question.
Those with a "hate-on" for Stallman likely see no moral or ethical dilemma with proprietary software.
You're assuming that its imminently clear and universally agreed upon that proprietary software is unethical and immoral, when this is actually not the case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415592</id>
	<title>Just not true...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260644700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But don't you see, that just isn't true.</p><p>The newest generation understands the problem with proprietary vendors, at least most of them do.  The problem is that GNU is becoming just as hurtful to the movement as those proprietary vendors once were.  Instead of permitting branching out and new ideas and new philosophies to extend the movement, GNU is preventing anything that disagrees with their Dogma to speak, or at least, trying to do that here.</p><p>Personally, I absolutely believe that free software philosophy is important, even though I write closed source software to make ends meat.  That said, I also believe that an ecosystem with both closed source and open source software coexist isn't a negative thing and that while care must be taken in dealing with those that build closed source software, it isn't a moral imperative that we have open source.  Companies aren't evil entities intent on destroying free software becasue they hate RMS' hair style.  They are out to make money.  As long as they're out to make money, then if free software makes them money, there's no reason they care to dismantle us or harm us.  That means they may sometimes be an ally, sometimes an enemy.</p><p>This is all BECAUSE of what came before.  Back when free/open software had no place, we needed the extremism and philosophical doctorines to just survive, because no one took us seriously.  No one realized there were business models that existed for free software, or that open and closed source could co-exist in an ecosystem.  Now they do.</p><p>In my opinion, RMS is wrong for the right reasons (MS is certainly causing some crap, but discussing it isn't going to hurt, and restricting free speech based on dogma is RIDICULOUS) and Miguel is right for the wrong reasons (No, mono isn't that awesome, we don't need to pull this pro-MS crap, but yeah, GNU and FSF are limiting you based on their dogma which is RIDICULOUS).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But do n't you see , that just is n't true.The newest generation understands the problem with proprietary vendors , at least most of them do .
The problem is that GNU is becoming just as hurtful to the movement as those proprietary vendors once were .
Instead of permitting branching out and new ideas and new philosophies to extend the movement , GNU is preventing anything that disagrees with their Dogma to speak , or at least , trying to do that here.Personally , I absolutely believe that free software philosophy is important , even though I write closed source software to make ends meat .
That said , I also believe that an ecosystem with both closed source and open source software coexist is n't a negative thing and that while care must be taken in dealing with those that build closed source software , it is n't a moral imperative that we have open source .
Companies are n't evil entities intent on destroying free software becasue they hate RMS ' hair style .
They are out to make money .
As long as they 're out to make money , then if free software makes them money , there 's no reason they care to dismantle us or harm us .
That means they may sometimes be an ally , sometimes an enemy.This is all BECAUSE of what came before .
Back when free/open software had no place , we needed the extremism and philosophical doctorines to just survive , because no one took us seriously .
No one realized there were business models that existed for free software , or that open and closed source could co-exist in an ecosystem .
Now they do.In my opinion , RMS is wrong for the right reasons ( MS is certainly causing some crap , but discussing it is n't going to hurt , and restricting free speech based on dogma is RIDICULOUS ) and Miguel is right for the wrong reasons ( No , mono is n't that awesome , we do n't need to pull this pro-MS crap , but yeah , GNU and FSF are limiting you based on their dogma which is RIDICULOUS ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But don't you see, that just isn't true.The newest generation understands the problem with proprietary vendors, at least most of them do.
The problem is that GNU is becoming just as hurtful to the movement as those proprietary vendors once were.
Instead of permitting branching out and new ideas and new philosophies to extend the movement, GNU is preventing anything that disagrees with their Dogma to speak, or at least, trying to do that here.Personally, I absolutely believe that free software philosophy is important, even though I write closed source software to make ends meat.
That said, I also believe that an ecosystem with both closed source and open source software coexist isn't a negative thing and that while care must be taken in dealing with those that build closed source software, it isn't a moral imperative that we have open source.
Companies aren't evil entities intent on destroying free software becasue they hate RMS' hair style.
They are out to make money.
As long as they're out to make money, then if free software makes them money, there's no reason they care to dismantle us or harm us.
That means they may sometimes be an ally, sometimes an enemy.This is all BECAUSE of what came before.
Back when free/open software had no place, we needed the extremism and philosophical doctorines to just survive, because no one took us seriously.
No one realized there were business models that existed for free software, or that open and closed source could co-exist in an ecosystem.
Now they do.In my opinion, RMS is wrong for the right reasons (MS is certainly causing some crap, but discussing it isn't going to hurt, and restricting free speech based on dogma is RIDICULOUS) and Miguel is right for the wrong reasons (No, mono isn't that awesome, we don't need to pull this pro-MS crap, but yeah, GNU and FSF are limiting you based on their dogma which is RIDICULOUS).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414396</id>
	<title>The Short Story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260636720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a blog aggregator called Planet GNOME which pulls together blog posts from various Gnome developers. One of these developers is Miguel de Icaza, a fairly senior GNOME developer (I believe he started both the GNOME and Mono projects, though I don't know his current position in them). Miguel is known, and somewhat infamous, for supporting MS Standards like C# (hence Mono, an opensource implementation of it), and OOXML.</p><p>In this instance Miguel <a href="http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2009/Nov-23.html" title="tirania.org">wrote a blog post about Silverlight that reads like a press release</a> [tirania.org]. Silverlight is a proprietary and patent-encumbered replacement for Flash written by Microsoft.</p><p>Thus a promo for Silverlight was showing up on Planet GNOME.</p><p>This was not the only time something like this had happened, these are blogs afterall, people write about all sorts of stuff. Thus people started discussing a code of conduct about appropriate topics for blogs on Planet GNOME.</p><p>Stallman stopped by to offer his opinion (just couple very short posts in a long discussion) saying that people shouldn't use Planet GNOME to talk about proprietary projects like promos for Silverlight or even talk about using vmware since Gnome is a GNU project and opposed to proprietary software.</p><p>Philip Van Hoof responded saying he disagreed and started talking about a split, a few other people started talking about the rules surrounding the vote and the rest kept talking about the idea of a code of conduct.</p><p>I don't really know who anyone is other than Miguel and Stallman, but my gut says that no vote is going to occur.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a blog aggregator called Planet GNOME which pulls together blog posts from various Gnome developers .
One of these developers is Miguel de Icaza , a fairly senior GNOME developer ( I believe he started both the GNOME and Mono projects , though I do n't know his current position in them ) .
Miguel is known , and somewhat infamous , for supporting MS Standards like C # ( hence Mono , an opensource implementation of it ) , and OOXML.In this instance Miguel wrote a blog post about Silverlight that reads like a press release [ tirania.org ] .
Silverlight is a proprietary and patent-encumbered replacement for Flash written by Microsoft.Thus a promo for Silverlight was showing up on Planet GNOME.This was not the only time something like this had happened , these are blogs afterall , people write about all sorts of stuff .
Thus people started discussing a code of conduct about appropriate topics for blogs on Planet GNOME.Stallman stopped by to offer his opinion ( just couple very short posts in a long discussion ) saying that people should n't use Planet GNOME to talk about proprietary projects like promos for Silverlight or even talk about using vmware since Gnome is a GNU project and opposed to proprietary software.Philip Van Hoof responded saying he disagreed and started talking about a split , a few other people started talking about the rules surrounding the vote and the rest kept talking about the idea of a code of conduct.I do n't really know who anyone is other than Miguel and Stallman , but my gut says that no vote is going to occur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a blog aggregator called Planet GNOME which pulls together blog posts from various Gnome developers.
One of these developers is Miguel de Icaza, a fairly senior GNOME developer (I believe he started both the GNOME and Mono projects, though I don't know his current position in them).
Miguel is known, and somewhat infamous, for supporting MS Standards like C# (hence Mono, an opensource implementation of it), and OOXML.In this instance Miguel wrote a blog post about Silverlight that reads like a press release [tirania.org].
Silverlight is a proprietary and patent-encumbered replacement for Flash written by Microsoft.Thus a promo for Silverlight was showing up on Planet GNOME.This was not the only time something like this had happened, these are blogs afterall, people write about all sorts of stuff.
Thus people started discussing a code of conduct about appropriate topics for blogs on Planet GNOME.Stallman stopped by to offer his opinion (just couple very short posts in a long discussion) saying that people shouldn't use Planet GNOME to talk about proprietary projects like promos for Silverlight or even talk about using vmware since Gnome is a GNU project and opposed to proprietary software.Philip Van Hoof responded saying he disagreed and started talking about a split, a few other people started talking about the rules surrounding the vote and the rest kept talking about the idea of a code of conduct.I don't really know who anyone is other than Miguel and Stallman, but my gut says that no vote is going to occur.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415282</id>
	<title>Re:GNU's not worth it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260643080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Dogmatic insistence that it be developed in a vacuum, uninfluenced by any proprietary developments</p></div><p>Labelling that as "bad" makes this post a veritable non-sequitur. I am happy to see the literary standards of Slashdot improve, but let's be real:</p><p>This "Dogmatic insistence"  is/was the main force behind the creation of a very powerful GUI. One of today's "4 pillars" of the PC desktop. Not saying that change is bad, but don't run over the dogma that gave birth to this little puppy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dogmatic insistence that it be developed in a vacuum , uninfluenced by any proprietary developmentsLabelling that as " bad " makes this post a veritable non-sequitur .
I am happy to see the literary standards of Slashdot improve , but let 's be real : This " Dogmatic insistence " is/was the main force behind the creation of a very powerful GUI .
One of today 's " 4 pillars " of the PC desktop .
Not saying that change is bad , but do n't run over the dogma that gave birth to this little puppy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dogmatic insistence that it be developed in a vacuum, uninfluenced by any proprietary developmentsLabelling that as "bad" makes this post a veritable non-sequitur.
I am happy to see the literary standards of Slashdot improve, but let's be real:This "Dogmatic insistence"  is/was the main force behind the creation of a very powerful GUI.
One of today's "4 pillars" of the PC desktop.
Not saying that change is bad, but don't run over the dogma that gave birth to this little puppy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415546</id>
	<title>Re:Because?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260644400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As for proprietary crap - I use proprietary video drivers almost exclusively.</p></div><p>But that means that within one year and a half, when you go to your card manufacturer's web site to download the drivers, you'll see your card put in a separate "legacy products" box, and that will mean that you're not getting any more driver updates. Also, at the next big operating system version bump, you'll be likely in danger of being left with no drivers at all.<br>
Moreover, since the manufacturers of your card won't probably be enthusiastic about the highly dynamic nature of the open source stack your drivers are running in, they will not be the first ones to support the new features offered by innovations on the open source side.
</p><p>
What I want to say is, that using open source drivers is not necessarily a philosophical/political/religious matter. It can be a very pragmatic way to use the card you paid for as long as you like, and not until its manufacturers decide it's time for you to buy a new one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As for proprietary crap - I use proprietary video drivers almost exclusively.But that means that within one year and a half , when you go to your card manufacturer 's web site to download the drivers , you 'll see your card put in a separate " legacy products " box , and that will mean that you 're not getting any more driver updates .
Also , at the next big operating system version bump , you 'll be likely in danger of being left with no drivers at all .
Moreover , since the manufacturers of your card wo n't probably be enthusiastic about the highly dynamic nature of the open source stack your drivers are running in , they will not be the first ones to support the new features offered by innovations on the open source side .
What I want to say is , that using open source drivers is not necessarily a philosophical/political/religious matter .
It can be a very pragmatic way to use the card you paid for as long as you like , and not until its manufacturers decide it 's time for you to buy a new one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As for proprietary crap - I use proprietary video drivers almost exclusively.But that means that within one year and a half, when you go to your card manufacturer's web site to download the drivers, you'll see your card put in a separate "legacy products" box, and that will mean that you're not getting any more driver updates.
Also, at the next big operating system version bump, you'll be likely in danger of being left with no drivers at all.
Moreover, since the manufacturers of your card won't probably be enthusiastic about the highly dynamic nature of the open source stack your drivers are running in, they will not be the first ones to support the new features offered by innovations on the open source side.
What I want to say is, that using open source drivers is not necessarily a philosophical/political/religious matter.
It can be a very pragmatic way to use the card you paid for as long as you like, and not until its manufacturers decide it's time for you to buy a new one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418378</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260621960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it should be possible to have access to proprietary formats. I need to open<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc - do some people writing things against GNOME just delete the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc-documents they get in order to fit their philosophy? But I prefer<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.odt and writing in C++ instead of C#. So I think support is good (see NTFS) but we should prefer things like Gnote and not Tomboy. GNOME must stay in GNU and just support Mono. It is not writing all software in Mono, there are just a few unnecessary projects!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it should be possible to have access to proprietary formats .
I need to open .doc - do some people writing things against GNOME just delete the .doc-documents they get in order to fit their philosophy ?
But I prefer .odt and writing in C + + instead of C # .
So I think support is good ( see NTFS ) but we should prefer things like Gnote and not Tomboy .
GNOME must stay in GNU and just support Mono .
It is not writing all software in Mono , there are just a few unnecessary projects !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it should be possible to have access to proprietary formats.
I need to open .doc - do some people writing things against GNOME just delete the .doc-documents they get in order to fit their philosophy?
But I prefer .odt and writing in C++ instead of C#.
So I think support is good (see NTFS) but we should prefer things like Gnote and not Tomboy.
GNOME must stay in GNU and just support Mono.
It is not writing all software in Mono, there are just a few unnecessary projects!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417890</id>
	<title>Re:Gnome#</title>
	<author>KwKSilver</author>
	<datestamp>1260617160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good luck on that if you have to go to court.  SCO started its ant-Linux jihad in 2002, with no evidence, and as it turns out no standing to sue.  It is seven years later and they are still not dead.  How much longer do you suppose that MS can keep Gnome# in legal limbo-given their resources?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good luck on that if you have to go to court .
SCO started its ant-Linux jihad in 2002 , with no evidence , and as it turns out no standing to sue .
It is seven years later and they are still not dead .
How much longer do you suppose that MS can keep Gnome # in legal limbo-given their resources ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good luck on that if you have to go to court.
SCO started its ant-Linux jihad in 2002, with no evidence, and as it turns out no standing to sue.
It is seven years later and they are still not dead.
How much longer do you suppose that MS can keep Gnome# in legal limbo-given their resources?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415040</id>
	<title>Re:GNOME slides further into irrelevancy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260641340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>KDE is just technically better these days. It is implemented in a better programming language (even C++ is better than the C-and-GObject hellhole), built upon a better GUI toolkit (Qt kicks the fuck out of GTK+), and offers much better desktop applications and a more integrated desktop experience. Unless there are some huge changes within the GNOME community, they will not be able to match KDE's current environment, let alone exceed it.</p></div><p>KDE's memory footprint at rest (e.g. just after login) is over 400MB (total system memory, not process RSS). Even though you may characterize it as "technically better", that still doesn't make it good. GNOMEs memory footprint on the same machine is 250MB; that's a 40\% difference in <em>overhead</em>.</p><p>To compare apples to oranges: Enlightenment has a memory footprint of just over 80MB. That's what I call acceptable. But using more than 10\% of an average system's total memory is way too much for a non-essential process (non-essential is the economic sense: when an app is not directly used by the user for productivity, it's non-essential).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>KDE is just technically better these days .
It is implemented in a better programming language ( even C + + is better than the C-and-GObject hellhole ) , built upon a better GUI toolkit ( Qt kicks the fuck out of GTK + ) , and offers much better desktop applications and a more integrated desktop experience .
Unless there are some huge changes within the GNOME community , they will not be able to match KDE 's current environment , let alone exceed it.KDE 's memory footprint at rest ( e.g .
just after login ) is over 400MB ( total system memory , not process RSS ) .
Even though you may characterize it as " technically better " , that still does n't make it good .
GNOMEs memory footprint on the same machine is 250MB ; that 's a 40 \ % difference in overhead.To compare apples to oranges : Enlightenment has a memory footprint of just over 80MB .
That 's what I call acceptable .
But using more than 10 \ % of an average system 's total memory is way too much for a non-essential process ( non-essential is the economic sense : when an app is not directly used by the user for productivity , it 's non-essential ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>KDE is just technically better these days.
It is implemented in a better programming language (even C++ is better than the C-and-GObject hellhole), built upon a better GUI toolkit (Qt kicks the fuck out of GTK+), and offers much better desktop applications and a more integrated desktop experience.
Unless there are some huge changes within the GNOME community, they will not be able to match KDE's current environment, let alone exceed it.KDE's memory footprint at rest (e.g.
just after login) is over 400MB (total system memory, not process RSS).
Even though you may characterize it as "technically better", that still doesn't make it good.
GNOMEs memory footprint on the same machine is 250MB; that's a 40\% difference in overhead.To compare apples to oranges: Enlightenment has a memory footprint of just over 80MB.
That's what I call acceptable.
But using more than 10\% of an average system's total memory is way too much for a non-essential process (non-essential is the economic sense: when an app is not directly used by the user for productivity, it's non-essential).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416104</id>
	<title>Re:ISOified!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260648480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really don't understand your point. How does MS takeover GNOME in such a way as to prevent open forks from moving forward as the current  main branch does today?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't understand your point .
How does MS takeover GNOME in such a way as to prevent open forks from moving forward as the current main branch does today ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't understand your point.
How does MS takeover GNOME in such a way as to prevent open forks from moving forward as the current  main branch does today?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415622</id>
	<title>Re:Why would he suggest that?</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1260644940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"By that time it will have forked and these "forward" thinking Gnome folks will have changee the license making it possible."</p></div></blockquote><p>How do you propose these "forward thinking Gnome folks" change the GPL?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" By that time it will have forked and these " forward " thinking Gnome folks will have changee the license making it possible .
" How do you propose these " forward thinking Gnome folks " change the GPL ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"By that time it will have forked and these "forward" thinking Gnome folks will have changee the license making it possible.
"How do you propose these "forward thinking Gnome folks" change the GPL?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417516</id>
	<title>As a side note</title>
	<author>KugelKurt</author>
	<datestamp>1260614700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Free Software Fondation Europe shares offices with KDE, not any GNOME-related group.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Free Software Fondation Europe shares offices with KDE , not any GNOME-related group .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Free Software Fondation Europe shares offices with KDE, not any GNOME-related group.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414942</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone post the root cause?</title>
	<author>glodime</author>
	<datestamp>1260640500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I really don't understand why "proprietary" can't be "legitimate". What ever it is, can someone post the reason why RMS made such a remark?</p></div><p>RMS does not think that proprietary software is ethical therefor it is not legitimate.
See:
<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html" title="gnu.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html</a> [gnu.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't understand why " proprietary " ca n't be " legitimate " .
What ever it is , can someone post the reason why RMS made such a remark ? RMS does not think that proprietary software is ethical therefor it is not legitimate .
See : http : //www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html [ gnu.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't understand why "proprietary" can't be "legitimate".
What ever it is, can someone post the reason why RMS made such a remark?RMS does not think that proprietary software is ethical therefor it is not legitimate.
See:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html [gnu.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418034</id>
	<title>Re:GNOME slides further into irrelevancy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260618540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's an idiotic statement to make. GNOME apps nowadays are seemlessly integrated in KDE. Even Firefox blends just nicely with all KDE apps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's an idiotic statement to make .
GNOME apps nowadays are seemlessly integrated in KDE .
Even Firefox blends just nicely with all KDE apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's an idiotic statement to make.
GNOME apps nowadays are seemlessly integrated in KDE.
Even Firefox blends just nicely with all KDE apps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413722</id>
	<title>So it's about women</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260631560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why am I not surprised?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why am I not surprised ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why am I not surprised?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30430172</id>
	<title>Re:So they can't talk about proprietary products??</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1260801180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Stallman is a visionary, not an "extremenist". </i></p><p>Ignoring the misspelling, the two are not mutually exclusive; one can be both visionary (in seeing how things will be) and an extremist (in taking an extreme view of things).</p><p>I fail to see how Stallman's stance on software freedom can be viewed as anything other than an extreme, given that his stated position is that "all software should be Free", which is at the extreme end of the spectrum (from "all Free" through "a mix" to "all closed").</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stallman is a visionary , not an " extremenist " .
Ignoring the misspelling , the two are not mutually exclusive ; one can be both visionary ( in seeing how things will be ) and an extremist ( in taking an extreme view of things ) .I fail to see how Stallman 's stance on software freedom can be viewed as anything other than an extreme , given that his stated position is that " all software should be Free " , which is at the extreme end of the spectrum ( from " all Free " through " a mix " to " all closed " ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stallman is a visionary, not an "extremenist".
Ignoring the misspelling, the two are not mutually exclusive; one can be both visionary (in seeing how things will be) and an extremist (in taking an extreme view of things).I fail to see how Stallman's stance on software freedom can be viewed as anything other than an extreme, given that his stated position is that "all software should be Free", which is at the extreme end of the spectrum (from "all Free" through "a mix" to "all closed").</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417378</id>
	<title>Re:GNOME slides further into irrelevancy.</title>
	<author>KugelKurt</author>
	<datestamp>1260613500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ubuntu won't switch to KDE. The KDE variant of Ubuntu is called Kubuntu.<br>Maybe Canonical will switch the financial focus to Kubuntu in the future, but I doubt it. Kubuntu's reputation within the KDE community is just too bad. See <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/19616885@N00/sets/72157608562200171/" title="flickr.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.flickr.com/photos/19616885@N00/sets/72157608562200171/</a> [flickr.com] why.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ubuntu wo n't switch to KDE .
The KDE variant of Ubuntu is called Kubuntu.Maybe Canonical will switch the financial focus to Kubuntu in the future , but I doubt it .
Kubuntu 's reputation within the KDE community is just too bad .
See http : //www.flickr.com/photos/19616885 @ N00/sets/72157608562200171/ [ flickr.com ] why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ubuntu won't switch to KDE.
The KDE variant of Ubuntu is called Kubuntu.Maybe Canonical will switch the financial focus to Kubuntu in the future, but I doubt it.
Kubuntu's reputation within the KDE community is just too bad.
See http://www.flickr.com/photos/19616885@N00/sets/72157608562200171/ [flickr.com] why.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414542</id>
	<title>Short memory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260637860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the newest generations of free software developers take free software for granted.
<p>
They do not know how things went before GNU and Linux were there, when to have an usable development environment you had to pay for an operating system (more expensive if it was a developer-oriented version), a windowing system, a file manager, an office application, a web browser, an email client, a compiler, a debugger, a zip program, a picture viewer, access to the official developer's documentation, and a full set of "Undocumented \%s" books. Not to mention any library you might want to use.
</p><p>
Now they are growing tired of the "free software fundamentalists" because they do not see that what they've accomplished is inseparable from the ideology in which they believed. They just think that for some reason, charitable organizations such as Microsoft, Oracle, Sony and all the hardware manufacturers have an interest in providing them with software free of charge, and with unlimited freedom to use it in whatever way they see fit - and that they will keep doing so forever, even when that harms the sales of their commercial products.
</p><p>
GNOME will turn away from the FSF, this is obvious, and has been obvious since the first day the Mono affaire began. What will happen after Microsoft will be in control of key components of GNOME, is obvious too.<br>
An then, hopefully before long, some new RMSes will appear, inspiring a free software movement again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the newest generations of free software developers take free software for granted .
They do not know how things went before GNU and Linux were there , when to have an usable development environment you had to pay for an operating system ( more expensive if it was a developer-oriented version ) , a windowing system , a file manager , an office application , a web browser , an email client , a compiler , a debugger , a zip program , a picture viewer , access to the official developer 's documentation , and a full set of " Undocumented \ % s " books .
Not to mention any library you might want to use .
Now they are growing tired of the " free software fundamentalists " because they do not see that what they 've accomplished is inseparable from the ideology in which they believed .
They just think that for some reason , charitable organizations such as Microsoft , Oracle , Sony and all the hardware manufacturers have an interest in providing them with software free of charge , and with unlimited freedom to use it in whatever way they see fit - and that they will keep doing so forever , even when that harms the sales of their commercial products .
GNOME will turn away from the FSF , this is obvious , and has been obvious since the first day the Mono affaire began .
What will happen after Microsoft will be in control of key components of GNOME , is obvious too .
An then , hopefully before long , some new RMSes will appear , inspiring a free software movement again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the newest generations of free software developers take free software for granted.
They do not know how things went before GNU and Linux were there, when to have an usable development environment you had to pay for an operating system (more expensive if it was a developer-oriented version), a windowing system, a file manager, an office application, a web browser, an email client, a compiler, a debugger, a zip program, a picture viewer, access to the official developer's documentation, and a full set of "Undocumented \%s" books.
Not to mention any library you might want to use.
Now they are growing tired of the "free software fundamentalists" because they do not see that what they've accomplished is inseparable from the ideology in which they believed.
They just think that for some reason, charitable organizations such as Microsoft, Oracle, Sony and all the hardware manufacturers have an interest in providing them with software free of charge, and with unlimited freedom to use it in whatever way they see fit - and that they will keep doing so forever, even when that harms the sales of their commercial products.
GNOME will turn away from the FSF, this is obvious, and has been obvious since the first day the Mono affaire began.
What will happen after Microsoft will be in control of key components of GNOME, is obvious too.
An then, hopefully before long, some new RMSes will appear, inspiring a free software movement again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414952</id>
	<title>Re:Gnome#</title>
	<author>ciroknight</author>
	<datestamp>1260640500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Pretty much so, there is a major push to switch Gnome to C#</p></div><p>
<b>[citation needed]</b>. There's exactly a single GNOME desktop dependency using C#, Tomboy, and even that's been cloned in C++ (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnote" title="wikipedia.org">GNote</a> [wikipedia.org]). and is gaining adoption instead of the Mono-based variant by many major distros including Fedora. I really wouldn't be surprised to see it proposed to replace Tomboy in the upcoming months.<br> <br>
Furthermore, if GNOME's heading in any direction on the desktop, it's towards enabling 3D, networking, web and presence technologies through the stack. There has been a heavy push to add networking to the lower libraries so that libraries above can take advantage without reinventing the wheel. A D-Bus layer is merging into GLib next. GNOME Shell is written mostly in Javascript with Clutter being used as a 3D toolkit, after Gtk+ itself was extensively modified for better offscreen rendering support. Webkit replaced Mozilla's Gecko, and is being used by more up-and-coming GNOME projects. Telepathy and Empathy were adopted into GNOME and gives us an instant messaging client. There are half a dozen new projects around the rather small-but-growing geography and cartography communities. GNOME technologies are also heading towards the more-deeply embedded direction, with Clutter-GTK+ pushing Moblin to new heights and products like the Litl webbook (which is also very heavily Javascript-based).
<br> <br>
There have been no new<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET components accepted or even proposed to be included in GNOME in years. The Mono fear is a sound one, but it's not one you realistically have to worry about today as a GNOME user. With the recent improvements in GThumb and newer photo cataloging apps like Shotwell, not even F-Spot can be considered a 'killer app' for Mono anymore. That community has long since left GNOME along with Miguel.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty much so , there is a major push to switch Gnome to C # [ citation needed ] .
There 's exactly a single GNOME desktop dependency using C # , Tomboy , and even that 's been cloned in C + + ( GNote [ wikipedia.org ] ) .
and is gaining adoption instead of the Mono-based variant by many major distros including Fedora .
I really would n't be surprised to see it proposed to replace Tomboy in the upcoming months .
Furthermore , if GNOME 's heading in any direction on the desktop , it 's towards enabling 3D , networking , web and presence technologies through the stack .
There has been a heavy push to add networking to the lower libraries so that libraries above can take advantage without reinventing the wheel .
A D-Bus layer is merging into GLib next .
GNOME Shell is written mostly in Javascript with Clutter being used as a 3D toolkit , after Gtk + itself was extensively modified for better offscreen rendering support .
Webkit replaced Mozilla 's Gecko , and is being used by more up-and-coming GNOME projects .
Telepathy and Empathy were adopted into GNOME and gives us an instant messaging client .
There are half a dozen new projects around the rather small-but-growing geography and cartography communities .
GNOME technologies are also heading towards the more-deeply embedded direction , with Clutter-GTK + pushing Moblin to new heights and products like the Litl webbook ( which is also very heavily Javascript-based ) .
There have been no new .NET components accepted or even proposed to be included in GNOME in years .
The Mono fear is a sound one , but it 's not one you realistically have to worry about today as a GNOME user .
With the recent improvements in GThumb and newer photo cataloging apps like Shotwell , not even F-Spot can be considered a 'killer app ' for Mono anymore .
That community has long since left GNOME along with Miguel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty much so, there is a major push to switch Gnome to C#
[citation needed].
There's exactly a single GNOME desktop dependency using C#, Tomboy, and even that's been cloned in C++ (GNote [wikipedia.org]).
and is gaining adoption instead of the Mono-based variant by many major distros including Fedora.
I really wouldn't be surprised to see it proposed to replace Tomboy in the upcoming months.
Furthermore, if GNOME's heading in any direction on the desktop, it's towards enabling 3D, networking, web and presence technologies through the stack.
There has been a heavy push to add networking to the lower libraries so that libraries above can take advantage without reinventing the wheel.
A D-Bus layer is merging into GLib next.
GNOME Shell is written mostly in Javascript with Clutter being used as a 3D toolkit, after Gtk+ itself was extensively modified for better offscreen rendering support.
Webkit replaced Mozilla's Gecko, and is being used by more up-and-coming GNOME projects.
Telepathy and Empathy were adopted into GNOME and gives us an instant messaging client.
There are half a dozen new projects around the rather small-but-growing geography and cartography communities.
GNOME technologies are also heading towards the more-deeply embedded direction, with Clutter-GTK+ pushing Moblin to new heights and products like the Litl webbook (which is also very heavily Javascript-based).
There have been no new .NET components accepted or even proposed to be included in GNOME in years.
The Mono fear is a sound one, but it's not one you realistically have to worry about today as a GNOME user.
With the recent improvements in GThumb and newer photo cataloging apps like Shotwell, not even F-Spot can be considered a 'killer app' for Mono anymore.
That community has long since left GNOME along with Miguel.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414012</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone post the root cause?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260633960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Basically, it is because RMS is a complete Open Source zealot and doesn't consider proprietary software to have any legitimacy (certainly not when it comes to mention of it in the Plant GNOME aggregated feed).</p><p>I agree to a tiny degree in that Planet GNOME should be about GNOME stuff, and that I'd rather have OSS than proprietary most of the time, but I still know when to compromise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically , it is because RMS is a complete Open Source zealot and does n't consider proprietary software to have any legitimacy ( certainly not when it comes to mention of it in the Plant GNOME aggregated feed ) .I agree to a tiny degree in that Planet GNOME should be about GNOME stuff , and that I 'd rather have OSS than proprietary most of the time , but I still know when to compromise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically, it is because RMS is a complete Open Source zealot and doesn't consider proprietary software to have any legitimacy (certainly not when it comes to mention of it in the Plant GNOME aggregated feed).I agree to a tiny degree in that Planet GNOME should be about GNOME stuff, and that I'd rather have OSS than proprietary most of the time, but I still know when to compromise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415348</id>
	<title>Re:GNOME slides further into irrelevancy.</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1260643440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>GNOME, on the other hand, hasn't seen a major release since GNOME 2.0 in 2002!</p></div><p>MacOSX hasn't seen a major change in its desktop since 2001 either. Your point? as the saying goes, "if it ain't broken, *don't* fix it".</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It'll take time, but people are already moving over to KDE, especially as the more recent KDE 4.3 and the upcoming KDE Software Compilation 4.4 releases have shown to be of a very high quality.</p></div><p>If there's a movement, I haven't seen it. Which is kind of a pity, opinions have been pretty good on KDE 4.4 so far, but most folks are still bitter over 4.0 to give it a try.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>KDE is just technically better these days. It is implemented in a better programming language (even C++ is better than the C-and-GObject hellhole), built upon a better GUI toolkit (Qt kicks the fuck out of GTK+), and offers much better desktop applications and a more integrated desktop experience.</p></div><p>Opinions, opinions and opinions. In mine, even Pascal and Perl are better than the attrocity inflicted upon mankind under the name of C++ (and regardless, Gnome is moving towards the far superior C#, which is partly the reason why this whole mess came to be), GTK is still superior to Qt, and the toolkit behind the best desktop applications in Linux. But what does that prove? not fucking much, that's the thing with opinions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>GNOME , on the other hand , has n't seen a major release since GNOME 2.0 in 2002 ! MacOSX has n't seen a major change in its desktop since 2001 either .
Your point ?
as the saying goes , " if it ai n't broken , * do n't * fix it " .It 'll take time , but people are already moving over to KDE , especially as the more recent KDE 4.3 and the upcoming KDE Software Compilation 4.4 releases have shown to be of a very high quality.If there 's a movement , I have n't seen it .
Which is kind of a pity , opinions have been pretty good on KDE 4.4 so far , but most folks are still bitter over 4.0 to give it a try.KDE is just technically better these days .
It is implemented in a better programming language ( even C + + is better than the C-and-GObject hellhole ) , built upon a better GUI toolkit ( Qt kicks the fuck out of GTK + ) , and offers much better desktop applications and a more integrated desktop experience.Opinions , opinions and opinions .
In mine , even Pascal and Perl are better than the attrocity inflicted upon mankind under the name of C + + ( and regardless , Gnome is moving towards the far superior C # , which is partly the reason why this whole mess came to be ) , GTK is still superior to Qt , and the toolkit behind the best desktop applications in Linux .
But what does that prove ?
not fucking much , that 's the thing with opinions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GNOME, on the other hand, hasn't seen a major release since GNOME 2.0 in 2002!MacOSX hasn't seen a major change in its desktop since 2001 either.
Your point?
as the saying goes, "if it ain't broken, *don't* fix it".It'll take time, but people are already moving over to KDE, especially as the more recent KDE 4.3 and the upcoming KDE Software Compilation 4.4 releases have shown to be of a very high quality.If there's a movement, I haven't seen it.
Which is kind of a pity, opinions have been pretty good on KDE 4.4 so far, but most folks are still bitter over 4.0 to give it a try.KDE is just technically better these days.
It is implemented in a better programming language (even C++ is better than the C-and-GObject hellhole), built upon a better GUI toolkit (Qt kicks the fuck out of GTK+), and offers much better desktop applications and a more integrated desktop experience.Opinions, opinions and opinions.
In mine, even Pascal and Perl are better than the attrocity inflicted upon mankind under the name of C++ (and regardless, Gnome is moving towards the far superior C#, which is partly the reason why this whole mess came to be), GTK is still superior to Qt, and the toolkit behind the best desktop applications in Linux.
But what does that prove?
not fucking much, that's the thing with opinions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414090</id>
	<title>"Sirens of Blud(sic)"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260634620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Going private already ? So, who is the buyer going to be ? Gag-gle, (Er)pple, M$, ???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Going private already ?
So , who is the buyer going to be ?
Gag-gle , ( Er ) pple , M $ , ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Going private already ?
So, who is the buyer going to be ?
Gag-gle, (Er)pple, M$, ??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415942</id>
	<title>Re:sig</title>
	<author>Randle\_Revar</author>
	<datestamp>1260647100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?</p><p>right here: <a href="https://jetpack.mozillalabs.com/" title="mozillalabs.com">https://jetpack.mozillalabs.com/</a> [mozillalabs.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; So if this is the future...where 's my jet pack ? right here : https : //jetpack.mozillalabs.com/ [ mozillalabs.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?right here: https://jetpack.mozillalabs.com/ [mozillalabs.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415086</id>
	<title>Re:Please refer to Stallman Properly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260641820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The day any developer needs Stallman's permission to label his GPLed software as FOSS, is the day when free software dies.</p><blockquote><div><p>Stallman has been a very lenient dictator in this regards as he's only asking the fools to</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1. Label Moonlight as Proprietary and not base their desktop efforts on it<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 2. Expand your discussion of the products to include their OSS alternatives, no matter what state they're in</p></div></blockquote><p>You are already licking Stallman's boot, and thanking him for his benevolent dictatorship? It is sad to label LGPLed software as proprietary for paranoia and fear. It is pathetic to <b>force</b> the OSS community to promote half-assed (but free! OMG!) products (byproducts, in most cases) because of politics, and does no favor to the community.</p><p>I could defend a FSF ruled by engineers. The first question should be "does this software work?", not "is this software open source?". But I can't feel sympathy for a FSF ruled by far-left dictators.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The day any developer needs Stallman 's permission to label his GPLed software as FOSS , is the day when free software dies.Stallman has been a very lenient dictator in this regards as he 's only asking the fools to       1 .
Label Moonlight as Proprietary and not base their desktop efforts on it       2 .
Expand your discussion of the products to include their OSS alternatives , no matter what state they 're inYou are already licking Stallman 's boot , and thanking him for his benevolent dictatorship ?
It is sad to label LGPLed software as proprietary for paranoia and fear .
It is pathetic to force the OSS community to promote half-assed ( but free !
OMG ! ) products ( byproducts , in most cases ) because of politics , and does no favor to the community.I could defend a FSF ruled by engineers .
The first question should be " does this software work ?
" , not " is this software open source ? " .
But I ca n't feel sympathy for a FSF ruled by far-left dictators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The day any developer needs Stallman's permission to label his GPLed software as FOSS, is the day when free software dies.Stallman has been a very lenient dictator in this regards as he's only asking the fools to
      1.
Label Moonlight as Proprietary and not base their desktop efforts on it
      2.
Expand your discussion of the products to include their OSS alternatives, no matter what state they're inYou are already licking Stallman's boot, and thanking him for his benevolent dictatorship?
It is sad to label LGPLed software as proprietary for paranoia and fear.
It is pathetic to force the OSS community to promote half-assed (but free!
OMG!) products (byproducts, in most cases) because of politics, and does no favor to the community.I could defend a FSF ruled by engineers.
The first question should be "does this software work?
", not "is this software open source?".
But I can't feel sympathy for a FSF ruled by far-left dictators.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415334</id>
	<title>Re:The Short Story</title>
	<author>Timothy Brownawell</author>
	<datestamp>1260643380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In this instance Miguel <a href="http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2009/Nov-23.html" title="tirania.org">wrote a blog post about Silverlight that reads like a press release</a> [tirania.org]. Silverlight is a proprietary and patent-encumbered replacement for Flash written by Microsoft.</p><p>Thus a promo for Silverlight was showing up on Planet GNOME.</p></div><p>I read that more as "Silverlight 4 finally supports these <em>totally awesome</em> features that everyone's been asking for, and that we already had in Moonlight. So now we (the Mono people) need to implement the rest of Silverlight 3 and 4, so we can run the upcoming flood of apps that use these features but don't specifically worry about being cross-platform."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In this instance Miguel wrote a blog post about Silverlight that reads like a press release [ tirania.org ] .
Silverlight is a proprietary and patent-encumbered replacement for Flash written by Microsoft.Thus a promo for Silverlight was showing up on Planet GNOME.I read that more as " Silverlight 4 finally supports these totally awesome features that everyone 's been asking for , and that we already had in Moonlight .
So now we ( the Mono people ) need to implement the rest of Silverlight 3 and 4 , so we can run the upcoming flood of apps that use these features but do n't specifically worry about being cross-platform .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this instance Miguel wrote a blog post about Silverlight that reads like a press release [tirania.org].
Silverlight is a proprietary and patent-encumbered replacement for Flash written by Microsoft.Thus a promo for Silverlight was showing up on Planet GNOME.I read that more as "Silverlight 4 finally supports these totally awesome features that everyone's been asking for, and that we already had in Moonlight.
So now we (the Mono people) need to implement the rest of Silverlight 3 and 4, so we can run the upcoming flood of apps that use these features but don't specifically worry about being cross-platform.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418764</id>
	<title>Re:The Short Story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260626760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Flash is also proprietary and patent-encumbered!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash is also proprietary and patent-encumbered !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash is also proprietary and patent-encumbered!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30421484</id>
	<title>re</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260701520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the G in GNOME standing for "GNU", talk of GNOME "splitting off" from GNU is so sneaky it borders on outright dishonesty. What GNOME will be doing if they reject the free software principles they were so happy to posture as if they cared about when QT was non-free, and still call themselves "GNOME", is not merely cashing in their principles for convenience and/or profit (as they would be if they forked and became the FAB "Free As Beer" project, or whatever), but also trying to disguise this self-serving betrayal of GNU by retaining the GNU-founded identity. If GNOME ejects the portions of its community that don't understand free software principles, fine, GNOME can continue, and the forkers can fork off. On the other hand, if GNOME still calls itself "GNOME" while not having the courage to stand by the GNU that currently heads its name, then the G will stand for "Garbage", and GNU/Linux distributions that care about freedom can simply ditch GNOME and work with KDE, XFCE and so on.</p><p>GNOME is becoming more and more Microsoft-like anyway, with its massive bloated heap of dependencies and its "hide settings from users because users are stupid" attitude. If it puts its principles to the vote, and its true colors turn out to be the colors of excrement, good riddance to it. Whenever a free software project sells out, there are genuinely free projects waiting to step into its place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the G in GNOME standing for " GNU " , talk of GNOME " splitting off " from GNU is so sneaky it borders on outright dishonesty .
What GNOME will be doing if they reject the free software principles they were so happy to posture as if they cared about when QT was non-free , and still call themselves " GNOME " , is not merely cashing in their principles for convenience and/or profit ( as they would be if they forked and became the FAB " Free As Beer " project , or whatever ) , but also trying to disguise this self-serving betrayal of GNU by retaining the GNU-founded identity .
If GNOME ejects the portions of its community that do n't understand free software principles , fine , GNOME can continue , and the forkers can fork off .
On the other hand , if GNOME still calls itself " GNOME " while not having the courage to stand by the GNU that currently heads its name , then the G will stand for " Garbage " , and GNU/Linux distributions that care about freedom can simply ditch GNOME and work with KDE , XFCE and so on.GNOME is becoming more and more Microsoft-like anyway , with its massive bloated heap of dependencies and its " hide settings from users because users are stupid " attitude .
If it puts its principles to the vote , and its true colors turn out to be the colors of excrement , good riddance to it .
Whenever a free software project sells out , there are genuinely free projects waiting to step into its place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the G in GNOME standing for "GNU", talk of GNOME "splitting off" from GNU is so sneaky it borders on outright dishonesty.
What GNOME will be doing if they reject the free software principles they were so happy to posture as if they cared about when QT was non-free, and still call themselves "GNOME", is not merely cashing in their principles for convenience and/or profit (as they would be if they forked and became the FAB "Free As Beer" project, or whatever), but also trying to disguise this self-serving betrayal of GNU by retaining the GNU-founded identity.
If GNOME ejects the portions of its community that don't understand free software principles, fine, GNOME can continue, and the forkers can fork off.
On the other hand, if GNOME still calls itself "GNOME" while not having the courage to stand by the GNU that currently heads its name, then the G will stand for "Garbage", and GNU/Linux distributions that care about freedom can simply ditch GNOME and work with KDE, XFCE and so on.GNOME is becoming more and more Microsoft-like anyway, with its massive bloated heap of dependencies and its "hide settings from users because users are stupid" attitude.
If it puts its principles to the vote, and its true colors turn out to be the colors of excrement, good riddance to it.
Whenever a free software project sells out, there are genuinely free projects waiting to step into its place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415574</id>
	<title>Re:GNOME slides further into irrelevancy.</title>
	<author>mukund</author>
	<datestamp>1260644580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll just reply to one paragraph of your post.</p><blockquote><div><p>KDE is just technically better these days. It is implemented in a better programming language (even C++ is better than the C-and-GObject hellhole), built upon a better GUI toolkit (Qt kicks the fuck out of GTK+), and offers much better desktop applications and a more integrated desktop experience. Unless there are some huge changes within the GNOME community, they will not be able to match KDE's current environment, let alone exceed it.</p></div></blockquote><ul>
<li>GNOME is not implemented in a single language. You can write GTK+ apps using GObject in C, C++, Python, C#, Java, etc. and there are many such apps shipping in GNOME.</li><li>GObject (with the rest of GLib) is pretty good for what it provides for C as the base language target. You can use GObject classes (such as GTK+ widgets) without the verbosity from higher level languages, including C++. Arguably, many things in gtkmm are closer to C++ than when using Qt. Going by your opinion of GObject, you appear to lack experience in it to do a fair review. To repeat, GObject is such because it provides an object system for use in C.</li><li>Whether Qt kicks the fuck out of GTK+ or not is simply opinion. Many of the features that most GUI applications use are provided by both toolkit families. Both have their quirks.</li></ul><p>


Mukund</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll just reply to one paragraph of your post.KDE is just technically better these days .
It is implemented in a better programming language ( even C + + is better than the C-and-GObject hellhole ) , built upon a better GUI toolkit ( Qt kicks the fuck out of GTK + ) , and offers much better desktop applications and a more integrated desktop experience .
Unless there are some huge changes within the GNOME community , they will not be able to match KDE 's current environment , let alone exceed it .
GNOME is not implemented in a single language .
You can write GTK + apps using GObject in C , C + + , Python , C # , Java , etc .
and there are many such apps shipping in GNOME.GObject ( with the rest of GLib ) is pretty good for what it provides for C as the base language target .
You can use GObject classes ( such as GTK + widgets ) without the verbosity from higher level languages , including C + + .
Arguably , many things in gtkmm are closer to C + + than when using Qt .
Going by your opinion of GObject , you appear to lack experience in it to do a fair review .
To repeat , GObject is such because it provides an object system for use in C.Whether Qt kicks the fuck out of GTK + or not is simply opinion .
Many of the features that most GUI applications use are provided by both toolkit families .
Both have their quirks .
Mukund</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll just reply to one paragraph of your post.KDE is just technically better these days.
It is implemented in a better programming language (even C++ is better than the C-and-GObject hellhole), built upon a better GUI toolkit (Qt kicks the fuck out of GTK+), and offers much better desktop applications and a more integrated desktop experience.
Unless there are some huge changes within the GNOME community, they will not be able to match KDE's current environment, let alone exceed it.
GNOME is not implemented in a single language.
You can write GTK+ apps using GObject in C, C++, Python, C#, Java, etc.
and there are many such apps shipping in GNOME.GObject (with the rest of GLib) is pretty good for what it provides for C as the base language target.
You can use GObject classes (such as GTK+ widgets) without the verbosity from higher level languages, including C++.
Arguably, many things in gtkmm are closer to C++ than when using Qt.
Going by your opinion of GObject, you appear to lack experience in it to do a fair review.
To repeat, GObject is such because it provides an object system for use in C.Whether Qt kicks the fuck out of GTK+ or not is simply opinion.
Many of the features that most GUI applications use are provided by both toolkit families.
Both have their quirks.
Mukund
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414046</id>
	<title>Re:Why would he suggest that?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260634200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The FSF say proprietary software is evil (morally wrong, like a crime). The Gnome folks ignored that lunacy for a long time. Now they don't want to anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The FSF say proprietary software is evil ( morally wrong , like a crime ) .
The Gnome folks ignored that lunacy for a long time .
Now they do n't want to anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FSF say proprietary software is evil (morally wrong, like a crime).
The Gnome folks ignored that lunacy for a long time.
Now they don't want to anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415890</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone post the root cause?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260646740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you ever read anything Stallman has ever written? Have you checked FSF site? Are you just stupid?</p><p>RMS has like, nothing to do with open source. Free Software is his thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you ever read anything Stallman has ever written ?
Have you checked FSF site ?
Are you just stupid ? RMS has like , nothing to do with open source .
Free Software is his thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you ever read anything Stallman has ever written?
Have you checked FSF site?
Are you just stupid?RMS has like, nothing to do with open source.
Free Software is his thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418946</id>
	<title>Re:It's straightforward</title>
	<author>icepick72</author>
	<datestamp>1260629220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><em>Choosing a minor app that takes 189 freaking MB of memory for nothing but displaying sticky notes on the screen </em>
 <p>
The majority of that 189 MB is shared by all programs that need the Mono Framework. It's important to note that it's not duplicated for each app - the framework needs to be installed only once. Framing 189 MB in context of only one app can skew the reader's understanding of how the technology works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Choosing a minor app that takes 189 freaking MB of memory for nothing but displaying sticky notes on the screen The majority of that 189 MB is shared by all programs that need the Mono Framework .
It 's important to note that it 's not duplicated for each app - the framework needs to be installed only once .
Framing 189 MB in context of only one app can skew the reader 's understanding of how the technology works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Choosing a minor app that takes 189 freaking MB of memory for nothing but displaying sticky notes on the screen 
 
The majority of that 189 MB is shared by all programs that need the Mono Framework.
It's important to note that it's not duplicated for each app - the framework needs to be installed only once.
Framing 189 MB in context of only one app can skew the reader's understanding of how the technology works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415766</id>
	<title>Re:The Short Story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260645780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good summary.  I for one ain't that crazy about seeing my FSF dues going to host a MS/Silverlight ad.  What's next, a rave review of Office 2010? Windows 8?  Is MS so impoverished they can't afford to <i>buy</i> ads anymore?  Wouldn't <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/SILVERLIGHT/" title="microsoft.com">this</a> [microsoft.com] be a better place for a Sliverblight endorsement?  With all the money those parasites have, you'd think they'd be too ashamed to leech off of GNU!<br> <br>

As long as I'm ranting, Dear GNOME, if you find that the 4 freedoms make you philosophically uneasy, feel free to leave GNU.  While you are at it why not re-write GNOME in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET to work on the the NT kernel?! Won't be any skin off my butt, XFCE, KDE, and Fluxbox, are all better alternatives.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/end rant.  <br> <br> About your bruised feelings: Tough shit. Now, feel free to use your sock-puppets to mod me down: "-1 unympathetic."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good summary .
I for one ai n't that crazy about seeing my FSF dues going to host a MS/Silverlight ad .
What 's next , a rave review of Office 2010 ?
Windows 8 ?
Is MS so impoverished they ca n't afford to buy ads anymore ?
Would n't this [ microsoft.com ] be a better place for a Sliverblight endorsement ?
With all the money those parasites have , you 'd think they 'd be too ashamed to leech off of GNU !
As long as I 'm ranting , Dear GNOME , if you find that the 4 freedoms make you philosophically uneasy , feel free to leave GNU .
While you are at it why not re-write GNOME in .NET to work on the the NT kernel ? !
Wo n't be any skin off my butt , XFCE , KDE , and Fluxbox , are all better alternatives .
/end rant .
About your bruised feelings : Tough shit .
Now , feel free to use your sock-puppets to mod me down : " -1 unympathetic .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good summary.
I for one ain't that crazy about seeing my FSF dues going to host a MS/Silverlight ad.
What's next, a rave review of Office 2010?
Windows 8?
Is MS so impoverished they can't afford to buy ads anymore?
Wouldn't this [microsoft.com] be a better place for a Sliverblight endorsement?
With all the money those parasites have, you'd think they'd be too ashamed to leech off of GNU!
As long as I'm ranting, Dear GNOME, if you find that the 4 freedoms make you philosophically uneasy, feel free to leave GNU.
While you are at it why not re-write GNOME in .NET to work on the the NT kernel?!
Won't be any skin off my butt, XFCE, KDE, and Fluxbox, are all better alternatives.
/end rant.
About your bruised feelings: Tough shit.
Now, feel free to use your sock-puppets to mod me down: "-1 unympathetic.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30423516</id>
	<title>Re:Gnome#</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260729000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's nice, but try uninstalling Mono on a Debian distro; it is impossible without also removing Gnome which while "only" a meta-package will surely lead to trouble further down the line.</p><p>This holds even if GNote is installed by the way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's nice , but try uninstalling Mono on a Debian distro ; it is impossible without also removing Gnome which while " only " a meta-package will surely lead to trouble further down the line.This holds even if GNote is installed by the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's nice, but try uninstalling Mono on a Debian distro; it is impossible without also removing Gnome which while "only" a meta-package will surely lead to trouble further down the line.This holds even if GNote is installed by the way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414066</id>
	<title>Re:Why would he suggest that?</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1260634440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I never knew that gnome was part of gnu - finally the complete lack of "man" pages is explained!<br>Oh wait, no "info" pages either<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</htmltext>
<tokenext>I never knew that gnome was part of gnu - finally the complete lack of " man " pages is explained ! Oh wait , no " info " pages either : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never knew that gnome was part of gnu - finally the complete lack of "man" pages is explained!Oh wait, no "info" pages either :(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417476</id>
	<title>Re:GNOME slides further into irrelevancy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260614340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kid, you should go back in time and read the commits when the then current debian gnome maintainer disowned gnome, around 2.0. And you should go back in time and enjoy gnome 2.8, around three or four years after 2.0.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kid , you should go back in time and read the commits when the then current debian gnome maintainer disowned gnome , around 2.0 .
And you should go back in time and enjoy gnome 2.8 , around three or four years after 2.0. : &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kid, you should go back in time and read the commits when the then current debian gnome maintainer disowned gnome, around 2.0.
And you should go back in time and enjoy gnome 2.8, around three or four years after 2.0. :&gt;</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418390</id>
	<title>Re:So they can't talk about proprietary products??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260622020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hear,Hear, (pounding on the table)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hear,Hear , ( pounding on the table )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hear,Hear, (pounding on the table)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415512</id>
	<title>Re:Gnome#</title>
	<author>Requiem18th</author>
	<datestamp>1260644280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>&gt;Remember, MS can void its "promises" over<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET at any moment, the EEE is is progressing well.</p><p>No, they can't.  If you make a "promise" that causes someone else to take an action, it's the same as having a contract and you can be sued.</p></div><p> Yes they can, there's a loophole, the promises only apply while they hold the patent, they don't apply if they sell them to some one else like a split company a puppet think tank or a patent troll.</p><p>And there is precedent of MS attempting to do just this. <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=4800" title="zdnet.com">http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=4800</a> [zdnet.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Remember , MS can void its " promises " over .NET at any moment , the EEE is is progressing well.No , they ca n't .
If you make a " promise " that causes someone else to take an action , it 's the same as having a contract and you can be sued .
Yes they can , there 's a loophole , the promises only apply while they hold the patent , they do n't apply if they sell them to some one else like a split company a puppet think tank or a patent troll.And there is precedent of MS attempting to do just this .
http : //blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/ ? p = 4800 [ zdnet.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Remember, MS can void its "promises" over .NET at any moment, the EEE is is progressing well.No, they can't.
If you make a "promise" that causes someone else to take an action, it's the same as having a contract and you can be sued.
Yes they can, there's a loophole, the promises only apply while they hold the patent, they don't apply if they sell them to some one else like a split company a puppet think tank or a patent troll.And there is precedent of MS attempting to do just this.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=4800 [zdnet.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416664</id>
	<title>You have a short memory...</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1260608880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>they do not see that what they've accomplished is inseparable from the ideology in which they believed.</i></p><p>A lot of us were involved in free and open software and technologies long before Stallman had his freakout over Emacs.</p><p>The first open operating system platform was the Software Tools virtual OS, which provided a free (as in beer and as in speech) and open platform for developing UNIX-like software on any OS. And it came out of AT&amp;T Bell Laboratories.</p><p>GNU is just the radical wing of a vast ecosystem of free and open tools produced by people of many different opinions and, yes, even ideologies. If "We just want to help people use good stuff" is an ideology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they do not see that what they 've accomplished is inseparable from the ideology in which they believed.A lot of us were involved in free and open software and technologies long before Stallman had his freakout over Emacs.The first open operating system platform was the Software Tools virtual OS , which provided a free ( as in beer and as in speech ) and open platform for developing UNIX-like software on any OS .
And it came out of AT&amp;T Bell Laboratories.GNU is just the radical wing of a vast ecosystem of free and open tools produced by people of many different opinions and , yes , even ideologies .
If " We just want to help people use good stuff " is an ideology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they do not see that what they've accomplished is inseparable from the ideology in which they believed.A lot of us were involved in free and open software and technologies long before Stallman had his freakout over Emacs.The first open operating system platform was the Software Tools virtual OS, which provided a free (as in beer and as in speech) and open platform for developing UNIX-like software on any OS.
And it came out of AT&amp;T Bell Laboratories.GNU is just the radical wing of a vast ecosystem of free and open tools produced by people of many different opinions and, yes, even ideologies.
If "We just want to help people use good stuff" is an ideology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30421436</id>
	<title>Re:Short memory</title>
	<author>peppepz</author>
	<datestamp>1260700560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry if I forgot to mention BSD, my post didn't mean to be exhaustive about free software projects. I don't care about licenses, really, as long as they give you a reasonable amount of freedom.
<p>
If I can't talk about BSD, that's because I don't know anything about it, because in the place where I live its existence is virtually unknown. I only knew about the *BSD community after I got connected to the Internet, and when I did, I already had Linux installed.
</p><p>
So perhaps if the BSD folks had some weird guy, a BSD extremist, who spent his time traveling the world to spread the BSD word, I wouldn't be using Linux now...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry if I forgot to mention BSD , my post did n't mean to be exhaustive about free software projects .
I do n't care about licenses , really , as long as they give you a reasonable amount of freedom .
If I ca n't talk about BSD , that 's because I do n't know anything about it , because in the place where I live its existence is virtually unknown .
I only knew about the * BSD community after I got connected to the Internet , and when I did , I already had Linux installed .
So perhaps if the BSD folks had some weird guy , a BSD extremist , who spent his time traveling the world to spread the BSD word , I would n't be using Linux now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry if I forgot to mention BSD, my post didn't mean to be exhaustive about free software projects.
I don't care about licenses, really, as long as they give you a reasonable amount of freedom.
If I can't talk about BSD, that's because I don't know anything about it, because in the place where I live its existence is virtually unknown.
I only knew about the *BSD community after I got connected to the Internet, and when I did, I already had Linux installed.
So perhaps if the BSD folks had some weird guy, a BSD extremist, who spent his time traveling the world to spread the BSD word, I wouldn't be using Linux now...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30421206</id>
	<title>Re:Why would he suggest that?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1260696480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Waitaminit! So the Gnome team wants to entangle with proprietary software, and KDE/QT is completely free??</p><p>Did I wake up in an alternate reality? Is today opposite day?<br>I don&rsquo;t get it...</p><p>Gnome was started because QT was not free in the first place! So WTF?</p><p>Oh well. Wanna know the best thing about open source projects: Forks!<br>In the long run, they might spoon again, instead of ending up in a knife fight. ^^<br>But at least we got that freedom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Waitaminit !
So the Gnome team wants to entangle with proprietary software , and KDE/QT is completely free ?
? Did I wake up in an alternate reality ?
Is today opposite day ? I don    t get it...Gnome was started because QT was not free in the first place !
So WTF ? Oh well .
Wan na know the best thing about open source projects : Forks ! In the long run , they might spoon again , instead of ending up in a knife fight .
^ ^ But at least we got that freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Waitaminit!
So the Gnome team wants to entangle with proprietary software, and KDE/QT is completely free?
?Did I wake up in an alternate reality?
Is today opposite day?I don’t get it...Gnome was started because QT was not free in the first place!
So WTF?Oh well.
Wanna know the best thing about open source projects: Forks!In the long run, they might spoon again, instead of ending up in a knife fight.
^^But at least we got that freedom.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30421422</id>
	<title>Re:Do not want Silverlight</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260700320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ridiculous.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET has *nothing* to do with ActiveX. The major motivation for its (or rather Mono's) inclusion in GNOME is Tomboy: A *desktop* application with no network access.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ridiculous .
.NET has * nothing * to do with ActiveX .
The major motivation for its ( or rather Mono 's ) inclusion in GNOME is Tomboy : A * desktop * application with no network access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ridiculous.
.NET has *nothing* to do with ActiveX.
The major motivation for its (or rather Mono's) inclusion in GNOME is Tomboy: A *desktop* application with no network access.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30420042</id>
	<title>Gandhi</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1260639900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Gandhi is the greatest enemy the untouchables have ever had in India."-- Ambedkar</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Gandhi is the greatest enemy the untouchables have ever had in India .
" -- Ambedkar</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Gandhi is the greatest enemy the untouchables have ever had in India.
"-- Ambedkar</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413878</id>
	<title>Re:So they can't talk about proprietary products??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260632700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I dare say it would make sense to give FOSS priority on a discussion board about a piece of FOS software. But really, GNOME is a <i>desktop environment</i>. Wouldn't it sorta limit the user's freedom to not be able to run proprietary products on his/her main OS? If we follow Stallman's advice, then entire projects (Wine for example) should get abandoned.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I dare say it would make sense to give FOSS priority on a discussion board about a piece of FOS software .
But really , GNOME is a desktop environment .
Would n't it sorta limit the user 's freedom to not be able to run proprietary products on his/her main OS ?
If we follow Stallman 's advice , then entire projects ( Wine for example ) should get abandoned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dare say it would make sense to give FOSS priority on a discussion board about a piece of FOS software.
But really, GNOME is a desktop environment.
Wouldn't it sorta limit the user's freedom to not be able to run proprietary products on his/her main OS?
If we follow Stallman's advice, then entire projects (Wine for example) should get abandoned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415048</id>
	<title>Once upon a time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260641400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was a project named GNU.  Then came GNUstep.  Then came GNUstep + WindowMaker.  GNU looked upon this and called it good, and declared it the official desktop of the GNU project.  But GNUstep was not finished, not even close.</p><p>Then kame KDE.  It was based upon the not-so-free Qt.  Everyone at GNU cried "oh shit."  Fire and brimstone began to fall.</p><p>Then came Miguel, a shit-disturber from the NetBSD holy wars.  GNOME was cooked up with an official "fuck you" to the KDE team on their mailing lists.  The 0.33 release was based on a bunch of free tools hastily thrown together and re-branded with the never-proven CORBA thrown into the mix.</p><p>Then came RedHat, wading into the morass and inspiring GNOME to jump from version 0.33 to version 1.0 overnight, resulting in much crash-age and tooth-gnashage.  But the gospel had been preached and accepted in the West, and even Slashdot jumped on Miguel's bandwagon.  Yea, even the Rasterman was drawn into the mighty whirlpool for a time and Enlightenment was lost to history.  So the holy wars were joined.</p><p>Over time, KDE became more free.  The dreaded, reviled Qt became GPL, then LGPL.  On the flipside, GNOME began adopting questionable technologies like MONO.  The grinning spectre of Dread Lord Gates lurked in the shadows.  The wheel had turned.</p><p>And yet back in the dustbin of history, GNUstep waited.  And all along this would have been the best choice of all, had Stallman &amp; co not thrown their weight knee-jerk behind "anyone but KDE".  Given the return of NextStep under the name "Mac OS X," just imagine the interoperability and cross-compatibility we could have today?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a project named GNU .
Then came GNUstep .
Then came GNUstep + WindowMaker .
GNU looked upon this and called it good , and declared it the official desktop of the GNU project .
But GNUstep was not finished , not even close.Then kame KDE .
It was based upon the not-so-free Qt .
Everyone at GNU cried " oh shit .
" Fire and brimstone began to fall.Then came Miguel , a shit-disturber from the NetBSD holy wars .
GNOME was cooked up with an official " fuck you " to the KDE team on their mailing lists .
The 0.33 release was based on a bunch of free tools hastily thrown together and re-branded with the never-proven CORBA thrown into the mix.Then came RedHat , wading into the morass and inspiring GNOME to jump from version 0.33 to version 1.0 overnight , resulting in much crash-age and tooth-gnashage .
But the gospel had been preached and accepted in the West , and even Slashdot jumped on Miguel 's bandwagon .
Yea , even the Rasterman was drawn into the mighty whirlpool for a time and Enlightenment was lost to history .
So the holy wars were joined.Over time , KDE became more free .
The dreaded , reviled Qt became GPL , then LGPL .
On the flipside , GNOME began adopting questionable technologies like MONO .
The grinning spectre of Dread Lord Gates lurked in the shadows .
The wheel had turned.And yet back in the dustbin of history , GNUstep waited .
And all along this would have been the best choice of all , had Stallman &amp; co not thrown their weight knee-jerk behind " anyone but KDE " .
Given the return of NextStep under the name " Mac OS X , " just imagine the interoperability and cross-compatibility we could have today ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a project named GNU.
Then came GNUstep.
Then came GNUstep + WindowMaker.
GNU looked upon this and called it good, and declared it the official desktop of the GNU project.
But GNUstep was not finished, not even close.Then kame KDE.
It was based upon the not-so-free Qt.
Everyone at GNU cried "oh shit.
"  Fire and brimstone began to fall.Then came Miguel, a shit-disturber from the NetBSD holy wars.
GNOME was cooked up with an official "fuck you" to the KDE team on their mailing lists.
The 0.33 release was based on a bunch of free tools hastily thrown together and re-branded with the never-proven CORBA thrown into the mix.Then came RedHat, wading into the morass and inspiring GNOME to jump from version 0.33 to version 1.0 overnight, resulting in much crash-age and tooth-gnashage.
But the gospel had been preached and accepted in the West, and even Slashdot jumped on Miguel's bandwagon.
Yea, even the Rasterman was drawn into the mighty whirlpool for a time and Enlightenment was lost to history.
So the holy wars were joined.Over time, KDE became more free.
The dreaded, reviled Qt became GPL, then LGPL.
On the flipside, GNOME began adopting questionable technologies like MONO.
The grinning spectre of Dread Lord Gates lurked in the shadows.
The wheel had turned.And yet back in the dustbin of history, GNUstep waited.
And all along this would have been the best choice of all, had Stallman &amp; co not thrown their weight knee-jerk behind "anyone but KDE".
Given the return of NextStep under the name "Mac OS X," just imagine the interoperability and cross-compatibility we could have today?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414842</id>
	<title>Re:It's straightforward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260639660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I respect Stallman's consistency, energy and dedication. I agree with him on some points but these days I wish he could be as distant from free software as possible. Stallman is an idealist and a visionary. I'd much rather see practical improvements and results. I would like to see Linux adopted more widely and I believe that it should be getting improved from a practical standpoint. If it means non-free drivers or extra efforts to be compatible with proprietary software, that's okay.
<br> <br>
Stallman isn't a great messenger for free software. To "normal" people who aren't involved with technology, he just appears to be a weirdo, and that sort of reaffirms the belief that all that "Linux stuff" is for geeks and weirdos. Stallman is a free-thinker that doesn't always even bother to conform to notions of politeness. I remember his <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7487060.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">article on BBC</a> [bbc.co.uk] where he consistently refers to Bill Gates as "Gates", not once as "Mr Gates". Of course the latter would be more in line with today's polite writing. I understand that Stallman doesn't much care for such formalities, but again this does nothing to make him seem "normal" or acceptable to non-techies.
<br> <br>
My real problem with Stallman, though, is that I view him as a hypocritical person. He mentions freedom at every chance he gets. Free software is free, proprietary is non-free, merely open source without FSF-defined rights is non-free, etc. At the same time, GNU policies don't much look like freedom to me. As seen here, Stallman doesn't want a GNU project to assist a non-free project in any way. GNU documentation, according to <a href="http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html\_node/References.html#References" title="gnu.org">their standards</a> [gnu.org] shouldn't even mention most non-free software, shouldn't recommend software that itself recommends other non-free software. And the standards even say not to link to or mention sites that describe or recommend non-free software.<br>
Those kinds of standards aren't about freedom. GNU/Stallman may view the existence of proprietary software as an ethical problem. It's an assessment I disagree with, but I can respect that opinion. It's an opinion that should, then, be supported with information and clearly showing the ethical advantages of free software, as opposed to "don't mention them" mentality.<br> <br>

Footnote: as for Stallman's political/ethical ideals, I don't think they're very compatible with today's reality. A lot of his ideas would be better off if all computer users had some interest in computers and the software they're using. I would prefer it that way, too. But the reality is that most people only want to know as much as they need to operate the computer, and that isn't going to change.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I respect Stallman 's consistency , energy and dedication .
I agree with him on some points but these days I wish he could be as distant from free software as possible .
Stallman is an idealist and a visionary .
I 'd much rather see practical improvements and results .
I would like to see Linux adopted more widely and I believe that it should be getting improved from a practical standpoint .
If it means non-free drivers or extra efforts to be compatible with proprietary software , that 's okay .
Stallman is n't a great messenger for free software .
To " normal " people who are n't involved with technology , he just appears to be a weirdo , and that sort of reaffirms the belief that all that " Linux stuff " is for geeks and weirdos .
Stallman is a free-thinker that does n't always even bother to conform to notions of politeness .
I remember his article on BBC [ bbc.co.uk ] where he consistently refers to Bill Gates as " Gates " , not once as " Mr Gates " .
Of course the latter would be more in line with today 's polite writing .
I understand that Stallman does n't much care for such formalities , but again this does nothing to make him seem " normal " or acceptable to non-techies .
My real problem with Stallman , though , is that I view him as a hypocritical person .
He mentions freedom at every chance he gets .
Free software is free , proprietary is non-free , merely open source without FSF-defined rights is non-free , etc .
At the same time , GNU policies do n't much look like freedom to me .
As seen here , Stallman does n't want a GNU project to assist a non-free project in any way .
GNU documentation , according to their standards [ gnu.org ] should n't even mention most non-free software , should n't recommend software that itself recommends other non-free software .
And the standards even say not to link to or mention sites that describe or recommend non-free software .
Those kinds of standards are n't about freedom .
GNU/Stallman may view the existence of proprietary software as an ethical problem .
It 's an assessment I disagree with , but I can respect that opinion .
It 's an opinion that should , then , be supported with information and clearly showing the ethical advantages of free software , as opposed to " do n't mention them " mentality .
Footnote : as for Stallman 's political/ethical ideals , I do n't think they 're very compatible with today 's reality .
A lot of his ideas would be better off if all computer users had some interest in computers and the software they 're using .
I would prefer it that way , too .
But the reality is that most people only want to know as much as they need to operate the computer , and that is n't going to change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I respect Stallman's consistency, energy and dedication.
I agree with him on some points but these days I wish he could be as distant from free software as possible.
Stallman is an idealist and a visionary.
I'd much rather see practical improvements and results.
I would like to see Linux adopted more widely and I believe that it should be getting improved from a practical standpoint.
If it means non-free drivers or extra efforts to be compatible with proprietary software, that's okay.
Stallman isn't a great messenger for free software.
To "normal" people who aren't involved with technology, he just appears to be a weirdo, and that sort of reaffirms the belief that all that "Linux stuff" is for geeks and weirdos.
Stallman is a free-thinker that doesn't always even bother to conform to notions of politeness.
I remember his article on BBC [bbc.co.uk] where he consistently refers to Bill Gates as "Gates", not once as "Mr Gates".
Of course the latter would be more in line with today's polite writing.
I understand that Stallman doesn't much care for such formalities, but again this does nothing to make him seem "normal" or acceptable to non-techies.
My real problem with Stallman, though, is that I view him as a hypocritical person.
He mentions freedom at every chance he gets.
Free software is free, proprietary is non-free, merely open source without FSF-defined rights is non-free, etc.
At the same time, GNU policies don't much look like freedom to me.
As seen here, Stallman doesn't want a GNU project to assist a non-free project in any way.
GNU documentation, according to their standards [gnu.org] shouldn't even mention most non-free software, shouldn't recommend software that itself recommends other non-free software.
And the standards even say not to link to or mention sites that describe or recommend non-free software.
Those kinds of standards aren't about freedom.
GNU/Stallman may view the existence of proprietary software as an ethical problem.
It's an assessment I disagree with, but I can respect that opinion.
It's an opinion that should, then, be supported with information and clearly showing the ethical advantages of free software, as opposed to "don't mention them" mentality.
Footnote: as for Stallman's political/ethical ideals, I don't think they're very compatible with today's reality.
A lot of his ideas would be better off if all computer users had some interest in computers and the software they're using.
I would prefer it that way, too.
But the reality is that most people only want to know as much as they need to operate the computer, and that isn't going to change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415614</id>
	<title>Open minded, but not empty headed.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260644880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you run a tennis club, it is perfectly reasonable to restrict the use of the tennis courts to tennis. If someone wants to play basketball, they should be in a different club.</p><p>The same goes for software forums. GNOME planet is set up for the discussion of open source GPL's software. If you want to discuss, and particularly if you want to promote, something else then you need to go to another place. Nobody is restricting your free speech.</p><p>Of course, the fifth columnists who want to get rid of the GPL would rather flood the forum with their supporters and drown out the GPL supporters.</p><p>It isn't being open minded for the tennis club members to let the basketball crowd throw out the tennis rackets, tear down the nets and ridicule the game of tennis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you run a tennis club , it is perfectly reasonable to restrict the use of the tennis courts to tennis .
If someone wants to play basketball , they should be in a different club.The same goes for software forums .
GNOME planet is set up for the discussion of open source GPL 's software .
If you want to discuss , and particularly if you want to promote , something else then you need to go to another place .
Nobody is restricting your free speech.Of course , the fifth columnists who want to get rid of the GPL would rather flood the forum with their supporters and drown out the GPL supporters.It is n't being open minded for the tennis club members to let the basketball crowd throw out the tennis rackets , tear down the nets and ridicule the game of tennis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you run a tennis club, it is perfectly reasonable to restrict the use of the tennis courts to tennis.
If someone wants to play basketball, they should be in a different club.The same goes for software forums.
GNOME planet is set up for the discussion of open source GPL's software.
If you want to discuss, and particularly if you want to promote, something else then you need to go to another place.
Nobody is restricting your free speech.Of course, the fifth columnists who want to get rid of the GPL would rather flood the forum with their supporters and drown out the GPL supporters.It isn't being open minded for the tennis club members to let the basketball crowd throw out the tennis rackets, tear down the nets and ridicule the game of tennis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418278</id>
	<title>Re:GNOME slides further into irrelevancy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260620700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it hard for you to justify using GIMP or Pidgin when you're on Windows? None of those are really Gnome programs, they're just GTK. GTK is a small dependency and KDE both uses GTK themes and applies Qt themes to GTK apps well, so I don't see the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it hard for you to justify using GIMP or Pidgin when you 're on Windows ?
None of those are really Gnome programs , they 're just GTK .
GTK is a small dependency and KDE both uses GTK themes and applies Qt themes to GTK apps well , so I do n't see the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it hard for you to justify using GIMP or Pidgin when you're on Windows?
None of those are really Gnome programs, they're just GTK.
GTK is a small dependency and KDE both uses GTK themes and applies Qt themes to GTK apps well, so I don't see the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418568</id>
	<title>Re:Once upon a time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260624000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Given the return of NextStep under the name "Mac OS X," just imagine the interoperability and cross-compatibility we could have today?</p></div><p>1) It is almost impossible to develop an OS X application without using the proprietary frameworks of Apple<br>2) API wise, Qt is far more well designed than Cocoa/nextstep. The relative success of Cocoa has nothing to do with its technical quality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given the return of NextStep under the name " Mac OS X , " just imagine the interoperability and cross-compatibility we could have today ? 1 ) It is almost impossible to develop an OS X application without using the proprietary frameworks of Apple2 ) API wise , Qt is far more well designed than Cocoa/nextstep .
The relative success of Cocoa has nothing to do with its technical quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given the return of NextStep under the name "Mac OS X," just imagine the interoperability and cross-compatibility we could have today?1) It is almost impossible to develop an OS X application without using the proprietary frameworks of Apple2) API wise, Qt is far more well designed than Cocoa/nextstep.
The relative success of Cocoa has nothing to do with its technical quality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30423848</id>
	<title>Re:Once upon a time</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1260731700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That was beautiful, truly beautiful. Well done.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That was beautiful , truly beautiful .
Well done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was beautiful, truly beautiful.
Well done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30419240</id>
	<title>Re:So they can't talk about proprietary products??</title>
	<author>DarkEmpath</author>
	<datestamp>1260633360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To the best of my knowledge, Gandhi didn't chew his own toenails.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To the best of my knowledge , Gandhi did n't chew his own toenails .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To the best of my knowledge, Gandhi didn't chew his own toenails.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30424378</id>
	<title>Re:Just not true...</title>
	<author>rhendershot</author>
	<datestamp>1260736620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>The problem is that GNU is becoming just as hurtful to the movement as those proprietary vendors once were. Instead of permitting branching out and new ideas and new philosophies to extend the movement, GNU is preventing anything that disagrees with their Dogma to speak, or at least, trying to do that here.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>FUD and just plain wrong.</p><p>OSS is Open.  You can branch it at any time.   You can modify it at your will.  That is, to say, it's Point.</p><p>To the dotter'ing  fool who marked you insightfull, you will now turn in your card.  now.  yes.   now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that GNU is becoming just as hurtful to the movement as those proprietary vendors once were .
Instead of permitting branching out and new ideas and new philosophies to extend the movement , GNU is preventing anything that disagrees with their Dogma to speak , or at least , trying to do that here .
FUD and just plain wrong.OSS is Open .
You can branch it at any time .
You can modify it at your will .
That is , to say , it 's Point.To the dotter'ing fool who marked you insightfull , you will now turn in your card .
now. yes .
now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The problem is that GNU is becoming just as hurtful to the movement as those proprietary vendors once were.
Instead of permitting branching out and new ideas and new philosophies to extend the movement, GNU is preventing anything that disagrees with their Dogma to speak, or at least, trying to do that here.
FUD and just plain wrong.OSS is Open.
You can branch it at any time.
You can modify it at your will.
That is, to say, it's Point.To the dotter'ing  fool who marked you insightfull, you will now turn in your card.
now.  yes.
now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415700</id>
	<title>Re:Gnome#</title>
	<author>Risen888</author>
	<datestamp>1260645360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Furthermore, if GNOME's heading in any direction on the desktop, it's towards enabling 3D, networking, web and presence technologies through the stack.</i></p><p>Someone should tell them to try KDE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Furthermore , if GNOME 's heading in any direction on the desktop , it 's towards enabling 3D , networking , web and presence technologies through the stack.Someone should tell them to try KDE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Furthermore, if GNOME's heading in any direction on the desktop, it's towards enabling 3D, networking, web and presence technologies through the stack.Someone should tell them to try KDE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415532</id>
	<title>Re:GNOME slides further into irrelevancy.</title>
	<author>ACS Solver</author>
	<datestamp>1260644400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I agree it's possible that KDE will be rapidly eating into GNOME's market share, I'm pretty sure the Ubuntu community won't be the first to switch. And it shouldn't be. Ubuntu's implementation of KDE remains lackluster, even though I am using it myself. Still, it feels like Kubuntu never gets as much dev attention as vanilla Ubuntu. Distros like openSUSE and Mandriva implement KDE better into their distros.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree it 's possible that KDE will be rapidly eating into GNOME 's market share , I 'm pretty sure the Ubuntu community wo n't be the first to switch .
And it should n't be .
Ubuntu 's implementation of KDE remains lackluster , even though I am using it myself .
Still , it feels like Kubuntu never gets as much dev attention as vanilla Ubuntu .
Distros like openSUSE and Mandriva implement KDE better into their distros .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree it's possible that KDE will be rapidly eating into GNOME's market share, I'm pretty sure the Ubuntu community won't be the first to switch.
And it shouldn't be.
Ubuntu's implementation of KDE remains lackluster, even though I am using it myself.
Still, it feels like Kubuntu never gets as much dev attention as vanilla Ubuntu.
Distros like openSUSE and Mandriva implement KDE better into their distros.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415862</id>
	<title>Re:So they can't talk about proprietary products??</title>
	<author>icebraining</author>
	<datestamp>1260646440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only his country: the "wake up" experience he had was in South Africa, were he witnessed the blatant racism. It was in South Africa were he adopted his methodology of satyagraha (the non-violent resistance), and was able to force General Smuts to negotiate a compromise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only his country : the " wake up " experience he had was in South Africa , were he witnessed the blatant racism .
It was in South Africa were he adopted his methodology of satyagraha ( the non-violent resistance ) , and was able to force General Smuts to negotiate a compromise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only his country: the "wake up" experience he had was in South Africa, were he witnessed the blatant racism.
It was in South Africa were he adopted his methodology of satyagraha (the non-violent resistance), and was able to force General Smuts to negotiate a compromise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414696</id>
	<title>Who can vote and when the vote taking place?</title>
	<author>steevithak</author>
	<datestamp>1260638940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does anyone know:</p><p>1. When the vote will take place?</p><p>2. Who can vote?</p><p>Seems like the easiest way to stop this is for open source and free software supporters to vote, assuming that's possible. I went to the gnome.org website to find out how I could become a voting member but the site is "down for maintenance" - hmmm...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone know : 1 .
When the vote will take place ? 2 .
Who can vote ? Seems like the easiest way to stop this is for open source and free software supporters to vote , assuming that 's possible .
I went to the gnome.org website to find out how I could become a voting member but the site is " down for maintenance " - hmmm.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone know:1.
When the vote will take place?2.
Who can vote?Seems like the easiest way to stop this is for open source and free software supporters to vote, assuming that's possible.
I went to the gnome.org website to find out how I could become a voting member but the site is "down for maintenance" - hmmm...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417920</id>
	<title>Re:Because?</title>
	<author>Bacon Bits</author>
	<datestamp>1260617400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a great argument in theory, but unfortunately the reality is that the older proprietary drivers that haven't been supported in half a dozen years still often perform better than the up-to-date open source alternatives (if there even are any non-generic drivers).  If your motivation is pragmatism, then you're going to use proprietary in that case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a great argument in theory , but unfortunately the reality is that the older proprietary drivers that have n't been supported in half a dozen years still often perform better than the up-to-date open source alternatives ( if there even are any non-generic drivers ) .
If your motivation is pragmatism , then you 're going to use proprietary in that case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a great argument in theory, but unfortunately the reality is that the older proprietary drivers that haven't been supported in half a dozen years still often perform better than the up-to-date open source alternatives (if there even are any non-generic drivers).
If your motivation is pragmatism, then you're going to use proprietary in that case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30419038</id>
	<title>Suggestion to GNU: Fire them before they leave</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1260630780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it became more clear that these guys are abusing a project with your name on it. Tell them to get rid of Gnome name, support something which may replace it (e.g. KDE) and live happily.</p><p>All I see on Gnome guys blogs are "Did this with Mono, did that with Mono, they did this with Mono on iPhone"... The "Mono" they talk about is Microsoft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET clone and these guys are supposed to keep open source desktop experience at same level as Windows 7, Snow Leopard.</p><p>Your biggest mistake was letting Icaza get a name with your project but anyway, that is already history.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it became more clear that these guys are abusing a project with your name on it .
Tell them to get rid of Gnome name , support something which may replace it ( e.g .
KDE ) and live happily.All I see on Gnome guys blogs are " Did this with Mono , did that with Mono , they did this with Mono on iPhone " ... The " Mono " they talk about is Microsoft .NET clone and these guys are supposed to keep open source desktop experience at same level as Windows 7 , Snow Leopard.Your biggest mistake was letting Icaza get a name with your project but anyway , that is already history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it became more clear that these guys are abusing a project with your name on it.
Tell them to get rid of Gnome name, support something which may replace it (e.g.
KDE) and live happily.All I see on Gnome guys blogs are "Did this with Mono, did that with Mono, they did this with Mono on iPhone"... The "Mono" they talk about is Microsoft .NET clone and these guys are supposed to keep open source desktop experience at same level as Windows 7, Snow Leopard.Your biggest mistake was letting Icaza get a name with your project but anyway, that is already history.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414166</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone post the root cause?</title>
	<author>vadim\_t</author>
	<datestamp>1260635100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's surprising about it?</p><p>Picture somebody in your favourite enviromental organization speaking of acquiring material from an organization that keeps dumping poison into the river. At most, the leadership would probably be unhappy with such things.</p><p>GNU is dedicated to Free Software, and as such proprietary software isn't something they're interested in supporting, less inside their own organization. Proprietary software may be legitimate in the world at large, but it's not legitimate in a GNU project.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's surprising about it ? Picture somebody in your favourite enviromental organization speaking of acquiring material from an organization that keeps dumping poison into the river .
At most , the leadership would probably be unhappy with such things.GNU is dedicated to Free Software , and as such proprietary software is n't something they 're interested in supporting , less inside their own organization .
Proprietary software may be legitimate in the world at large , but it 's not legitimate in a GNU project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's surprising about it?Picture somebody in your favourite enviromental organization speaking of acquiring material from an organization that keeps dumping poison into the river.
At most, the leadership would probably be unhappy with such things.GNU is dedicated to Free Software, and as such proprietary software isn't something they're interested in supporting, less inside their own organization.
Proprietary software may be legitimate in the world at large, but it's not legitimate in a GNU project.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415886</id>
	<title>Re:The Short Story</title>
	<author>Randle\_Revar</author>
	<datestamp>1260646740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds about right. Miguel is still the lead dev for Mono; he is a Gnome dev, but afaik he holds no particular position, and isn't really that active in non-Mono dev.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds about right .
Miguel is still the lead dev for Mono ; he is a Gnome dev , but afaik he holds no particular position , and is n't really that active in non-Mono dev .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds about right.
Miguel is still the lead dev for Mono; he is a Gnome dev, but afaik he holds no particular position, and isn't really that active in non-Mono dev.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415078</id>
	<title>A GNOME alternative to Tomboy:  Gnote</title>
	<author>crush</author>
	<datestamp>1260641640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnote" title="wikipedia.org">Gnote</a> [wikipedia.org] is a fully compatible rewrite of Tomboy in C++ with GTK+.  It's excellent. Give it a try, it's more responsive than Tomboy which is amusing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gnote [ wikipedia.org ] is a fully compatible rewrite of Tomboy in C + + with GTK + .
It 's excellent .
Give it a try , it 's more responsive than Tomboy which is amusing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gnote [wikipedia.org] is a fully compatible rewrite of Tomboy in C++ with GTK+.
It's excellent.
Give it a try, it's more responsive than Tomboy which is amusing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30435564</id>
	<title>Re:It's straightforward</title>
	<author>H0p313ss</author>
	<datestamp>1260785760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What I'd like to know is who the hell is using sticky notes anyway?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I 'd like to know is who the hell is using sticky notes anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I'd like to know is who the hell is using sticky notes anyway?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416818</id>
	<title>Re:The Short Story</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1260609840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can we replace the summary of the story with this comment?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we replace the summary of the story with this comment ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we replace the summary of the story with this comment?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415748</id>
	<title>Re:Short memory</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1260645720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;I think the newest generations of free software developers take free software for granted.</p><p>Err, I suspect Phillip and Miguel are much, much older than your typical slashdot reader.</p><p>&gt;a windowing system, a file manager, an office application, a web browser, an email client, a compiler, a debugger, a zip program, a picture viewer, access to the official developer's documentation,</p><p>Well, in reality thanks to capitalism and competition we have these things at an affordable level with OSX and Windows. I think people dont remember the 1980s where dozens of OS's fought for dominance and each generation proved better than the rest. Market capitalism in a nutshell, when it works.</p><p>While OSS is important lets not pretend that its everything.</p><p>&gt;Now they are growing tired of the "free software fundamentalists" because they do not see that what they've accomplished is inseparable from the ideology in which they believed.</p><p>Or they are tired of being hamstrung by extremists. I mean, look at Linus compared to RMS. He's much, much more flexible. And guess what OS you are using. The HURD? No. Linux.</p><p>Every little revolution ages. The founders did their job and it becomes more practical.  If the people who created GNOME want to go somewhere then they should have the freedom to do so. Pardon me, but if OSS means "NEVER EVER LEAVE" then you have no rights at all. Instead its all negative comments and MS conspiracy theories like yours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I think the newest generations of free software developers take free software for granted.Err , I suspect Phillip and Miguel are much , much older than your typical slashdot reader. &gt; a windowing system , a file manager , an office application , a web browser , an email client , a compiler , a debugger , a zip program , a picture viewer , access to the official developer 's documentation,Well , in reality thanks to capitalism and competition we have these things at an affordable level with OSX and Windows .
I think people dont remember the 1980s where dozens of OS 's fought for dominance and each generation proved better than the rest .
Market capitalism in a nutshell , when it works.While OSS is important lets not pretend that its everything. &gt; Now they are growing tired of the " free software fundamentalists " because they do not see that what they 've accomplished is inseparable from the ideology in which they believed.Or they are tired of being hamstrung by extremists .
I mean , look at Linus compared to RMS .
He 's much , much more flexible .
And guess what OS you are using .
The HURD ?
No. Linux.Every little revolution ages .
The founders did their job and it becomes more practical .
If the people who created GNOME want to go somewhere then they should have the freedom to do so .
Pardon me , but if OSS means " NEVER EVER LEAVE " then you have no rights at all .
Instead its all negative comments and MS conspiracy theories like yours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;I think the newest generations of free software developers take free software for granted.Err, I suspect Phillip and Miguel are much, much older than your typical slashdot reader.&gt;a windowing system, a file manager, an office application, a web browser, an email client, a compiler, a debugger, a zip program, a picture viewer, access to the official developer's documentation,Well, in reality thanks to capitalism and competition we have these things at an affordable level with OSX and Windows.
I think people dont remember the 1980s where dozens of OS's fought for dominance and each generation proved better than the rest.
Market capitalism in a nutshell, when it works.While OSS is important lets not pretend that its everything.&gt;Now they are growing tired of the "free software fundamentalists" because they do not see that what they've accomplished is inseparable from the ideology in which they believed.Or they are tired of being hamstrung by extremists.
I mean, look at Linus compared to RMS.
He's much, much more flexible.
And guess what OS you are using.
The HURD?
No. Linux.Every little revolution ages.
The founders did their job and it becomes more practical.
If the people who created GNOME want to go somewhere then they should have the freedom to do so.
Pardon me, but if OSS means "NEVER EVER LEAVE" then you have no rights at all.
Instead its all negative comments and MS conspiracy theories like yours.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414106</id>
	<title>ISOified!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260634740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Their position isn't necessarily compatible with your position that<br>GNOME should "avoid presenting proprietary software as legitimate".</p><p>Do they know what Gnome stands for? What GNU is?</p><p>To me, there's a slow process of takeover by M$ ideals -- the same thing which was done to ISO, but on a much more planned way. ISO needed to be taken asap, or ODF would kill Office. Since OOXML was "approved", ODF was sorta defused (OOXML does not need to be good or even work; in fact, if it appears to work but doesn't, so much the better for M$).</p><p>Gnome has an ubiquitous presence in the Linux world. Taking over Gnome would deal a serious blow on Linux; if things proceed this way, who knows where they aiming? The kernel?</p><p>Things came to a point so bad that the ISO room was full with pro-M$ dudes; it was even physically impossible to enter to vote for Linux (I'm not making this up, as unbelievable as it may seem). This equates in the free collaboration world to forums being crowded -- when a "Maillist appears to be under some sort of dos attack of unknown cause."</p><p>Even the division situation is already a defeat for FOSS: every part has now half developers.</p><p>From the comments above and following here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., I guess RMS is right; people are talking about software "which puts food on the table", Stallman being a extremist, seceding Planet Gnome so it has nothing to do with GNU ideas... Wow. I mean, wow!</p><p>My view, FWIW, is to go where RMS goes. If not for him, I would have at home the suffering I must endure at work, a M$-only shop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Their position is n't necessarily compatible with your position thatGNOME should " avoid presenting proprietary software as legitimate " .Do they know what Gnome stands for ?
What GNU is ? To me , there 's a slow process of takeover by M $ ideals -- the same thing which was done to ISO , but on a much more planned way .
ISO needed to be taken asap , or ODF would kill Office .
Since OOXML was " approved " , ODF was sorta defused ( OOXML does not need to be good or even work ; in fact , if it appears to work but does n't , so much the better for M $ ) .Gnome has an ubiquitous presence in the Linux world .
Taking over Gnome would deal a serious blow on Linux ; if things proceed this way , who knows where they aiming ?
The kernel ? Things came to a point so bad that the ISO room was full with pro-M $ dudes ; it was even physically impossible to enter to vote for Linux ( I 'm not making this up , as unbelievable as it may seem ) .
This equates in the free collaboration world to forums being crowded -- when a " Maillist appears to be under some sort of dos attack of unknown cause .
" Even the division situation is already a defeat for FOSS : every part has now half developers.From the comments above and following here on /. , I guess RMS is right ; people are talking about software " which puts food on the table " , Stallman being a extremist , seceding Planet Gnome so it has nothing to do with GNU ideas... Wow. I mean , wow ! My view , FWIW , is to go where RMS goes .
If not for him , I would have at home the suffering I must endure at work , a M $ -only shop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Their position isn't necessarily compatible with your position thatGNOME should "avoid presenting proprietary software as legitimate".Do they know what Gnome stands for?
What GNU is?To me, there's a slow process of takeover by M$ ideals -- the same thing which was done to ISO, but on a much more planned way.
ISO needed to be taken asap, or ODF would kill Office.
Since OOXML was "approved", ODF was sorta defused (OOXML does not need to be good or even work; in fact, if it appears to work but doesn't, so much the better for M$).Gnome has an ubiquitous presence in the Linux world.
Taking over Gnome would deal a serious blow on Linux; if things proceed this way, who knows where they aiming?
The kernel?Things came to a point so bad that the ISO room was full with pro-M$ dudes; it was even physically impossible to enter to vote for Linux (I'm not making this up, as unbelievable as it may seem).
This equates in the free collaboration world to forums being crowded -- when a "Maillist appears to be under some sort of dos attack of unknown cause.
"Even the division situation is already a defeat for FOSS: every part has now half developers.From the comments above and following here on /., I guess RMS is right; people are talking about software "which puts food on the table", Stallman being a extremist, seceding Planet Gnome so it has nothing to do with GNU ideas... Wow. I mean, wow!My view, FWIW, is to go where RMS goes.
If not for him, I would have at home the suffering I must endure at work, a M$-only shop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418398</id>
	<title>Re:ISOified!</title>
	<author>Tubal-Cain</author>
	<datestamp>1260622140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Divide and conquer. It's not for no reason there are only a handful of DEs. These projects need a lot of people. If half the people move to a fork, could either progress at a pace that would allow them to keep up with other DEs?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Divide and conquer .
It 's not for no reason there are only a handful of DEs .
These projects need a lot of people .
If half the people move to a fork , could either progress at a pace that would allow them to keep up with other DEs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Divide and conquer.
It's not for no reason there are only a handful of DEs.
These projects need a lot of people.
If half the people move to a fork, could either progress at a pace that would allow them to keep up with other DEs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30419628</id>
	<title>Re:Short memory</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1260636540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I think the newest generations of free software developers take free software for granted.</p></div></blockquote><p>BS on two very significant accounts...</p><p>1)  The conflict between pragmatism and idealism has been there since the beginning in the open source and FSF world.  In fact, it was much more significant back then because YOU COULDN'T DO ANYTHING without some less-free software at the time.  There wasn't the whole ecosystem that there is now, so nobody batted an eyelash at having to use a piece of crap like XAnim to play what few supported video formats there were, while today open source LGPL'd audio/video codecs exist for EVERYTHING in popular use.</p><p>2)  The rise of open source is NOT the story of the GPL/FSF/"Free Software" jumping in to save the world.  People were developing open source software before the GPL gained popularity, and continue to do so.  In fact, it's really only an inconveniently-timed lawsuit that allowed Linux to rise to prominence, rather than BSD.  The vast majority of the core technologies you use every day are not under FSF licenses, and their developers don't subscribed to Stallman's extremists world view.  Even those who like the GPL and believe in the goals, think Stallman is a fool, and denounce his behavior as often as not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the newest generations of free software developers take free software for granted.BS on two very significant accounts...1 ) The conflict between pragmatism and idealism has been there since the beginning in the open source and FSF world .
In fact , it was much more significant back then because YOU COULD N'T DO ANYTHING without some less-free software at the time .
There was n't the whole ecosystem that there is now , so nobody batted an eyelash at having to use a piece of crap like XAnim to play what few supported video formats there were , while today open source LGPL 'd audio/video codecs exist for EVERYTHING in popular use.2 ) The rise of open source is NOT the story of the GPL/FSF/ " Free Software " jumping in to save the world .
People were developing open source software before the GPL gained popularity , and continue to do so .
In fact , it 's really only an inconveniently-timed lawsuit that allowed Linux to rise to prominence , rather than BSD .
The vast majority of the core technologies you use every day are not under FSF licenses , and their developers do n't subscribed to Stallman 's extremists world view .
Even those who like the GPL and believe in the goals , think Stallman is a fool , and denounce his behavior as often as not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the newest generations of free software developers take free software for granted.BS on two very significant accounts...1)  The conflict between pragmatism and idealism has been there since the beginning in the open source and FSF world.
In fact, it was much more significant back then because YOU COULDN'T DO ANYTHING without some less-free software at the time.
There wasn't the whole ecosystem that there is now, so nobody batted an eyelash at having to use a piece of crap like XAnim to play what few supported video formats there were, while today open source LGPL'd audio/video codecs exist for EVERYTHING in popular use.2)  The rise of open source is NOT the story of the GPL/FSF/"Free Software" jumping in to save the world.
People were developing open source software before the GPL gained popularity, and continue to do so.
In fact, it's really only an inconveniently-timed lawsuit that allowed Linux to rise to prominence, rather than BSD.
The vast majority of the core technologies you use every day are not under FSF licenses, and their developers don't subscribed to Stallman's extremists world view.
Even those who like the GPL and believe in the goals, think Stallman is a fool, and denounce his behavior as often as not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30420536</id>
	<title>Re:Why would he suggest that?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260644460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bye, Gnome! Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bye , Gnome !
Do n't let the door hit your ass on the way out !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bye, Gnome!
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414208</id>
	<title>Re:So they can't talk about proprietary products??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260635400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My vision is a little bit different to his.  Unlike RMS I like the idea of having authentication for some systems instead of letting everyone on the net get in and read my email.  There's also the thing about whether it is acceptable to pretend to have some sort of association with linux to advertise GNU - he's always been up front that was why he tried the silly renaming but I still think it is extremely bad manners.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My vision is a little bit different to his .
Unlike RMS I like the idea of having authentication for some systems instead of letting everyone on the net get in and read my email .
There 's also the thing about whether it is acceptable to pretend to have some sort of association with linux to advertise GNU - he 's always been up front that was why he tried the silly renaming but I still think it is extremely bad manners .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My vision is a little bit different to his.
Unlike RMS I like the idea of having authentication for some systems instead of letting everyone on the net get in and read my email.
There's also the thing about whether it is acceptable to pretend to have some sort of association with linux to advertise GNU - he's always been up front that was why he tried the silly renaming but I still think it is extremely bad manners.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30424508</id>
	<title>Re:Once upon a time</title>
	<author>rhendershot</author>
	<datestamp>1260737760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>just imagine the interoperability and cross-compatibility we could have today?</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>dude.  you're talking Apple.  did they ride the bandwagon to assure interoperbility?  No, they have their own vision.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>just imagine the interoperability and cross-compatibility we could have today ?
dude. you 're talking Apple .
did they ride the bandwagon to assure interoperbility ?
No , they have their own vision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> just imagine the interoperability and cross-compatibility we could have today?
dude.  you're talking Apple.
did they ride the bandwagon to assure interoperbility?
No, they have their own vision.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30419210</id>
	<title>Re:Because?</title>
	<author>DarkEmpath</author>
	<datestamp>1260632880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>your card won't probably be enthusiastic about the highly dynamic nature of the open source stack your drivers are running in</p></div></blockquote><p>"Highly dynamic"? What reality are you living in? Proprietary drivers have always been superior to the OSS ones I've used, starting with the Tseng Labs ET4000 card in my old 486 running Debian Potato right up to my ATI 3300 running Ubuntu 9.04. OSS drivers have always been either substandard and unable to match resolutions and performance or unstable and flakier than my ex girlfriend.<br>
<br>
Even now I can find better proprietary drivers for old hardware (e.g. my old Lexmark 1000, which could print in 600dpix600dpi with proprietary drivers, or 300dpix300dpi with OSS ones). Drivers would be the one example where OSS has ALWAYS failed me, every step of the way. And don't come back with "you've chosen bad hardware", the fact that the hardware is still supported (even as a "legacy" product) shows how much worse the OSS community is at supporting it's userbase. I'm not a programmer and can't write drivers myself, and I have no desire to pay someone to write a driver to support old hardware. Where the hell are you getting "highly dynamic" from?</p><blockquote><div><p>It [OSS drivers] can be a very pragmatic way to use the card you paid for as long as you like</p></div></blockquote><p>No. Just no. OSS is an idealistic or political way to use your card. Proprietary driver are a pragmatic way. I've seen OSS software be pragmatic, but I've never seen OSS drivers be anything but a headache or weakness in a complete system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>your card wo n't probably be enthusiastic about the highly dynamic nature of the open source stack your drivers are running in " Highly dynamic " ?
What reality are you living in ?
Proprietary drivers have always been superior to the OSS ones I 've used , starting with the Tseng Labs ET4000 card in my old 486 running Debian Potato right up to my ATI 3300 running Ubuntu 9.04 .
OSS drivers have always been either substandard and unable to match resolutions and performance or unstable and flakier than my ex girlfriend .
Even now I can find better proprietary drivers for old hardware ( e.g .
my old Lexmark 1000 , which could print in 600dpix600dpi with proprietary drivers , or 300dpix300dpi with OSS ones ) .
Drivers would be the one example where OSS has ALWAYS failed me , every step of the way .
And do n't come back with " you 've chosen bad hardware " , the fact that the hardware is still supported ( even as a " legacy " product ) shows how much worse the OSS community is at supporting it 's userbase .
I 'm not a programmer and ca n't write drivers myself , and I have no desire to pay someone to write a driver to support old hardware .
Where the hell are you getting " highly dynamic " from ? It [ OSS drivers ] can be a very pragmatic way to use the card you paid for as long as you likeNo .
Just no .
OSS is an idealistic or political way to use your card .
Proprietary driver are a pragmatic way .
I 've seen OSS software be pragmatic , but I 've never seen OSS drivers be anything but a headache or weakness in a complete system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>your card won't probably be enthusiastic about the highly dynamic nature of the open source stack your drivers are running in"Highly dynamic"?
What reality are you living in?
Proprietary drivers have always been superior to the OSS ones I've used, starting with the Tseng Labs ET4000 card in my old 486 running Debian Potato right up to my ATI 3300 running Ubuntu 9.04.
OSS drivers have always been either substandard and unable to match resolutions and performance or unstable and flakier than my ex girlfriend.
Even now I can find better proprietary drivers for old hardware (e.g.
my old Lexmark 1000, which could print in 600dpix600dpi with proprietary drivers, or 300dpix300dpi with OSS ones).
Drivers would be the one example where OSS has ALWAYS failed me, every step of the way.
And don't come back with "you've chosen bad hardware", the fact that the hardware is still supported (even as a "legacy" product) shows how much worse the OSS community is at supporting it's userbase.
I'm not a programmer and can't write drivers myself, and I have no desire to pay someone to write a driver to support old hardware.
Where the hell are you getting "highly dynamic" from?It [OSS drivers] can be a very pragmatic way to use the card you paid for as long as you likeNo.
Just no.
OSS is an idealistic or political way to use your card.
Proprietary driver are a pragmatic way.
I've seen OSS software be pragmatic, but I've never seen OSS drivers be anything but a headache or weakness in a complete system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414972</id>
	<title>Re:Gnome#</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1260640740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank god for KDE, XFCE, etc.  Anyone who thinks multiple desktop environments are a waste of effort, this is exactly why we need them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank god for KDE , XFCE , etc .
Anyone who thinks multiple desktop environments are a waste of effort , this is exactly why we need them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank god for KDE, XFCE, etc.
Anyone who thinks multiple desktop environments are a waste of effort, this is exactly why we need them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414032</id>
	<title>Re:So they can't talk about proprietary products??</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1260634080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Dear noob, Stallman is an extremist in the same sense Ghandi is an extremist.  Different ideals, though.  I mean, the guy started GNU/FSF and spends decades with it, instead of going into the industry and raking it in.
</p><p>
What are you, born 20 minutes ago?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear noob , Stallman is an extremist in the same sense Ghandi is an extremist .
Different ideals , though .
I mean , the guy started GNU/FSF and spends decades with it , instead of going into the industry and raking it in .
What are you , born 20 minutes ago ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Dear noob, Stallman is an extremist in the same sense Ghandi is an extremist.
Different ideals, though.
I mean, the guy started GNU/FSF and spends decades with it, instead of going into the industry and raking it in.
What are you, born 20 minutes ago?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414350</id>
	<title>Let me act like a Linux fanboi if this were MS...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260636360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ah yes! Another nail in Linux's coffin.<br> <br>That's it! Gnome is finally irrelavent!<br> <br>Live OSS or die!<br> <br>This is the reason I stopped using Linux in the first place. I've been Linux free* for a decade.<br> <br> <br> <br>* Except for using it at work, using it to game, using it on my cell phone, using it on 4 out of 5 systems in my home because my wife needs it... blah blah blah.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah yes !
Another nail in Linux 's coffin .
That 's it !
Gnome is finally irrelavent !
Live OSS or die !
This is the reason I stopped using Linux in the first place .
I 've been Linux free * for a decade .
* Except for using it at work , using it to game , using it on my cell phone , using it on 4 out of 5 systems in my home because my wife needs it... blah blah blah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah yes!
Another nail in Linux's coffin.
That's it!
Gnome is finally irrelavent!
Live OSS or die!
This is the reason I stopped using Linux in the first place.
I've been Linux free* for a decade.
* Except for using it at work, using it to game, using it on my cell phone, using it on 4 out of 5 systems in my home because my wife needs it... blah blah blah.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30431138</id>
	<title>False dilemma---RMS is an extremist visionary</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1260807000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Stallman is consistent about his beliefs. [...] proceed directly to the GPL, and to Stallman's presentations [...] Stallman is a visionary, not an "extremenist".</p></div><p>First of all, I want the GNU project to succeed, and I want to be able to put my computers to good use (for both work and play) using only Free Software.  Heck, I even "wave the GNU banner" in my email address (and proudly so).</p><p>I also agree with Stallman that the goal shouldn't be "using free software" but "not using non-free software".  That is, that's a goal I want to pursue. (But damn ATI and NVIDIA for closed drivers and damn Intel for slow chips... lose-lose<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:\)</p><p>However, my dislike of proprietary software stops when I can use Free Software to replace the functionality of the proprietary offerings (i.e. I don't mind the existence of Notepad as long as I'm free to use Emacs, and I don't mind Word when I can use oowriter, except I think oowriter is slow and bloated<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:|).</p><p>Not so with RMS---and this is where I think he starts sliding from "Visionary" to "Extremist visionary."  I think he wants to rid the world of proprietary software and have everyone use only Free Software, and I think he sees the mere existence of proprietary software as a threat to our freedoms.</p><p>Now, he might be right, of course; in fact, I think there's a good chance he is.</p><p>But I also think that his view is hard to sell to Jo(e) Public, because it is at one end of a continuum---that is, it's extremist.</p><p>I support the GNU project because it's about creating the world I want to live in.  And I think RMS has done wonders for it, and that the <em>net</em> contribution is a huge positive despite some of the things he do which put some people off.</p><p>But I still think his views are extreme, and that lately the good Pro-Free core has been drowned out too much below Anti-Proprietary noise.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stallman is consistent about his beliefs .
[ ... ] proceed directly to the GPL , and to Stallman 's presentations [ ... ] Stallman is a visionary , not an " extremenist " .First of all , I want the GNU project to succeed , and I want to be able to put my computers to good use ( for both work and play ) using only Free Software .
Heck , I even " wave the GNU banner " in my email address ( and proudly so ) .I also agree with Stallman that the goal should n't be " using free software " but " not using non-free software " .
That is , that 's a goal I want to pursue .
( But damn ATI and NVIDIA for closed drivers and damn Intel for slow chips... lose-lose : \ ) However , my dislike of proprietary software stops when I can use Free Software to replace the functionality of the proprietary offerings ( i.e .
I do n't mind the existence of Notepad as long as I 'm free to use Emacs , and I do n't mind Word when I can use oowriter , except I think oowriter is slow and bloated : | ) .Not so with RMS---and this is where I think he starts sliding from " Visionary " to " Extremist visionary .
" I think he wants to rid the world of proprietary software and have everyone use only Free Software , and I think he sees the mere existence of proprietary software as a threat to our freedoms.Now , he might be right , of course ; in fact , I think there 's a good chance he is.But I also think that his view is hard to sell to Jo ( e ) Public , because it is at one end of a continuum---that is , it 's extremist.I support the GNU project because it 's about creating the world I want to live in .
And I think RMS has done wonders for it , and that the net contribution is a huge positive despite some of the things he do which put some people off.But I still think his views are extreme , and that lately the good Pro-Free core has been drowned out too much below Anti-Proprietary noise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stallman is consistent about his beliefs.
[...] proceed directly to the GPL, and to Stallman's presentations [...] Stallman is a visionary, not an "extremenist".First of all, I want the GNU project to succeed, and I want to be able to put my computers to good use (for both work and play) using only Free Software.
Heck, I even "wave the GNU banner" in my email address (and proudly so).I also agree with Stallman that the goal shouldn't be "using free software" but "not using non-free software".
That is, that's a goal I want to pursue.
(But damn ATI and NVIDIA for closed drivers and damn Intel for slow chips... lose-lose :\)However, my dislike of proprietary software stops when I can use Free Software to replace the functionality of the proprietary offerings (i.e.
I don't mind the existence of Notepad as long as I'm free to use Emacs, and I don't mind Word when I can use oowriter, except I think oowriter is slow and bloated :|).Not so with RMS---and this is where I think he starts sliding from "Visionary" to "Extremist visionary.
"  I think he wants to rid the world of proprietary software and have everyone use only Free Software, and I think he sees the mere existence of proprietary software as a threat to our freedoms.Now, he might be right, of course; in fact, I think there's a good chance he is.But I also think that his view is hard to sell to Jo(e) Public, because it is at one end of a continuum---that is, it's extremist.I support the GNU project because it's about creating the world I want to live in.
And I think RMS has done wonders for it, and that the net contribution is a huge positive despite some of the things he do which put some people off.But I still think his views are extreme, and that lately the good Pro-Free core has been drowned out too much below Anti-Proprietary noise.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413990</id>
	<title>Big mistake by Gnome</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260633780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stallman will drop them from GNU Hurd now. They'll be on the outside looking in...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stallman will drop them from GNU Hurd now .
They 'll be on the outside looking in.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stallman will drop them from GNU Hurd now.
They'll be on the outside looking in...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414388</id>
	<title>Please refer to Stallman Properly</title>
	<author>fast turtle</author>
	<datestamp>1260636600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The proper form of address for Stallman is "The Hippie Dictator". It's his vision and idealism that created the entire FOSS community and he is its one true patriot and defender and needs to be referred to as such. In this case, he does have a legitimate complaint because some Gnome folks have been discussing their employers closed source products without any comparison/contrast or even reference to any open source alternatives, making it seem as though their employers have the <b>only</b> solution to certain problems. Furthermore as the creator of the FOSS concept, he fills the same role as Linus Torvalds in defining what constitutes FOSS, yet unlike Linus, he is not an absolute dictator that accepts/rejects apps based on his beliefs only.</p><p>Another thing at stake here is the historical efforts by MS to <i>Embrace/Extend/Extinguis</i> that appears to be in play with the Moonlight project, which <b>isn't based</b> on a clean room reverse engineering of the dot net protocols or even abi's. If they were to use published API's to provide the functionality, then the issue would not be as severe but when someone decides to drink the "MS Coolade" and accept their reasoning as right while accepting a paycheck from them, it raises the question of "Conflict of Interest" and follows the Extend/Embrace/Extinguish path that MS has followed in the past.</p><p>From what I've seen of the Moonlight/Mono project, it is in the extend/embrace stage right now by getting the Gnome folks so dependant upon MS Patents, that they're running the real risk of being shut down due to patent violations, which is the final Extinguish stage and they're damn good at playing that game. Oblig Quote <b>"Do you want to play a game?"</b> <i>"It seems the only way to win is not to play at all."</i><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/Oblig Quote: That's the situatation as I see it, yet Stallman has been a very lenient dictator in this regards as he's only asking the fools to </p><ol> <li>Label Moonlight as Proprietary and not base their desktop efforts on it</li><li>Expand your discussion of the products to include their OSS alternatives, no matter what state they're in</li></ol><p>neither of these seem to be an onerous request but if they continue to misuses the FOSS label, the only option that will remain is the removal of the Right to declare themselves a FOSS project, thus destroying them as independant from MS in the eyes of the community. To me the only benefit of this actually going to court would be getting the FOSS Foundation declared as the Authoritive Answer to usage of the FOSS Label and Status. If that happens, the final step taken would be the removal of the right to use FOSS project, thus destroying Gnome as a Community Project unless it's completely forked.</p><p>Think about that. If the FOSS foundation revoked the authorization of the Gnome Project to label themselves as a FOSS project, how many Distro's would quit using it? Damn near all of them and I can already hear the screams of rage from the Debian Folks in regards to Gnome because it violates their FREE SOFTWARE TENANTS and COMMITMENT. They might still offer Gnome but it couldn't be in the Base distro anylonger since it wouldn't meet their definition would it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The proper form of address for Stallman is " The Hippie Dictator " .
It 's his vision and idealism that created the entire FOSS community and he is its one true patriot and defender and needs to be referred to as such .
In this case , he does have a legitimate complaint because some Gnome folks have been discussing their employers closed source products without any comparison/contrast or even reference to any open source alternatives , making it seem as though their employers have the only solution to certain problems .
Furthermore as the creator of the FOSS concept , he fills the same role as Linus Torvalds in defining what constitutes FOSS , yet unlike Linus , he is not an absolute dictator that accepts/rejects apps based on his beliefs only.Another thing at stake here is the historical efforts by MS to Embrace/Extend/Extinguis that appears to be in play with the Moonlight project , which is n't based on a clean room reverse engineering of the dot net protocols or even abi 's .
If they were to use published API 's to provide the functionality , then the issue would not be as severe but when someone decides to drink the " MS Coolade " and accept their reasoning as right while accepting a paycheck from them , it raises the question of " Conflict of Interest " and follows the Extend/Embrace/Extinguish path that MS has followed in the past.From what I 've seen of the Moonlight/Mono project , it is in the extend/embrace stage right now by getting the Gnome folks so dependant upon MS Patents , that they 're running the real risk of being shut down due to patent violations , which is the final Extinguish stage and they 're damn good at playing that game .
Oblig Quote " Do you want to play a game ?
" " It seems the only way to win is not to play at all .
" /Oblig Quote : That 's the situatation as I see it , yet Stallman has been a very lenient dictator in this regards as he 's only asking the fools to Label Moonlight as Proprietary and not base their desktop efforts on itExpand your discussion of the products to include their OSS alternatives , no matter what state they 're inneither of these seem to be an onerous request but if they continue to misuses the FOSS label , the only option that will remain is the removal of the Right to declare themselves a FOSS project , thus destroying them as independant from MS in the eyes of the community .
To me the only benefit of this actually going to court would be getting the FOSS Foundation declared as the Authoritive Answer to usage of the FOSS Label and Status .
If that happens , the final step taken would be the removal of the right to use FOSS project , thus destroying Gnome as a Community Project unless it 's completely forked.Think about that .
If the FOSS foundation revoked the authorization of the Gnome Project to label themselves as a FOSS project , how many Distro 's would quit using it ?
Damn near all of them and I can already hear the screams of rage from the Debian Folks in regards to Gnome because it violates their FREE SOFTWARE TENANTS and COMMITMENT .
They might still offer Gnome but it could n't be in the Base distro anylonger since it would n't meet their definition would it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The proper form of address for Stallman is "The Hippie Dictator".
It's his vision and idealism that created the entire FOSS community and he is its one true patriot and defender and needs to be referred to as such.
In this case, he does have a legitimate complaint because some Gnome folks have been discussing their employers closed source products without any comparison/contrast or even reference to any open source alternatives, making it seem as though their employers have the only solution to certain problems.
Furthermore as the creator of the FOSS concept, he fills the same role as Linus Torvalds in defining what constitutes FOSS, yet unlike Linus, he is not an absolute dictator that accepts/rejects apps based on his beliefs only.Another thing at stake here is the historical efforts by MS to Embrace/Extend/Extinguis that appears to be in play with the Moonlight project, which isn't based on a clean room reverse engineering of the dot net protocols or even abi's.
If they were to use published API's to provide the functionality, then the issue would not be as severe but when someone decides to drink the "MS Coolade" and accept their reasoning as right while accepting a paycheck from them, it raises the question of "Conflict of Interest" and follows the Extend/Embrace/Extinguish path that MS has followed in the past.From what I've seen of the Moonlight/Mono project, it is in the extend/embrace stage right now by getting the Gnome folks so dependant upon MS Patents, that they're running the real risk of being shut down due to patent violations, which is the final Extinguish stage and they're damn good at playing that game.
Oblig Quote "Do you want to play a game?
" "It seems the only way to win is not to play at all.
" /Oblig Quote: That's the situatation as I see it, yet Stallman has been a very lenient dictator in this regards as he's only asking the fools to  Label Moonlight as Proprietary and not base their desktop efforts on itExpand your discussion of the products to include their OSS alternatives, no matter what state they're inneither of these seem to be an onerous request but if they continue to misuses the FOSS label, the only option that will remain is the removal of the Right to declare themselves a FOSS project, thus destroying them as independant from MS in the eyes of the community.
To me the only benefit of this actually going to court would be getting the FOSS Foundation declared as the Authoritive Answer to usage of the FOSS Label and Status.
If that happens, the final step taken would be the removal of the right to use FOSS project, thus destroying Gnome as a Community Project unless it's completely forked.Think about that.
If the FOSS foundation revoked the authorization of the Gnome Project to label themselves as a FOSS project, how many Distro's would quit using it?
Damn near all of them and I can already hear the screams of rage from the Debian Folks in regards to Gnome because it violates their FREE SOFTWARE TENANTS and COMMITMENT.
They might still offer Gnome but it couldn't be in the Base distro anylonger since it wouldn't meet their definition would it?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415446</id>
	<title>Re:It's straightforward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260643980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I'd be too happy Gnome could shed non-free software (like Tomboy notes - based on Mono) </p></div><p>Please explain to me how Tombody and/or Mono are "non-free software."</p><p>The only complaint I know of is that Microsoft (or some other company) <i>may or may not,</i> at some point in the future, exert patents or other intellectual property rights in a way that could make it difficult to distribute Tomboy and/or Mono under an open source license.</p><p>I've got news for you: That's true for <b>all</b> open source software.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be too happy Gnome could shed non-free software ( like Tomboy notes - based on Mono ) Please explain to me how Tombody and/or Mono are " non-free software .
" The only complaint I know of is that Microsoft ( or some other company ) may or may not , at some point in the future , exert patents or other intellectual property rights in a way that could make it difficult to distribute Tomboy and/or Mono under an open source license.I 've got news for you : That 's true for all open source software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I'd be too happy Gnome could shed non-free software (like Tomboy notes - based on Mono) Please explain to me how Tombody and/or Mono are "non-free software.
"The only complaint I know of is that Microsoft (or some other company) may or may not, at some point in the future, exert patents or other intellectual property rights in a way that could make it difficult to distribute Tomboy and/or Mono under an open source license.I've got news for you: That's true for all open source software.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417794</id>
	<title>Sensation Journalism</title>
	<author>tbf</author>
	<datestamp>1260616560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One guy says something, and Slashdot reports sky is falling.<br>Sansation journalism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One guy says something , and Slashdot reports sky is falling.Sansation journalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One guy says something, and Slashdot reports sky is falling.Sansation journalism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414052</id>
	<title>Re:It's straightforward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260634260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think that Miguel is all that popular. The last time I saw a long thread with him here, he suffered pretty badly. Making mono a dependency in Gnome exposes the project to unnecessary risk.</p><p>I respect Stallman far more than de Icaza, both for his thoughts and his actions over the years. Stallman is often taken out of context, but he is very consistent, and his statements almost always make sense years later  - sometimes prophetically so.</p><p>There are a group of people (mostly affiliated with corporations) who have a hate-on for Stallman, because he values his principles more than he does development speed, ease of use, profits, or being able to use the latest shiny thing from MS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think that Miguel is all that popular .
The last time I saw a long thread with him here , he suffered pretty badly .
Making mono a dependency in Gnome exposes the project to unnecessary risk.I respect Stallman far more than de Icaza , both for his thoughts and his actions over the years .
Stallman is often taken out of context , but he is very consistent , and his statements almost always make sense years later - sometimes prophetically so.There are a group of people ( mostly affiliated with corporations ) who have a hate-on for Stallman , because he values his principles more than he does development speed , ease of use , profits , or being able to use the latest shiny thing from MS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think that Miguel is all that popular.
The last time I saw a long thread with him here, he suffered pretty badly.
Making mono a dependency in Gnome exposes the project to unnecessary risk.I respect Stallman far more than de Icaza, both for his thoughts and his actions over the years.
Stallman is often taken out of context, but he is very consistent, and his statements almost always make sense years later  - sometimes prophetically so.There are a group of people (mostly affiliated with corporations) who have a hate-on for Stallman, because he values his principles more than he does development speed, ease of use, profits, or being able to use the latest shiny thing from MS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417232</id>
	<title>Re:GNOME slides further into irrelevancy.</title>
	<author>Ant P.</author>
	<datestamp>1260612360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I too once thought this way. Then one day I realised: "Holy fuck, I've got half a gig of RAM and a SSE2 CPU and I'm boycotting Qt3 to save what, 20MB?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I too once thought this way .
Then one day I realised : " Holy fuck , I 've got half a gig of RAM and a SSE2 CPU and I 'm boycotting Qt3 to save what , 20MB ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I too once thought this way.
Then one day I realised: "Holy fuck, I've got half a gig of RAM and a SSE2 CPU and I'm boycotting Qt3 to save what, 20MB?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30427418</id>
	<title>Re:Please refer to Stallman Properly</title>
	<author>bonch</author>
	<datestamp>1260718920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's my response to your long, detailed post:</p><p>Stallman eats his own toe jam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's my response to your long , detailed post : Stallman eats his own toe jam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's my response to your long, detailed post:Stallman eats his own toe jam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414120</id>
	<title>Re:It's straightforward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260634800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And pushing Tomboy means it's nothing but a ploy to get Mono distributed.  Choosing a minor app that takes 189 freaking MB of memory for nothing but displaying sticky notes on the screen is preposterous when you have similar programs which do the same in a few MBs.  It's waste for your high-end desktop/laptop with 2-4GB RAM, it's a deal breaker for slimmer configurations.</p><p>Mono was a trap from the very beginning.  Let's not let it drag us down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And pushing Tomboy means it 's nothing but a ploy to get Mono distributed .
Choosing a minor app that takes 189 freaking MB of memory for nothing but displaying sticky notes on the screen is preposterous when you have similar programs which do the same in a few MBs .
It 's waste for your high-end desktop/laptop with 2-4GB RAM , it 's a deal breaker for slimmer configurations.Mono was a trap from the very beginning .
Let 's not let it drag us down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And pushing Tomboy means it's nothing but a ploy to get Mono distributed.
Choosing a minor app that takes 189 freaking MB of memory for nothing but displaying sticky notes on the screen is preposterous when you have similar programs which do the same in a few MBs.
It's waste for your high-end desktop/laptop with 2-4GB RAM, it's a deal breaker for slimmer configurations.Mono was a trap from the very beginning.
Let's not let it drag us down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414932</id>
	<title>Icaza is a MS puppet</title>
	<author>12357bd</author>
	<datestamp>1260640440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's been promoting MS interests (eee) with-in the FOSS movement for too many years. The only open question IMO, is how long it will take to the GNOME people to get rid of his 'works'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's been promoting MS interests ( eee ) with-in the FOSS movement for too many years .
The only open question IMO , is how long it will take to the GNOME people to get rid of his 'works' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's been promoting MS interests (eee) with-in the FOSS movement for too many years.
The only open question IMO, is how long it will take to the GNOME people to get rid of his 'works'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417256</id>
	<title>just use the Real Deal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260612600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If even the GNOME developers agree Windows is exciting cutting edge technology then why would I just use a cheap imitation? Give me the Real Deal. I used to be a Linux admin before going back to school. Linux is great for servers but I'm too concious of time management to waste precious time on the trifles of using a fake wannabe Windows environment. If he's right and silverlight really is this innovative, awesome technology then to hell with this cheezy GNOME imitation GIVE ME THE REAL MCCOY!</p><p>Posted from Windows 7 ( haven't wasted time on desktop Linux since going to grad school)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If even the GNOME developers agree Windows is exciting cutting edge technology then why would I just use a cheap imitation ?
Give me the Real Deal .
I used to be a Linux admin before going back to school .
Linux is great for servers but I 'm too concious of time management to waste precious time on the trifles of using a fake wannabe Windows environment .
If he 's right and silverlight really is this innovative , awesome technology then to hell with this cheezy GNOME imitation GIVE ME THE REAL MCCOY ! Posted from Windows 7 ( have n't wasted time on desktop Linux since going to grad school )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If even the GNOME developers agree Windows is exciting cutting edge technology then why would I just use a cheap imitation?
Give me the Real Deal.
I used to be a Linux admin before going back to school.
Linux is great for servers but I'm too concious of time management to waste precious time on the trifles of using a fake wannabe Windows environment.
If he's right and silverlight really is this innovative, awesome technology then to hell with this cheezy GNOME imitation GIVE ME THE REAL MCCOY!Posted from Windows 7 ( haven't wasted time on desktop Linux since going to grad school)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417390</id>
	<title>Re:GNOME slides further into irrelevancy.</title>
	<author>PeterBrett</author>
	<datestamp>1260613680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Funny, that's the main thing that stops me from using KDE (that and the continued instability of plasma). I have a hard time finding nice simple kde equivalents to audacious, deluge (vastly prefer it to ktorrent), gimp, pidgin and of course firefox (and now chrome). Since all my productive apps are GTK based, it is very hard for me to justify switching to KDE4.</p></div><p>You do realise that KDE <em>do not intend</em> to NIH every application that doesn't use Qt, right? You do realise that GTK+ apps still run <em>perfectly fine</em> on a KDE4 desktop? You do realise that both GNOME and KDE developers work together in order to make sure that KDE and GNOME apps can happily coexist, to the extent of holding their annual developer conferences together in 2009?</p><p>There's even plugins available for GNOME (Qt) to make it look like Qt (GNOME).</p><p>If you want to use GTK+ apps on a KDE desktop, go for it. The Desktop Homogeneity Inquisition aren't going to break down your door for doing so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , that 's the main thing that stops me from using KDE ( that and the continued instability of plasma ) .
I have a hard time finding nice simple kde equivalents to audacious , deluge ( vastly prefer it to ktorrent ) , gimp , pidgin and of course firefox ( and now chrome ) .
Since all my productive apps are GTK based , it is very hard for me to justify switching to KDE4.You do realise that KDE do not intend to NIH every application that does n't use Qt , right ?
You do realise that GTK + apps still run perfectly fine on a KDE4 desktop ?
You do realise that both GNOME and KDE developers work together in order to make sure that KDE and GNOME apps can happily coexist , to the extent of holding their annual developer conferences together in 2009 ? There 's even plugins available for GNOME ( Qt ) to make it look like Qt ( GNOME ) .If you want to use GTK + apps on a KDE desktop , go for it .
The Desktop Homogeneity Inquisition are n't going to break down your door for doing so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, that's the main thing that stops me from using KDE (that and the continued instability of plasma).
I have a hard time finding nice simple kde equivalents to audacious, deluge (vastly prefer it to ktorrent), gimp, pidgin and of course firefox (and now chrome).
Since all my productive apps are GTK based, it is very hard for me to justify switching to KDE4.You do realise that KDE do not intend to NIH every application that doesn't use Qt, right?
You do realise that GTK+ apps still run perfectly fine on a KDE4 desktop?
You do realise that both GNOME and KDE developers work together in order to make sure that KDE and GNOME apps can happily coexist, to the extent of holding their annual developer conferences together in 2009?There's even plugins available for GNOME (Qt) to make it look like Qt (GNOME).If you want to use GTK+ apps on a KDE desktop, go for it.
The Desktop Homogeneity Inquisition aren't going to break down your door for doing so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413796</id>
	<title>So they can't talk about proprietary products??</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1260632040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From reading the article, I'm getting the gist that part of the problem was that some folks on Planet GNOME, de Icaza included, made a lot of mention of proprietary software and relatively little mention of its open-sourced cousins. I got this impression from several points in the article, such as this one: <br>
&nbsp; </p><p><div class="quote"><p>And in response to Van Hoof's comments about VMware, Stallman said people should not write about their work on Planet GNOME "unless VmWare (sic) becomes free software. GNOME should not provide proprietary software developers with a platform to present non-free software as a good or legitimate thing."</p></div><p>I think that's a preposterous rule! You mean to tell me that folks who work on open source software, but happen to also work on non-OSS for their employers (Microsoft, VMware, etc) aren't allowed to talk about the work that actually helps them <i>put food on the table</i> and <i>may even HELP make open-source software <b>better?</b></i></p><p><i>I don't know a terrible lot about the open source movement, but from what I've read here and elsewhere, Stallman's an extremist, and that's NOT a good role model to follow.</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From reading the article , I 'm getting the gist that part of the problem was that some folks on Planet GNOME , de Icaza included , made a lot of mention of proprietary software and relatively little mention of its open-sourced cousins .
I got this impression from several points in the article , such as this one :   And in response to Van Hoof 's comments about VMware , Stallman said people should not write about their work on Planet GNOME " unless VmWare ( sic ) becomes free software .
GNOME should not provide proprietary software developers with a platform to present non-free software as a good or legitimate thing .
" I think that 's a preposterous rule !
You mean to tell me that folks who work on open source software , but happen to also work on non-OSS for their employers ( Microsoft , VMware , etc ) are n't allowed to talk about the work that actually helps them put food on the table and may even HELP make open-source software better ? I do n't know a terrible lot about the open source movement , but from what I 've read here and elsewhere , Stallman 's an extremist , and that 's NOT a good role model to follow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From reading the article, I'm getting the gist that part of the problem was that some folks on Planet GNOME, de Icaza included, made a lot of mention of proprietary software and relatively little mention of its open-sourced cousins.
I got this impression from several points in the article, such as this one: 
  And in response to Van Hoof's comments about VMware, Stallman said people should not write about their work on Planet GNOME "unless VmWare (sic) becomes free software.
GNOME should not provide proprietary software developers with a platform to present non-free software as a good or legitimate thing.
"I think that's a preposterous rule!
You mean to tell me that folks who work on open source software, but happen to also work on non-OSS for their employers (Microsoft, VMware, etc) aren't allowed to talk about the work that actually helps them put food on the table and may even HELP make open-source software better?I don't know a terrible lot about the open source movement, but from what I've read here and elsewhere, Stallman's an extremist, and that's NOT a good role model to follow.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413700</id>
	<title>Because?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260631320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maillist appears to be under some sort of dos attack of unknown cause. Does anyone know why they would want to split off?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maillist appears to be under some sort of dos attack of unknown cause .
Does anyone know why they would want to split off ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maillist appears to be under some sort of dos attack of unknown cause.
Does anyone know why they would want to split off?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30420998</id>
	<title>Re:Because?</title>
	<author>Yfrwlf</author>
	<datestamp>1260736440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a REASON behind wanting open source software?  BRILLIANT!<br> <br>

(Not poking fun at you, but at those who you were addressing: anyone who thinks open source is some religion and nothing more.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a REASON behind wanting open source software ?
BRILLIANT ! ( Not poking fun at you , but at those who you were addressing : anyone who thinks open source is some religion and nothing more .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a REASON behind wanting open source software?
BRILLIANT! 

(Not poking fun at you, but at those who you were addressing: anyone who thinks open source is some religion and nothing more.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413728</id>
	<title>Re:Because?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260631560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the linked article:<blockquote><div><p>    &gt; An outcome whereby GNOME is no longer a GNU project could cause a lot of
    &gt; harm to the free software and open source movements in general - there
    &gt; would be massive negative publicity.

    I agree but we cannot be blind when the leader of the Free Software
    Foundation is requesting that the "minimal" thing GNOME should do, is to
    support it by, and I quote, "avoiding presenting proprietary software as
    legitimate".

    I fully understand that ignoring Richard's request is the easy way. But
    his request cannot be ignored any longer. He really wants this as a
    "minimal" commitment from GNOME.

    No matter what feels good for us. We've been ignoring this for too long.

    Such a commitment is, as far as I understand our community, not entirely
    compatible with the current mindset of a lot of its members, so<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

    I think we should be intellectually honest; by doing this vote.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

So it has to do with Gnome refusing to flagging propietary software as such.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the linked article : &gt; An outcome whereby GNOME is no longer a GNU project could cause a lot of &gt; harm to the free software and open source movements in general - there &gt; would be massive negative publicity .
I agree but we can not be blind when the leader of the Free Software Foundation is requesting that the " minimal " thing GNOME should do , is to support it by , and I quote , " avoiding presenting proprietary software as legitimate " .
I fully understand that ignoring Richard 's request is the easy way .
But his request can not be ignored any longer .
He really wants this as a " minimal " commitment from GNOME .
No matter what feels good for us .
We 've been ignoring this for too long .
Such a commitment is , as far as I understand our community , not entirely compatible with the current mindset of a lot of its members , so .. . I think we should be intellectually honest ; by doing this vote .
So it has to do with Gnome refusing to flagging propietary software as such .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the linked article:    &gt; An outcome whereby GNOME is no longer a GNU project could cause a lot of
    &gt; harm to the free software and open source movements in general - there
    &gt; would be massive negative publicity.
I agree but we cannot be blind when the leader of the Free Software
    Foundation is requesting that the "minimal" thing GNOME should do, is to
    support it by, and I quote, "avoiding presenting proprietary software as
    legitimate".
I fully understand that ignoring Richard's request is the easy way.
But
    his request cannot be ignored any longer.
He really wants this as a
    "minimal" commitment from GNOME.
No matter what feels good for us.
We've been ignoring this for too long.
Such a commitment is, as far as I understand our community, not entirely
    compatible with the current mindset of a lot of its members, so ...

    I think we should be intellectually honest; by doing this vote.
So it has to do with Gnome refusing to flagging propietary software as such.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414944</id>
	<title>Re:GNOME slides further into irrelevancy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260640500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(Qt kicks the fuck out of GTK+)</p></div><p>It doesn't matter. Don't you read <a href="http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2009/Nov-23.html" title="tirania.org" rel="nofollow">the news</a> [tirania.org]? GNOME is ditching GTK for Silverlight 4, a cross-platform technology that only runs on Windows.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( Qt kicks the fuck out of GTK + ) It does n't matter .
Do n't you read the news [ tirania.org ] ?
GNOME is ditching GTK for Silverlight 4 , a cross-platform technology that only runs on Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Qt kicks the fuck out of GTK+)It doesn't matter.
Don't you read the news [tirania.org]?
GNOME is ditching GTK for Silverlight 4, a cross-platform technology that only runs on Windows.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415782</id>
	<title>Re:Gnome#</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260645840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The goal is probably to make a full system that's based on a higher level language and then start reimplementing various applications on it, hoping that this will lead to less code and thus more rapid development.</p><p>See for example another "dynamic toolchain" at: <a href="http://students.ceid.upatras.gr/~sxanth/pyvm-2.0/" title="upatras.gr" rel="nofollow">http://students.ceid.upatras.gr/~sxanth/pyvm-2.0/</a> [upatras.gr]</p><p>Some people say that such toolchains that can take a high level language for granted are more flexible and can move faster.</p><p>Currently one advantage of KDE over GNOME is C++ which is the base language of QT and makes writting gui applications easier indeed. GNOME would like to have a default higher language that's better than C but the choice of C# is arguable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The goal is probably to make a full system that 's based on a higher level language and then start reimplementing various applications on it , hoping that this will lead to less code and thus more rapid development.See for example another " dynamic toolchain " at : http : //students.ceid.upatras.gr/ ~ sxanth/pyvm-2.0/ [ upatras.gr ] Some people say that such toolchains that can take a high level language for granted are more flexible and can move faster.Currently one advantage of KDE over GNOME is C + + which is the base language of QT and makes writting gui applications easier indeed .
GNOME would like to have a default higher language that 's better than C but the choice of C # is arguable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The goal is probably to make a full system that's based on a higher level language and then start reimplementing various applications on it, hoping that this will lead to less code and thus more rapid development.See for example another "dynamic toolchain" at: http://students.ceid.upatras.gr/~sxanth/pyvm-2.0/ [upatras.gr]Some people say that such toolchains that can take a high level language for granted are more flexible and can move faster.Currently one advantage of KDE over GNOME is C++ which is the base language of QT and makes writting gui applications easier indeed.
GNOME would like to have a default higher language that's better than C but the choice of C# is arguable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414968</id>
	<title>Re:So they can't talk about proprietary products??</title>
	<author>Timothy Brownawell</author>
	<datestamp>1260640740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Stallman is a visionary, not an "extremenist".</p></div><p>Since when is "seeing things" incompatible with extremism?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>he's consistent and historically very perceptive of the risks of the slippery slopes often presented by people, and their corporations, who don't share that vision.</p></div><p>What, you actually take <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery\_slope" title="wikipedia.org">slippery slope</a> [wikipedia.org] arguments seriously?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In this case, Silverlight does in fact present some nasty risks to Gnome and free software development.</p></div><p>I think the only real risk is in existing while always being guaranteed to be a version or two behind, allowing Microsoft to mislead people with claims of being "cross-platform".</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We've seen Microsoft's "embrace and extend" behavior too often to trust them in this case.</p></div><p>I'm not sure <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,\_extend\_and\_extinguish" title="wikipedia.org">EEE</a> [wikipedia.org] is applicable in this case, and I think the European anti-trust people make it less applicable in general these days. It seems to mean, roughly, abusing network effects and a large install base to take over an existing market. Silverlight is an <em>alternative</em> to flash, rather than a mostly-compatible upgrade, so there can't be any EEE going on at the moment What <em>would</em> (almost) count as EEE would be releasing new versions that they <em>don't</em> get standardized and don't allow Mono/Moonlight to implement... but it would only work if they can first make sure that their new version would have higher market penetration than flash, and if they can keep the European anti-trust people from noticing (and I suppose the US ones, since they seem to be pulling their heads out of their asses now).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stallman is a visionary , not an " extremenist " .Since when is " seeing things " incompatible with extremism ? he 's consistent and historically very perceptive of the risks of the slippery slopes often presented by people , and their corporations , who do n't share that vision.What , you actually take slippery slope [ wikipedia.org ] arguments seriously ? In this case , Silverlight does in fact present some nasty risks to Gnome and free software development.I think the only real risk is in existing while always being guaranteed to be a version or two behind , allowing Microsoft to mislead people with claims of being " cross-platform " .We 've seen Microsoft 's " embrace and extend " behavior too often to trust them in this case.I 'm not sure EEE [ wikipedia.org ] is applicable in this case , and I think the European anti-trust people make it less applicable in general these days .
It seems to mean , roughly , abusing network effects and a large install base to take over an existing market .
Silverlight is an alternative to flash , rather than a mostly-compatible upgrade , so there ca n't be any EEE going on at the moment What would ( almost ) count as EEE would be releasing new versions that they do n't get standardized and do n't allow Mono/Moonlight to implement... but it would only work if they can first make sure that their new version would have higher market penetration than flash , and if they can keep the European anti-trust people from noticing ( and I suppose the US ones , since they seem to be pulling their heads out of their asses now ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stallman is a visionary, not an "extremenist".Since when is "seeing things" incompatible with extremism?he's consistent and historically very perceptive of the risks of the slippery slopes often presented by people, and their corporations, who don't share that vision.What, you actually take slippery slope [wikipedia.org] arguments seriously?In this case, Silverlight does in fact present some nasty risks to Gnome and free software development.I think the only real risk is in existing while always being guaranteed to be a version or two behind, allowing Microsoft to mislead people with claims of being "cross-platform".We've seen Microsoft's "embrace and extend" behavior too often to trust them in this case.I'm not sure EEE [wikipedia.org] is applicable in this case, and I think the European anti-trust people make it less applicable in general these days.
It seems to mean, roughly, abusing network effects and a large install base to take over an existing market.
Silverlight is an alternative to flash, rather than a mostly-compatible upgrade, so there can't be any EEE going on at the moment What would (almost) count as EEE would be releasing new versions that they don't get standardized and don't allow Mono/Moonlight to implement... but it would only work if they can first make sure that their new version would have higher market penetration than flash, and if they can keep the European anti-trust people from noticing (and I suppose the US ones, since they seem to be pulling their heads out of their asses now).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30419024</id>
	<title>Nobody worries about Gnome,gnome guys should worry</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1260630480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If people see that Icaza clown as a representative of Gnome and see those lame "lets trojan the debian" tactics coming from the Gnome camp, they can predict everything regarding to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET with Gnome.</p><p>First, Gnome must distance themselves from that MS reject, second they should come clean about Tomboy, for what EXACT REASON it was written in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET and why Gnome team pushed it.</p><p>Even Windows camp and OS X camp started to see Gnome as some kind of a joke especially after this Mono (Made in Mexico) soap opera. Everyone on planet, even 13 year old kids knows you can't replicate a Microsoft technology just like you can't make Cocoa with OpenStep.</p><p>Gnome guys should get rid of trojans in them or I think, the FSF/GNU and FOSS community will get rid of them. Signs are already there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If people see that Icaza clown as a representative of Gnome and see those lame " lets trojan the debian " tactics coming from the Gnome camp , they can predict everything regarding to .NET with Gnome.First , Gnome must distance themselves from that MS reject , second they should come clean about Tomboy , for what EXACT REASON it was written in .NET and why Gnome team pushed it.Even Windows camp and OS X camp started to see Gnome as some kind of a joke especially after this Mono ( Made in Mexico ) soap opera .
Everyone on planet , even 13 year old kids knows you ca n't replicate a Microsoft technology just like you ca n't make Cocoa with OpenStep.Gnome guys should get rid of trojans in them or I think , the FSF/GNU and FOSS community will get rid of them .
Signs are already there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If people see that Icaza clown as a representative of Gnome and see those lame "lets trojan the debian" tactics coming from the Gnome camp, they can predict everything regarding to .NET with Gnome.First, Gnome must distance themselves from that MS reject, second they should come clean about Tomboy, for what EXACT REASON it was written in .NET and why Gnome team pushed it.Even Windows camp and OS X camp started to see Gnome as some kind of a joke especially after this Mono (Made in Mexico) soap opera.
Everyone on planet, even 13 year old kids knows you can't replicate a Microsoft technology just like you can't make Cocoa with OpenStep.Gnome guys should get rid of trojans in them or I think, the FSF/GNU and FOSS community will get rid of them.
Signs are already there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415064</id>
	<title>Re:The Short Story</title>
	<author>jopsen</author>
	<datestamp>1260641580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Splitting with GNU over a discussion of what can be written on Planet GNOME, seems a little extreme IMO...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>
<br>
And really I believe it is relevant to discuss what should be on Planet GNOME... Promotion for products shouldn't be there... Unless these products are GNOME related, and even then I'd say that ads shouldn't be on a community blog aggregation... Noted that the line between, review and promo/ad isn't always clear... So breaking with GNU over a discussion about that seems a bit out of hand...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Splitting with GNU over a discussion of what can be written on Planet GNOME , seems a little extreme IMO... : ) And really I believe it is relevant to discuss what should be on Planet GNOME... Promotion for products should n't be there... Unless these products are GNOME related , and even then I 'd say that ads should n't be on a community blog aggregation... Noted that the line between , review and promo/ad is n't always clear... So breaking with GNU over a discussion about that seems a bit out of hand.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Splitting with GNU over a discussion of what can be written on Planet GNOME, seems a little extreme IMO... :)

And really I believe it is relevant to discuss what should be on Planet GNOME... Promotion for products shouldn't be there... Unless these products are GNOME related, and even then I'd say that ads shouldn't be on a community blog aggregation... Noted that the line between, review and promo/ad isn't always clear... So breaking with GNU over a discussion about that seems a bit out of hand...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30423656</id>
	<title>Re:Gnome#</title>
	<author>True Grit</author>
	<datestamp>1260730140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's more to it than that.</p></div><p>There *was* more to it than that, but not anymore.  llgaz's reply has the details (except for the dates) so I'll just give the cliff notes version:  Qt has been available under the GPL since about forever, and was additionally dual-licensed under the LGPL in March, so its been LGPL'd as well for almost a year now.</p><p>Licensing is now utterly a non-issue for Qt usage, which ultimately spells trouble for GTK, because as soon as everyone goes back to the normal way comparing two similar products just by comparing their feature sets and capabilities, GTK suddenly doesn't look quite so attractive (unless you have an aversion to, or some other problem with, anything written in C++ of course - GTK still 'wins' there).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's more to it than that.There * was * more to it than that , but not anymore .
llgaz 's reply has the details ( except for the dates ) so I 'll just give the cliff notes version : Qt has been available under the GPL since about forever , and was additionally dual-licensed under the LGPL in March , so its been LGPL 'd as well for almost a year now.Licensing is now utterly a non-issue for Qt usage , which ultimately spells trouble for GTK , because as soon as everyone goes back to the normal way comparing two similar products just by comparing their feature sets and capabilities , GTK suddenly does n't look quite so attractive ( unless you have an aversion to , or some other problem with , anything written in C + + of course - GTK still 'wins ' there ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's more to it than that.There *was* more to it than that, but not anymore.
llgaz's reply has the details (except for the dates) so I'll just give the cliff notes version:  Qt has been available under the GPL since about forever, and was additionally dual-licensed under the LGPL in March, so its been LGPL'd as well for almost a year now.Licensing is now utterly a non-issue for Qt usage, which ultimately spells trouble for GTK, because as soon as everyone goes back to the normal way comparing two similar products just by comparing their feature sets and capabilities, GTK suddenly doesn't look quite so attractive (unless you have an aversion to, or some other problem with, anything written in C++ of course - GTK still 'wins' there).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416544</id>
	<title>Re:It's straightforward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260651180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I might have to go back to xfce?</p></div></blockquote><p>It's coming to you. Keep an eye on Lubuntu. Project lead Mario Behling comes across of as a far-sighted chap in interviews, and I've been suspecting that Shuttleworth's warm reception of the project isn't just about having a lightweight option to replace the failed Xubuntu. I think he's being sensible and looking for a way out of the Gnome embrace for Ubuntu. This article today just fans my suspicions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I might have to go back to xfce ? It 's coming to you .
Keep an eye on Lubuntu .
Project lead Mario Behling comes across of as a far-sighted chap in interviews , and I 've been suspecting that Shuttleworth 's warm reception of the project is n't just about having a lightweight option to replace the failed Xubuntu .
I think he 's being sensible and looking for a way out of the Gnome embrace for Ubuntu .
This article today just fans my suspicions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I might have to go back to xfce?It's coming to you.
Keep an eye on Lubuntu.
Project lead Mario Behling comes across of as a far-sighted chap in interviews, and I've been suspecting that Shuttleworth's warm reception of the project isn't just about having a lightweight option to replace the failed Xubuntu.
I think he's being sensible and looking for a way out of the Gnome embrace for Ubuntu.
This article today just fans my suspicions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417288</id>
	<title>Re:Once upon a time</title>
	<author>paxcoder</author>
	<datestamp>1260612840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Had you thrown in few links into the story, and had we had a page where these comments became articles, this would've been a classic in my book.<br>Thx for the info</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Had you thrown in few links into the story , and had we had a page where these comments became articles , this would 've been a classic in my book.Thx for the info</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Had you thrown in few links into the story, and had we had a page where these comments became articles, this would've been a classic in my book.Thx for the info</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418832</id>
	<title>Re:It's straightforward</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1260627600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>God I must be getting old. Are there really programs out there that need <b>several MB</b> to display sticky notes? I remember a time when programs to do this used to take a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SideKick" title="wikipedia.org">handful of KB</a> [wikipedia.org], and those were worth millions. Why couldn't I think of that? The Tomboy developers must be richer than Bill Gates by now!</htmltext>
<tokenext>God I must be getting old .
Are there really programs out there that need several MB to display sticky notes ?
I remember a time when programs to do this used to take a handful of KB [ wikipedia.org ] , and those were worth millions .
Why could n't I think of that ?
The Tomboy developers must be richer than Bill Gates by now !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God I must be getting old.
Are there really programs out there that need several MB to display sticky notes?
I remember a time when programs to do this used to take a handful of KB [wikipedia.org], and those were worth millions.
Why couldn't I think of that?
The Tomboy developers must be richer than Bill Gates by now!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414278</id>
	<title>Re:Because?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260635880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>actually some people do want to know about their grocery shopping.</p><p>If you do not ant to reach such posts, you havbe editorial control over your own eyes and browsing habits. Use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>actually some people do want to know about their grocery shopping.If you do not ant to reach such posts , you havbe editorial control over your own eyes and browsing habits .
Use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>actually some people do want to know about their grocery shopping.If you do not ant to reach such posts, you havbe editorial control over your own eyes and browsing habits.
Use it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30425988</id>
	<title>Re:So they can't talk about proprietary products??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260706140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Richard Stallman is important for the free software movement. However it seems he is losing momentum in inspiring people who are on free software projects. This is a pity. I can partially understand his extremism, because freedom is easily lost. However if freedom has to be defended by dictatorship, there is no freedom eit</i></p><p>That's just noise being generated by the knownothings that are switching from windows to linux while they're sitting down on a sleigh getting ready for another slippery slide to the next big corporation bosom (google?).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Richard Stallman is important for the free software movement .
However it seems he is losing momentum in inspiring people who are on free software projects .
This is a pity .
I can partially understand his extremism , because freedom is easily lost .
However if freedom has to be defended by dictatorship , there is no freedom eitThat 's just noise being generated by the knownothings that are switching from windows to linux while they 're sitting down on a sleigh getting ready for another slippery slide to the next big corporation bosom ( google ?
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Richard Stallman is important for the free software movement.
However it seems he is losing momentum in inspiring people who are on free software projects.
This is a pity.
I can partially understand his extremism, because freedom is easily lost.
However if freedom has to be defended by dictatorship, there is no freedom eitThat's just noise being generated by the knownothings that are switching from windows to linux while they're sitting down on a sleigh getting ready for another slippery slide to the next big corporation bosom (google?
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414250</id>
	<title>Re:It's straightforward</title>
	<author>Jeek Elemental</author>
	<datestamp>1260635700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very well put, I have a lot of respect for Stallman, compared to him these other names are just gnomes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very well put , I have a lot of respect for Stallman , compared to him these other names are just gnomes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very well put, I have a lot of respect for Stallman, compared to him these other names are just gnomes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416464</id>
	<title>Re:Why would he suggest that?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260650700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I image Microsoft is very pleased with this new direction with Gnome.</p> </div><p>MS needs GNOME and GNU-Stallman and Linux and FOSS all the others to use as someone against whom they can "compete".</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I predict in 5 years, perhaps less Microsoft will have maneuvered these short sighted individuals to accepting Microsoft to buy Gnome.</p></div><p>Even if that <i>were</i> possible, I suspect that the GNOME-using legions would desert or fork MS-GNOME just short of the speed of light.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I image Microsoft is very pleased with this new direction with Gnome .
MS needs GNOME and GNU-Stallman and Linux and FOSS all the others to use as someone against whom they can " compete " .I predict in 5 years , perhaps less Microsoft will have maneuvered these short sighted individuals to accepting Microsoft to buy Gnome.Even if that were possible , I suspect that the GNOME-using legions would desert or fork MS-GNOME just short of the speed of light .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I image Microsoft is very pleased with this new direction with Gnome.
MS needs GNOME and GNU-Stallman and Linux and FOSS all the others to use as someone against whom they can "compete".I predict in 5 years, perhaps less Microsoft will have maneuvered these short sighted individuals to accepting Microsoft to buy Gnome.Even if that were possible, I suspect that the GNOME-using legions would desert or fork MS-GNOME just short of the speed of light.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413778</id>
	<title>Re:Because?</title>
	<author>cntThnkofAname</author>
	<datestamp>1260631860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is just off the top of my head, but I would assume that while gnome interacts with many programs in the GNU project it is almost big enough to be a separate project in it's own (like KDE or other DE). This would probably allow for quicker discussions as far as packages and more centralized management. Improving things for developers and the users.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just off the top of my head , but I would assume that while gnome interacts with many programs in the GNU project it is almost big enough to be a separate project in it 's own ( like KDE or other DE ) .
This would probably allow for quicker discussions as far as packages and more centralized management .
Improving things for developers and the users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just off the top of my head, but I would assume that while gnome interacts with many programs in the GNU project it is almost big enough to be a separate project in it's own (like KDE or other DE).
This would probably allow for quicker discussions as far as packages and more centralized management.
Improving things for developers and the users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30419648</id>
	<title>Re:GNOME slides further into irrelevancy.</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1260636660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even if it wasn't great when initially released, at least the KDE project was able to get their KDE 4.x releases out and stabilized relatively quickly.</p></div><p>You just glossed over one hell of a screw-up.</p><p>Even the colossal failure of Windows Vista doesn't compare to the initial KDE 4 releases.  At least Vista was feature-complete, and usable most of the time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if it was n't great when initially released , at least the KDE project was able to get their KDE 4.x releases out and stabilized relatively quickly.You just glossed over one hell of a screw-up.Even the colossal failure of Windows Vista does n't compare to the initial KDE 4 releases .
At least Vista was feature-complete , and usable most of the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if it wasn't great when initially released, at least the KDE project was able to get their KDE 4.x releases out and stabilized relatively quickly.You just glossed over one hell of a screw-up.Even the colossal failure of Windows Vista doesn't compare to the initial KDE 4 releases.
At least Vista was feature-complete, and usable most of the time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415250</id>
	<title>Re:Short memory</title>
	<author>jgrahn</author>
	<datestamp>1260642780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I think the newest generations of free software developers take free software for granted.
They do not know how things went before GNU and Linux were there, when to have an usable development environment you had to pay for an operating system (more expensive if it was a developer-oriented version), a windowing system, a file manager, an office application, a web browser, an email client, a compiler, a debugger, a zip program, a picture viewer, access to the official developer's documentation, and a full set of "Undocumented \%s" books. Not to mention any library you might want to use.</p></div></blockquote><p>I see your point, but it wasn't *exactly* like that.
At least on Unix, there were always plenty of people who shared code for free. Things like X11, Perl, TeX,
all the stuff posted to comp.sources.unix<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
Stallman just put it in writing (in a way many but not everybody agreed with) and supplied a C compiler to
those unfortunates who didn't have one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the newest generations of free software developers take free software for granted .
They do not know how things went before GNU and Linux were there , when to have an usable development environment you had to pay for an operating system ( more expensive if it was a developer-oriented version ) , a windowing system , a file manager , an office application , a web browser , an email client , a compiler , a debugger , a zip program , a picture viewer , access to the official developer 's documentation , and a full set of " Undocumented \ % s " books .
Not to mention any library you might want to use.I see your point , but it was n't * exactly * like that .
At least on Unix , there were always plenty of people who shared code for free .
Things like X11 , Perl , TeX , all the stuff posted to comp.sources.unix .. . Stallman just put it in writing ( in a way many but not everybody agreed with ) and supplied a C compiler to those unfortunates who did n't have one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the newest generations of free software developers take free software for granted.
They do not know how things went before GNU and Linux were there, when to have an usable development environment you had to pay for an operating system (more expensive if it was a developer-oriented version), a windowing system, a file manager, an office application, a web browser, an email client, a compiler, a debugger, a zip program, a picture viewer, access to the official developer's documentation, and a full set of "Undocumented \%s" books.
Not to mention any library you might want to use.I see your point, but it wasn't *exactly* like that.
At least on Unix, there were always plenty of people who shared code for free.
Things like X11, Perl, TeX,
all the stuff posted to comp.sources.unix ...
Stallman just put it in writing (in a way many but not everybody agreed with) and supplied a C compiler to
those unfortunates who didn't have one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415080</id>
	<title>Re:GNOME slides further into irrelevancy.</title>
	<author>knewter</author>
	<datestamp>1260641700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GNOME Shell is moving along quite nicely.  How do you justify saying GNOME is basically a dead project?  It's innovating (see gjs, and the javascript-based shell, as 2 great examples).  The introspection bits are really powerful, and essentially can give any language nicely bound access to any GObject tech.  I think you're misinformed on this point.  There's rapid and meaningful innovation happening inside of GNOME.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GNOME Shell is moving along quite nicely .
How do you justify saying GNOME is basically a dead project ?
It 's innovating ( see gjs , and the javascript-based shell , as 2 great examples ) .
The introspection bits are really powerful , and essentially can give any language nicely bound access to any GObject tech .
I think you 're misinformed on this point .
There 's rapid and meaningful innovation happening inside of GNOME .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GNOME Shell is moving along quite nicely.
How do you justify saying GNOME is basically a dead project?
It's innovating (see gjs, and the javascript-based shell, as 2 great examples).
The introspection bits are really powerful, and essentially can give any language nicely bound access to any GObject tech.
I think you're misinformed on this point.
There's rapid and meaningful innovation happening inside of GNOME.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30419634</id>
	<title>Why not just use Qt for Gnome 3.0? KDE != Qt</title>
	<author>johnnnyboy</author>
	<datestamp>1260636540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All the old complaints about Qt are no longer valid. I find it ironic that Gnome is getting more and more Mono/.NET dependant when Gnome project was started for way less than that, because Qt wasn't GPLd. But now it is.</p><p>We have an advanced GPLd toolkit widely available and it can do more than just GUIs.<br>I would really love to see what the Gnome project can do with Qt along with their interface philosophy of simplicity.</p><p>KDE != Qt  it's just one implementation of Qt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the old complaints about Qt are no longer valid .
I find it ironic that Gnome is getting more and more Mono/.NET dependant when Gnome project was started for way less than that , because Qt was n't GPLd .
But now it is.We have an advanced GPLd toolkit widely available and it can do more than just GUIs.I would really love to see what the Gnome project can do with Qt along with their interface philosophy of simplicity.KDE ! = Qt it 's just one implementation of Qt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the old complaints about Qt are no longer valid.
I find it ironic that Gnome is getting more and more Mono/.NET dependant when Gnome project was started for way less than that, because Qt wasn't GPLd.
But now it is.We have an advanced GPLd toolkit widely available and it can do more than just GUIs.I would really love to see what the Gnome project can do with Qt along with their interface philosophy of simplicity.KDE != Qt  it's just one implementation of Qt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415354</id>
	<title>Re:Short memory</title>
	<author>Timothy Brownawell</author>
	<datestamp>1260643440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They do not know how things went before GNU and Linux were there, when to have an usable development environment you had to</p></div><p>...use BSD?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do not know how things went before GNU and Linux were there , when to have an usable development environment you had to...use BSD ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They do not know how things went before GNU and Linux were there, when to have an usable development environment you had to...use BSD?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934</id>
	<title>GNOME slides further into irrelevancy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260633180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just GNOME sliding further and further into irrelevancy. It's basically a dead project at this point. There is little innovation happening, and most discussion these days is bickering over philosophical issues like in this case.</p><p>Even if it wasn't great when initially released, at least the KDE project was able to get their KDE 4.x releases out and stabilized relatively quickly. They've built a good foundation for future development. GNOME, on the other hand, hasn't seen a major release since GNOME 2.0 in 2002! GNOME 3.0 is basically a bunch of mocks at this point, and even then, the proposed changes are quite minor.</p><p>A lot of people will say, "But GNOME is the main desktop of Ubuntu and Fedora!" Yes, that is true, but it is really only an artifact of history, dating back to when the Qt licensing wasn't as open as it is today (and thus making KDE a less-appealing option). These days, both Ubuntu and Fedora could switch from GNOME to KDE within one release cycle. I predict this will happen soon enough, probably with Ubuntu switching first.</p><p>At some point, the Ubuntu community is going to realize that GNOME has stagnated, and all of the real innovation is happening with the KDE project. It'll take time, but people are already moving over to KDE, especially as the more recent KDE 4.3 and the upcoming KDE Software Compilation 4.4 releases have shown to be of a very high quality.</p><p>KDE is just technically better these days. It is implemented in a better programming language (even C++ is better than the C-and-GObject hellhole), built upon a better GUI toolkit (Qt kicks the fuck out of GTK+), and offers much better desktop applications and a more integrated desktop experience. Unless there are some huge changes within the GNOME community, they will not be able to match KDE's current environment, let alone exceed it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just GNOME sliding further and further into irrelevancy .
It 's basically a dead project at this point .
There is little innovation happening , and most discussion these days is bickering over philosophical issues like in this case.Even if it was n't great when initially released , at least the KDE project was able to get their KDE 4.x releases out and stabilized relatively quickly .
They 've built a good foundation for future development .
GNOME , on the other hand , has n't seen a major release since GNOME 2.0 in 2002 !
GNOME 3.0 is basically a bunch of mocks at this point , and even then , the proposed changes are quite minor.A lot of people will say , " But GNOME is the main desktop of Ubuntu and Fedora !
" Yes , that is true , but it is really only an artifact of history , dating back to when the Qt licensing was n't as open as it is today ( and thus making KDE a less-appealing option ) .
These days , both Ubuntu and Fedora could switch from GNOME to KDE within one release cycle .
I predict this will happen soon enough , probably with Ubuntu switching first.At some point , the Ubuntu community is going to realize that GNOME has stagnated , and all of the real innovation is happening with the KDE project .
It 'll take time , but people are already moving over to KDE , especially as the more recent KDE 4.3 and the upcoming KDE Software Compilation 4.4 releases have shown to be of a very high quality.KDE is just technically better these days .
It is implemented in a better programming language ( even C + + is better than the C-and-GObject hellhole ) , built upon a better GUI toolkit ( Qt kicks the fuck out of GTK + ) , and offers much better desktop applications and a more integrated desktop experience .
Unless there are some huge changes within the GNOME community , they will not be able to match KDE 's current environment , let alone exceed it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just GNOME sliding further and further into irrelevancy.
It's basically a dead project at this point.
There is little innovation happening, and most discussion these days is bickering over philosophical issues like in this case.Even if it wasn't great when initially released, at least the KDE project was able to get their KDE 4.x releases out and stabilized relatively quickly.
They've built a good foundation for future development.
GNOME, on the other hand, hasn't seen a major release since GNOME 2.0 in 2002!
GNOME 3.0 is basically a bunch of mocks at this point, and even then, the proposed changes are quite minor.A lot of people will say, "But GNOME is the main desktop of Ubuntu and Fedora!
" Yes, that is true, but it is really only an artifact of history, dating back to when the Qt licensing wasn't as open as it is today (and thus making KDE a less-appealing option).
These days, both Ubuntu and Fedora could switch from GNOME to KDE within one release cycle.
I predict this will happen soon enough, probably with Ubuntu switching first.At some point, the Ubuntu community is going to realize that GNOME has stagnated, and all of the real innovation is happening with the KDE project.
It'll take time, but people are already moving over to KDE, especially as the more recent KDE 4.3 and the upcoming KDE Software Compilation 4.4 releases have shown to be of a very high quality.KDE is just technically better these days.
It is implemented in a better programming language (even C++ is better than the C-and-GObject hellhole), built upon a better GUI toolkit (Qt kicks the fuck out of GTK+), and offers much better desktop applications and a more integrated desktop experience.
Unless there are some huge changes within the GNOME community, they will not be able to match KDE's current environment, let alone exceed it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415090</id>
	<title>Re:It's straightforward</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1260641820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>... he values his principles more than he does development speed, ease of use, profits, or being able to use the latest shiny thing from MS.</p></div></blockquote><p>You hit the nail squarely with that comment: Stallman values ethics more than he does profit, even his own, and the "entrepreneurs" of the world who have a reverse value system utterly despise him for it.  Can we agree that Stallman is a talented man who, in some parallel dimension, could have made quite a lot of money for himself?  He hasn't though, precisely because he doesn't value that extreme wealth.</p><p>In effect, by consistently adhering to and promoting this ethic for decades, Stallman has been placing the Greater Good well ahead of his own good.  He's a helluva lot more like Jesus in that regard than most people I know or have heard about.  Stallman is not unique for having this value system; Craig Newmark demonstrably holds the same values.  However Stallman is, as you pointed out, rather uniquely consistent in his application of those values.  That at least is a trait worth admiring, even if one disagrees with him.  Those who do disagree with him, though, need to spend some time in reflection upon their own selfishness.  Stallman demonstrates a selflessness that makes Mother Teresa (and her lifelong duplicity) look like a huckster.</p><p>The only thing wrong with Stallman's approach is that, in his zeal to realize this ethical Utopia before he dies, he is resorting to increasingly authoritarian methods when mere education fails to sway people.  That appears to be what caused this little rebellion within the GNOME community: it wasn't his free-software ethic that got them riled, it was his willingness to resort to authoritarian measures to realize or preserve it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... he values his principles more than he does development speed , ease of use , profits , or being able to use the latest shiny thing from MS.You hit the nail squarely with that comment : Stallman values ethics more than he does profit , even his own , and the " entrepreneurs " of the world who have a reverse value system utterly despise him for it .
Can we agree that Stallman is a talented man who , in some parallel dimension , could have made quite a lot of money for himself ?
He has n't though , precisely because he does n't value that extreme wealth.In effect , by consistently adhering to and promoting this ethic for decades , Stallman has been placing the Greater Good well ahead of his own good .
He 's a helluva lot more like Jesus in that regard than most people I know or have heard about .
Stallman is not unique for having this value system ; Craig Newmark demonstrably holds the same values .
However Stallman is , as you pointed out , rather uniquely consistent in his application of those values .
That at least is a trait worth admiring , even if one disagrees with him .
Those who do disagree with him , though , need to spend some time in reflection upon their own selfishness .
Stallman demonstrates a selflessness that makes Mother Teresa ( and her lifelong duplicity ) look like a huckster.The only thing wrong with Stallman 's approach is that , in his zeal to realize this ethical Utopia before he dies , he is resorting to increasingly authoritarian methods when mere education fails to sway people .
That appears to be what caused this little rebellion within the GNOME community : it was n't his free-software ethic that got them riled , it was his willingness to resort to authoritarian measures to realize or preserve it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... he values his principles more than he does development speed, ease of use, profits, or being able to use the latest shiny thing from MS.You hit the nail squarely with that comment: Stallman values ethics more than he does profit, even his own, and the "entrepreneurs" of the world who have a reverse value system utterly despise him for it.
Can we agree that Stallman is a talented man who, in some parallel dimension, could have made quite a lot of money for himself?
He hasn't though, precisely because he doesn't value that extreme wealth.In effect, by consistently adhering to and promoting this ethic for decades, Stallman has been placing the Greater Good well ahead of his own good.
He's a helluva lot more like Jesus in that regard than most people I know or have heard about.
Stallman is not unique for having this value system; Craig Newmark demonstrably holds the same values.
However Stallman is, as you pointed out, rather uniquely consistent in his application of those values.
That at least is a trait worth admiring, even if one disagrees with him.
Those who do disagree with him, though, need to spend some time in reflection upon their own selfishness.
Stallman demonstrates a selflessness that makes Mother Teresa (and her lifelong duplicity) look like a huckster.The only thing wrong with Stallman's approach is that, in his zeal to realize this ethical Utopia before he dies, he is resorting to increasingly authoritarian methods when mere education fails to sway people.
That appears to be what caused this little rebellion within the GNOME community: it wasn't his free-software ethic that got them riled, it was his willingness to resort to authoritarian measures to realize or preserve it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413854</id>
	<title>Re:So they can't talk about proprietary products??</title>
	<author>mcbridematt</author>
	<datestamp>1260632520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From reading the iTWire wire article, I thought the logical solution would be to spin-off the Planet GNOME site to a third party where the ideologies of the FSF don't reach.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From reading the iTWire wire article , I thought the logical solution would be to spin-off the Planet GNOME site to a third party where the ideologies of the FSF do n't reach .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From reading the iTWire wire article, I thought the logical solution would be to spin-off the Planet GNOME site to a third party where the ideologies of the FSF don't reach.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30422318</id>
	<title>Qt is LGPL now and it has Nokia/Industry giants</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1260717120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now it is owned by a giant (Nokia), it is LGPL too.  Want to know how serious they are about Qt? In 2 years, all Nokia devices and Symbian foundation devices will be basically "kernel for running Qt". The projects already started to popup and they are getting great reviews from the always "doom and gloom" Symbian community. E.g. Skype for S60 beta.</p><p>In 2 years, all those "cheap S40" devices will become "cheap S60 devices" with Qt. I speak about 150 million devices in everyone's hand. All high end Linux powered "N series" will be "Linux kernel for running Qt".</p><p>If future is mobile/touch/iPhone, Qt and Cocoa (GNUStep) has already won. GNU should be busy with replicating the entire Cocoa (minus Apple exclusive and DRM stuff) to GNUStep and somehow make use of Qt in the process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now it is owned by a giant ( Nokia ) , it is LGPL too .
Want to know how serious they are about Qt ?
In 2 years , all Nokia devices and Symbian foundation devices will be basically " kernel for running Qt " .
The projects already started to popup and they are getting great reviews from the always " doom and gloom " Symbian community .
E.g. Skype for S60 beta.In 2 years , all those " cheap S40 " devices will become " cheap S60 devices " with Qt .
I speak about 150 million devices in everyone 's hand .
All high end Linux powered " N series " will be " Linux kernel for running Qt " .If future is mobile/touch/iPhone , Qt and Cocoa ( GNUStep ) has already won .
GNU should be busy with replicating the entire Cocoa ( minus Apple exclusive and DRM stuff ) to GNUStep and somehow make use of Qt in the process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now it is owned by a giant (Nokia), it is LGPL too.
Want to know how serious they are about Qt?
In 2 years, all Nokia devices and Symbian foundation devices will be basically "kernel for running Qt".
The projects already started to popup and they are getting great reviews from the always "doom and gloom" Symbian community.
E.g. Skype for S60 beta.In 2 years, all those "cheap S40" devices will become "cheap S60 devices" with Qt.
I speak about 150 million devices in everyone's hand.
All high end Linux powered "N series" will be "Linux kernel for running Qt".If future is mobile/touch/iPhone, Qt and Cocoa (GNUStep) has already won.
GNU should be busy with replicating the entire Cocoa (minus Apple exclusive and DRM stuff) to GNUStep and somehow make use of Qt in the process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414536</id>
	<title>Re:Because?</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1260637800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed.  Gnome doesn't exactly NEED Stallman - if they ever did.</p><p>Stallman is a queer one - he has a number of good points, but he's batshit fucking crazy sometimes.  Someone said he should for reality.  Sounds like a good idea.  He's be much happier in a universe where proprietary didn't exist, and many of us would be happier without him.</p><p>As for proprietary crap - I use proprietary video drivers almost exclusively.  I don't exactly LIKE the fact that this is the only way to get max performance from my video card - but at some point, you have to compromise with reality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Gnome does n't exactly NEED Stallman - if they ever did.Stallman is a queer one - he has a number of good points , but he 's batshit fucking crazy sometimes .
Someone said he should for reality .
Sounds like a good idea .
He 's be much happier in a universe where proprietary did n't exist , and many of us would be happier without him.As for proprietary crap - I use proprietary video drivers almost exclusively .
I do n't exactly LIKE the fact that this is the only way to get max performance from my video card - but at some point , you have to compromise with reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Gnome doesn't exactly NEED Stallman - if they ever did.Stallman is a queer one - he has a number of good points, but he's batshit fucking crazy sometimes.
Someone said he should for reality.
Sounds like a good idea.
He's be much happier in a universe where proprietary didn't exist, and many of us would be happier without him.As for proprietary crap - I use proprietary video drivers almost exclusively.
I don't exactly LIKE the fact that this is the only way to get max performance from my video card - but at some point, you have to compromise with reality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30421090</id>
	<title>Re:It's straightforward</title>
	<author>LingNoi</author>
	<datestamp>1260737940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't about promotion. Stallman wants any mention of proprietary software censored off the gnome planet.</p><p>"Loading the latest read hat in vmware here's how I figured it out" - CENSORED</p><p>That's whats happening, that's what he is suggesting. Don't try and spin this bullshit to mean he's got more ethics.</p><blockquote><div><p>it was his willingness to resort to authoritarian measures to realize or preserve it.</p></div></blockquote><p>You sound like a Chinese government offical. Enjoy your censored "freedom" in a stallman world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't about promotion .
Stallman wants any mention of proprietary software censored off the gnome planet .
" Loading the latest read hat in vmware here 's how I figured it out " - CENSOREDThat 's whats happening , that 's what he is suggesting .
Do n't try and spin this bullshit to mean he 's got more ethics.it was his willingness to resort to authoritarian measures to realize or preserve it.You sound like a Chinese government offical .
Enjoy your censored " freedom " in a stallman world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't about promotion.
Stallman wants any mention of proprietary software censored off the gnome planet.
"Loading the latest read hat in vmware here's how I figured it out" - CENSOREDThat's whats happening, that's what he is suggesting.
Don't try and spin this bullshit to mean he's got more ethics.it was his willingness to resort to authoritarian measures to realize or preserve it.You sound like a Chinese government offical.
Enjoy your censored "freedom" in a stallman world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415808</id>
	<title>Re:Short memory</title>
	<author>mounthood</author>
	<datestamp>1260646020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now they are growing tired of the "free software fundamentalists" because they do not see that what they've accomplished is inseparable from the ideology in which they believed.</p></div><p>The software *can* be separated from the ideology. BSD (and variations) make this clear. I don't think GNOME would be wise to try abandoning an ideal of freedom, and they're foolish to include Mono/Moonlight.
<br> <br>
It seems to me that the amount of ideology that a community brings to a project is proportional to proprietary business involvement when the project starts. I don't have any evidence to back this up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now they are growing tired of the " free software fundamentalists " because they do not see that what they 've accomplished is inseparable from the ideology in which they believed.The software * can * be separated from the ideology .
BSD ( and variations ) make this clear .
I do n't think GNOME would be wise to try abandoning an ideal of freedom , and they 're foolish to include Mono/Moonlight .
It seems to me that the amount of ideology that a community brings to a project is proportional to proprietary business involvement when the project starts .
I do n't have any evidence to back this up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now they are growing tired of the "free software fundamentalists" because they do not see that what they've accomplished is inseparable from the ideology in which they believed.The software *can* be separated from the ideology.
BSD (and variations) make this clear.
I don't think GNOME would be wise to try abandoning an ideal of freedom, and they're foolish to include Mono/Moonlight.
It seems to me that the amount of ideology that a community brings to a project is proportional to proprietary business involvement when the project starts.
I don't have any evidence to back this up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414154</id>
	<title>Re:So they can't talk about proprietary products??</title>
	<author>aardvarkjoe</author>
	<datestamp>1260635040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Stallman is consistent about his beliefs. Don't read 3rd hand re-interpretations: proceed directly to the GPL, and to Stallman's presentations, to understand what he said and what he believes.</p></div></blockquote><p>You can read the thread in question to decide whether the characterization above is accurate; it's his posts that seem to have triggered this argument.  It looks pretty accurate to me.</p><p>On the other hand, it doesn't look to me like anyone actually took Stallman's recommendation seriously (in terms of actually making any policy changes.)  Seems to me like it would be a little silly to make a major organizational change based on the statements of one man who is known for shooting his mouth off.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stallman is consistent about his beliefs .
Do n't read 3rd hand re-interpretations : proceed directly to the GPL , and to Stallman 's presentations , to understand what he said and what he believes.You can read the thread in question to decide whether the characterization above is accurate ; it 's his posts that seem to have triggered this argument .
It looks pretty accurate to me.On the other hand , it does n't look to me like anyone actually took Stallman 's recommendation seriously ( in terms of actually making any policy changes .
) Seems to me like it would be a little silly to make a major organizational change based on the statements of one man who is known for shooting his mouth off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stallman is consistent about his beliefs.
Don't read 3rd hand re-interpretations: proceed directly to the GPL, and to Stallman's presentations, to understand what he said and what he believes.You can read the thread in question to decide whether the characterization above is accurate; it's his posts that seem to have triggered this argument.
It looks pretty accurate to me.On the other hand, it doesn't look to me like anyone actually took Stallman's recommendation seriously (in terms of actually making any policy changes.
)  Seems to me like it would be a little silly to make a major organizational change based on the statements of one man who is known for shooting his mouth off.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418218</id>
	<title>Re:Because?</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1260620220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But that means that within one year and a half, when you go to your card manufacturer's web site to download the drivers, you'll see your card put in a separate "legacy products" box, and that will mean that you're not getting any more driver updates. Also, at the next big operating system version bump, you'll be likely in danger of being left with no drivers at all.</p></div><p>Could be.</p><p>But my experience has been FOSS dropping support for my old hardware faster than proprietary does.</p><p>I've got a whole bunch of PATA DVD burners from 2007 that don't even show up in modern linux distros. Wouldn't be so bad, except that Ubuntu 9.10 doesn't like my board's SiliconImage SATA controller. No PATA and no SATA makes Linux 100\% unusable on two of my computers. (same SATA controllers)</p><p>However, I'm happy to report that my old GeForce 6600 was working fine in 9.04 with proprietary drivers.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>P.S. I'm now running XP. It's faster than Ubuntu and doesn't leave me with driver headaches. It feels strange saying that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But that means that within one year and a half , when you go to your card manufacturer 's web site to download the drivers , you 'll see your card put in a separate " legacy products " box , and that will mean that you 're not getting any more driver updates .
Also , at the next big operating system version bump , you 'll be likely in danger of being left with no drivers at all.Could be.But my experience has been FOSS dropping support for my old hardware faster than proprietary does.I 've got a whole bunch of PATA DVD burners from 2007 that do n't even show up in modern linux distros .
Would n't be so bad , except that Ubuntu 9.10 does n't like my board 's SiliconImage SATA controller .
No PATA and no SATA makes Linux 100 \ % unusable on two of my computers .
( same SATA controllers ) However , I 'm happy to report that my old GeForce 6600 was working fine in 9.04 with proprietary drivers .
; ) P.S. I 'm now running XP .
It 's faster than Ubuntu and does n't leave me with driver headaches .
It feels strange saying that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But that means that within one year and a half, when you go to your card manufacturer's web site to download the drivers, you'll see your card put in a separate "legacy products" box, and that will mean that you're not getting any more driver updates.
Also, at the next big operating system version bump, you'll be likely in danger of being left with no drivers at all.Could be.But my experience has been FOSS dropping support for my old hardware faster than proprietary does.I've got a whole bunch of PATA DVD burners from 2007 that don't even show up in modern linux distros.
Wouldn't be so bad, except that Ubuntu 9.10 doesn't like my board's SiliconImage SATA controller.
No PATA and no SATA makes Linux 100\% unusable on two of my computers.
(same SATA controllers)However, I'm happy to report that my old GeForce 6600 was working fine in 9.04 with proprietary drivers.
;)P.S. I'm now running XP.
It's faster than Ubuntu and doesn't leave me with driver headaches.
It feels strange saying that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30430160</id>
	<title>Re:Gnome#</title>
	<author>JasterBobaMereel</author>
	<datestamp>1260801120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..and don't forget GNOME...</p><p>The split from GNU will mean a fork into GNU GNOME and Non-GNU [GNOME] (please replace name with something similar)</p><p>If they manage to take the majority of the community with them then GNU GNOME is likely to lag but it will still exist?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..and do n't forget GNOME...The split from GNU will mean a fork into GNU GNOME and Non-GNU [ GNOME ] ( please replace name with something similar ) If they manage to take the majority of the community with them then GNU GNOME is likely to lag but it will still exist ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..and don't forget GNOME...The split from GNU will mean a fork into GNU GNOME and Non-GNU [GNOME] (please replace name with something similar)If they manage to take the majority of the community with them then GNU GNOME is likely to lag but it will still exist?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415154</id>
	<title>Re:So they can't talk about proprietary products??</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1260642180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Stallman is a visionary, not an "extremenist".</p></div><p>Those are not mutually exclusive, what makes him an extremist is that he's an exclusionist. He does not want free software to work with or for anything other than free software, even the GPL is a compromise on his ideals. His ideal license wouldn't let you run proprietary software on top of Linux or using binary firmware and modules or in a proprietary VM to protect you against yourself and the evils of non-free software, the only reason it's permitted is that GNU had no free kernel and was dependent on proprietary UNIX so they had to. He doesn't want a world where you have any choice but to use free software and he's not looking to do it by virtue of being better than everyone else but by strangling the competition. I can tell you that if Microsoft or Apple talked about excluding open source the way he talks about excluding proprietary software, you'd see burning outrage.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stallman is a visionary , not an " extremenist " .Those are not mutually exclusive , what makes him an extremist is that he 's an exclusionist .
He does not want free software to work with or for anything other than free software , even the GPL is a compromise on his ideals .
His ideal license would n't let you run proprietary software on top of Linux or using binary firmware and modules or in a proprietary VM to protect you against yourself and the evils of non-free software , the only reason it 's permitted is that GNU had no free kernel and was dependent on proprietary UNIX so they had to .
He does n't want a world where you have any choice but to use free software and he 's not looking to do it by virtue of being better than everyone else but by strangling the competition .
I can tell you that if Microsoft or Apple talked about excluding open source the way he talks about excluding proprietary software , you 'd see burning outrage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stallman is a visionary, not an "extremenist".Those are not mutually exclusive, what makes him an extremist is that he's an exclusionist.
He does not want free software to work with or for anything other than free software, even the GPL is a compromise on his ideals.
His ideal license wouldn't let you run proprietary software on top of Linux or using binary firmware and modules or in a proprietary VM to protect you against yourself and the evils of non-free software, the only reason it's permitted is that GNU had no free kernel and was dependent on proprietary UNIX so they had to.
He doesn't want a world where you have any choice but to use free software and he's not looking to do it by virtue of being better than everyone else but by strangling the competition.
I can tell you that if Microsoft or Apple talked about excluding open source the way he talks about excluding proprietary software, you'd see burning outrage.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416036</id>
	<title>Re:Short memory</title>
	<author>onefriedrice</author>
	<datestamp>1260648000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think the newest generations of free software developers take free software for granted.</p></div><p>Maybe, but the likes of Miguel de Icaza et alia are hardly newcomers to the free software scene.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the newest generations of free software developers take free software for granted.Maybe , but the likes of Miguel de Icaza et alia are hardly newcomers to the free software scene .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the newest generations of free software developers take free software for granted.Maybe, but the likes of Miguel de Icaza et alia are hardly newcomers to the free software scene.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417080</id>
	<title>Re:GNOME slides further into irrelevancy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260611400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some mods don't seem to know the difference between "Insightful" and "Flamebait"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some mods do n't seem to know the difference between " Insightful " and " Flamebait "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some mods don't seem to know the difference between "Insightful" and "Flamebait"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414794</id>
	<title>Re:GNOME slides further into irrelevancy.</title>
	<author>QCompson</author>
	<datestamp>1260639480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>KDE is just technically better these days. It is implemented in a better programming language (even C++ is better than the C-and-GObject hellhole), built upon a better GUI toolkit (Qt kicks the fuck out of GTK+), <b>and offers much better desktop applications and a more integrated desktop experience.</b></p> </div><p>Funny, that's the main thing that stops me from using KDE (that and the continued instability of plasma).  I have a hard time finding nice simple kde equivalents to audacious, deluge (vastly prefer it to ktorrent), gimp, pidgin and of course firefox (and now chrome).  Since all my productive apps are GTK based, it is very hard for me to justify switching to KDE4.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>KDE is just technically better these days .
It is implemented in a better programming language ( even C + + is better than the C-and-GObject hellhole ) , built upon a better GUI toolkit ( Qt kicks the fuck out of GTK + ) , and offers much better desktop applications and a more integrated desktop experience .
Funny , that 's the main thing that stops me from using KDE ( that and the continued instability of plasma ) .
I have a hard time finding nice simple kde equivalents to audacious , deluge ( vastly prefer it to ktorrent ) , gimp , pidgin and of course firefox ( and now chrome ) .
Since all my productive apps are GTK based , it is very hard for me to justify switching to KDE4 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>KDE is just technically better these days.
It is implemented in a better programming language (even C++ is better than the C-and-GObject hellhole), built upon a better GUI toolkit (Qt kicks the fuck out of GTK+), and offers much better desktop applications and a more integrated desktop experience.
Funny, that's the main thing that stops me from using KDE (that and the continued instability of plasma).
I have a hard time finding nice simple kde equivalents to audacious, deluge (vastly prefer it to ktorrent), gimp, pidgin and of course firefox (and now chrome).
Since all my productive apps are GTK based, it is very hard for me to justify switching to KDE4.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413734</id>
	<title>what else?</title>
	<author>Pharago</author>
	<datestamp>1260631680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the server has been completely slashdotted to hell, maybe i'll get to read the gnome mailing list tomorrow<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</htmltext>
<tokenext>the server has been completely slashdotted to hell , maybe i 'll get to read the gnome mailing list tomorrow : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the server has been completely slashdotted to hell, maybe i'll get to read the gnome mailing list tomorrow :P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414872</id>
	<title>Re:It's straightforward</title>
	<author>peppepz</author>
	<datestamp>1260639960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of my requirements as a user is the presence of a "cancel" button in dialog boxes, e.g. those that will rename a file when I close them.
<p>
So far KDE still provides it, GNOME doesn't, so I use KDE. I think I'm in the crowd that uses KDE because it sucks less than GNOME.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of my requirements as a user is the presence of a " cancel " button in dialog boxes , e.g .
those that will rename a file when I close them .
So far KDE still provides it , GNOME does n't , so I use KDE .
I think I 'm in the crowd that uses KDE because it sucks less than GNOME .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of my requirements as a user is the presence of a "cancel" button in dialog boxes, e.g.
those that will rename a file when I close them.
So far KDE still provides it, GNOME doesn't, so I use KDE.
I think I'm in the crowd that uses KDE because it sucks less than GNOME.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413720</id>
	<title>Why would he suggest that?</title>
	<author>buchner.johannes</author>
	<datestamp>1260631560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Philip Van Hoof<br>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:21:53 -0800</p><p>On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 10:12 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:</p><p>&gt; But GNOME is part of the GNU Project, and it ought to support the free<br>&gt; software movement. The most minimal support for the free software movement<br>&gt; is to refrain from going directly against it; that is, to avoid presenting<br>&gt; proprietary software as legitimate.</p><p>I understand your position. I think you might not understand the<br>position of a lot of GNOME foundation members and contributors.</p><p>Their position isn't necessarily compatible with your position that<br>GNOME should "avoid presenting proprietary software as legitimate".</p><p>The way I see it is that most members want GNOME to stay out of that<br>philosophic discussion. Although GNOME usually advises to "work<br>upstream" and to "do things opensource when possible, as much as<br>possible". This is just a personal point of view, of course.</p><p>You, as one of the key FSF people, appear to be keen[1] on enforcing a<br>strict policy on how GNU's member-projects should behave. So<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>I propose to have a vote on GNOME's membership to the GNU project.</p><p>&gt; I think Planet GNOME should have a rule to this effect.</p><p>I think it's clear that I disagree. Philosophically.</p><p>&gt; There are many ways to implement such a rule, of which "block the<br>&gt; whole blog" is about the toughest one we might consider.  I'd suggest<br>&gt; rather to try a mild approach; I'm sure that can do the job.</p><p>Let's first get a consensus from our members on GNOME's status as being<br>or not being a well-behaving GNU project, or having its own identity.</p></div><p>Original thread, alternative link: <a href="http://www.mail-archive.com/foundation-list@gnome.org/msg04068.html" title="mail-archive.com">http://www.mail-archive.com/foundation-list@gnome.org/msg04068.html</a> [mail-archive.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Philip Van HoofFri , 11 Dec 2009 08 : 21 : 53 -0800On Fri , 2009-12-11 at 10 : 12 -0500 , Richard Stallman wrote : &gt; But GNOME is part of the GNU Project , and it ought to support the free &gt; software movement .
The most minimal support for the free software movement &gt; is to refrain from going directly against it ; that is , to avoid presenting &gt; proprietary software as legitimate.I understand your position .
I think you might not understand theposition of a lot of GNOME foundation members and contributors.Their position is n't necessarily compatible with your position thatGNOME should " avoid presenting proprietary software as legitimate " .The way I see it is that most members want GNOME to stay out of thatphilosophic discussion .
Although GNOME usually advises to " workupstream " and to " do things opensource when possible , as much aspossible " .
This is just a personal point of view , of course.You , as one of the key FSF people , appear to be keen [ 1 ] on enforcing astrict policy on how GNU 's member-projects should behave .
So ...I propose to have a vote on GNOME 's membership to the GNU project. &gt; I think Planet GNOME should have a rule to this effect.I think it 's clear that I disagree .
Philosophically. &gt; There are many ways to implement such a rule , of which " block the &gt; whole blog " is about the toughest one we might consider .
I 'd suggest &gt; rather to try a mild approach ; I 'm sure that can do the job.Let 's first get a consensus from our members on GNOME 's status as beingor not being a well-behaving GNU project , or having its own identity.Original thread , alternative link : http : //www.mail-archive.com/foundation-list @ gnome.org/msg04068.html [ mail-archive.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Philip Van HoofFri, 11 Dec 2009 08:21:53 -0800On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 10:12 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:&gt; But GNOME is part of the GNU Project, and it ought to support the free&gt; software movement.
The most minimal support for the free software movement&gt; is to refrain from going directly against it; that is, to avoid presenting&gt; proprietary software as legitimate.I understand your position.
I think you might not understand theposition of a lot of GNOME foundation members and contributors.Their position isn't necessarily compatible with your position thatGNOME should "avoid presenting proprietary software as legitimate".The way I see it is that most members want GNOME to stay out of thatphilosophic discussion.
Although GNOME usually advises to "workupstream" and to "do things opensource when possible, as much aspossible".
This is just a personal point of view, of course.You, as one of the key FSF people, appear to be keen[1] on enforcing astrict policy on how GNU's member-projects should behave.
So ...I propose to have a vote on GNOME's membership to the GNU project.&gt; I think Planet GNOME should have a rule to this effect.I think it's clear that I disagree.
Philosophically.&gt; There are many ways to implement such a rule, of which "block the&gt; whole blog" is about the toughest one we might consider.
I'd suggest&gt; rather to try a mild approach; I'm sure that can do the job.Let's first get a consensus from our members on GNOME's status as beingor not being a well-behaving GNU project, or having its own identity.Original thread, alternative link: http://www.mail-archive.com/foundation-list@gnome.org/msg04068.html [mail-archive.com]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417272</id>
	<title>Re:The Short Story</title>
	<author>makomk</author>
	<datestamp>1260612660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope, you read it wrong. He's talking about Silverlight as <em>the</em> way to write cross-platform apps, and about moving application over to it himself. A couple of further comments help clarify. Someone asks:</p><blockquote><div><p>Are you saying that Silverlight could be the primary UI Toolkit to develop x-platform apps with? that is are you expecting it to be replacement toolkit for all GTK# applications in the future? or just cross-platform ones?</p></div></blockquote><p>and he replies:</p><blockquote><div><p>In the long term, it will.</p><p>Silverlight 4 will be useful for a large class of applications, but it will still be missing some features necessary for say, MonoDevelop (we need precise font information for the editor for example). A full word processing program or typography program would also need this sort of information, so Silverlight in those cases would not be adequate.</p><p>But Microsoft has said that Silverlight will converge towards the WPF API, so it seems that in the long term, we could make all of these applications cross platform.</p><p>The first wave will have some limitations though.</p><p>I agree that we need more native support for a full experience. No question about that, but what is in there should be good enough to get us started.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope , you read it wrong .
He 's talking about Silverlight as the way to write cross-platform apps , and about moving application over to it himself .
A couple of further comments help clarify .
Someone asks : Are you saying that Silverlight could be the primary UI Toolkit to develop x-platform apps with ?
that is are you expecting it to be replacement toolkit for all GTK # applications in the future ?
or just cross-platform ones ? and he replies : In the long term , it will.Silverlight 4 will be useful for a large class of applications , but it will still be missing some features necessary for say , MonoDevelop ( we need precise font information for the editor for example ) .
A full word processing program or typography program would also need this sort of information , so Silverlight in those cases would not be adequate.But Microsoft has said that Silverlight will converge towards the WPF API , so it seems that in the long term , we could make all of these applications cross platform.The first wave will have some limitations though.I agree that we need more native support for a full experience .
No question about that , but what is in there should be good enough to get us started .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope, you read it wrong.
He's talking about Silverlight as the way to write cross-platform apps, and about moving application over to it himself.
A couple of further comments help clarify.
Someone asks:Are you saying that Silverlight could be the primary UI Toolkit to develop x-platform apps with?
that is are you expecting it to be replacement toolkit for all GTK# applications in the future?
or just cross-platform ones?and he replies:In the long term, it will.Silverlight 4 will be useful for a large class of applications, but it will still be missing some features necessary for say, MonoDevelop (we need precise font information for the editor for example).
A full word processing program or typography program would also need this sort of information, so Silverlight in those cases would not be adequate.But Microsoft has said that Silverlight will converge towards the WPF API, so it seems that in the long term, we could make all of these applications cross platform.The first wave will have some limitations though.I agree that we need more native support for a full experience.
No question about that, but what is in there should be good enough to get us started.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414964</id>
	<title>Re:GNOME slides further into irrelevancy.</title>
	<author>dyfet</author>
	<datestamp>1260640680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have come to think of KDE this way also.  It is however different in one other important respect; KDE also tries to offer a cross-platform framework for KDE applications, which in it's own way makes it interesting.  That being said, I think there is also room for a (lighter weight) GTK desktop environment based on traditional Unix and X design principles, especially given how easy it is to now run GTK apps under KDE.  I am just not sure yet if that is going to be XFCE4, LXDE, or both, but that future is already likely not GNOME.  However, GNOME, without GNU, is really GNOME with M, and that means it is GONE<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have come to think of KDE this way also .
It is however different in one other important respect ; KDE also tries to offer a cross-platform framework for KDE applications , which in it 's own way makes it interesting .
That being said , I think there is also room for a ( lighter weight ) GTK desktop environment based on traditional Unix and X design principles , especially given how easy it is to now run GTK apps under KDE .
I am just not sure yet if that is going to be XFCE4 , LXDE , or both , but that future is already likely not GNOME .
However , GNOME , without GNU , is really GNOME with M , and that means it is GONE ; ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have come to think of KDE this way also.
It is however different in one other important respect; KDE also tries to offer a cross-platform framework for KDE applications, which in it's own way makes it interesting.
That being said, I think there is also room for a (lighter weight) GTK desktop environment based on traditional Unix and X design principles, especially given how easy it is to now run GTK apps under KDE.
I am just not sure yet if that is going to be XFCE4, LXDE, or both, but that future is already likely not GNOME.
However, GNOME, without GNU, is really GNOME with M, and that means it is GONE ;).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413916</id>
	<title>Re:So they can't talk about proprietary products??</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1260633000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stallman is consistent about his beliefs. Don't read 3rd hand re-interpretations: proceed directly to the GPL, and to Stallman's presentations, to understand what he said and what he believes.</p><p>Stallman is a visionary, not an "extremenist". Sometimes that means the rest of us need to pay the rent and don't follow his grand visions, but he's consistent and historically very perceptive of the risks of the slippery slopes often presented by people, and their corporations, who don't share that vision. In this case, Silverlight does in fact present some nasty risks to Gnome and free software development. We've seen Microsoft's "embrace and extend" behavior too often to trust them in this case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stallman is consistent about his beliefs .
Do n't read 3rd hand re-interpretations : proceed directly to the GPL , and to Stallman 's presentations , to understand what he said and what he believes.Stallman is a visionary , not an " extremenist " .
Sometimes that means the rest of us need to pay the rent and do n't follow his grand visions , but he 's consistent and historically very perceptive of the risks of the slippery slopes often presented by people , and their corporations , who do n't share that vision .
In this case , Silverlight does in fact present some nasty risks to Gnome and free software development .
We 've seen Microsoft 's " embrace and extend " behavior too often to trust them in this case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stallman is consistent about his beliefs.
Don't read 3rd hand re-interpretations: proceed directly to the GPL, and to Stallman's presentations, to understand what he said and what he believes.Stallman is a visionary, not an "extremenist".
Sometimes that means the rest of us need to pay the rent and don't follow his grand visions, but he's consistent and historically very perceptive of the risks of the slippery slopes often presented by people, and their corporations, who don't share that vision.
In this case, Silverlight does in fact present some nasty risks to Gnome and free software development.
We've seen Microsoft's "embrace and extend" behavior too often to trust them in this case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414734</id>
	<title>Re:GNOME slides further into irrelevancy.</title>
	<author>Luke has no name</author>
	<datestamp>1260639120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gnome &gt; KDE. Remake GNOME using QT and call it KNOME, I don't care, just make sure that I get an attractive, simple environment that doesn't try to add 'cool' 'new' 'things' like plasmoids that suck.</p><p>Also, new != good. There are few gripes I have with GNOME; it's last major code change being in 2002 not being one of them.</p><p>KDE stabilizing quickly? Ya, only two years to get a system that's workable! Congratulations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gnome &gt; KDE .
Remake GNOME using QT and call it KNOME , I do n't care , just make sure that I get an attractive , simple environment that does n't try to add 'cool ' 'new ' 'things ' like plasmoids that suck.Also , new ! = good .
There are few gripes I have with GNOME ; it 's last major code change being in 2002 not being one of them.KDE stabilizing quickly ?
Ya , only two years to get a system that 's workable !
Congratulations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gnome &gt; KDE.
Remake GNOME using QT and call it KNOME, I don't care, just make sure that I get an attractive, simple environment that doesn't try to add 'cool' 'new' 'things' like plasmoids that suck.Also, new != good.
There are few gripes I have with GNOME; it's last major code change being in 2002 not being one of them.KDE stabilizing quickly?
Ya, only two years to get a system that's workable!
Congratulations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30425782</id>
	<title>Re:So they can't talk about proprietary products??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260704280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've listened to Stallman before, and I would have to disagree.  Visionary is coming up with an idea of free software.  Extremest - being completely against anything that isn't free software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've listened to Stallman before , and I would have to disagree .
Visionary is coming up with an idea of free software .
Extremest - being completely against anything that is n't free software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've listened to Stallman before, and I would have to disagree.
Visionary is coming up with an idea of free software.
Extremest - being completely against anything that isn't free software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415730</id>
	<title>Gnome.com</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260645600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like the swift fist of an angry god, Gnome.com is no longer accessible. You made RMS angry, now we all suffer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like the swift fist of an angry god , Gnome.com is no longer accessible .
You made RMS angry , now we all suffer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like the swift fist of an angry god, Gnome.com is no longer accessible.
You made RMS angry, now we all suffer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413926</id>
	<title>It's straightforward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260633120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know RMS is unpopular in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.<br>I know Miguel de Icaza is more popular.</p><p>But I also know that I am a fan of Free Software. I'd be too happy Gnome could shed non-free software (like Tomboy notes - based on Mono) instead of priding themselves for functionality. KDE is not much of an alternative, they are hopeless. German engineering, for the sake of engineering, great ideas, but agnostic to the concept of 'user requirements'.<br>I might have to go back to xfce?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know RMS is unpopular in /.I know Miguel de Icaza is more popular.But I also know that I am a fan of Free Software .
I 'd be too happy Gnome could shed non-free software ( like Tomboy notes - based on Mono ) instead of priding themselves for functionality .
KDE is not much of an alternative , they are hopeless .
German engineering , for the sake of engineering , great ideas , but agnostic to the concept of 'user requirements'.I might have to go back to xfce ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know RMS is unpopular in /.I know Miguel de Icaza is more popular.But I also know that I am a fan of Free Software.
I'd be too happy Gnome could shed non-free software (like Tomboy notes - based on Mono) instead of priding themselves for functionality.
KDE is not much of an alternative, they are hopeless.
German engineering, for the sake of engineering, great ideas, but agnostic to the concept of 'user requirements'.I might have to go back to xfce?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414366</id>
	<title>Re:It's straightforward</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1260636480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I respect Stallman and his ideas in the exact same way I respect Ron Paul. He has clearly given it a lot of thought and he has balls enough to say exactly what that is, but mannnn in reality things don't always work that way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I respect Stallman and his ideas in the exact same way I respect Ron Paul .
He has clearly given it a lot of thought and he has balls enough to say exactly what that is , but mannnn in reality things do n't always work that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I respect Stallman and his ideas in the exact same way I respect Ron Paul.
He has clearly given it a lot of thought and he has balls enough to say exactly what that is, but mannnn in reality things don't always work that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416550</id>
	<title>Re:So they can't talk about proprietary products??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260651240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Finally</i> you rear your ugly shill face again.  I've been on
quite a tear lately "foe"-ing your fellow trolls and shills like
Soppsa, Westlake and the like so my -6 would make you disappear and I was just waiting for you to
put dickbeaters on keyboard so I wouldn't have to do a search for
some of your drivel.  Thank you and thanks for helping me make
Slashdot a better less troll-ridden place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally you rear your ugly shill face again .
I 've been on quite a tear lately " foe " -ing your fellow trolls and shills like Soppsa , Westlake and the like so my -6 would make you disappear and I was just waiting for you to put dickbeaters on keyboard so I would n't have to do a search for some of your drivel .
Thank you and thanks for helping me make Slashdot a better less troll-ridden place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally you rear your ugly shill face again.
I've been on
quite a tear lately "foe"-ing your fellow trolls and shills like
Soppsa, Westlake and the like so my -6 would make you disappear and I was just waiting for you to
put dickbeaters on keyboard so I wouldn't have to do a search for
some of your drivel.
Thank you and thanks for helping me make
Slashdot a better less troll-ridden place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413992</id>
	<title>mailing lists...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260633780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>don't you think it's time to move on? The 80's are over and we have FORUMS now...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>do n't you think it 's time to move on ?
The 80 's are over and we have FORUMS now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>don't you think it's time to move on?
The 80's are over and we have FORUMS now...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416156</id>
	<title>Re:Short memory</title>
	<author>nstlgc</author>
	<datestamp>1260648900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly how do you see this whole "Microsoft will be in control of key components of GNOME" thing happening? FUD much?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly how do you see this whole " Microsoft will be in control of key components of GNOME " thing happening ?
FUD much ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly how do you see this whole "Microsoft will be in control of key components of GNOME" thing happening?
FUD much?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418334</id>
	<title>Re:Gnome#</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260621420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There's exactly a single GNOME desktop dependency using C#, Tomboy,</p></div></blockquote><p>So get rid of the fucking thing!</p><blockquote><div><p>GNOME Shell is written mostly in Javascript [...] Webkit replaced Mozilla's Gecko</p></div></blockquote><p>SpiderMonkey is written in C, NanoJIT as used by TraceMonkey is C++ and both layout engines are C++... however, WebKit ships with its own javascript engine.  Why then are Gnome devs using SpiderMonkey for Gnome shell?  It makes no sense, none whatsoever.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's exactly a single GNOME desktop dependency using C # , Tomboy,So get rid of the fucking thing ! GNOME Shell is written mostly in Javascript [ ... ] Webkit replaced Mozilla 's GeckoSpiderMonkey is written in C , NanoJIT as used by TraceMonkey is C + + and both layout engines are C + + ... however , WebKit ships with its own javascript engine .
Why then are Gnome devs using SpiderMonkey for Gnome shell ?
It makes no sense , none whatsoever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's exactly a single GNOME desktop dependency using C#, Tomboy,So get rid of the fucking thing!GNOME Shell is written mostly in Javascript [...] Webkit replaced Mozilla's GeckoSpiderMonkey is written in C, NanoJIT as used by TraceMonkey is C++ and both layout engines are C++... however, WebKit ships with its own javascript engine.
Why then are Gnome devs using SpiderMonkey for Gnome shell?
It makes no sense, none whatsoever.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417210</id>
	<title>Re:It's straightforward</title>
	<author>makomk</author>
	<datestamp>1260612120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference is: we know Microsoft has patents on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net, since they designed it. It's also highly plausible that they deliberately designed it for maximum patentability (they certainly did with OOXML). Since these patents are specifically aimed at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net/Mono, it's going to be far, far harder to find prior art to protect Mono than it would be for some random patent that some open source developer accidentally infringed on. In fact, it's almost certainly impossible to do so. Mono is used in the full knowledge that Microsoft can basically shut it down at will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is : we know Microsoft has patents on .Net , since they designed it .
It 's also highly plausible that they deliberately designed it for maximum patentability ( they certainly did with OOXML ) .
Since these patents are specifically aimed at .Net/Mono , it 's going to be far , far harder to find prior art to protect Mono than it would be for some random patent that some open source developer accidentally infringed on .
In fact , it 's almost certainly impossible to do so .
Mono is used in the full knowledge that Microsoft can basically shut it down at will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is: we know Microsoft has patents on .Net, since they designed it.
It's also highly plausible that they deliberately designed it for maximum patentability (they certainly did with OOXML).
Since these patents are specifically aimed at .Net/Mono, it's going to be far, far harder to find prior art to protect Mono than it would be for some random patent that some open source developer accidentally infringed on.
In fact, it's almost certainly impossible to do so.
Mono is used in the full knowledge that Microsoft can basically shut it down at will.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417860</id>
	<title>Re:Because?</title>
	<author>Billly Gates</author>
	<datestamp>1260617040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But the open source ones do not work.</p><p>I can't play wow under wine (shutter) without a proprietary ati driver.</p><p>If I paid for it I do not want to wait until its obsolete to use it. This is why people use Windows. It just works and gets the job done with the least amount of effort. It may not be the best but I lose freedom if I can't use my computer fully even if I can't use the source code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But the open source ones do not work.I ca n't play wow under wine ( shutter ) without a proprietary ati driver.If I paid for it I do not want to wait until its obsolete to use it .
This is why people use Windows .
It just works and gets the job done with the least amount of effort .
It may not be the best but I lose freedom if I ca n't use my computer fully even if I ca n't use the source code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the open source ones do not work.I can't play wow under wine (shutter) without a proprietary ati driver.If I paid for it I do not want to wait until its obsolete to use it.
This is why people use Windows.
It just works and gets the job done with the least amount of effort.
It may not be the best but I lose freedom if I can't use my computer fully even if I can't use the source code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30439352</id>
	<title>Re:So they can't talk about proprietary products??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260804240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which, in itself, isn't a bad thing.<br>I like that you used Ghandi as the anologue.</p><p>hat's off to you good sir.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which , in itself , is n't a bad thing.I like that you used Ghandi as the anologue.hat 's off to you good sir .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which, in itself, isn't a bad thing.I like that you used Ghandi as the anologue.hat's off to you good sir.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418876</id>
	<title>Copyleft is not free software!</title>
	<author>AlexLibman</author>
	<datestamp>1260628140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If GTK / GNOME would release a subsequent version of their software under a truly free license like BSD instead of the anti-free-market restrictive commie license like (L)GPL, it would be a tremendous boost for software industry, both open-source and proprietary, with users benefiting most of all!</p><p>(Click my name and see the arguments I've made in the past.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If GTK / GNOME would release a subsequent version of their software under a truly free license like BSD instead of the anti-free-market restrictive commie license like ( L ) GPL , it would be a tremendous boost for software industry , both open-source and proprietary , with users benefiting most of all !
( Click my name and see the arguments I 've made in the past .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If GTK / GNOME would release a subsequent version of their software under a truly free license like BSD instead of the anti-free-market restrictive commie license like (L)GPL, it would be a tremendous boost for software industry, both open-source and proprietary, with users benefiting most of all!
(Click my name and see the arguments I've made in the past.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414934</id>
	<title>Re:So they can't talk about proprietary products??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260640440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You <i>did not even</i> just compare Stallman to Ghandi.</p><p>Maybe if Ghandi had wanted all British to die horribly in a plague, rather than just leave his country alone, you might have a point. But still not, because that comparison is simply offensive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You did not even just compare Stallman to Ghandi.Maybe if Ghandi had wanted all British to die horribly in a plague , rather than just leave his country alone , you might have a point .
But still not , because that comparison is simply offensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You did not even just compare Stallman to Ghandi.Maybe if Ghandi had wanted all British to die horribly in a plague, rather than just leave his country alone, you might have a point.
But still not, because that comparison is simply offensive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417898</id>
	<title>Re:Gnome#</title>
	<author>j1m+5n0w</author>
	<datestamp>1260617280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's more to it than that.  I have read that (and someone please correct me if this is wrong) Gnome has actually been much more attractive to 3rd party developers of proprietary software, because GTK is LGPLed and therefore developers could link their apps against GTK, whereas QT was (eventually) GPLed, but commercial software developers had to buy a commercial license for QT.

</p><p>In that sense, Gnome was not only based on free software from an earlier date, it imposed less restrictions on its users.  It was more free because it didn't force its own idea of freedom on developers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's more to it than that .
I have read that ( and someone please correct me if this is wrong ) Gnome has actually been much more attractive to 3rd party developers of proprietary software , because GTK is LGPLed and therefore developers could link their apps against GTK , whereas QT was ( eventually ) GPLed , but commercial software developers had to buy a commercial license for QT .
In that sense , Gnome was not only based on free software from an earlier date , it imposed less restrictions on its users .
It was more free because it did n't force its own idea of freedom on developers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's more to it than that.
I have read that (and someone please correct me if this is wrong) Gnome has actually been much more attractive to 3rd party developers of proprietary software, because GTK is LGPLed and therefore developers could link their apps against GTK, whereas QT was (eventually) GPLed, but commercial software developers had to buy a commercial license for QT.
In that sense, Gnome was not only based on free software from an earlier date, it imposed less restrictions on its users.
It was more free because it didn't force its own idea of freedom on developers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414406</id>
	<title>Gnome#</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260636780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty much so, there is a major push to switch Gnome to C# as it core development language and now that the whole of Gnome is spliting you can bet that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET will become the core dependency. Remember, MS can void its "promises" over<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET at any moment, the EEE is is progressing well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty much so , there is a major push to switch Gnome to C # as it core development language and now that the whole of Gnome is spliting you can bet that .NET will become the core dependency .
Remember , MS can void its " promises " over .NET at any moment , the EEE is is progressing well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty much so, there is a major push to switch Gnome to C# as it core development language and now that the whole of Gnome is spliting you can bet that .NET will become the core dependency.
Remember, MS can void its "promises" over .NET at any moment, the EEE is is progressing well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416936</id>
	<title>Re:So they can't talk about proprietary products??</title>
	<author>kestasjk</author>
	<datestamp>1260610500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Stallman is consistent about his beliefs.</p></div><p>He wants all software to be open source, but has also recently said that without dual licensing MySQL cannot continue, admitting a GPL MySQL fork wouldn't go anywhere. That seems to be an inconsistency</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stallman is consistent about his beliefs.He wants all software to be open source , but has also recently said that without dual licensing MySQL can not continue , admitting a GPL MySQL fork would n't go anywhere .
That seems to be an inconsistency</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stallman is consistent about his beliefs.He wants all software to be open source, but has also recently said that without dual licensing MySQL cannot continue, admitting a GPL MySQL fork wouldn't go anywhere.
That seems to be an inconsistency
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415996</id>
	<title>Re:Why would he suggest that?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260647580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, in other words: the FSF doesn't want any Gnome developer to ever mention the existence of any closed-source software anywhere, ever, and is threatening to blacklist people's blogs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , in other words : the FSF does n't want any Gnome developer to ever mention the existence of any closed-source software anywhere , ever , and is threatening to blacklist people 's blogs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, in other words: the FSF doesn't want any Gnome developer to ever mention the existence of any closed-source software anywhere, ever, and is threatening to blacklist people's blogs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417574</id>
	<title>Re:It's straightforward</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1260615120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But I also know that I am a fan of Free Software. I'd be too happy Gnome could shed non-free software (like Tomboy notes - based on Mono)</p></div><p>Mono is free software. RMS himself says so, in the very mailing list thread that sparked this slashdot discussion. When the list starts working again, you can read RMS saying so <a href="http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2009-December/msg00038.html" title="gnome.org">here</a> [gnome.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I also know that I am a fan of Free Software .
I 'd be too happy Gnome could shed non-free software ( like Tomboy notes - based on Mono ) Mono is free software .
RMS himself says so , in the very mailing list thread that sparked this slashdot discussion .
When the list starts working again , you can read RMS saying so here [ gnome.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I also know that I am a fan of Free Software.
I'd be too happy Gnome could shed non-free software (like Tomboy notes - based on Mono)Mono is free software.
RMS himself says so, in the very mailing list thread that sparked this slashdot discussion.
When the list starts working again, you can read RMS saying so here [gnome.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415982</id>
	<title>Re:Short memory</title>
	<author>Randle\_Revar</author>
	<datestamp>1260647340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mono is not a part of the Gnome platform, and almost certainly never will be. Tomboy, F-Spot and Banshee are not official Gnome apps, and never will be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mono is not a part of the Gnome platform , and almost certainly never will be .
Tomboy , F-Spot and Banshee are not official Gnome apps , and never will be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mono is not a part of the Gnome platform, and almost certainly never will be.
Tomboy, F-Spot and Banshee are not official Gnome apps, and never will be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414638</id>
	<title>Re:So they can't talk about proprietary products??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260638520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Stallman is a visionary, not an "extremenist".</p></div><p>Not to troll, but I laughed out loud reading that, it sounds like the freedom fighter/terrorist distinction. One man's visionary is another man's extremist. I don't have anything else to add.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stallman is a visionary , not an " extremenist " .Not to troll , but I laughed out loud reading that , it sounds like the freedom fighter/terrorist distinction .
One man 's visionary is another man 's extremist .
I do n't have anything else to add .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stallman is a visionary, not an "extremenist".Not to troll, but I laughed out loud reading that, it sounds like the freedom fighter/terrorist distinction.
One man's visionary is another man's extremist.
I don't have anything else to add.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30436982</id>
	<title>Re:Gnome#</title>
	<author>msantosn</author>
	<datestamp>1260792480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have to disagree with you.

Multiple desktop environments *could* be a waste of time, you didn't think on a spin-off of the GNOME project and start from there just before they change the license.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to disagree with you .
Multiple desktop environments * could * be a waste of time , you did n't think on a spin-off of the GNOME project and start from there just before they change the license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to disagree with you.
Multiple desktop environments *could* be a waste of time, you didn't think on a spin-off of the GNOME project and start from there just before they change the license.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30419708</id>
	<title>Re:Do not want Silverlight</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1260637140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd have agreed with you a year ago.  However, the iPhone OS seems to deal rather well with native applications.  (App store complaints aside, users seem to love it)</p><p>Also, the point of ActiveX was never to expose the full OS to web applications, but rather was to extend native application functionality to the web browser.  Java, C#, and numerous other technologies do a competent job of sandboxing web apps (Google Chrome even sandboxes each browser tab).  A lot of progress has been made on this front, and more will continue to be made as we slowly rebuild our trust in native web applications.  If anything, ActiveX was far ahead of its time, but suffered from a horrendously bad security model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd have agreed with you a year ago .
However , the iPhone OS seems to deal rather well with native applications .
( App store complaints aside , users seem to love it ) Also , the point of ActiveX was never to expose the full OS to web applications , but rather was to extend native application functionality to the web browser .
Java , C # , and numerous other technologies do a competent job of sandboxing web apps ( Google Chrome even sandboxes each browser tab ) .
A lot of progress has been made on this front , and more will continue to be made as we slowly rebuild our trust in native web applications .
If anything , ActiveX was far ahead of its time , but suffered from a horrendously bad security model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd have agreed with you a year ago.
However, the iPhone OS seems to deal rather well with native applications.
(App store complaints aside, users seem to love it)Also, the point of ActiveX was never to expose the full OS to web applications, but rather was to extend native application functionality to the web browser.
Java, C#, and numerous other technologies do a competent job of sandboxing web apps (Google Chrome even sandboxes each browser tab).
A lot of progress has been made on this front, and more will continue to be made as we slowly rebuild our trust in native web applications.
If anything, ActiveX was far ahead of its time, but suffered from a horrendously bad security model.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414496</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone post the root cause?</title>
	<author>bcmm</author>
	<datestamp>1260637500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Proprietary software is not legitimate as a component of Gnome (this is, after all, why Gnome exists in the first place).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Proprietary software is not legitimate as a component of Gnome ( this is , after all , why Gnome exists in the first place ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Proprietary software is not legitimate as a component of Gnome (this is, after all, why Gnome exists in the first place).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417172</id>
	<title>Time for a fork.</title>
	<author>miffo.swe</author>
	<datestamp>1260611880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All in favor of everything Microsoft stand on Miquels side. All others on the opposite side.</p><p>Then watch as every single distribution drops the mono infested stinkpile like a hot potato and chooses the other one.</p><p>I encounter Novells mono implementations all day through my work. I truly hate every single line of code coming out of Novell that happens to be done in mono. The iFolder client, iFolder itself, Zenworks 10 and bits and pieces that malfunctions and gives me much grief all have one thing in common. Written for Mono and buggy as nothing ive ever seen. Everything else from Novell works like a charm no matter what language its written in. We are dropping Novells products altogether because of this.</p><p>Why someone would build anything in mono is beyond me, really. No matter how you twist and turn it, no apps made in neither dotnet nor mono has ever been anything but total turd. It could be the best dev enviroment in the universe for all i care, the products coming out of it still sucks.</p><p>Fork!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All in favor of everything Microsoft stand on Miquels side .
All others on the opposite side.Then watch as every single distribution drops the mono infested stinkpile like a hot potato and chooses the other one.I encounter Novells mono implementations all day through my work .
I truly hate every single line of code coming out of Novell that happens to be done in mono .
The iFolder client , iFolder itself , Zenworks 10 and bits and pieces that malfunctions and gives me much grief all have one thing in common .
Written for Mono and buggy as nothing ive ever seen .
Everything else from Novell works like a charm no matter what language its written in .
We are dropping Novells products altogether because of this.Why someone would build anything in mono is beyond me , really .
No matter how you twist and turn it , no apps made in neither dotnet nor mono has ever been anything but total turd .
It could be the best dev enviroment in the universe for all i care , the products coming out of it still sucks.Fork !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All in favor of everything Microsoft stand on Miquels side.
All others on the opposite side.Then watch as every single distribution drops the mono infested stinkpile like a hot potato and chooses the other one.I encounter Novells mono implementations all day through my work.
I truly hate every single line of code coming out of Novell that happens to be done in mono.
The iFolder client, iFolder itself, Zenworks 10 and bits and pieces that malfunctions and gives me much grief all have one thing in common.
Written for Mono and buggy as nothing ive ever seen.
Everything else from Novell works like a charm no matter what language its written in.
We are dropping Novells products altogether because of this.Why someone would build anything in mono is beyond me, really.
No matter how you twist and turn it, no apps made in neither dotnet nor mono has ever been anything but total turd.
It could be the best dev enviroment in the universe for all i care, the products coming out of it still sucks.Fork!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413960</id>
	<title>Re:So they can't talk about proprietary products??</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1260633420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Stallman is way out there, but he isn't quite an extremist, he just considers Free Software (in the sense that he has defined it, ya know, the libre thing) a matter of principle, and works to actually follow it, and to encourage other people to follow it.</p><p>(I think he is out there because I think he is wrong about the danger actually posed by closed systems, and there is 20 years of it mostly being inconvenient, not disastrous, to back me up; sure, using open systems often avoids even the inconvenience, but the proprietary world isn't the terrible slide into oblivion that he rants against)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Stallman is way out there , but he is n't quite an extremist , he just considers Free Software ( in the sense that he has defined it , ya know , the libre thing ) a matter of principle , and works to actually follow it , and to encourage other people to follow it .
( I think he is out there because I think he is wrong about the danger actually posed by closed systems , and there is 20 years of it mostly being inconvenient , not disastrous , to back me up ; sure , using open systems often avoids even the inconvenience , but the proprietary world is n't the terrible slide into oblivion that he rants against )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Stallman is way out there, but he isn't quite an extremist, he just considers Free Software (in the sense that he has defined it, ya know, the libre thing) a matter of principle, and works to actually follow it, and to encourage other people to follow it.
(I think he is out there because I think he is wrong about the danger actually posed by closed systems, and there is 20 years of it mostly being inconvenient, not disastrous, to back me up; sure, using open systems often avoids even the inconvenience, but the proprietary world isn't the terrible slide into oblivion that he rants against)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414164</id>
	<title>Re:It's straightforward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260635100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tomboy is LGPL; Mono is LGPL/GPL/X11. C#/CLI is covered by Microsoft community promise ( <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx</a> [microsoft.com] ). Why do you call that software "non-free". I don't get it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tomboy is LGPL ; Mono is LGPL/GPL/X11 .
C # /CLI is covered by Microsoft community promise ( http : //www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx [ microsoft.com ] ) .
Why do you call that software " non-free " .
I do n't get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tomboy is LGPL; Mono is LGPL/GPL/X11.
C#/CLI is covered by Microsoft community promise ( http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx [microsoft.com] ).
Why do you call that software "non-free".
I don't get it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418834</id>
	<title>Re:Because?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260627660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I run Windows 7 on a NVidia GeForce 6200A (AGP) with non-legacy drivers. On the other hand, open-source drivers for the onboard Intel Graphics Chip (i865G) are crap, same goes for that ATI XPress 200M in my laptop. Innovations on the open source side are most of the time unstable, require huge amounts of time to set up and are generally not worth the hassle because some file format for storing content will be changed on the road to a stable release without a proper program for converting existing content. So let's talk about being pragmatic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I run Windows 7 on a NVidia GeForce 6200A ( AGP ) with non-legacy drivers .
On the other hand , open-source drivers for the onboard Intel Graphics Chip ( i865G ) are crap , same goes for that ATI XPress 200M in my laptop .
Innovations on the open source side are most of the time unstable , require huge amounts of time to set up and are generally not worth the hassle because some file format for storing content will be changed on the road to a stable release without a proper program for converting existing content .
So let 's talk about being pragmatic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run Windows 7 on a NVidia GeForce 6200A (AGP) with non-legacy drivers.
On the other hand, open-source drivers for the onboard Intel Graphics Chip (i865G) are crap, same goes for that ATI XPress 200M in my laptop.
Innovations on the open source side are most of the time unstable, require huge amounts of time to set up and are generally not worth the hassle because some file format for storing content will be changed on the road to a stable release without a proper program for converting existing content.
So let's talk about being pragmatic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30424124</id>
	<title>Stallman again</title>
	<author>rhendershot</author>
	<datestamp>1260734340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it should be noted that RMS precipitated the fight with more rhetoric about not including anything non-free.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And in response to Van Hoof's comments about VMware, Stallman said people should not write about their work on Planet GNOME "unless VmWare (sic) becomes free software. GNOME should not provide proprietary software developers with a platform to present non-free software as a good or legitimate thing."</p></div><p>If Planet GNOME is restricted from software developers worldwide based on the status of their current work, that's a very sad thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it should be noted that RMS precipitated the fight with more rhetoric about not including anything non-free.And in response to Van Hoof 's comments about VMware , Stallman said people should not write about their work on Planet GNOME " unless VmWare ( sic ) becomes free software .
GNOME should not provide proprietary software developers with a platform to present non-free software as a good or legitimate thing .
" If Planet GNOME is restricted from software developers worldwide based on the status of their current work , that 's a very sad thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it should be noted that RMS precipitated the fight with more rhetoric about not including anything non-free.And in response to Van Hoof's comments about VMware, Stallman said people should not write about their work on Planet GNOME "unless VmWare (sic) becomes free software.
GNOME should not provide proprietary software developers with a platform to present non-free software as a good or legitimate thing.
"If Planet GNOME is restricted from software developers worldwide based on the status of their current work, that's a very sad thing.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415746</id>
	<title>Re:Gnome#</title>
	<author>Randle\_Revar</author>
	<datestamp>1260645720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for writing that, saved me the trouble. I don't know where people get these ideas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for writing that , saved me the trouble .
I do n't know where people get these ideas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for writing that, saved me the trouble.
I don't know where people get these ideas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413984</id>
	<title>Re:So they can't talk about proprietary products??</title>
	<author>Device666</author>
	<datestamp>1260633600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Richard Stallman is important for the free software movement. However it seems he is losing momentum in inspiring people who are on free software projects. This is a pity. I can partially understand his extremism, because freedom is easily lost. However if freedom has to be defended by dictatorship, there is no freedom either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Richard Stallman is important for the free software movement .
However it seems he is losing momentum in inspiring people who are on free software projects .
This is a pity .
I can partially understand his extremism , because freedom is easily lost .
However if freedom has to be defended by dictatorship , there is no freedom either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Richard Stallman is important for the free software movement.
However it seems he is losing momentum in inspiring people who are on free software projects.
This is a pity.
I can partially understand his extremism, because freedom is easily lost.
However if freedom has to be defended by dictatorship, there is no freedom either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30424326</id>
	<title>Re:Short memory</title>
	<author>rhendershot</author>
	<datestamp>1260736200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>They do not know how things went before GNU and Linux were there, when to have an usable development environment you had to pay for an operating system (more expensive if it was a developer-oriented version), a windowing system, a file manager, an office application, a web browser, an email client, a compiler, a debugger, a zip program, a picture viewer, access to the official developer's documentation, and a full set of "Undocumented \%s" books. Not to mention any library you might want to use. </i></p></div> </blockquote><p>You could get CP/M pretty inexpensively and it provided plenty of tools on the boards (BBS's).</p><p>Yeah, what you say is probably accurate for a snip of time for intel PC programmers.  On Windows.  Other alternatives were Turbo C and friends.  I wrote a time setter for an XT that had no bios clock battery using Borland's toolset and it cost me nothing beyond the initial software cost.</p><p>You might summarize by saying every new thing for that platform was initially a cost, then imitated at a loss by Microsoft, then included in the OS distribution or dependencies.</p><p>Gnome is not like that.  It's open source.  Any Mono or other<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET piece can be removed.  If, and that's a big Eye Eff, Gnome were to become so dependent on Mono *and* it be attacked by patent, then Gnome would take a hit, but Gnome has philosophical differences from KDE apart from QT and incompatible with proprietary<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET.  It would survive.  As free.</p><blockquote><div><p> <i><br>I think the newest generations of free software developers take free software for granted.<br></i></p></div> </blockquote><p>I think you don't really understand it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do not know how things went before GNU and Linux were there , when to have an usable development environment you had to pay for an operating system ( more expensive if it was a developer-oriented version ) , a windowing system , a file manager , an office application , a web browser , an email client , a compiler , a debugger , a zip program , a picture viewer , access to the official developer 's documentation , and a full set of " Undocumented \ % s " books .
Not to mention any library you might want to use .
You could get CP/M pretty inexpensively and it provided plenty of tools on the boards ( BBS 's ) .Yeah , what you say is probably accurate for a snip of time for intel PC programmers .
On Windows .
Other alternatives were Turbo C and friends .
I wrote a time setter for an XT that had no bios clock battery using Borland 's toolset and it cost me nothing beyond the initial software cost.You might summarize by saying every new thing for that platform was initially a cost , then imitated at a loss by Microsoft , then included in the OS distribution or dependencies.Gnome is not like that .
It 's open source .
Any Mono or other .NET piece can be removed .
If , and that 's a big Eye Eff , Gnome were to become so dependent on Mono * and * it be attacked by patent , then Gnome would take a hit , but Gnome has philosophical differences from KDE apart from QT and incompatible with proprietary .NET .
It would survive .
As free .
I think the newest generations of free software developers take free software for granted .
I think you do n't really understand it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> They do not know how things went before GNU and Linux were there, when to have an usable development environment you had to pay for an operating system (more expensive if it was a developer-oriented version), a windowing system, a file manager, an office application, a web browser, an email client, a compiler, a debugger, a zip program, a picture viewer, access to the official developer's documentation, and a full set of "Undocumented \%s" books.
Not to mention any library you might want to use.
You could get CP/M pretty inexpensively and it provided plenty of tools on the boards (BBS's).Yeah, what you say is probably accurate for a snip of time for intel PC programmers.
On Windows.
Other alternatives were Turbo C and friends.
I wrote a time setter for an XT that had no bios clock battery using Borland's toolset and it cost me nothing beyond the initial software cost.You might summarize by saying every new thing for that platform was initially a cost, then imitated at a loss by Microsoft, then included in the OS distribution or dependencies.Gnome is not like that.
It's open source.
Any Mono or other .NET piece can be removed.
If, and that's a big Eye Eff, Gnome were to become so dependent on Mono *and* it be attacked by patent, then Gnome would take a hit, but Gnome has philosophical differences from KDE apart from QT and incompatible with proprietary .NET.
It would survive.
As free.
I think the newest generations of free software developers take free software for granted.
I think you don't really understand it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418982</id>
	<title>Re:Just not true...</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1260629940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They are out to
  make money. As long as they're out to make money, then if free software makes
  them money, there's no reason they care to dismantle us or harm us.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
You're not thinking like someone who wants to make money. It's not whether free software can make money, it's whether other kinds of software can make *more* money than free software can. For example, Microsoft's office suite is much more expensive than it should be, but their huge market share makes the high prices possible. Microsoft's predatory behaviour is all about preserving their market share, which allows them to charge much higher prices.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are out to make money .
As long as they 're out to make money , then if free software makes them money , there 's no reason they care to dismantle us or harm us .
You 're not thinking like someone who wants to make money .
It 's not whether free software can make money , it 's whether other kinds of software can make * more * money than free software can .
For example , Microsoft 's office suite is much more expensive than it should be , but their huge market share makes the high prices possible .
Microsoft 's predatory behaviour is all about preserving their market share , which allows them to charge much higher prices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are out to
  make money.
As long as they're out to make money, then if free software makes
  them money, there's no reason they care to dismantle us or harm us.
You're not thinking like someone who wants to make money.
It's not whether free software can make money, it's whether other kinds of software can make *more* money than free software can.
For example, Microsoft's office suite is much more expensive than it should be, but their huge market share makes the high prices possible.
Microsoft's predatory behaviour is all about preserving their market share, which allows them to charge much higher prices.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414816</id>
	<title>Re:It's straightforward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260639540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I must say that Stallman definitely seems to see the danger in the future of depending on proprietary software.  I mean, I haven't been willing to part from the salary that working on proprietary programs brings in, but I trust Stallman a lot more than Microsoft.  Anyone else feel like the Kindle, Nook, and whatever Hearst comes up with will eventually make his essays on paying for library access true?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I must say that Stallman definitely seems to see the danger in the future of depending on proprietary software .
I mean , I have n't been willing to part from the salary that working on proprietary programs brings in , but I trust Stallman a lot more than Microsoft .
Anyone else feel like the Kindle , Nook , and whatever Hearst comes up with will eventually make his essays on paying for library access true ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I must say that Stallman definitely seems to see the danger in the future of depending on proprietary software.
I mean, I haven't been willing to part from the salary that working on proprietary programs brings in, but I trust Stallman a lot more than Microsoft.
Anyone else feel like the Kindle, Nook, and whatever Hearst comes up with will eventually make his essays on paying for library access true?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414434</id>
	<title>GNU's not worth it.</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1260636960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the GNU project wants to restrict the speech of it's members on GNU discussion boards regarding the merits of proprietary software, it's not worth it. Restricting the voicing of opinions is absolutely the antithesis of what we should expect from open-source communities. If someone thinks Mono or VMware is worth using, fine. Stallman seemed to be suggesting that removing a blog could be considered as punishment for voicing such an opinion; that's hardly an open and frank discussion conducted in a open community. I can't see how censorship could possibly be an appropriate course of action.</p><p>Gnome is attempting (and succeeding) in presenting itself as a viable alternative to proprietary desktops. Dogmatic insistence that it be developed in a vacuum, uninfluenced by any proprietary developments is absurd and not in the goal of developing Gnome into a truly versatile platform. Open-source software will utterly fail if it's community is not open-minded. Thankfully, that's not the case and if the GNU project wants to take Gnome down that narrow path I hope Gnome will choose to find it's own way instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the GNU project wants to restrict the speech of it 's members on GNU discussion boards regarding the merits of proprietary software , it 's not worth it .
Restricting the voicing of opinions is absolutely the antithesis of what we should expect from open-source communities .
If someone thinks Mono or VMware is worth using , fine .
Stallman seemed to be suggesting that removing a blog could be considered as punishment for voicing such an opinion ; that 's hardly an open and frank discussion conducted in a open community .
I ca n't see how censorship could possibly be an appropriate course of action.Gnome is attempting ( and succeeding ) in presenting itself as a viable alternative to proprietary desktops .
Dogmatic insistence that it be developed in a vacuum , uninfluenced by any proprietary developments is absurd and not in the goal of developing Gnome into a truly versatile platform .
Open-source software will utterly fail if it 's community is not open-minded .
Thankfully , that 's not the case and if the GNU project wants to take Gnome down that narrow path I hope Gnome will choose to find it 's own way instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the GNU project wants to restrict the speech of it's members on GNU discussion boards regarding the merits of proprietary software, it's not worth it.
Restricting the voicing of opinions is absolutely the antithesis of what we should expect from open-source communities.
If someone thinks Mono or VMware is worth using, fine.
Stallman seemed to be suggesting that removing a blog could be considered as punishment for voicing such an opinion; that's hardly an open and frank discussion conducted in a open community.
I can't see how censorship could possibly be an appropriate course of action.Gnome is attempting (and succeeding) in presenting itself as a viable alternative to proprietary desktops.
Dogmatic insistence that it be developed in a vacuum, uninfluenced by any proprietary developments is absurd and not in the goal of developing Gnome into a truly versatile platform.
Open-source software will utterly fail if it's community is not open-minded.
Thankfully, that's not the case and if the GNU project wants to take Gnome down that narrow path I hope Gnome will choose to find it's own way instead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414812</id>
	<title>Re:GNOME slides further into irrelevancy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260639480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mono is an abberation, a giant turd being gradually forced down the throats of new and the few remaining original Gnome users.  Gnome 2.x was unusable for me, once they release 3.x I expect it to be unusable for everyone else.</p><p>That said, Vala is a very nice language, that and a few of the Gnome libraries are outstanding.  Even with GLib being a bit rough around the edges, I'd prefer to hack on Gtk/Vala code than on any C++ or QT code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mono is an abberation , a giant turd being gradually forced down the throats of new and the few remaining original Gnome users .
Gnome 2.x was unusable for me , once they release 3.x I expect it to be unusable for everyone else.That said , Vala is a very nice language , that and a few of the Gnome libraries are outstanding .
Even with GLib being a bit rough around the edges , I 'd prefer to hack on Gtk/Vala code than on any C + + or QT code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mono is an abberation, a giant turd being gradually forced down the throats of new and the few remaining original Gnome users.
Gnome 2.x was unusable for me, once they release 3.x I expect it to be unusable for everyone else.That said, Vala is a very nice language, that and a few of the Gnome libraries are outstanding.
Even with GLib being a bit rough around the edges, I'd prefer to hack on Gtk/Vala code than on any C++ or QT code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30420852</id>
	<title>Re:Why would he suggest that?</title>
	<author>LingNoi</author>
	<datestamp>1260647760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, this is about <a href="http://www.ogmaciel.com/?p=771" title="ogmaciel.com" rel="nofollow">this blog post</a> [ogmaciel.com] being on the planet gnome and Stallman throwing a hissy fit for the mention of "vmware". Stallman then demands censoring all posts on the planet if they mention proprietary software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , this is about this blog post [ ogmaciel.com ] being on the planet gnome and Stallman throwing a hissy fit for the mention of " vmware " .
Stallman then demands censoring all posts on the planet if they mention proprietary software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, this is about this blog post [ogmaciel.com] being on the planet gnome and Stallman throwing a hissy fit for the mention of "vmware".
Stallman then demands censoring all posts on the planet if they mention proprietary software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30429688</id>
	<title>Re:It's straightforward</title>
	<author>RMS Eats Toejam</author>
	<datestamp>1260795600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>He's a disgusting fat-body who removes his sock during a presentation, begins picking at his toes, then begins to eat the 'fruits' of his labor.  That's pretty good reason not to like him.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's a disgusting fat-body who removes his sock during a presentation , begins picking at his toes , then begins to eat the 'fruits ' of his labor .
That 's pretty good reason not to like him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's a disgusting fat-body who removes his sock during a presentation, begins picking at his toes, then begins to eat the 'fruits' of his labor.
That's pretty good reason not to like him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414744</id>
	<title>GNOME 3 change not minor</title>
	<author>SteveFoerster</author>
	<datestamp>1260639180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I <em>wish</em> that the proposed changes for Gnome 3 were minor, but to me it looks like major change, and change resulting in a total usability clusterfuck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish that the proposed changes for Gnome 3 were minor , but to me it looks like major change , and change resulting in a total usability clusterfuck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish that the proposed changes for Gnome 3 were minor, but to me it looks like major change, and change resulting in a total usability clusterfuck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415252</id>
	<title>Re:GNOME slides further into irrelevancy.</title>
	<author>sgage</author>
	<datestamp>1260642780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh great, here come the KDE wienies!</p><p>I knew this was going to happen<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh great , here come the KDE wienies ! I knew this was going to happen ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh great, here come the KDE wienies!I knew this was going to happen ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416238</id>
	<title>Re:Please refer to Stallman Properly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260649500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh yes please, label Moonlight as proprietary. This will finally show that "free software" has as much to do with freedom as "freedom fries".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yes please , label Moonlight as proprietary .
This will finally show that " free software " has as much to do with freedom as " freedom fries " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yes please, label Moonlight as proprietary.
This will finally show that "free software" has as much to do with freedom as "freedom fries".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30420272</id>
	<title>Re:So they can't talk about proprietary products??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260641940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Three cheers to Mullah Stallman and his Taliban ! you guys rock.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Three cheers to Mullah Stallman and his Taliban !
you guys rock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Three cheers to Mullah Stallman and his Taliban !
you guys rock.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417690</id>
	<title>So</title>
	<author>chucklebutte</author>
	<datestamp>1260615840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does this mean Ima lose my Gnome?.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean Ima lose my Gnome ? .... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean Ima lose my Gnome?.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30430172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30423516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30436982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30420042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30422318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30420998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30420852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30439352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30419628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30419024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30420536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30421090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30425988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30421422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30423848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30419240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30425132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30423656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30419708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30425782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30419210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30424378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30421436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30427418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30420272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30435564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30421206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30429688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30424508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30431138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30419648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30430160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30424326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_135209_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_135209.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413922
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415622
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30420852
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414046
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415996
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30420536
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414406
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415058
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417898
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30423656
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30422318
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418330
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414952
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415700
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415746
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30423516
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415782
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418334
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30419024
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414754
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415512
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417890
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414972
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30430160
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30436982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30421206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414106
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416104
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418398
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_135209.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414734
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30419648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30425132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414794
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417390
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417232
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418034
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_135209.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_135209.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30427418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_135209.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414366
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416268
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415090
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30421090
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414842
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414250
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30429688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415446
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414120
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418946
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418832
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30435564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_135209.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416222
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_135209.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_135209.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414012
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414166
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_135209.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413916
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415154
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414154
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30431138
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414208
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414968
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30430172
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30425782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418390
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413984
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30425988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30420042
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30420272
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414934
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415862
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416550
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30419240
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30439352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413854
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_135209.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415592
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418982
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30424378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30424326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30419628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415354
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30421436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415808
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_135209.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30423848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30424508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_135209.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415334
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30416818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_135209.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413728
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414278
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30413778
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414536
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30415546
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30419210
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417860
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418218
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30420998
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30418834
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30417920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_135209.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30414652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30419708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30421422
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_135209.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_135209.30422282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
