<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_25_0259254</id>
	<title>Gnome Switches Nautilus Back To Browser Mode</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1261735920000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"In one of the do-the-developers-actually-use-their-own-software decisions in the Linux Desktop World, back in 2004 <a href="//developers.slashdot.org/story/04/06/13/175252/Why-Users-Blame-Spatial-Nautilus">Gnome switched to the 'Spatial' view by default</a> with their Nautilus file manager opening a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial\_file\_manager">new window with each new folder viewed</a>.  Many derided the decision as poor design or as being different for the sake of being different.  Well, after five long years the Gnome powers that be <a href="http://mail.gnome.org/archives/nautilus-list/2009-December/msg00048.html">have decided to switch back to browser mode</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " In one of the do-the-developers-actually-use-their-own-software decisions in the Linux Desktop World , back in 2004 Gnome switched to the 'Spatial ' view by default with their Nautilus file manager opening a new window with each new folder viewed .
Many derided the decision as poor design or as being different for the sake of being different .
Well , after five long years the Gnome powers that be have decided to switch back to browser mode .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "In one of the do-the-developers-actually-use-their-own-software decisions in the Linux Desktop World, back in 2004 Gnome switched to the 'Spatial' view by default with their Nautilus file manager opening a new window with each new folder viewed.
Many derided the decision as poor design or as being different for the sake of being different.
Well, after five long years the Gnome powers that be have decided to switch back to browser mode.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550814</id>
	<title>Re:why anyone would use gnome is another question</title>
	<author>Zontar The Mindless</author>
	<datestamp>1261755840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too bad you chose to dilute the 1 or 2 possibly relevant and/or useful points you might otherwise made with a bunch of stuff that is utterly beside the point (and mostly out of date besides).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad you chose to dilute the 1 or 2 possibly relevant and/or useful points you might otherwise made with a bunch of stuff that is utterly beside the point ( and mostly out of date besides ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad you chose to dilute the 1 or 2 possibly relevant and/or useful points you might otherwise made with a bunch of stuff that is utterly beside the point (and mostly out of date besides).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30553326</id>
	<title>Re:Nautilus following KDE's Dolphin?</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1261747380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Yes, they have copied the "split view" (one of the killer features of dolphin/konqueror).</i></p><p>Of course, dolphin/konqueror copied that from norton commander/midnight commander.  And I'm glad they did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , they have copied the " split view " ( one of the killer features of dolphin/konqueror ) .Of course , dolphin/konqueror copied that from norton commander/midnight commander .
And I 'm glad they did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, they have copied the "split view" (one of the killer features of dolphin/konqueror).Of course, dolphin/konqueror copied that from norton commander/midnight commander.
And I'm glad they did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552882</id>
	<title>Re:why anyone would use gnome is another question</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1261739880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>THANKS for making my point FOR me, oh and I so rarely get to use this in a sentence...WHOOSH! What did I say? What were my words? "In <strong>servers</strong>, where the hardware is very limited and rarely changes, and the corporations that build the hardware have millions invested in Linux? Yeah it will work great there, same as in <strong>cell phones</strong> and other devices where the hardware is locked down tighter than a nun's thighs and the user can only do what the developer allows them to."</p><p>And what devices did you point to as "success stories? Servers (hardware rarely changes, millions invested by hardware manufacturers) Cell Phones and mobile devices (locked down tighter than a nun's thighs and can do ONLY what the manufacturer authorizes). Oh and I have a feeling that since RMS and the ScoN! made GPL V3 so nasty you will see less and less going with any newer GPL code, instead just rehashing the same old GPL V2 and doing everything they can NOT to release their changes. Just look at Google (who keeps the best stuff locked up in house) for an example.</p><p>And the app store? THAT is your big change? Excuse me a minute...BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Okay I'm back now. You DO realize that if you took the amount of $$$ made by iPhone apps in a YEAR you MAYBE might have what<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.msi and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.exe apps made in a week, right? Office, Photoshop, Vegas, AutoDesk, hell these apps alone slaughter the app store, and you think the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.exe model is dying? Can I have some of what you are smoking? Yet again when Linux can't compete, they have to come up with lame ideas like the "death of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.exe" Sure Steam will sell because it is CHEAP. Give Valve credit, they set up a Netflix style system without actually having to come up with the product, just take a cut off the top. </p><p>But Linux has had 15 years, Canonical has been out...what? Five or Six years already? And the numbers are STILL so small as to be below the margin for error. That is just fucking sad dude. If Linux were a paid corporation they would have had their "going out of business" sale years ago. It is actually quite simple: The customer is always right, give them what they want and succeed, or don't or in the case of Linux give them attitude because they aren't smart or "leet" enough to deal with the suck and watch your numbers rot.</p><p>They WANT GUIS, they WANT to shop at Walmart, they WANT easy, they WANT one click and it goes. They do NOT want CLI, they do NOT want to study like its a fricking test to shop or play paperweight roulette, they do NOT want to deal with pages of CLI gibberish, they do NOT want to edit<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.conf or any other<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.txt files, thank you very much. Accept it, give them what they want, or remain another Amiga OS, or Plan 9, or any of those other niche OSes that have no presence at retail or on the desktop. I know that as a retailer I wouldn't touch Linux with a 20 foot barge pole. It is too much of a PITA for my customers when they can have WinXP or Win7 Home for under $100 and have all their problems melt away like ice cream in July. Your choice Linux developers, your choice.</p><p>

 But mark my words, for I am making a prediction. Mark this post and see it come true! In 5 years Linux will STILL be at under 4\%, it will STILL be a PITA, it will STILL not be sold by any major retailers, and we'll STILL have Linux guys deluding themselves into thinking they are on the right track. You know what the definition of insanity is, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>THANKS for making my point FOR me , oh and I so rarely get to use this in a sentence...WHOOSH !
What did I say ?
What were my words ?
" In servers , where the hardware is very limited and rarely changes , and the corporations that build the hardware have millions invested in Linux ?
Yeah it will work great there , same as in cell phones and other devices where the hardware is locked down tighter than a nun 's thighs and the user can only do what the developer allows them to .
" And what devices did you point to as " success stories ?
Servers ( hardware rarely changes , millions invested by hardware manufacturers ) Cell Phones and mobile devices ( locked down tighter than a nun 's thighs and can do ONLY what the manufacturer authorizes ) .
Oh and I have a feeling that since RMS and the ScoN !
made GPL V3 so nasty you will see less and less going with any newer GPL code , instead just rehashing the same old GPL V2 and doing everything they can NOT to release their changes .
Just look at Google ( who keeps the best stuff locked up in house ) for an example.And the app store ?
THAT is your big change ?
Excuse me a minute...BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA !
Okay I 'm back now .
You DO realize that if you took the amount of $ $ $ made by iPhone apps in a YEAR you MAYBE might have what .msi and .exe apps made in a week , right ?
Office , Photoshop , Vegas , AutoDesk , hell these apps alone slaughter the app store , and you think the .exe model is dying ?
Can I have some of what you are smoking ?
Yet again when Linux ca n't compete , they have to come up with lame ideas like the " death of .exe " Sure Steam will sell because it is CHEAP .
Give Valve credit , they set up a Netflix style system without actually having to come up with the product , just take a cut off the top .
But Linux has had 15 years , Canonical has been out...what ?
Five or Six years already ?
And the numbers are STILL so small as to be below the margin for error .
That is just fucking sad dude .
If Linux were a paid corporation they would have had their " going out of business " sale years ago .
It is actually quite simple : The customer is always right , give them what they want and succeed , or do n't or in the case of Linux give them attitude because they are n't smart or " leet " enough to deal with the suck and watch your numbers rot.They WANT GUIS , they WANT to shop at Walmart , they WANT easy , they WANT one click and it goes .
They do NOT want CLI , they do NOT want to study like its a fricking test to shop or play paperweight roulette , they do NOT want to deal with pages of CLI gibberish , they do NOT want to edit .conf or any other .txt files , thank you very much .
Accept it , give them what they want , or remain another Amiga OS , or Plan 9 , or any of those other niche OSes that have no presence at retail or on the desktop .
I know that as a retailer I would n't touch Linux with a 20 foot barge pole .
It is too much of a PITA for my customers when they can have WinXP or Win7 Home for under $ 100 and have all their problems melt away like ice cream in July .
Your choice Linux developers , your choice .
But mark my words , for I am making a prediction .
Mark this post and see it come true !
In 5 years Linux will STILL be at under 4 \ % , it will STILL be a PITA , it will STILL not be sold by any major retailers , and we 'll STILL have Linux guys deluding themselves into thinking they are on the right track .
You know what the definition of insanity is , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THANKS for making my point FOR me, oh and I so rarely get to use this in a sentence...WHOOSH!
What did I say?
What were my words?
"In servers, where the hardware is very limited and rarely changes, and the corporations that build the hardware have millions invested in Linux?
Yeah it will work great there, same as in cell phones and other devices where the hardware is locked down tighter than a nun's thighs and the user can only do what the developer allows them to.
"And what devices did you point to as "success stories?
Servers (hardware rarely changes, millions invested by hardware manufacturers) Cell Phones and mobile devices (locked down tighter than a nun's thighs and can do ONLY what the manufacturer authorizes).
Oh and I have a feeling that since RMS and the ScoN!
made GPL V3 so nasty you will see less and less going with any newer GPL code, instead just rehashing the same old GPL V2 and doing everything they can NOT to release their changes.
Just look at Google (who keeps the best stuff locked up in house) for an example.And the app store?
THAT is your big change?
Excuse me a minute...BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Okay I'm back now.
You DO realize that if you took the amount of $$$ made by iPhone apps in a YEAR you MAYBE might have what .msi and .exe apps made in a week, right?
Office, Photoshop, Vegas, AutoDesk, hell these apps alone slaughter the app store, and you think the .exe model is dying?
Can I have some of what you are smoking?
Yet again when Linux can't compete, they have to come up with lame ideas like the "death of .exe" Sure Steam will sell because it is CHEAP.
Give Valve credit, they set up a Netflix style system without actually having to come up with the product, just take a cut off the top.
But Linux has had 15 years, Canonical has been out...what?
Five or Six years already?
And the numbers are STILL so small as to be below the margin for error.
That is just fucking sad dude.
If Linux were a paid corporation they would have had their "going out of business" sale years ago.
It is actually quite simple: The customer is always right, give them what they want and succeed, or don't or in the case of Linux give them attitude because they aren't smart or "leet" enough to deal with the suck and watch your numbers rot.They WANT GUIS, they WANT to shop at Walmart, they WANT easy, they WANT one click and it goes.
They do NOT want CLI, they do NOT want to study like its a fricking test to shop or play paperweight roulette, they do NOT want to deal with pages of CLI gibberish, they do NOT want to edit .conf or any other .txt files, thank you very much.
Accept it, give them what they want, or remain another Amiga OS, or Plan 9, or any of those other niche OSes that have no presence at retail or on the desktop.
I know that as a retailer I wouldn't touch Linux with a 20 foot barge pole.
It is too much of a PITA for my customers when they can have WinXP or Win7 Home for under $100 and have all their problems melt away like ice cream in July.
Your choice Linux developers, your choice.
But mark my words, for I am making a prediction.
Mark this post and see it come true!
In 5 years Linux will STILL be at under 4\%, it will STILL be a PITA, it will STILL not be sold by any major retailers, and we'll STILL have Linux guys deluding themselves into thinking they are on the right track.
You know what the definition of insanity is, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551000</id>
	<title>Re:Those who like the new-window-every-folder view</title>
	<author>pizzach</author>
	<datestamp>1261758600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do people drag things between browser windows? Yes, that is targeted at all the morons who have no idea what drag and drop is...granted nautilus's spacial implementation never impressed me. It would be lovely if the people who hate spacial could learn how to use more than one hand at a time and learn to use metaphor to their advantage.  There is so much more you can when using two hands that it is ridiculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do people drag things between browser windows ?
Yes , that is targeted at all the morons who have no idea what drag and drop is...granted nautilus 's spacial implementation never impressed me .
It would be lovely if the people who hate spacial could learn how to use more than one hand at a time and learn to use metaphor to their advantage .
There is so much more you can when using two hands that it is ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do people drag things between browser windows?
Yes, that is targeted at all the morons who have no idea what drag and drop is...granted nautilus's spacial implementation never impressed me.
It would be lovely if the people who hate spacial could learn how to use more than one hand at a time and learn to use metaphor to their advantage.
There is so much more you can when using two hands that it is ridiculous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550820</id>
	<title>Re:Is it really anything *new*?</title>
	<author>jon3k</author>
	<datestamp>1261755840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fedora did up until at least 11, I haven't installed 12 yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fedora did up until at least 11 , I have n't installed 12 yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fedora did up until at least 11, I haven't installed 12 yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550470</id>
	<title>Re:Nautilus following KDE's Dolphin?</title>
	<author>ta bu shi da yu</author>
	<datestamp>1261748580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, the rationale for changing from spatial to browser mode in Nautilus is because much of the functionality is now being implemented in Gnome-Shell.</p><p>From the <a href="http://mail.gnome.org/archives/nautilus-list/2009-December/msg00001.html" title="gnome.org">following post</a> [gnome.org] by Alexander Larsson:</p><blockquote><div><p>The current ideas behind the design of nautilus is that its the main way to access files. By this I mean everyday stuff like finding and opening your files, rather than "file management" (reorganizing files, copying files, etc). This together with the desktop having links to important places (as well as being a repository for currently worked on files) makes this a sort of "desktop shell" in the sense that its how apps are launched to a large degree. This is also why spatial mode is the default for the desktop icons (and why browser mode is availibile in the menus as "File Browser" for those times you want to<br>do intense file management).</p><p>However, in the gnome-shell design a lot of the things nautilus is currently used for (locating and opening files) is integrated into the<br>shell and mixed together with the ui for locating and starting applications. This makes a lot of sense to me as launching applications and opening files with an application are closely related actions, and a merged UI could do a lot better than the current sort of double UI with the panel launching apps and the desktop launching files. The shell also wants to de-emphatize the desktop as a place for storing files in use and launching links, for good reasons (read the design paper[1] for details).</p><p>This leads to two initial conclusions from my side. First of all we should disable the drawing of the desktop by default. Second we should default to browser mode. This might seem a bit suprising (sic) since I've generally been on the spatial side. But, this has mainly been because I've seen nautilus as much more used as a kind of file activation shell rather than a hardcore file manager, and when that changes the rationale for spatial mode change too.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the rationale for changing from spatial to browser mode in Nautilus is because much of the functionality is now being implemented in Gnome-Shell.From the following post [ gnome.org ] by Alexander Larsson : The current ideas behind the design of nautilus is that its the main way to access files .
By this I mean everyday stuff like finding and opening your files , rather than " file management " ( reorganizing files , copying files , etc ) .
This together with the desktop having links to important places ( as well as being a repository for currently worked on files ) makes this a sort of " desktop shell " in the sense that its how apps are launched to a large degree .
This is also why spatial mode is the default for the desktop icons ( and why browser mode is availibile in the menus as " File Browser " for those times you want todo intense file management ) .However , in the gnome-shell design a lot of the things nautilus is currently used for ( locating and opening files ) is integrated into theshell and mixed together with the ui for locating and starting applications .
This makes a lot of sense to me as launching applications and opening files with an application are closely related actions , and a merged UI could do a lot better than the current sort of double UI with the panel launching apps and the desktop launching files .
The shell also wants to de-emphatize the desktop as a place for storing files in use and launching links , for good reasons ( read the design paper [ 1 ] for details ) .This leads to two initial conclusions from my side .
First of all we should disable the drawing of the desktop by default .
Second we should default to browser mode .
This might seem a bit suprising ( sic ) since I 've generally been on the spatial side .
But , this has mainly been because I 've seen nautilus as much more used as a kind of file activation shell rather than a hardcore file manager , and when that changes the rationale for spatial mode change too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the rationale for changing from spatial to browser mode in Nautilus is because much of the functionality is now being implemented in Gnome-Shell.From the following post [gnome.org] by Alexander Larsson:The current ideas behind the design of nautilus is that its the main way to access files.
By this I mean everyday stuff like finding and opening your files, rather than "file management" (reorganizing files, copying files, etc).
This together with the desktop having links to important places (as well as being a repository for currently worked on files) makes this a sort of "desktop shell" in the sense that its how apps are launched to a large degree.
This is also why spatial mode is the default for the desktop icons (and why browser mode is availibile in the menus as "File Browser" for those times you want todo intense file management).However, in the gnome-shell design a lot of the things nautilus is currently used for (locating and opening files) is integrated into theshell and mixed together with the ui for locating and starting applications.
This makes a lot of sense to me as launching applications and opening files with an application are closely related actions, and a merged UI could do a lot better than the current sort of double UI with the panel launching apps and the desktop launching files.
The shell also wants to de-emphatize the desktop as a place for storing files in use and launching links, for good reasons (read the design paper[1] for details).This leads to two initial conclusions from my side.
First of all we should disable the drawing of the desktop by default.
Second we should default to browser mode.
This might seem a bit suprising (sic) since I've generally been on the spatial side.
But, this has mainly been because I've seen nautilus as much more used as a kind of file activation shell rather than a hardcore file manager, and when that changes the rationale for spatial mode change too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550662</id>
	<title>Re:Now for List Mode...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261752960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fucking hell, is somebody planning to remove all the settings from the preferences dialog or something?</p><p>Considering that this is GNOME we're talking about, I'm guessing yes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fucking hell , is somebody planning to remove all the settings from the preferences dialog or something ? Considering that this is GNOME we 're talking about , I 'm guessing yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fucking hell, is somebody planning to remove all the settings from the preferences dialog or something?Considering that this is GNOME we're talking about, I'm guessing yes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551928</id>
	<title>Re:Is it really anything *new*?</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1261770000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So do the Fedora (10, I think) machines in my school's computer lab. It drives me nuts trying to get those things behaving how I like - they seem to have basically every default wrong (it doesn't help that I'm not a GNOME user by default and thus don't have a lot of experience customizing it...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So do the Fedora ( 10 , I think ) machines in my school 's computer lab .
It drives me nuts trying to get those things behaving how I like - they seem to have basically every default wrong ( it does n't help that I 'm not a GNOME user by default and thus do n't have a lot of experience customizing it... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So do the Fedora (10, I think) machines in my school's computer lab.
It drives me nuts trying to get those things behaving how I like - they seem to have basically every default wrong (it doesn't help that I'm not a GNOME user by default and thus don't have a lot of experience customizing it...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550268</id>
	<title>Re:Those who like the new-window-every-folder view</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1261744200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should use Amaya.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should use Amaya .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should use Amaya.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550368</id>
	<title>Re:Nautilus following KDE's Dolphin?</title>
	<author>FooBarWidget</author>
	<datestamp>1261746300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe because there are only so many ways to design a <em>file manager</em>? They've only been around for, what, 40 years?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe because there are only so many ways to design a file manager ?
They 've only been around for , what , 40 years ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe because there are only so many ways to design a file manager?
They've only been around for, what, 40 years?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550100</id>
	<title>Nautilus following KDE's Dolphin?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261740120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It does appear that Nautilus' people are taking many many lessons from (let's not say ripping off) KDE's Dolphin. I mean, if you compare <a href="http://www.gnome.org/~alexl/nautilus-2-29-1.png" title="gnome.org">Nautilus' demo screenshot</a> [gnome.org] and you use <a href="http://dolphin.kde.org/images/all\_features.png" title="kde.org">KDE's Dolphin</a> [kde.org] (please ignore the command line at the bottom and info dock widget at the right) on a daily basis you will be hard pressed to find any differences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does appear that Nautilus ' people are taking many many lessons from ( let 's not say ripping off ) KDE 's Dolphin .
I mean , if you compare Nautilus ' demo screenshot [ gnome.org ] and you use KDE 's Dolphin [ kde.org ] ( please ignore the command line at the bottom and info dock widget at the right ) on a daily basis you will be hard pressed to find any differences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does appear that Nautilus' people are taking many many lessons from (let's not say ripping off) KDE's Dolphin.
I mean, if you compare Nautilus' demo screenshot [gnome.org] and you use KDE's Dolphin [kde.org] (please ignore the command line at the bottom and info dock widget at the right) on a daily basis you will be hard pressed to find any differences.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550180</id>
	<title>Corporates  in the Gnome Foundation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261742160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look   5 years ago indeed , in a gnome devel mailing list , we were a bunch to comment on that<br>and a few others<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. like the dual mode in other file browsers at the time where we have two panes to<br>work with. Well<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. lo and behold . a devel asked me why one would use a dual pane file manager.<br>I gave up on it at that point. I suspect the corporates running the Gnome Foundation have a lot to do<br>with most the bad design decisions and the stubbornness at making Gnome bad in general.<br>As far as im concerned<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. if it takes 5 years to change a bad default<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. by 2020 we should perhaps have<br>a delete command by default too<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)   Im cynical yes. But i loved gnome till 1.4  at 2.0 they hosed everything<br>that was truly good about it and made it into the lesser desktop.       A shame.</p><p>Richard</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look 5 years ago indeed , in a gnome devel mailing list , we were a bunch to comment on thatand a few others .. like the dual mode in other file browsers at the time where we have two panes towork with .
Well .. lo and behold .
a devel asked me why one would use a dual pane file manager.I gave up on it at that point .
I suspect the corporates running the Gnome Foundation have a lot to dowith most the bad design decisions and the stubbornness at making Gnome bad in general.As far as im concerned .. if it takes 5 years to change a bad default .. by 2020 we should perhaps havea delete command by default too : ) Im cynical yes .
But i loved gnome till 1.4 at 2.0 they hosed everythingthat was truly good about it and made it into the lesser desktop .
A shame.Richard</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look   5 years ago indeed , in a gnome devel mailing list , we were a bunch to comment on thatand a few others .. like the dual mode in other file browsers at the time where we have two panes towork with.
Well .. lo and behold .
a devel asked me why one would use a dual pane file manager.I gave up on it at that point.
I suspect the corporates running the Gnome Foundation have a lot to dowith most the bad design decisions and the stubbornness at making Gnome bad in general.As far as im concerned .. if it takes 5 years to change a bad default .. by 2020 we should perhaps havea delete command by default too :)   Im cynical yes.
But i loved gnome till 1.4  at 2.0 they hosed everythingthat was truly good about it and made it into the lesser desktop.
A shame.Richard</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30557400</id>
	<title>how about user decision?</title>
	<author>josepha48</author>
	<datestamp>1261857360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hate to say this, but windows even allows a user to make that decision.  Open up each folder in a new window is a preference.  Oh yeah GNOME hates allowing users to make decisions.  Somewhere a few years ago that was announced that they would do less preferences.  I hate spacial, too many windows to close when you are done.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to say this , but windows even allows a user to make that decision .
Open up each folder in a new window is a preference .
Oh yeah GNOME hates allowing users to make decisions .
Somewhere a few years ago that was announced that they would do less preferences .
I hate spacial , too many windows to close when you are done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to say this, but windows even allows a user to make that decision.
Open up each folder in a new window is a preference.
Oh yeah GNOME hates allowing users to make decisions.
Somewhere a few years ago that was announced that they would do less preferences.
I hate spacial, too many windows to close when you are done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550110</id>
	<title>Is it really anything *new*?</title>
	<author>hubert.lepicki</author>
	<datestamp>1261740240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know any modern distribution that is using spatial mode for Nautilus windows. Ubuntu tried that and it was only 1 or 2 releases they kept this default setting. Can you help me out with listing distributions that this change will affect somehow?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know any modern distribution that is using spatial mode for Nautilus windows .
Ubuntu tried that and it was only 1 or 2 releases they kept this default setting .
Can you help me out with listing distributions that this change will affect somehow ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know any modern distribution that is using spatial mode for Nautilus windows.
Ubuntu tried that and it was only 1 or 2 releases they kept this default setting.
Can you help me out with listing distributions that this change will affect somehow?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550552</id>
	<title>Ubuntu Gets Defaults Right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261750440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been using Linux at home for 10 years.  Ubuntu is the first distro to get the choice of defaults right, something close to what is useful and what end users actually want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using Linux at home for 10 years .
Ubuntu is the first distro to get the choice of defaults right , something close to what is useful and what end users actually want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been using Linux at home for 10 years.
Ubuntu is the first distro to get the choice of defaults right, something close to what is useful and what end users actually want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550476</id>
	<title>Re:Now for List Mode...</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1261748820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Learn to organize your files better. I use list view on long folders, but you do realize that most filesystems are <em>hierarchical</em>, yes? You shouldn't be poking around in system directories with the GUI as a rule, anyway. The GUI is for managing data files, not the whole system. Of course, you won't manipulate many files (save config files) when you administer a modern system; that is done through APIs, e.g. dpkg.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Learn to organize your files better .
I use list view on long folders , but you do realize that most filesystems are hierarchical , yes ?
You should n't be poking around in system directories with the GUI as a rule , anyway .
The GUI is for managing data files , not the whole system .
Of course , you wo n't manipulate many files ( save config files ) when you administer a modern system ; that is done through APIs , e.g .
dpkg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Learn to organize your files better.
I use list view on long folders, but you do realize that most filesystems are hierarchical, yes?
You shouldn't be poking around in system directories with the GUI as a rule, anyway.
The GUI is for managing data files, not the whole system.
Of course, you won't manipulate many files (save config files) when you administer a modern system; that is done through APIs, e.g.
dpkg.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551016</id>
	<title>Re:why anyone would use gnome is another question</title>
	<author>cptnapalm</author>
	<datestamp>1261758900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Windows is so easy to use, why am I constantly asked "How do I do this?", "Why won't this work?" and "How do I make this work?" by Windows users?</p><p>The Windows UI is dog shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Windows is so easy to use , why am I constantly asked " How do I do this ?
" , " Why wo n't this work ?
" and " How do I make this work ?
" by Windows users ? The Windows UI is dog shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Windows is so easy to use, why am I constantly asked "How do I do this?
", "Why won't this work?
" and "How do I make this work?
" by Windows users?The Windows UI is dog shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30555316</id>
	<title>Re:why anyone would use gnome is another question</title>
	<author>mikechant</author>
	<datestamp>1261834980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Lets face it, windows just works while Linux is usually a pain in the ass to configure.</i></p><p>As a general statement, this is completely false.</p><p>With lots of common PCs and peripherals, Linux 'just works', with no need to have driver discs, and supports devices long after Windows drivers have been discontinued. My CanoScan N650U has no Windows drivers for Vista and above (and the XP drivers don't work on Vista). It's supported perfectly in Linux just by plugging it in and probably will be until the day it dies. I use what you might call very common standard hardware and it all works just fine in Linux with no configuration or extra drivers, truly 'plug and play'. I also recognize that some hardware isn't well supported, but my impression is that the situation improves year by year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets face it , windows just works while Linux is usually a pain in the ass to configure.As a general statement , this is completely false.With lots of common PCs and peripherals , Linux 'just works ' , with no need to have driver discs , and supports devices long after Windows drivers have been discontinued .
My CanoScan N650U has no Windows drivers for Vista and above ( and the XP drivers do n't work on Vista ) .
It 's supported perfectly in Linux just by plugging it in and probably will be until the day it dies .
I use what you might call very common standard hardware and it all works just fine in Linux with no configuration or extra drivers , truly 'plug and play' .
I also recognize that some hardware is n't well supported , but my impression is that the situation improves year by year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets face it, windows just works while Linux is usually a pain in the ass to configure.As a general statement, this is completely false.With lots of common PCs and peripherals, Linux 'just works', with no need to have driver discs, and supports devices long after Windows drivers have been discontinued.
My CanoScan N650U has no Windows drivers for Vista and above (and the XP drivers don't work on Vista).
It's supported perfectly in Linux just by plugging it in and probably will be until the day it dies.
I use what you might call very common standard hardware and it all works just fine in Linux with no configuration or extra drivers, truly 'plug and play'.
I also recognize that some hardware isn't well supported, but my impression is that the situation improves year by year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551116</id>
	<title>balance of power in GNOME foundation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261760580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The big linux distributors such as Redhat and  Suse used to contribute a lot of man power to the GNOME project, but now they contribibute less. On the other hand GNOME get a lot of contributions from companies that focus on mobile devices. That has lead to a shift in power and a shift on focus. Mobile devices have smaller screens, so they cannot take advantage of the spatial browsing mode. Therefore it is not so strange that a number of people inside GNOME wish to switch to browser mode (DISCLAIMER: This post is a wild guess)
<p>

<a href="http://www.0xdeadbeef.com/weblog/2008/07/the-new-gnome-duality/" title="0xdeadbeef.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.0xdeadbeef.com/weblog/2008/07/the-new-gnome-duality/</a> [0xdeadbeef.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The big linux distributors such as Redhat and Suse used to contribute a lot of man power to the GNOME project , but now they contribibute less .
On the other hand GNOME get a lot of contributions from companies that focus on mobile devices .
That has lead to a shift in power and a shift on focus .
Mobile devices have smaller screens , so they can not take advantage of the spatial browsing mode .
Therefore it is not so strange that a number of people inside GNOME wish to switch to browser mode ( DISCLAIMER : This post is a wild guess ) http : //www.0xdeadbeef.com/weblog/2008/07/the-new-gnome-duality/ [ 0xdeadbeef.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big linux distributors such as Redhat and  Suse used to contribute a lot of man power to the GNOME project, but now they contribibute less.
On the other hand GNOME get a lot of contributions from companies that focus on mobile devices.
That has lead to a shift in power and a shift on focus.
Mobile devices have smaller screens, so they cannot take advantage of the spatial browsing mode.
Therefore it is not so strange that a number of people inside GNOME wish to switch to browser mode (DISCLAIMER: This post is a wild guess)


http://www.0xdeadbeef.com/weblog/2008/07/the-new-gnome-duality/ [0xdeadbeef.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552336</id>
	<title>Re:Nautilus following KDE's Dolphin?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261732320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is there a separate file chooser dialogue box *at all*?  Why not use the standard file browser (Nautilus, Dolphin or whatever) to navigate through directories and choose files to open?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is there a separate file chooser dialogue box * at all * ?
Why not use the standard file browser ( Nautilus , Dolphin or whatever ) to navigate through directories and choose files to open ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is there a separate file chooser dialogue box *at all*?
Why not use the standard file browser (Nautilus, Dolphin or whatever) to navigate through directories and choose files to open?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550764</id>
	<title>Re:Not a bad idea...</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1261754940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I actually prefer Apple's <tt>~/Library/*</tt> layout. Dotfiles are nice because they don't show up in the file manager but they also suck because they don't show up in the file manager. Also, if you use <tt>ls -a ~</tt> you get a screenful of dotfiles mixed with regular directories. Apple did a very sane thing (probably done by NeXT before) by giving you one regular directory where all the administrative stuff goes. It doesn't clutter up your home directory and it allows you to easily interact with the files within without having to jump through hoops. It also mimics the global Library and the difference between a globally-installed plugin and one installed for just one user is whether it's installed into<nobr> <wbr></nobr><tt>/Library</tt> or <tt>~/Library</tt>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually prefer Apple 's ~ /Library/ * layout .
Dotfiles are nice because they do n't show up in the file manager but they also suck because they do n't show up in the file manager .
Also , if you use ls -a ~ you get a screenful of dotfiles mixed with regular directories .
Apple did a very sane thing ( probably done by NeXT before ) by giving you one regular directory where all the administrative stuff goes .
It does n't clutter up your home directory and it allows you to easily interact with the files within without having to jump through hoops .
It also mimics the global Library and the difference between a globally-installed plugin and one installed for just one user is whether it 's installed into /Library or ~ /Library .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually prefer Apple's ~/Library/* layout.
Dotfiles are nice because they don't show up in the file manager but they also suck because they don't show up in the file manager.
Also, if you use ls -a ~ you get a screenful of dotfiles mixed with regular directories.
Apple did a very sane thing (probably done by NeXT before) by giving you one regular directory where all the administrative stuff goes.
It doesn't clutter up your home directory and it allows you to easily interact with the files within without having to jump through hoops.
It also mimics the global Library and the difference between a globally-installed plugin and one installed for just one user is whether it's installed into /Library or ~/Library.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551374</id>
	<title>Re:why anyone would use gnome is another question</title>
	<author>Eravnrekaree</author>
	<datestamp>1261763220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the only reason viruses are not a big problem is that Linux is not a big target, being such a niche OS few people use. Windows is as secure as Linux is and perhaps due to the automatic updates usually kept more up to date. Linux security is not great, grsecurity should be installed by default for it to really have some good security features. Linux updates often take far more user interventions especially since a kernel upgrade can blow up a thousand things. Installing programs on Linux can be a nightmare, especially when you are dealing with a custom program that is used for internal purposes in a company, it is extremely difficult to manage compatability with the constantly moving target of a system that constantly changes things and breaks backwards compatability and the 1000 distros which have each a different idea about things.</p><p>Configuration often takes ours with configuration files and crappy documentation  for what would take a few seconds with a self explanatory GUI.</p><p>Users have better things to do than spend days trying to trouble shoot some crappy Linux driver. Why bother with Linux and its nightmare configuration when Windows just works.</p><p>The argument that Windows is pre installed thus easier is also completely wrong, since Windows is easier to install from the ground up, mostly just an automated process. Its far easier to go to manufacturer site and download a driver than it is to screw around with kernel header files, makes files, kldload, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the only reason viruses are not a big problem is that Linux is not a big target , being such a niche OS few people use .
Windows is as secure as Linux is and perhaps due to the automatic updates usually kept more up to date .
Linux security is not great , grsecurity should be installed by default for it to really have some good security features .
Linux updates often take far more user interventions especially since a kernel upgrade can blow up a thousand things .
Installing programs on Linux can be a nightmare , especially when you are dealing with a custom program that is used for internal purposes in a company , it is extremely difficult to manage compatability with the constantly moving target of a system that constantly changes things and breaks backwards compatability and the 1000 distros which have each a different idea about things.Configuration often takes ours with configuration files and crappy documentation for what would take a few seconds with a self explanatory GUI.Users have better things to do than spend days trying to trouble shoot some crappy Linux driver .
Why bother with Linux and its nightmare configuration when Windows just works.The argument that Windows is pre installed thus easier is also completely wrong , since Windows is easier to install from the ground up , mostly just an automated process .
Its far easier to go to manufacturer site and download a driver than it is to screw around with kernel header files , makes files , kldload , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the only reason viruses are not a big problem is that Linux is not a big target, being such a niche OS few people use.
Windows is as secure as Linux is and perhaps due to the automatic updates usually kept more up to date.
Linux security is not great, grsecurity should be installed by default for it to really have some good security features.
Linux updates often take far more user interventions especially since a kernel upgrade can blow up a thousand things.
Installing programs on Linux can be a nightmare, especially when you are dealing with a custom program that is used for internal purposes in a company, it is extremely difficult to manage compatability with the constantly moving target of a system that constantly changes things and breaks backwards compatability and the 1000 distros which have each a different idea about things.Configuration often takes ours with configuration files and crappy documentation  for what would take a few seconds with a self explanatory GUI.Users have better things to do than spend days trying to trouble shoot some crappy Linux driver.
Why bother with Linux and its nightmare configuration when Windows just works.The argument that Windows is pre installed thus easier is also completely wrong, since Windows is easier to install from the ground up, mostly just an automated process.
Its far easier to go to manufacturer site and download a driver than it is to screw around with kernel header files, makes files, kldload, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550230</id>
	<title>I use both spatial and browser mode</title>
	<author>Bigos</author>
	<datestamp>1261743480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I installed Linux I have changed default setting to spatial. And put on the panel an icon that will start nautilus in browser mode. Both modes have their advantages and this way I have the best of both worlds.

I can't understand why people hate spatial mode. It is more flexible in laying out content than browser mode. If it is used properly it can make a lot of things easier.

I wonder how many other ex-Amigans like spatial mode as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I installed Linux I have changed default setting to spatial .
And put on the panel an icon that will start nautilus in browser mode .
Both modes have their advantages and this way I have the best of both worlds .
I ca n't understand why people hate spatial mode .
It is more flexible in laying out content than browser mode .
If it is used properly it can make a lot of things easier .
I wonder how many other ex-Amigans like spatial mode as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I installed Linux I have changed default setting to spatial.
And put on the panel an icon that will start nautilus in browser mode.
Both modes have their advantages and this way I have the best of both worlds.
I can't understand why people hate spatial mode.
It is more flexible in laying out content than browser mode.
If it is used properly it can make a lot of things easier.
I wonder how many other ex-Amigans like spatial mode as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550176</id>
	<title>Re:Is it really anything *new*?</title>
	<author>Andorin</author>
	<datestamp>1261741980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure Debian does this. When I installed Lenny on both of my computers and got GNOME on there, I had to disable the 'spatial mode' option because it was ugly and inconvenient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure Debian does this .
When I installed Lenny on both of my computers and got GNOME on there , I had to disable the 'spatial mode ' option because it was ugly and inconvenient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure Debian does this.
When I installed Lenny on both of my computers and got GNOME on there, I had to disable the 'spatial mode' option because it was ugly and inconvenient.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30558350</id>
	<title>Re:Still waiting for a Total Commander equivalent</title>
	<author>Risen888</author>
	<datestamp>1261821900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having used Krusader more-or-less exclusively for five years now, I have to ask what you're doing to crash it. I can't recall ever seeing it happen.</p><p>Also, having never used Total Commander myself, I'd be interested to hear what features you're missing that Krusader does not provide.</p><p>I hope that doesn't sound snide, because that's not how I meant it, I'm really just curious about your experiences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having used Krusader more-or-less exclusively for five years now , I have to ask what you 're doing to crash it .
I ca n't recall ever seeing it happen.Also , having never used Total Commander myself , I 'd be interested to hear what features you 're missing that Krusader does not provide.I hope that does n't sound snide , because that 's not how I meant it , I 'm really just curious about your experiences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having used Krusader more-or-less exclusively for five years now, I have to ask what you're doing to crash it.
I can't recall ever seeing it happen.Also, having never used Total Commander myself, I'd be interested to hear what features you're missing that Krusader does not provide.I hope that doesn't sound snide, because that's not how I meant it, I'm really just curious about your experiences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550672</id>
	<title>A File Chooser Addon that takes pasted path?</title>
	<author>Provocateur</author>
	<datestamp>1261753320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well for web browsers, when I click Browse, you have to click all the way to the file you want. Has<br>there been an add-on for FF that lets you paste/click-paste the path to a file directly? Otherwise it's<br>like dig, dig, dig towards the destination folder, or do you guys use these file managers (Nautilus.<br>Dolphin et al) to surf the web as well because of this feature?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well for web browsers , when I click Browse , you have to click all the way to the file you want .
Hasthere been an add-on for FF that lets you paste/click-paste the path to a file directly ?
Otherwise it'slike dig , dig , dig towards the destination folder , or do you guys use these file managers ( Nautilus.Dolphin et al ) to surf the web as well because of this feature ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well for web browsers, when I click Browse, you have to click all the way to the file you want.
Hasthere been an add-on for FF that lets you paste/click-paste the path to a file directly?
Otherwise it'slike dig, dig, dig towards the destination folder, or do you guys use these file managers (Nautilus.Dolphin et al) to surf the web as well because of this feature?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551468</id>
	<title>I prefer spatial view</title>
	<author>GRW</author>
	<datestamp>1261764000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having switched to KDE4.x from Gnome, spatial view is the one thing I miss.  I never liked using Konqueror for file management in KDE3.x, which is why I mostly used Gnome.  I wish someone would write a spatial view file manager for KDE.  I came to Linux from OS/2 back in the last century, so spatial view seems like the normal way to do things for me.  Although I confess that I still use Midnight Commander for a lot of stuff, especially when I am moving a lot of files from place to place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having switched to KDE4.x from Gnome , spatial view is the one thing I miss .
I never liked using Konqueror for file management in KDE3.x , which is why I mostly used Gnome .
I wish someone would write a spatial view file manager for KDE .
I came to Linux from OS/2 back in the last century , so spatial view seems like the normal way to do things for me .
Although I confess that I still use Midnight Commander for a lot of stuff , especially when I am moving a lot of files from place to place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having switched to KDE4.x from Gnome, spatial view is the one thing I miss.
I never liked using Konqueror for file management in KDE3.x, which is why I mostly used Gnome.
I wish someone would write a spatial view file manager for KDE.
I came to Linux from OS/2 back in the last century, so spatial view seems like the normal way to do things for me.
Although I confess that I still use Midnight Commander for a lot of stuff, especially when I am moving a lot of files from place to place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551454</id>
	<title>Re:Not a bad idea...</title>
	<author>RichiH</author>
	<datestamp>1261763820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although I realize that $prefix/Library is a NextStep thing, the naming choice is horribly horrible... Granted, $prefix/etc is not much better, but...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although I realize that $ prefix/Library is a NextStep thing , the naming choice is horribly horrible... Granted , $ prefix/etc is not much better , but.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although I realize that $prefix/Library is a NextStep thing, the naming choice is horribly horrible... Granted, $prefix/etc is not much better, but...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551384</id>
	<title>Re:why anyone would use gnome is another question</title>
	<author>salesgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1261763280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>The UI developers have somehow created a UI system that somehow blows dozens of MB but actually provides less customisability and ease of use than Windows.</b></p><p>You were doing OK until you hit this.  There are few standards on the Windows platform for GUI that matter.  Look at Windows Media Player, MS Word and, just for the hell of it, Internet Explorer 8. Toss in Lotus Notes, Quickbooks, iTunes and you have a full swing helpdesk nightmare. KDE and Gnome applications are remarkably consistent in their respective UIs. On top of that, I can run KDE apps on Gnome and Gnome apps on KDE.  It just works.</p><p><b>I'll take Linux over Windows every day because the business model is not selling defective by design software and then extorting money from the user to fix known defects.</b>  Your hardware, driver, and developer rant? I've never experienced the same issue - save hardware documentation.  I've had many <i>hardware</i> manufacturers who have withheld documentation, but nary an open source project that did or failed to have workable documentation after the first version or two (about par for the course for proprietary software, anyway..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The UI developers have somehow created a UI system that somehow blows dozens of MB but actually provides less customisability and ease of use than Windows.You were doing OK until you hit this .
There are few standards on the Windows platform for GUI that matter .
Look at Windows Media Player , MS Word and , just for the hell of it , Internet Explorer 8 .
Toss in Lotus Notes , Quickbooks , iTunes and you have a full swing helpdesk nightmare .
KDE and Gnome applications are remarkably consistent in their respective UIs .
On top of that , I can run KDE apps on Gnome and Gnome apps on KDE .
It just works.I 'll take Linux over Windows every day because the business model is not selling defective by design software and then extorting money from the user to fix known defects .
Your hardware , driver , and developer rant ?
I 've never experienced the same issue - save hardware documentation .
I 've had many hardware manufacturers who have withheld documentation , but nary an open source project that did or failed to have workable documentation after the first version or two ( about par for the course for proprietary software , anyway. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The UI developers have somehow created a UI system that somehow blows dozens of MB but actually provides less customisability and ease of use than Windows.You were doing OK until you hit this.
There are few standards on the Windows platform for GUI that matter.
Look at Windows Media Player, MS Word and, just for the hell of it, Internet Explorer 8.
Toss in Lotus Notes, Quickbooks, iTunes and you have a full swing helpdesk nightmare.
KDE and Gnome applications are remarkably consistent in their respective UIs.
On top of that, I can run KDE apps on Gnome and Gnome apps on KDE.
It just works.I'll take Linux over Windows every day because the business model is not selling defective by design software and then extorting money from the user to fix known defects.
Your hardware, driver, and developer rant?
I've never experienced the same issue - save hardware documentation.
I've had many hardware manufacturers who have withheld documentation, but nary an open source project that did or failed to have workable documentation after the first version or two (about par for the course for proprietary software, anyway..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552184</id>
	<title>Re:Nautilus following KDE's Dolphin?</title>
	<author>hduff</author>
	<datestamp>1261773240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, they have copied the "split view" (one of the killer features of Norton Commander/Midnight Commander).</p></div><p>Fixed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , they have copied the " split view " ( one of the killer features of Norton Commander/Midnight Commander ) .Fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, they have copied the "split view" (one of the killer features of Norton Commander/Midnight Commander).Fixed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551736</id>
	<title>Re:why anyone would use gnome is another question</title>
	<author>burnin1965</author>
	<datestamp>1261767360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, that is one massive chip you have there on your shoulder and your going to get carpal tunnel syndrome if you don't take it easy on the ranting, although looking at previous comments you could just cut and paste.</p><p>Much of your whining hasn't been applicable for years but there isn't much reason to correct you as the issue isn't as much linux as it is that chip.</p><p>Some friendly advice, load up Windows on your computer, leave the linux community alone, be happy. In case you haven't figured it out yet its likely nobody in the linux community really cares much about what you think or the relative size of the Windows desktop install.</p><p>If you find you cant stop incessantly typing the same diatribe over and over on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. and your not paid to do it then you may want to seek psychiatric help.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , that is one massive chip you have there on your shoulder and your going to get carpal tunnel syndrome if you do n't take it easy on the ranting , although looking at previous comments you could just cut and paste.Much of your whining has n't been applicable for years but there is n't much reason to correct you as the issue is n't as much linux as it is that chip.Some friendly advice , load up Windows on your computer , leave the linux community alone , be happy .
In case you have n't figured it out yet its likely nobody in the linux community really cares much about what you think or the relative size of the Windows desktop install.If you find you cant stop incessantly typing the same diatribe over and over on / .
and your not paid to do it then you may want to seek psychiatric help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, that is one massive chip you have there on your shoulder and your going to get carpal tunnel syndrome if you don't take it easy on the ranting, although looking at previous comments you could just cut and paste.Much of your whining hasn't been applicable for years but there isn't much reason to correct you as the issue isn't as much linux as it is that chip.Some friendly advice, load up Windows on your computer, leave the linux community alone, be happy.
In case you haven't figured it out yet its likely nobody in the linux community really cares much about what you think or the relative size of the Windows desktop install.If you find you cant stop incessantly typing the same diatribe over and over on /.
and your not paid to do it then you may want to seek psychiatric help.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552208</id>
	<title>Re:Not a bad idea...</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1261773540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, if you use <tt>ls -a ~</tt> you get a screenful of dotfiles mixed with regular directories.</p></div><p>Huh.  When I do that, I get my dotfiles on top, followed by my other files, with no mixing.  IIRC, this was the main reason I put "export LANG=C" in my shell startup file.  (The fact that it also specifies my preferred language is coincidental.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , if you use ls -a ~ you get a screenful of dotfiles mixed with regular directories.Huh .
When I do that , I get my dotfiles on top , followed by my other files , with no mixing .
IIRC , this was the main reason I put " export LANG = C " in my shell startup file .
( The fact that it also specifies my preferred language is coincidental .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, if you use ls -a ~ you get a screenful of dotfiles mixed with regular directories.Huh.
When I do that, I get my dotfiles on top, followed by my other files, with no mixing.
IIRC, this was the main reason I put "export LANG=C" in my shell startup file.
(The fact that it also specifies my preferred language is coincidental.
;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551338</id>
	<title>Re:Nautilus following KDE's Dolphin?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261762860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Merry christmas.  File managers are heading towards an apex of usability.  Such a basic element for an os, is there any wonder they have nearly the same UI?  Taking lessons from KDE?  Maybe.  Or maybe their taking lessons for MacOS X<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... What, are you too cool for school?  Lets see your file manager (the one you wrote), and it better not have a tree view, or an icon view.  That is all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Merry christmas .
File managers are heading towards an apex of usability .
Such a basic element for an os , is there any wonder they have nearly the same UI ?
Taking lessons from KDE ?
Maybe. Or maybe their taking lessons for MacOS X ... What , are you too cool for school ?
Lets see your file manager ( the one you wrote ) , and it better not have a tree view , or an icon view .
That is all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Merry christmas.
File managers are heading towards an apex of usability.
Such a basic element for an os, is there any wonder they have nearly the same UI?
Taking lessons from KDE?
Maybe.  Or maybe their taking lessons for MacOS X ... What, are you too cool for school?
Lets see your file manager (the one you wrote), and it better not have a tree view, or an icon view.
That is all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550264</id>
	<title>Re:long live spatial mode!</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1261744140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as you can configure around it we can both be happy. Seriously, this is an article about the default (out of the box) state of a check box.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as you can configure around it we can both be happy .
Seriously , this is an article about the default ( out of the box ) state of a check box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as you can configure around it we can both be happy.
Seriously, this is an article about the default (out of the box) state of a check box.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551554</id>
	<title>Re:why anyone would use gnome is another question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261765020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know you're listening to a microsoft shill when a post is</p><p>1. completely offtopic,<br>2. comprised entirely of a rambling, anti-linux, pro-microsoft rant, and<br>3. modded up somehow despite all of this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know you 're listening to a microsoft shill when a post is1 .
completely offtopic,2 .
comprised entirely of a rambling , anti-linux , pro-microsoft rant , and3 .
modded up somehow despite all of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know you're listening to a microsoft shill when a post is1.
completely offtopic,2.
comprised entirely of a rambling, anti-linux, pro-microsoft rant, and3.
modded up somehow despite all of this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552864</id>
	<title>Re:Those who like the new-window-every-folder view</title>
	<author>Requiem18th</author>
	<datestamp>1261739580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Should be forced to use a browser that opens a new window every time a hyperlink is clicked</p></div><p>Forced? It is an option, and you talk about forced? What a hateful thing to say! You must be filled with hate if you want to remove an option in one program because you don't want people enjoying a different option in an unrelated program.</p><p>I used spatial mode for over a year, in both single window and multiple window modes, and it definitively has some advantages. Browser mode makes it awkward  to open multiple windows because they are so big, so much that reusing windows becomes more comfortable and thus tabbed windows became a necessary, but tabs are suboptimal for a variety of reasons, the most obvious ones are that you can't see more than one at a time and that you can't drag tabs between, out of and into other windows. And even if you could you then you face the problem of the huge browser windows again.</p><p>I got a new, bigger monitor a few moths ago, this made me switch to browser mode because with a big monitor spatial mode becomes a game of hunting for browser windows, and because now I can comfortable manage multiple browser windows, but in an small screen I'd probably switch to spatial mode again.</p><p>Spatial mode is bet for simple document handling, drag and drop between folders and applications is a joy in spatial mode. What spatial mode is never *ever* good for is "management" moving, merging and comparing files across different tree branches and across different drives or servers, for that stuff browser mode is better than spatial, but still not as good as Midnight Commander or Gnome Commander.</p><p>Spatial mode has some use for some users and that means some people different to you are happy, I hope you can bare with it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should be forced to use a browser that opens a new window every time a hyperlink is clickedForced ?
It is an option , and you talk about forced ?
What a hateful thing to say !
You must be filled with hate if you want to remove an option in one program because you do n't want people enjoying a different option in an unrelated program.I used spatial mode for over a year , in both single window and multiple window modes , and it definitively has some advantages .
Browser mode makes it awkward to open multiple windows because they are so big , so much that reusing windows becomes more comfortable and thus tabbed windows became a necessary , but tabs are suboptimal for a variety of reasons , the most obvious ones are that you ca n't see more than one at a time and that you ca n't drag tabs between , out of and into other windows .
And even if you could you then you face the problem of the huge browser windows again.I got a new , bigger monitor a few moths ago , this made me switch to browser mode because with a big monitor spatial mode becomes a game of hunting for browser windows , and because now I can comfortable manage multiple browser windows , but in an small screen I 'd probably switch to spatial mode again.Spatial mode is bet for simple document handling , drag and drop between folders and applications is a joy in spatial mode .
What spatial mode is never * ever * good for is " management " moving , merging and comparing files across different tree branches and across different drives or servers , for that stuff browser mode is better than spatial , but still not as good as Midnight Commander or Gnome Commander.Spatial mode has some use for some users and that means some people different to you are happy , I hope you can bare with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should be forced to use a browser that opens a new window every time a hyperlink is clickedForced?
It is an option, and you talk about forced?
What a hateful thing to say!
You must be filled with hate if you want to remove an option in one program because you don't want people enjoying a different option in an unrelated program.I used spatial mode for over a year, in both single window and multiple window modes, and it definitively has some advantages.
Browser mode makes it awkward  to open multiple windows because they are so big, so much that reusing windows becomes more comfortable and thus tabbed windows became a necessary, but tabs are suboptimal for a variety of reasons, the most obvious ones are that you can't see more than one at a time and that you can't drag tabs between, out of and into other windows.
And even if you could you then you face the problem of the huge browser windows again.I got a new, bigger monitor a few moths ago, this made me switch to browser mode because with a big monitor spatial mode becomes a game of hunting for browser windows, and because now I can comfortable manage multiple browser windows, but in an small screen I'd probably switch to spatial mode again.Spatial mode is bet for simple document handling, drag and drop between folders and applications is a joy in spatial mode.
What spatial mode is never *ever* good for is "management" moving, merging and comparing files across different tree branches and across different drives or servers, for that stuff browser mode is better than spatial, but still not as good as Midnight Commander or Gnome Commander.Spatial mode has some use for some users and that means some people different to you are happy, I hope you can bare with it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550636</id>
	<title>EQP!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261752420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>C:ome Here but Now</htmltext>
<tokenext>C : ome Here but Now</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C:ome Here but Now</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30553816</id>
	<title>Re:Those who like the new-window-every-folder view</title>
	<author>ThrowAwaySociety</author>
	<datestamp>1261755360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not sure why this is moderated as interesting.  The point of a spacial file browser is to use your spacial memory (<b>which is big</b>, and is the reason why you can find things all around the house or on a messy desk easily) to manage your files.  Every time you open a folder, it opens in the same place on your screen.  This lets you mentally associate screen locations with files.</p><p>The problem with spacial browsers is that they don't scale beyond a certain point.  They were great on older machines where you'd only have a few hundred files, <b>but managing a thousand files with a spacial UI will just confuse the user</b>.  A good compromise would be to use spacial mode for documents and an explorer for everything else.</p></div><p>This is pretty contradictory.</p><p>The real problem with a spatial interface is when you're examining a folder structure that you've never encountered before, or encounter so rarely that you don't have a chance to get a spatial sense of. Like the depths of the OS, or a music or photo library managed by a music or photo management app, or a file server that's modified all the time by other people</p><p>That's why the ever-changing, unmappable web demands a browser-style interface.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure why this is moderated as interesting .
The point of a spacial file browser is to use your spacial memory ( which is big , and is the reason why you can find things all around the house or on a messy desk easily ) to manage your files .
Every time you open a folder , it opens in the same place on your screen .
This lets you mentally associate screen locations with files.The problem with spacial browsers is that they do n't scale beyond a certain point .
They were great on older machines where you 'd only have a few hundred files , but managing a thousand files with a spacial UI will just confuse the user .
A good compromise would be to use spacial mode for documents and an explorer for everything else.This is pretty contradictory.The real problem with a spatial interface is when you 're examining a folder structure that you 've never encountered before , or encounter so rarely that you do n't have a chance to get a spatial sense of .
Like the depths of the OS , or a music or photo library managed by a music or photo management app , or a file server that 's modified all the time by other peopleThat 's why the ever-changing , unmappable web demands a browser-style interface .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure why this is moderated as interesting.
The point of a spacial file browser is to use your spacial memory (which is big, and is the reason why you can find things all around the house or on a messy desk easily) to manage your files.
Every time you open a folder, it opens in the same place on your screen.
This lets you mentally associate screen locations with files.The problem with spacial browsers is that they don't scale beyond a certain point.
They were great on older machines where you'd only have a few hundred files, but managing a thousand files with a spacial UI will just confuse the user.
A good compromise would be to use spacial mode for documents and an explorer for everything else.This is pretty contradictory.The real problem with a spatial interface is when you're examining a folder structure that you've never encountered before, or encounter so rarely that you don't have a chance to get a spatial sense of.
Like the depths of the OS, or a music or photo library managed by a music or photo management app, or a file server that's modified all the time by other peopleThat's why the ever-changing, unmappable web demands a browser-style interface.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551578</id>
	<title>Re:why anyone would use gnome is another question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261765380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your linux internal interface stability rant is a load of shit.  Linux's driver interfaces aren't doing a damned thing to hold bad the adoption of open source software; if it were, there would be numerous successful distributions based on OpenSolaris, which has a stable driver interface going back decades.  Linux is just a kernel, and there are plenty of alternatives out there that don't have anywhere near the adoption that Linux does.  The simple fact is that grandma wants her christmas card creation program that she got fifteen years ago to keep working.  Housemoms want the scrapbook software that they're used to.  Nobody installs drivers from source except developers, and no end user ever sees a compile error because no end user ever sees a CLI or a compiler.  Get over it.</p><p>People likewise don't want a customizable UI, they want the Windows UI that they're used to.  The Windows UI is a flaming turd, but it's what people are used to seeing, so they want it.  We used to have full windows 95 UI clones in Linux, but nobody has any interest in maintaing such garbage, so they're dead.  I never use Gnome, but the KDE4 interface is leaps and bounds ahead of what Win7 provides, and in terms of beauty and usability it's starting to approach OSX.  Nobody wants it though, because it's not familiar.  That doesn't bother me; people who refuse to change get to be stuck with the shit that MS crapped out decades ago and have been polishing ever since.  No skin off my back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your linux internal interface stability rant is a load of shit .
Linux 's driver interfaces are n't doing a damned thing to hold bad the adoption of open source software ; if it were , there would be numerous successful distributions based on OpenSolaris , which has a stable driver interface going back decades .
Linux is just a kernel , and there are plenty of alternatives out there that do n't have anywhere near the adoption that Linux does .
The simple fact is that grandma wants her christmas card creation program that she got fifteen years ago to keep working .
Housemoms want the scrapbook software that they 're used to .
Nobody installs drivers from source except developers , and no end user ever sees a compile error because no end user ever sees a CLI or a compiler .
Get over it.People likewise do n't want a customizable UI , they want the Windows UI that they 're used to .
The Windows UI is a flaming turd , but it 's what people are used to seeing , so they want it .
We used to have full windows 95 UI clones in Linux , but nobody has any interest in maintaing such garbage , so they 're dead .
I never use Gnome , but the KDE4 interface is leaps and bounds ahead of what Win7 provides , and in terms of beauty and usability it 's starting to approach OSX .
Nobody wants it though , because it 's not familiar .
That does n't bother me ; people who refuse to change get to be stuck with the shit that MS crapped out decades ago and have been polishing ever since .
No skin off my back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your linux internal interface stability rant is a load of shit.
Linux's driver interfaces aren't doing a damned thing to hold bad the adoption of open source software; if it were, there would be numerous successful distributions based on OpenSolaris, which has a stable driver interface going back decades.
Linux is just a kernel, and there are plenty of alternatives out there that don't have anywhere near the adoption that Linux does.
The simple fact is that grandma wants her christmas card creation program that she got fifteen years ago to keep working.
Housemoms want the scrapbook software that they're used to.
Nobody installs drivers from source except developers, and no end user ever sees a compile error because no end user ever sees a CLI or a compiler.
Get over it.People likewise don't want a customizable UI, they want the Windows UI that they're used to.
The Windows UI is a flaming turd, but it's what people are used to seeing, so they want it.
We used to have full windows 95 UI clones in Linux, but nobody has any interest in maintaing such garbage, so they're dead.
I never use Gnome, but the KDE4 interface is leaps and bounds ahead of what Win7 provides, and in terms of beauty and usability it's starting to approach OSX.
Nobody wants it though, because it's not familiar.
That doesn't bother me; people who refuse to change get to be stuck with the shit that MS crapped out decades ago and have been polishing ever since.
No skin off my back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550818</id>
	<title>Re:Corporates in the Gnome Foundation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261755840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"a devel asked me why one would use a dual pane file manager."</p><p>Then...</p><p>"I suspect the corporates running the Gnome Foundation"</p><p>Not only do you suspect "corporates" make bad decisions, but they also either hire bad devs OR they brainwash them into forgetting reasons for functionality AT LEAST.  If a dev questioned dual pane, I think you have your answer right there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" a devel asked me why one would use a dual pane file manager. " Then.. .
" I suspect the corporates running the Gnome Foundation " Not only do you suspect " corporates " make bad decisions , but they also either hire bad devs OR they brainwash them into forgetting reasons for functionality AT LEAST .
If a dev questioned dual pane , I think you have your answer right there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"a devel asked me why one would use a dual pane file manager."Then...
"I suspect the corporates running the Gnome Foundation"Not only do you suspect "corporates" make bad decisions, but they also either hire bad devs OR they brainwash them into forgetting reasons for functionality AT LEAST.
If a dev questioned dual pane, I think you have your answer right there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551246</id>
	<title>get rid of the file chooser or make it pluggable</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1261761960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think KDE has gone the wrong way by packing ever more functionality into the file chooser; the file chooser in KDE is now a mini-explorer that's similar to, but different from, the regular explorer.  Try explaining all those buttons to your mom sometime.</p><p>You don't need file choosers at all on modern multi-tasking desktops: you can simply choose your file in the regular file system explorer and drop it into your application.  You can also drop files into the file chooser dialog.  In different words, yes, you can "use Nautilus as a building block", and you can do so already on today's Gnome desktop.</p><p>Getting rid of the file chooser altogether would probably be the right thing, but it's maybe a bit too radical.  But a simple file chooser together with drag-and-drop support is a reasonable compromise, and it's what Gnome is doing.</p><p>The only other direction that might be worth going into would be Android-style componentization; with that, you could have a different file chooser for any application, and the user could even configure which combination of components make up the application.  However, trying to pull that off in C/C++ is tough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think KDE has gone the wrong way by packing ever more functionality into the file chooser ; the file chooser in KDE is now a mini-explorer that 's similar to , but different from , the regular explorer .
Try explaining all those buttons to your mom sometime.You do n't need file choosers at all on modern multi-tasking desktops : you can simply choose your file in the regular file system explorer and drop it into your application .
You can also drop files into the file chooser dialog .
In different words , yes , you can " use Nautilus as a building block " , and you can do so already on today 's Gnome desktop.Getting rid of the file chooser altogether would probably be the right thing , but it 's maybe a bit too radical .
But a simple file chooser together with drag-and-drop support is a reasonable compromise , and it 's what Gnome is doing.The only other direction that might be worth going into would be Android-style componentization ; with that , you could have a different file chooser for any application , and the user could even configure which combination of components make up the application .
However , trying to pull that off in C/C + + is tough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think KDE has gone the wrong way by packing ever more functionality into the file chooser; the file chooser in KDE is now a mini-explorer that's similar to, but different from, the regular explorer.
Try explaining all those buttons to your mom sometime.You don't need file choosers at all on modern multi-tasking desktops: you can simply choose your file in the regular file system explorer and drop it into your application.
You can also drop files into the file chooser dialog.
In different words, yes, you can "use Nautilus as a building block", and you can do so already on today's Gnome desktop.Getting rid of the file chooser altogether would probably be the right thing, but it's maybe a bit too radical.
But a simple file chooser together with drag-and-drop support is a reasonable compromise, and it's what Gnome is doing.The only other direction that might be worth going into would be Android-style componentization; with that, you could have a different file chooser for any application, and the user could even configure which combination of components make up the application.
However, trying to pull that off in C/C++ is tough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550350</id>
	<title>Re:Now for List Mode...</title>
	<author>RichiH</author>
	<datestamp>1261745940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Nautilus and most other file browsers also default to Icon view, which is fine if you have only about 5 files on your computer, which was probably true for Windows for Workgroups 3.1, but these days List view should be the default.</i></p><p>Unless you prefer to keep a proper and useful layout of your data in which case icon view is a lot better.<br>And as soon as there are more than 20 files/directories in a directory, I am on the shell, anyway.</p><p>I.e.: It all depends on the particular use case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nautilus and most other file browsers also default to Icon view , which is fine if you have only about 5 files on your computer , which was probably true for Windows for Workgroups 3.1 , but these days List view should be the default.Unless you prefer to keep a proper and useful layout of your data in which case icon view is a lot better.And as soon as there are more than 20 files/directories in a directory , I am on the shell , anyway.I.e .
: It all depends on the particular use case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nautilus and most other file browsers also default to Icon view, which is fine if you have only about 5 files on your computer, which was probably true for Windows for Workgroups 3.1, but these days List view should be the default.Unless you prefer to keep a proper and useful layout of your data in which case icon view is a lot better.And as soon as there are more than 20 files/directories in a directory, I am on the shell, anyway.I.e.
: It all depends on the particular use case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551140</id>
	<title>Re:why anyone would use gnome is another question</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1261760880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Having a stable ABI ( which is something as a retailer I have suggested for years)</i></p><p>First of all, Linux does have stable ABIs.  But your vision of the software market is obsolete anyway; Microsoft's model of running installers doesn't work well and it is going to be replaced by Steam- and Apple-style app stores.  Ubuntu and other Linux vendors already have those.</p><p><i>So I'm sorry dude, but Linux will always be a niche.</i></p><p>Linux seems to be eating Microsoft's lunch in embedded devices, servers, and mobile devices.</p><p><i>Just look at how many "update foo broke my sound" posts you have on Ubuntu. Yeah, good luck with that pal.</i></p><p>Have you ever even tried a major Windows upgrade?  They usually break much more than just sound.  Most people don't notice because instead of upgrading, they just throw out the entire Windows box and buy a new one.  Given the sorry state of Windows software, packaging, drivers, and compatibility, that's probably a sensible thing to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having a stable ABI ( which is something as a retailer I have suggested for years ) First of all , Linux does have stable ABIs .
But your vision of the software market is obsolete anyway ; Microsoft 's model of running installers does n't work well and it is going to be replaced by Steam- and Apple-style app stores .
Ubuntu and other Linux vendors already have those.So I 'm sorry dude , but Linux will always be a niche.Linux seems to be eating Microsoft 's lunch in embedded devices , servers , and mobile devices.Just look at how many " update foo broke my sound " posts you have on Ubuntu .
Yeah , good luck with that pal.Have you ever even tried a major Windows upgrade ?
They usually break much more than just sound .
Most people do n't notice because instead of upgrading , they just throw out the entire Windows box and buy a new one .
Given the sorry state of Windows software , packaging , drivers , and compatibility , that 's probably a sensible thing to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having a stable ABI ( which is something as a retailer I have suggested for years)First of all, Linux does have stable ABIs.
But your vision of the software market is obsolete anyway; Microsoft's model of running installers doesn't work well and it is going to be replaced by Steam- and Apple-style app stores.
Ubuntu and other Linux vendors already have those.So I'm sorry dude, but Linux will always be a niche.Linux seems to be eating Microsoft's lunch in embedded devices, servers, and mobile devices.Just look at how many "update foo broke my sound" posts you have on Ubuntu.
Yeah, good luck with that pal.Have you ever even tried a major Windows upgrade?
They usually break much more than just sound.
Most people don't notice because instead of upgrading, they just throw out the entire Windows box and buy a new one.
Given the sorry state of Windows software, packaging, drivers, and compatibility, that's probably a sensible thing to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30589816</id>
	<title>Eat it, GNOME!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262099820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The boys have won.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The boys have won .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The boys have won.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551108</id>
	<title>Re:universal preferences</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1261760460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>perhaps there should be some "universal" preference file format...</p></div><p>A "registry" of preferences and settings, as it were!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>perhaps there should be some " universal " preference file format...A " registry " of preferences and settings , as it were !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>perhaps there should be some "universal" preference file format...A "registry" of preferences and settings, as it were!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550792</id>
	<title>Re:Nautilus following KDE's Dolphin?</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1261755540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"please ignore the command line at the bottom and info dock widget at the right"</p></div></blockquote><p>You really couldn't bring yourself to simply toggle the terminal and info windows off with <i>View --&gt; Panels --&gt; Terminal</i> and <i>View --&gt; Panels --&gt; Information</i> or using the <i>F11</i> and <i>F4</i> hotkeys to make your point sans caveat?<br> <br>Are you sure you are not a Gnome user? (sorry Linus; I couldn't resist, and lighten up mods. It's a playful / tongue in cheek chide, not a troll or flamebait)<br> <br>Oh yeah.  emacs sux and <b>vi rulezz!!!</b></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" please ignore the command line at the bottom and info dock widget at the right " You really could n't bring yourself to simply toggle the terminal and info windows off with View -- &gt; Panels -- &gt; Terminal and View -- &gt; Panels -- &gt; Information or using the F11 and F4 hotkeys to make your point sans caveat ?
Are you sure you are not a Gnome user ?
( sorry Linus ; I could n't resist , and lighten up mods .
It 's a playful / tongue in cheek chide , not a troll or flamebait ) Oh yeah .
emacs sux and vi rulezz ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"please ignore the command line at the bottom and info dock widget at the right"You really couldn't bring yourself to simply toggle the terminal and info windows off with View --&gt; Panels --&gt; Terminal and View --&gt; Panels --&gt; Information or using the F11 and F4 hotkeys to make your point sans caveat?
Are you sure you are not a Gnome user?
(sorry Linus; I couldn't resist, and lighten up mods.
It's a playful / tongue in cheek chide, not a troll or flamebait) Oh yeah.
emacs sux and vi rulezz!!
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550202</id>
	<title>Re:Nautilus following KDE's Dolphin?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261742520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, they have copied the "split view" (one of the killer features of dolphin/konqueror).</p><p>Now Gnome needs to fix the file chooser dialog so that it can 1) have views other than "list view", 2) view generate thumbnails of all kind of files that nautilus can (PDFs, videos, etc) 3) a list view that can order the files by something that is not modification date or size (for example, the type of archive) 4) a list view with BIG icons, not miniatures that are so tiny that you can't tell what picture is in the thumbnail and need a ugly extra panel on the right side of the dialog to show the preview</p><p>The main reason why Gnome can't do all those things is why the file chooser dialog is not a "gnome  file chooser dialog", but a "GTK file chooser dialog". The KDE guys don't use the QT file chooser dialog (which exists), they use a KDE  file chooser dialog that can use any part of KDE (including parts of konqueror/dolphin) while the gtk dialog can't use nautilus or anything besides the basic GTK building blocks. They have been adding some hacks to avoid the need of writing a decent file chooser, but it still sucks and misses a lot of functionality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , they have copied the " split view " ( one of the killer features of dolphin/konqueror ) .Now Gnome needs to fix the file chooser dialog so that it can 1 ) have views other than " list view " , 2 ) view generate thumbnails of all kind of files that nautilus can ( PDFs , videos , etc ) 3 ) a list view that can order the files by something that is not modification date or size ( for example , the type of archive ) 4 ) a list view with BIG icons , not miniatures that are so tiny that you ca n't tell what picture is in the thumbnail and need a ugly extra panel on the right side of the dialog to show the previewThe main reason why Gnome ca n't do all those things is why the file chooser dialog is not a " gnome file chooser dialog " , but a " GTK file chooser dialog " .
The KDE guys do n't use the QT file chooser dialog ( which exists ) , they use a KDE file chooser dialog that can use any part of KDE ( including parts of konqueror/dolphin ) while the gtk dialog ca n't use nautilus or anything besides the basic GTK building blocks .
They have been adding some hacks to avoid the need of writing a decent file chooser , but it still sucks and misses a lot of functionality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, they have copied the "split view" (one of the killer features of dolphin/konqueror).Now Gnome needs to fix the file chooser dialog so that it can 1) have views other than "list view", 2) view generate thumbnails of all kind of files that nautilus can (PDFs, videos, etc) 3) a list view that can order the files by something that is not modification date or size (for example, the type of archive) 4) a list view with BIG icons, not miniatures that are so tiny that you can't tell what picture is in the thumbnail and need a ugly extra panel on the right side of the dialog to show the previewThe main reason why Gnome can't do all those things is why the file chooser dialog is not a "gnome  file chooser dialog", but a "GTK file chooser dialog".
The KDE guys don't use the QT file chooser dialog (which exists), they use a KDE  file chooser dialog that can use any part of KDE (including parts of konqueror/dolphin) while the gtk dialog can't use nautilus or anything besides the basic GTK building blocks.
They have been adding some hacks to avoid the need of writing a decent file chooser, but it still sucks and misses a lot of functionality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551164</id>
	<title>Re:Nautilus following KDE's Dolphin?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261761060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"split view" ? You mean, the thing that Windows 3.1's file manager had ? Yes, it's always been very useful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" split view " ?
You mean , the thing that Windows 3.1 's file manager had ?
Yes , it 's always been very useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"split view" ?
You mean, the thing that Windows 3.1's file manager had ?
Yes, it's always been very useful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550462</id>
	<title>Re:Those who like the new-window-every-folder view</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1261748520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not sure why this is moderated as interesting.  The point of a spacial file browser is to use your spacial memory (which is big, and is the reason why you can find things all around the house or on a messy desk easily) to manage your files.  Every time you open a folder, it opens in the same place on your screen.  This lets you mentally associate screen locations with files.</p><p>
The problem with spacial browsers is that they don't scale beyond a certain point.  They were great on older machines where you'd only have a few hundred files, but managing a thousand files with a spacial UI will just confuse the user.  A good compromise would be to use spacial mode for documents and an explorer for everything else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure why this is moderated as interesting .
The point of a spacial file browser is to use your spacial memory ( which is big , and is the reason why you can find things all around the house or on a messy desk easily ) to manage your files .
Every time you open a folder , it opens in the same place on your screen .
This lets you mentally associate screen locations with files .
The problem with spacial browsers is that they do n't scale beyond a certain point .
They were great on older machines where you 'd only have a few hundred files , but managing a thousand files with a spacial UI will just confuse the user .
A good compromise would be to use spacial mode for documents and an explorer for everything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure why this is moderated as interesting.
The point of a spacial file browser is to use your spacial memory (which is big, and is the reason why you can find things all around the house or on a messy desk easily) to manage your files.
Every time you open a folder, it opens in the same place on your screen.
This lets you mentally associate screen locations with files.
The problem with spacial browsers is that they don't scale beyond a certain point.
They were great on older machines where you'd only have a few hundred files, but managing a thousand files with a spacial UI will just confuse the user.
A good compromise would be to use spacial mode for documents and an explorer for everything else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550654</id>
	<title>Re:Is it really anything *new*?</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1261752840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fedora.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fedora .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fedora.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550222</id>
	<title>It's ....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261743180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a Christmas Miracle!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a Christmas Miracle !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a Christmas Miracle!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550130</id>
	<title>Too late</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261741020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linux has been on the desktop o long that Windows 7 using linux zealots don't even bother anymore. Gnome is for Gniggers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux has been on the desktop o long that Windows 7 using linux zealots do n't even bother anymore .
Gnome is for Gniggers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux has been on the desktop o long that Windows 7 using linux zealots don't even bother anymore.
Gnome is for Gniggers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552222</id>
	<title>Re:Still waiting for a Total Commander equivalent</title>
	<author>hduff</author>
	<datestamp>1261773720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(Midnight Commander is excellent in a console, and should be part of the base install of every distro)</p></div><p>yes. Yes! YES!!

I install it on every machine I admin. I use it in an xterm on the desktop; it's much better that those GNOME/KDE GUI file managers. I wish that distros would put the statically linked slimmed-down version on their rescue disks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( Midnight Commander is excellent in a console , and should be part of the base install of every distro ) yes .
Yes ! YES ! !
I install it on every machine I admin .
I use it in an xterm on the desktop ; it 's much better that those GNOME/KDE GUI file managers .
I wish that distros would put the statically linked slimmed-down version on their rescue disks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Midnight Commander is excellent in a console, and should be part of the base install of every distro)yes.
Yes! YES!!
I install it on every machine I admin.
I use it in an xterm on the desktop; it's much better that those GNOME/KDE GUI file managers.
I wish that distros would put the statically linked slimmed-down version on their rescue disks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551036</id>
	<title>Well, of course they did.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1261759260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>back in 2004 Gnome switched to the 'Spatial' view by default</p></div><p>Of course. They always copy the worst of all ideas Microsoft, and on top of it, do it way too late too. To make sure that really <em>everybody</em> already knows and hates that from MS, and disables it as the first action of installing a Gnome... uuum I mean Windows desktop.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>Don&rsquo;t mod me troll here, as I am a big friend of Linux. I&rsquo;ve just got a huge problem with the fact, that pretty much all &ldquo;mainstream&ldquo; Linux desktop environments are always imitating, and never innovating. Always with the (invalid) excuse of wanting to make it easier to switch.<br>Exceptions prove the rule: The only glimpse of innovation came from KDE with their &ldquo;semantic desktop&rdquo; idea. But it came in one atomic package with a huge load of other &ldquo;improvements&rdquo; for the worse.</p><p>The thing is, that that point of view is not <em>ever</em> going to get them anywhere. They are their own worst enemies. It&rsquo;s simple psychology: If you wanna lead, you gotta lead. Simple as that.<br>Only when both Gnome and KDE teams (and even the XFCE team) stop reacting... to the stupid part of their users, and especially to Microsoft or even Apple... only then will it ever become the year of Linux on the desktop.</p><p>I&rsquo;ll explain: If you got something, that perfectly imitates something else... then what&rsquo;s the point of switching in the first place? See... it&rsquo;s not getting you anywhere, to imitate.</p><p>If you, on the other hand, got features, that nobody else has, or has even thought about...<br>I mean, from what I see, the Linux community got an insane amount of genius that is simply thrown away for the fear of not being loved by Windows users.<br>It&rsquo;s like with women: If you want a girl, you don&rsquo;t come to her all needy, trying everything just to be loved. That&rsquo;s just gonna drive her away. You make yourself <em>stand out</em>. You draw her in, by being something special that she wants to be a part of. I mean, who wants someone who tries to suck up to himself? Nobody.</p><p>Guys, let&rsquo;s make the best fuckin&rsquo; desktop environment on the planet!!<br>Of course we listen to the actual needs of the users. But not from that needy standpoint. Not to show them. We don&rsquo;t need anyone&rsquo;s approval.<br>Allow yourselves to revolutionize the way people think about desktop environments! If you got something that you think is really great, draw us in! <em>Be</em> the leading figure. Whoever told you that you can&rsquo;t be the one that Steve Jobs and Bill Gates look up to for inspiration: Tell them to go fuck themselves for limiting you! It&rsquo;s bullshit! You decide what you can do.</p><p>And then you just do.<br>Because in the end, that&rsquo;s what <em>really</em> will make users love you!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>back in 2004 Gnome switched to the 'Spatial ' view by defaultOf course .
They always copy the worst of all ideas Microsoft , and on top of it , do it way too late too .
To make sure that really everybody already knows and hates that from MS , and disables it as the first action of installing a Gnome... uuum I mean Windows desktop .
; ) Don    t mod me troll here , as I am a big friend of Linux .
I    ve just got a huge problem with the fact , that pretty much all    mainstream    Linux desktop environments are always imitating , and never innovating .
Always with the ( invalid ) excuse of wanting to make it easier to switch.Exceptions prove the rule : The only glimpse of innovation came from KDE with their    semantic desktop    idea .
But it came in one atomic package with a huge load of other    improvements    for the worse.The thing is , that that point of view is not ever going to get them anywhere .
They are their own worst enemies .
It    s simple psychology : If you wan na lead , you got ta lead .
Simple as that.Only when both Gnome and KDE teams ( and even the XFCE team ) stop reacting... to the stupid part of their users , and especially to Microsoft or even Apple... only then will it ever become the year of Linux on the desktop.I    ll explain : If you got something , that perfectly imitates something else... then what    s the point of switching in the first place ?
See... it    s not getting you anywhere , to imitate.If you , on the other hand , got features , that nobody else has , or has even thought about...I mean , from what I see , the Linux community got an insane amount of genius that is simply thrown away for the fear of not being loved by Windows users.It    s like with women : If you want a girl , you don    t come to her all needy , trying everything just to be loved .
That    s just gon na drive her away .
You make yourself stand out .
You draw her in , by being something special that she wants to be a part of .
I mean , who wants someone who tries to suck up to himself ?
Nobody.Guys , let    s make the best fuckin    desktop environment on the planet !
! Of course we listen to the actual needs of the users .
But not from that needy standpoint .
Not to show them .
We don    t need anyone    s approval.Allow yourselves to revolutionize the way people think about desktop environments !
If you got something that you think is really great , draw us in !
Be the leading figure .
Whoever told you that you can    t be the one that Steve Jobs and Bill Gates look up to for inspiration : Tell them to go fuck themselves for limiting you !
It    s bullshit !
You decide what you can do.And then you just do.Because in the end , that    s what really will make users love you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>back in 2004 Gnome switched to the 'Spatial' view by defaultOf course.
They always copy the worst of all ideas Microsoft, and on top of it, do it way too late too.
To make sure that really everybody already knows and hates that from MS, and disables it as the first action of installing a Gnome... uuum I mean Windows desktop.
;)Don’t mod me troll here, as I am a big friend of Linux.
I’ve just got a huge problem with the fact, that pretty much all “mainstream“ Linux desktop environments are always imitating, and never innovating.
Always with the (invalid) excuse of wanting to make it easier to switch.Exceptions prove the rule: The only glimpse of innovation came from KDE with their “semantic desktop” idea.
But it came in one atomic package with a huge load of other “improvements” for the worse.The thing is, that that point of view is not ever going to get them anywhere.
They are their own worst enemies.
It’s simple psychology: If you wanna lead, you gotta lead.
Simple as that.Only when both Gnome and KDE teams (and even the XFCE team) stop reacting... to the stupid part of their users, and especially to Microsoft or even Apple... only then will it ever become the year of Linux on the desktop.I’ll explain: If you got something, that perfectly imitates something else... then what’s the point of switching in the first place?
See... it’s not getting you anywhere, to imitate.If you, on the other hand, got features, that nobody else has, or has even thought about...I mean, from what I see, the Linux community got an insane amount of genius that is simply thrown away for the fear of not being loved by Windows users.It’s like with women: If you want a girl, you don’t come to her all needy, trying everything just to be loved.
That’s just gonna drive her away.
You make yourself stand out.
You draw her in, by being something special that she wants to be a part of.
I mean, who wants someone who tries to suck up to himself?
Nobody.Guys, let’s make the best fuckin’ desktop environment on the planet!
!Of course we listen to the actual needs of the users.
But not from that needy standpoint.
Not to show them.
We don’t need anyone’s approval.Allow yourselves to revolutionize the way people think about desktop environments!
If you got something that you think is really great, draw us in!
Be the leading figure.
Whoever told you that you can’t be the one that Steve Jobs and Bill Gates look up to for inspiration: Tell them to go fuck themselves for limiting you!
It’s bullshit!
You decide what you can do.And then you just do.Because in the end, that’s what really will make users love you!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550482</id>
	<title>Spatial made sense</title>
	<author>Paul Jakma</author>
	<datestamp>1261748880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't like the switch to spatial at first, but after using it it became clear that the reasoning for it was sound - it's much better to use than browser mode. Annoyed it's going away, hope they retain the option to have nautilus use spatial mode.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't like the switch to spatial at first , but after using it it became clear that the reasoning for it was sound - it 's much better to use than browser mode .
Annoyed it 's going away , hope they retain the option to have nautilus use spatial mode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't like the switch to spatial at first, but after using it it became clear that the reasoning for it was sound - it's much better to use than browser mode.
Annoyed it's going away, hope they retain the option to have nautilus use spatial mode.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551882</id>
	<title>Dolphin's killer feature?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261769340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess I could agree that that split view is a killer feature - in the sense that it would kill any interest I would have in using a tool that forced me to waste screen space that way.  But then I've had the "sidepane" turned off in Nautilus for so long that it came as a surprise to me to find that I'd had to make that choice.</p><p>I'm probably not much like the target audiences for either set of UI designers.  I only put up with the inefficiencies of a file browser under fairly uncommon conditions, such as doing a rough sort of the ~/tmp/ dumping ground, or of a large batch of pictures - never normal everyday stuff!  And when I do want a file browser rather than a command line, it's because I want quickly (but "by hand") to sort through many files - hundreds is not uncommon.  At such a moment, the waste of a sidepane or other unnecessary split view would be a killer, indeed, in exactly the opposite of the sense you guys see it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-/</p><p>martin "what, me login for this?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess I could agree that that split view is a killer feature - in the sense that it would kill any interest I would have in using a tool that forced me to waste screen space that way .
But then I 've had the " sidepane " turned off in Nautilus for so long that it came as a surprise to me to find that I 'd had to make that choice.I 'm probably not much like the target audiences for either set of UI designers .
I only put up with the inefficiencies of a file browser under fairly uncommon conditions , such as doing a rough sort of the ~ /tmp/ dumping ground , or of a large batch of pictures - never normal everyday stuff !
And when I do want a file browser rather than a command line , it 's because I want quickly ( but " by hand " ) to sort through many files - hundreds is not uncommon .
At such a moment , the waste of a sidepane or other unnecessary split view would be a killer , indeed , in exactly the opposite of the sense you guys see it .
: -/martin " what , me login for this ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess I could agree that that split view is a killer feature - in the sense that it would kill any interest I would have in using a tool that forced me to waste screen space that way.
But then I've had the "sidepane" turned off in Nautilus for so long that it came as a surprise to me to find that I'd had to make that choice.I'm probably not much like the target audiences for either set of UI designers.
I only put up with the inefficiencies of a file browser under fairly uncommon conditions, such as doing a rough sort of the ~/tmp/ dumping ground, or of a large batch of pictures - never normal everyday stuff!
And when I do want a file browser rather than a command line, it's because I want quickly (but "by hand") to sort through many files - hundreds is not uncommon.
At such a moment, the waste of a sidepane or other unnecessary split view would be a killer, indeed, in exactly the opposite of the sense you guys see it.
:-/martin "what, me login for this?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30553560</id>
	<title>Re:Now for List Mode...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261751100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hmm... Maybe you are too young to know, but the list view was the default since forever, in all software. It&rsquo;s why &ldquo;ls&ldquo; is named &ldquo;ls&rdquo;.<br>Microsoft also had the list view in its file manager of Windows 3.1 and before.</p></div><p>Well that's just comparing apples to oranges, obviously it doesn't make sense to use icons in a CLI.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Only with Windows 95 did the resolution even become high enough to allow it for file management. And only then did they merge the program groups (windows with icons inside) with the file manager (a tree of folders and a list of files) to create the Explorer (then they naturally added the web browser in there, as it&rsquo;s just another space to browse).</p></div><p>I distinctively remember using Apple systems in the 1980's that used graphical file managers, same with Amiga.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm... Maybe you are too young to know , but the list view was the default since forever , in all software .
It    s why    ls    is named    ls    .Microsoft also had the list view in its file manager of Windows 3.1 and before.Well that 's just comparing apples to oranges , obviously it does n't make sense to use icons in a CLI.Only with Windows 95 did the resolution even become high enough to allow it for file management .
And only then did they merge the program groups ( windows with icons inside ) with the file manager ( a tree of folders and a list of files ) to create the Explorer ( then they naturally added the web browser in there , as it    s just another space to browse ) .I distinctively remember using Apple systems in the 1980 's that used graphical file managers , same with Amiga .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm... Maybe you are too young to know, but the list view was the default since forever, in all software.
It’s why “ls“ is named “ls”.Microsoft also had the list view in its file manager of Windows 3.1 and before.Well that's just comparing apples to oranges, obviously it doesn't make sense to use icons in a CLI.Only with Windows 95 did the resolution even become high enough to allow it for file management.
And only then did they merge the program groups (windows with icons inside) with the file manager (a tree of folders and a list of files) to create the Explorer (then they naturally added the web browser in there, as it’s just another space to browse).I distinctively remember using Apple systems in the 1980's that used graphical file managers, same with Amiga.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30553172</id>
	<title>Re:why anyone would use gnome is another question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261744680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and linux is easier?</p><p>i have to google for every simple task i want to do in ubuntu. with windows, everything WORKS. i don't need to google to learn how to get an external usb device to work or how to unmount it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and linux is easier ? i have to google for every simple task i want to do in ubuntu .
with windows , everything WORKS .
i do n't need to google to learn how to get an external usb device to work or how to unmount it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and linux is easier?i have to google for every simple task i want to do in ubuntu.
with windows, everything WORKS.
i don't need to google to learn how to get an external usb device to work or how to unmount it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550346</id>
	<title>Re:Still waiting for a Total Commander equivalent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261745880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No need to switch to Windows VM. Total Commander works nicely under Wine (www.winehq.org)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No need to switch to Windows VM .
Total Commander works nicely under Wine ( www.winehq.org )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No need to switch to Windows VM.
Total Commander works nicely under Wine (www.winehq.org)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552672</id>
	<title>Re:Those who like the new-window-every-folder view</title>
	<author>SoupIsGoodFood\_42</author>
	<datestamp>1261736520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why? Is there some reason that they both require the same interface? Do people really use them in exactly the same way?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ?
Is there some reason that they both require the same interface ?
Do people really use them in exactly the same way ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why?
Is there some reason that they both require the same interface?
Do people really use them in exactly the same way?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550434</id>
	<title>Re:Still waiting for a Total Commander equivalent</title>
	<author>TeXMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1261747860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I too miss Total Commander on Linux. I've heard reports of it working pretty decently under WINE, but I haven't tried it myself.

<p>Krusader is indeed the best candidate to try and get something to the level of TC, but it really needs a lot of work. I really wish I had the time to grab the codebase and start hammering on those rough edges<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I too miss Total Commander on Linux .
I 've heard reports of it working pretty decently under WINE , but I have n't tried it myself .
Krusader is indeed the best candidate to try and get something to the level of TC , but it really needs a lot of work .
I really wish I had the time to grab the codebase and start hammering on those rough edges .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I too miss Total Commander on Linux.
I've heard reports of it working pretty decently under WINE, but I haven't tried it myself.
Krusader is indeed the best candidate to try and get something to the level of TC, but it really needs a lot of work.
I really wish I had the time to grab the codebase and start hammering on those rough edges ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552114</id>
	<title>Re:why anyone would use gnome is another question</title>
	<author>maztuhblastah</author>
	<datestamp>1261772280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Lets face it, windows just works while Linux is usually a pain in the ass to configure.</p></div><p>Let's face it, Linux just works while Windows is usually a pain in the ass to configure.</p><p>There.  Now we've <i>both</i> made absolute, unsupported assertions.  Now let's move on to realistic claims.</p><p>First, neither Windows nor Linux "just works".  Both require drivers and hardware-specific setup.  The difference is, Windows has the advantage of OEM-pre-loading.  How many "average users" do you think end up installing Windows from scratch?  I'd wager the answer is "very, very few".</p><p>I'll touch on the configuration aspect later, but first I want to address some of your other points.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This is due to the arrogance and elitism of its developers, especially its kernel developers.</p></div><p>Yes.  The kernel developers often do seem to be pretty arrogant.  No contest there.  The whole "switchable scheduler" thing underlined that pretty well.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The fact that Linux has horrendously documented hardware APIs and that it has no stable driver binary interfaces and that getting anything to work is a huge mess of kernel header errors, compiler errors, etc.</p> </div><p>That's crap.  Furthermore, if you've used any modern distro (and I suspect you have), you know that's crap.</p><p>The average user will never do any kernel-related compilation, nor will they need to.  Modern distros build pretty much every hardware driver as a module for this reason.  Plug something in, and the appropriate module is loaded.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Do you really think grandma is going to be able to debug source code and figure out why some crazy driver doesnt install, when on Windows you just put in the disk, click install and it works?</p></div><p>No, but grandma doesn't have to.  Again, this isn't 1999 -- supported hardware is almost always supported automatically.</p><p>As for your Windows analogy... have you ever actually <i>seen</i> a grandma-type user try to install hardware?  That sort of user will end up buying a printer, installing the HP adware, making three copies of the PDF manual on their desktop ("HP LaserJet 2040 Manual.pdf", "HP LaserJet 2040 Manual (1).pdf", "HP LaserJet 2040 Manual (2).pdf"), installing a copy of Acrobat Reader, setting QuickTime as the default for all files of type "AVI", making three other equally-unrelated changes, and still end up with a printer that can't print half the time.</p><p>Yes, you and I may be smart enough to run through the Add New Hardware wizard, click Have Disk, etc... but for the average user, hardware installs are a much hairier proposition.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I have always said that the deployment of open source software would increase by 100X if we allowed there to be a stable binary driver ABI on linux and we made it easy for hardware developers to write drivers for it. It would make Linux far more practical and usable. Hardware developers put drivers through extensive QA testing to make sure it works well so it would be more reliable than open source drivers.</p> </div><p>Yeah... about that.  No, they don't.  Hardware developers put drivers through enough QA testing to make sure that 1) they get WHQL certification (if they care -- some don't) 2) it works most of the time.  It's cool to imagine a building full of test engineers slaving away to make sure that every last configuration is tested and re-tested, but that's far from the reality of the situation.</p><p>Remember: these are hardware manufacturers.  Hardware is what they do well.  The software is just secondary -- a necessary evil required to get people to buy their hardware.  They care about writing a driver that will let the hardware work; unless they're a graphics-card manufacturer, things like code quality, maintainability, and performance are but vague considerations (if considerations at all).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But the binary drivers could speed up development of open source ones since the binary drivers could be back engineered by watching communication with them. Though, The fact is, people dont want to wait years for someone to back engineer some piece of hardware and the idea that hardware companies will provide the specs is unrealistic idealism, even with specs it can be months after Windows users have been able to use the hardware.</p></div><p>So Linux isn't great if you want to run bleeding-edge hardware.  And?</p><p>You know... amongst all this screeching, I can't help but wonder if we're missing the point.  So Linux isn't a perfect solution for all people.  So?  At what point did we [the Linux community] stop trying to make an OS that fit our needs and start trying to make an OS that fit every conceivable need out of the box?  When did we decide that producing the best possible OS for some users should take a back seat to appeasing every user in the world?</p><p>I'm not an elitist -- I don't think Linux should purposely be kept difficult so as to "keep the riff raff" out or any such nonsense -- I just don't quite understand why we shifted our goals towards trying to make a "one size fits all" OS.  It's pretty clear that a company with tens of thousands of developers and billions of dollars to throw at the problem is having trouble even coming close to "one size fits all", so why are we hellbent on tearing ourselves apart trying to do the same?</p><p>Oh well.  Merry Christmas anyways.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets face it , windows just works while Linux is usually a pain in the ass to configure.Let 's face it , Linux just works while Windows is usually a pain in the ass to configure.There .
Now we 've both made absolute , unsupported assertions .
Now let 's move on to realistic claims.First , neither Windows nor Linux " just works " .
Both require drivers and hardware-specific setup .
The difference is , Windows has the advantage of OEM-pre-loading .
How many " average users " do you think end up installing Windows from scratch ?
I 'd wager the answer is " very , very few " .I 'll touch on the configuration aspect later , but first I want to address some of your other points.This is due to the arrogance and elitism of its developers , especially its kernel developers.Yes .
The kernel developers often do seem to be pretty arrogant .
No contest there .
The whole " switchable scheduler " thing underlined that pretty well.The fact that Linux has horrendously documented hardware APIs and that it has no stable driver binary interfaces and that getting anything to work is a huge mess of kernel header errors , compiler errors , etc .
That 's crap .
Furthermore , if you 've used any modern distro ( and I suspect you have ) , you know that 's crap.The average user will never do any kernel-related compilation , nor will they need to .
Modern distros build pretty much every hardware driver as a module for this reason .
Plug something in , and the appropriate module is loaded.Do you really think grandma is going to be able to debug source code and figure out why some crazy driver doesnt install , when on Windows you just put in the disk , click install and it works ? No , but grandma does n't have to .
Again , this is n't 1999 -- supported hardware is almost always supported automatically.As for your Windows analogy... have you ever actually seen a grandma-type user try to install hardware ?
That sort of user will end up buying a printer , installing the HP adware , making three copies of the PDF manual on their desktop ( " HP LaserJet 2040 Manual.pdf " , " HP LaserJet 2040 Manual ( 1 ) .pdf " , " HP LaserJet 2040 Manual ( 2 ) .pdf " ) , installing a copy of Acrobat Reader , setting QuickTime as the default for all files of type " AVI " , making three other equally-unrelated changes , and still end up with a printer that ca n't print half the time.Yes , you and I may be smart enough to run through the Add New Hardware wizard , click Have Disk , etc... but for the average user , hardware installs are a much hairier proposition.I have always said that the deployment of open source software would increase by 100X if we allowed there to be a stable binary driver ABI on linux and we made it easy for hardware developers to write drivers for it .
It would make Linux far more practical and usable .
Hardware developers put drivers through extensive QA testing to make sure it works well so it would be more reliable than open source drivers .
Yeah... about that .
No , they do n't .
Hardware developers put drivers through enough QA testing to make sure that 1 ) they get WHQL certification ( if they care -- some do n't ) 2 ) it works most of the time .
It 's cool to imagine a building full of test engineers slaving away to make sure that every last configuration is tested and re-tested , but that 's far from the reality of the situation.Remember : these are hardware manufacturers .
Hardware is what they do well .
The software is just secondary -- a necessary evil required to get people to buy their hardware .
They care about writing a driver that will let the hardware work ; unless they 're a graphics-card manufacturer , things like code quality , maintainability , and performance are but vague considerations ( if considerations at all ) .But the binary drivers could speed up development of open source ones since the binary drivers could be back engineered by watching communication with them .
Though , The fact is , people dont want to wait years for someone to back engineer some piece of hardware and the idea that hardware companies will provide the specs is unrealistic idealism , even with specs it can be months after Windows users have been able to use the hardware.So Linux is n't great if you want to run bleeding-edge hardware .
And ? You know... amongst all this screeching , I ca n't help but wonder if we 're missing the point .
So Linux is n't a perfect solution for all people .
So ? At what point did we [ the Linux community ] stop trying to make an OS that fit our needs and start trying to make an OS that fit every conceivable need out of the box ?
When did we decide that producing the best possible OS for some users should take a back seat to appeasing every user in the world ? I 'm not an elitist -- I do n't think Linux should purposely be kept difficult so as to " keep the riff raff " out or any such nonsense -- I just do n't quite understand why we shifted our goals towards trying to make a " one size fits all " OS .
It 's pretty clear that a company with tens of thousands of developers and billions of dollars to throw at the problem is having trouble even coming close to " one size fits all " , so why are we hellbent on tearing ourselves apart trying to do the same ? Oh well .
Merry Christmas anyways .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets face it, windows just works while Linux is usually a pain in the ass to configure.Let's face it, Linux just works while Windows is usually a pain in the ass to configure.There.
Now we've both made absolute, unsupported assertions.
Now let's move on to realistic claims.First, neither Windows nor Linux "just works".
Both require drivers and hardware-specific setup.
The difference is, Windows has the advantage of OEM-pre-loading.
How many "average users" do you think end up installing Windows from scratch?
I'd wager the answer is "very, very few".I'll touch on the configuration aspect later, but first I want to address some of your other points.This is due to the arrogance and elitism of its developers, especially its kernel developers.Yes.
The kernel developers often do seem to be pretty arrogant.
No contest there.
The whole "switchable scheduler" thing underlined that pretty well.The fact that Linux has horrendously documented hardware APIs and that it has no stable driver binary interfaces and that getting anything to work is a huge mess of kernel header errors, compiler errors, etc.
That's crap.
Furthermore, if you've used any modern distro (and I suspect you have), you know that's crap.The average user will never do any kernel-related compilation, nor will they need to.
Modern distros build pretty much every hardware driver as a module for this reason.
Plug something in, and the appropriate module is loaded.Do you really think grandma is going to be able to debug source code and figure out why some crazy driver doesnt install, when on Windows you just put in the disk, click install and it works?No, but grandma doesn't have to.
Again, this isn't 1999 -- supported hardware is almost always supported automatically.As for your Windows analogy... have you ever actually seen a grandma-type user try to install hardware?
That sort of user will end up buying a printer, installing the HP adware, making three copies of the PDF manual on their desktop ("HP LaserJet 2040 Manual.pdf", "HP LaserJet 2040 Manual (1).pdf", "HP LaserJet 2040 Manual (2).pdf"), installing a copy of Acrobat Reader, setting QuickTime as the default for all files of type "AVI", making three other equally-unrelated changes, and still end up with a printer that can't print half the time.Yes, you and I may be smart enough to run through the Add New Hardware wizard, click Have Disk, etc... but for the average user, hardware installs are a much hairier proposition.I have always said that the deployment of open source software would increase by 100X if we allowed there to be a stable binary driver ABI on linux and we made it easy for hardware developers to write drivers for it.
It would make Linux far more practical and usable.
Hardware developers put drivers through extensive QA testing to make sure it works well so it would be more reliable than open source drivers.
Yeah... about that.
No, they don't.
Hardware developers put drivers through enough QA testing to make sure that 1) they get WHQL certification (if they care -- some don't) 2) it works most of the time.
It's cool to imagine a building full of test engineers slaving away to make sure that every last configuration is tested and re-tested, but that's far from the reality of the situation.Remember: these are hardware manufacturers.
Hardware is what they do well.
The software is just secondary -- a necessary evil required to get people to buy their hardware.
They care about writing a driver that will let the hardware work; unless they're a graphics-card manufacturer, things like code quality, maintainability, and performance are but vague considerations (if considerations at all).But the binary drivers could speed up development of open source ones since the binary drivers could be back engineered by watching communication with them.
Though, The fact is, people dont want to wait years for someone to back engineer some piece of hardware and the idea that hardware companies will provide the specs is unrealistic idealism, even with specs it can be months after Windows users have been able to use the hardware.So Linux isn't great if you want to run bleeding-edge hardware.
And?You know... amongst all this screeching, I can't help but wonder if we're missing the point.
So Linux isn't a perfect solution for all people.
So?  At what point did we [the Linux community] stop trying to make an OS that fit our needs and start trying to make an OS that fit every conceivable need out of the box?
When did we decide that producing the best possible OS for some users should take a back seat to appeasing every user in the world?I'm not an elitist -- I don't think Linux should purposely be kept difficult so as to "keep the riff raff" out or any such nonsense -- I just don't quite understand why we shifted our goals towards trying to make a "one size fits all" OS.
It's pretty clear that a company with tens of thousands of developers and billions of dollars to throw at the problem is having trouble even coming close to "one size fits all", so why are we hellbent on tearing ourselves apart trying to do the same?Oh well.
Merry Christmas anyways.
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30556584</id>
	<title>Re:Well, of course they did.</title>
	<author>quantic\_oscillation7</author>
	<datestamp>1261850400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we already have two great projects, E17 and the new KDE 4.X</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we already have two great projects , E17 and the new KDE 4.X</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we already have two great projects, E17 and the new KDE 4.X</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30553776</id>
	<title>Re:Nautilus following KDE's Dolphin?</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1261754580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Accusing the KDE and GNOME teams of copying off of each other is kind of missing the forest for the trees.</p><p>KDE desperately tries to be Windows, while GNOME attempts to be as Mac-like as it possibly can.</p><p>If each project adopts the more successful aspects of its counterpart, I'd say that the state of open source software is taking a huge step forward.  (After all, one of the major <i>points</i> of OSS is the ability to copy and imitate what works)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Accusing the KDE and GNOME teams of copying off of each other is kind of missing the forest for the trees.KDE desperately tries to be Windows , while GNOME attempts to be as Mac-like as it possibly can.If each project adopts the more successful aspects of its counterpart , I 'd say that the state of open source software is taking a huge step forward .
( After all , one of the major points of OSS is the ability to copy and imitate what works )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Accusing the KDE and GNOME teams of copying off of each other is kind of missing the forest for the trees.KDE desperately tries to be Windows, while GNOME attempts to be as Mac-like as it possibly can.If each project adopts the more successful aspects of its counterpart, I'd say that the state of open source software is taking a huge step forward.
(After all, one of the major points of OSS is the ability to copy and imitate what works)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551912</id>
	<title>Serg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261769820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Visit our resource http://www.im-narod.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Visit our resource http : //www.im-narod.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Visit our resource http://www.im-narod.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550458</id>
	<title>Re:Those who like the new-window-every-folder view</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261748400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I hate people who don't share my preferences and I want to punish them.</p></div><p>Fixt</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate people who do n't share my preferences and I want to punish them.Fixt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate people who don't share my preferences and I want to punish them.Fixt
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30553616</id>
	<title>Re:Well, of course they did.</title>
	<author>tuppe666</author>
	<datestamp>1261752120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm shocked. I'm clearly doing something wrong. When a post gets modded up for claiming the originality of the desktop metaphor. I'm amazed. I can name many Desktops that did it better than Microsoft years earlier, on less powerful machines. Amiga is probably the most remembered. Spin a Distro running the Rox Desktop; the file manager that is inspired by the Amiga Desktop is quite something. In fact I am struggling to come up with any innovation on the Desktop from Microsoft at all; the Ribbon Bar!? maybe..
<p>
I'm shocked that you claim innovative Desktop ideas that have come not come from Linuz on the Desktop  OA Sugar; Compiz; UNR; Gnome 3; KDE4; Gnome-Do to name a few that have come with there own unique set of Interacting with the Desktop and smaller more subtle interactions I'm more than happy to point out, but clearly your lack of knowledge is quite frightening more so when you have been modded up, perhaps the claim of being Different isn't that strong a pull.
</p><p>
I'm shocked because you argue that Different will attract users at all when breaking out of the Desktop in mainstream is...tricky. Chrome OS is the closest I can see, but it looking like a net device interface, and n those platforms everyone but Microsoft is innovating that why Microsoft is loosing presence on the smartphone after years start. If Apple have not tried. Microsoft/Apple have not tried anything but a few unique features and Linux has those already, but fail to mention them. There is a real good reason, and thats the Desktop metaphor is pretty good as being a way to interact with your OS...its pretty poor as a metaphor, but to argue that a radical shift from what we have been used to for 20 years on every platform would attract people to another Unique OS. I would need more than analogy about women. I'm still waiting for joysticks in cars. That and the fact Cheaper; Faster; More Secure; Malware free; Rapid evolution have never brought it the Market Share it has deserved why would a different way of interacting help. Hell people are still using IE and every other browser is better, and its less bolted to the hardware than an OS.
</p><p>
To conclude a post that claims Microsoft invented the Desktop, ignores innovation of which there has been masses of on the Linux Desktop, which an insane analogy gets Modded up. Clearly nobody here has been in computing any length of time or been keeping up with the Develops on the Linux Desktop, which is one of the most exiting things in computing right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm shocked .
I 'm clearly doing something wrong .
When a post gets modded up for claiming the originality of the desktop metaphor .
I 'm amazed .
I can name many Desktops that did it better than Microsoft years earlier , on less powerful machines .
Amiga is probably the most remembered .
Spin a Distro running the Rox Desktop ; the file manager that is inspired by the Amiga Desktop is quite something .
In fact I am struggling to come up with any innovation on the Desktop from Microsoft at all ; the Ribbon Bar ! ?
maybe. . I 'm shocked that you claim innovative Desktop ideas that have come not come from Linuz on the Desktop OA Sugar ; Compiz ; UNR ; Gnome 3 ; KDE4 ; Gnome-Do to name a few that have come with there own unique set of Interacting with the Desktop and smaller more subtle interactions I 'm more than happy to point out , but clearly your lack of knowledge is quite frightening more so when you have been modded up , perhaps the claim of being Different is n't that strong a pull .
I 'm shocked because you argue that Different will attract users at all when breaking out of the Desktop in mainstream is...tricky .
Chrome OS is the closest I can see , but it looking like a net device interface , and n those platforms everyone but Microsoft is innovating that why Microsoft is loosing presence on the smartphone after years start .
If Apple have not tried .
Microsoft/Apple have not tried anything but a few unique features and Linux has those already , but fail to mention them .
There is a real good reason , and thats the Desktop metaphor is pretty good as being a way to interact with your OS...its pretty poor as a metaphor , but to argue that a radical shift from what we have been used to for 20 years on every platform would attract people to another Unique OS .
I would need more than analogy about women .
I 'm still waiting for joysticks in cars .
That and the fact Cheaper ; Faster ; More Secure ; Malware free ; Rapid evolution have never brought it the Market Share it has deserved why would a different way of interacting help .
Hell people are still using IE and every other browser is better , and its less bolted to the hardware than an OS .
To conclude a post that claims Microsoft invented the Desktop , ignores innovation of which there has been masses of on the Linux Desktop , which an insane analogy gets Modded up .
Clearly nobody here has been in computing any length of time or been keeping up with the Develops on the Linux Desktop , which is one of the most exiting things in computing right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm shocked.
I'm clearly doing something wrong.
When a post gets modded up for claiming the originality of the desktop metaphor.
I'm amazed.
I can name many Desktops that did it better than Microsoft years earlier, on less powerful machines.
Amiga is probably the most remembered.
Spin a Distro running the Rox Desktop; the file manager that is inspired by the Amiga Desktop is quite something.
In fact I am struggling to come up with any innovation on the Desktop from Microsoft at all; the Ribbon Bar!?
maybe..

I'm shocked that you claim innovative Desktop ideas that have come not come from Linuz on the Desktop  OA Sugar; Compiz; UNR; Gnome 3; KDE4; Gnome-Do to name a few that have come with there own unique set of Interacting with the Desktop and smaller more subtle interactions I'm more than happy to point out, but clearly your lack of knowledge is quite frightening more so when you have been modded up, perhaps the claim of being Different isn't that strong a pull.
I'm shocked because you argue that Different will attract users at all when breaking out of the Desktop in mainstream is...tricky.
Chrome OS is the closest I can see, but it looking like a net device interface, and n those platforms everyone but Microsoft is innovating that why Microsoft is loosing presence on the smartphone after years start.
If Apple have not tried.
Microsoft/Apple have not tried anything but a few unique features and Linux has those already, but fail to mention them.
There is a real good reason, and thats the Desktop metaphor is pretty good as being a way to interact with your OS...its pretty poor as a metaphor, but to argue that a radical shift from what we have been used to for 20 years on every platform would attract people to another Unique OS.
I would need more than analogy about women.
I'm still waiting for joysticks in cars.
That and the fact Cheaper; Faster; More Secure; Malware free; Rapid evolution have never brought it the Market Share it has deserved why would a different way of interacting help.
Hell people are still using IE and every other browser is better, and its less bolted to the hardware than an OS.
To conclude a post that claims Microsoft invented the Desktop, ignores innovation of which there has been masses of on the Linux Desktop, which an insane analogy gets Modded up.
Clearly nobody here has been in computing any length of time or been keeping up with the Develops on the Linux Desktop, which is one of the most exiting things in computing right now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550868</id>
	<title>Meanwhile</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261756500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Evolution still has no support for Exchange 2007.  And don't say Brutus, Brutus requires an intermediate Windows box shim and if I'm going to go to that length then I might as will use native Outlook.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Evolution still has no support for Exchange 2007 .
And do n't say Brutus , Brutus requires an intermediate Windows box shim and if I 'm going to go to that length then I might as will use native Outlook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evolution still has no support for Exchange 2007.
And don't say Brutus, Brutus requires an intermediate Windows box shim and if I'm going to go to that length then I might as will use native Outlook.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551370</id>
	<title>Re:Nautilus following KDE's Dolphin?</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1261763100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>KDE's Dolphin (please ignore the command line at the bottom<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...)</p></div></blockquote><p>But, now that I have seen it, how can I ever take my eyes away from something so beautiful....?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>KDE 's Dolphin ( please ignore the command line at the bottom ... ) But , now that I have seen it , how can I ever take my eyes away from something so beautiful.... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>KDE's Dolphin (please ignore the command line at the bottom ...)But, now that I have seen it, how can I ever take my eyes away from something so beautiful....?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30557166</id>
	<title>Re:I use both spatial and browser mode</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1261855500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It is more flexible in laying out content than browser mode.</i></p><p>Why and how would you "lay out content" in a file manager?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is more flexible in laying out content than browser mode.Why and how would you " lay out content " in a file manager ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is more flexible in laying out content than browser mode.Why and how would you "lay out content" in a file manager?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552128</id>
	<title>Re:Nautilus following KDE's Dolphin?</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1261772400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a pity.  Konqueror is a much better application for the function than Dolphin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a pity .
Konqueror is a much better application for the function than Dolphin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a pity.
Konqueror is a much better application for the function than Dolphin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550126</id>
	<title>Those who like the new-window-every-folder view...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261740900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Should be forced to use a browser that opens a new window every time a hyperlink is clicked</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should be forced to use a browser that opens a new window every time a hyperlink is clicked</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should be forced to use a browser that opens a new window every time a hyperlink is clicked</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550218</id>
	<title>Still waiting for a Total Commander equivalent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261742880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I switched to Linux 4 months ago, and what I still miss is a file manager as good as Total Commander. Krusader seems to be the closest and most feature rich, but it just isn't as complete and as polished as Total Commander. And it crashes about once every few days. So sometimes, I have to start a WinXP VM, just to have the power and reliability of Total Commander.</p><p>In other words, I don't care so much for little details in Nautilus. It doesn't seem any worse than Windows Explorer, and seems better than the Mac Finder (which is the file manager that Nautilus resembles most). I just wish there would be more resources to improve Krusader.</p><p>(Midnight Commander is excellent in a console, and should be part of the base install of every distro)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I switched to Linux 4 months ago , and what I still miss is a file manager as good as Total Commander .
Krusader seems to be the closest and most feature rich , but it just is n't as complete and as polished as Total Commander .
And it crashes about once every few days .
So sometimes , I have to start a WinXP VM , just to have the power and reliability of Total Commander.In other words , I do n't care so much for little details in Nautilus .
It does n't seem any worse than Windows Explorer , and seems better than the Mac Finder ( which is the file manager that Nautilus resembles most ) .
I just wish there would be more resources to improve Krusader .
( Midnight Commander is excellent in a console , and should be part of the base install of every distro )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I switched to Linux 4 months ago, and what I still miss is a file manager as good as Total Commander.
Krusader seems to be the closest and most feature rich, but it just isn't as complete and as polished as Total Commander.
And it crashes about once every few days.
So sometimes, I have to start a WinXP VM, just to have the power and reliability of Total Commander.In other words, I don't care so much for little details in Nautilus.
It doesn't seem any worse than Windows Explorer, and seems better than the Mac Finder (which is the file manager that Nautilus resembles most).
I just wish there would be more resources to improve Krusader.
(Midnight Commander is excellent in a console, and should be part of the base install of every distro)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552804</id>
	<title>Re:Nautilus following KDE's Dolphin?</title>
	<author>Bazer</author>
	<datestamp>1261738260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Incorporating a "split view" in the default file manager, in my opinion, is an overkill and a symptom of feature creep. I realize KDE strives to give the user freedom of customization but sometimes it introduces needless complexity. Managing layouts is not a job of a file manager. </p><p> I'm fond of the traditional UNIX mindset: write a program to do one thing, but do it well. If I need two vertical panes with different directories in it then I fire up two file manager windows and use a window manager with tiling. If I'd have to work with a standard WM I'd just install Midnight Commander or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File\_manager#Orthodox\_file\_managers" title="wikipedia.org">an alternative</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Incorporating a " split view " in the default file manager , in my opinion , is an overkill and a symptom of feature creep .
I realize KDE strives to give the user freedom of customization but sometimes it introduces needless complexity .
Managing layouts is not a job of a file manager .
I 'm fond of the traditional UNIX mindset : write a program to do one thing , but do it well .
If I need two vertical panes with different directories in it then I fire up two file manager windows and use a window manager with tiling .
If I 'd have to work with a standard WM I 'd just install Midnight Commander or an alternative [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Incorporating a "split view" in the default file manager, in my opinion, is an overkill and a symptom of feature creep.
I realize KDE strives to give the user freedom of customization but sometimes it introduces needless complexity.
Managing layouts is not a job of a file manager.
I'm fond of the traditional UNIX mindset: write a program to do one thing, but do it well.
If I need two vertical panes with different directories in it then I fire up two file manager windows and use a window manager with tiling.
If I'd have to work with a standard WM I'd just install Midnight Commander or an alternative [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550260</id>
	<title>Re:universal preferences</title>
	<author>ciroknight</author>
	<datestamp>1261744140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It'd never work because different pieces of software have different kinds of capabilities. You could eventually reach some shared common functionality, but the edge cases (and the effort to bring it up that far) would most likely piss off users more than any utility it brings.
<br> <br>
There have been some efforts towards moving to a unified settings system (see DConf/GSettings), but even then, each application is responsible for its own settings.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'd never work because different pieces of software have different kinds of capabilities .
You could eventually reach some shared common functionality , but the edge cases ( and the effort to bring it up that far ) would most likely piss off users more than any utility it brings .
There have been some efforts towards moving to a unified settings system ( see DConf/GSettings ) , but even then , each application is responsible for its own settings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'd never work because different pieces of software have different kinds of capabilities.
You could eventually reach some shared common functionality, but the edge cases (and the effort to bring it up that far) would most likely piss off users more than any utility it brings.
There have been some efforts towards moving to a unified settings system (see DConf/GSettings), but even then, each application is responsible for its own settings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550136</id>
	<title>Re:Is it really anything *new*?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261741080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Debian uses spatial by default. I know, because it's about the first thing I change on a fresh install.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Debian uses spatial by default .
I know , because it 's about the first thing I change on a fresh install .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Debian uses spatial by default.
I know, because it's about the first thing I change on a fresh install.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30558336</id>
	<title>Wow, how interesting....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261821840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Attempting to drip with sarcasm...difficult to pull off here.....<br>Is this news? What's next? After five years of fiddling around, a Linux user decides to change their windows frame colour to orange?<br>Get a fucking life guys... oh, sorry, that <em>is</em> your life...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Attempting to drip with sarcasm...difficult to pull off here.....Is this news ?
What 's next ?
After five years of fiddling around , a Linux user decides to change their windows frame colour to orange ? Get a fucking life guys... oh , sorry , that is your life.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Attempting to drip with sarcasm...difficult to pull off here.....Is this news?
What's next?
After five years of fiddling around, a Linux user decides to change their windows frame colour to orange?Get a fucking life guys... oh, sorry, that is your life...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30553812</id>
	<title>Re:Those who like the new-window-every-folder view</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1261755240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Not sure why this is moderated as interesting. The point of a spacial file browser is to use your spacial memory (which is big, and is the reason why you can find things all around the house or on a messy desk easily) to manage your files. Every time you open a folder, it opens in the same place on your screen. This lets you mentally associate screen locations with files.</i>
</p><p>That's not what defines a spatial file browser at all.  It's a common feature, to be sure, but not one of the fundamental ones.
</p><p>The purpose of a spatial file browser is to behave in the same fashion as the physical objects its metaphor is based on.  The most obvious (and frustrating) way this manifests is that you cannot have more than one window displaying the same directory/folder.
</p><p> <i>The problem with spacial browsers is that they don't scale beyond a certain point. They were great on older machines where you'd only have a few hundred files, but managing a thousand files with a spacial UI will just confuse the user. A good compromise would be to use spacial mode for documents and an explorer for everything else.</i>
</p><p>While this is true, the simple fact is most users don't typically have to manage thousands - or even hundreds - of files.  The only real exceptions are MP3 files, which are usually managed for them by some application (iTunes, iPhoto, Picasa, etc).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure why this is moderated as interesting .
The point of a spacial file browser is to use your spacial memory ( which is big , and is the reason why you can find things all around the house or on a messy desk easily ) to manage your files .
Every time you open a folder , it opens in the same place on your screen .
This lets you mentally associate screen locations with files .
That 's not what defines a spatial file browser at all .
It 's a common feature , to be sure , but not one of the fundamental ones .
The purpose of a spatial file browser is to behave in the same fashion as the physical objects its metaphor is based on .
The most obvious ( and frustrating ) way this manifests is that you can not have more than one window displaying the same directory/folder .
The problem with spacial browsers is that they do n't scale beyond a certain point .
They were great on older machines where you 'd only have a few hundred files , but managing a thousand files with a spacial UI will just confuse the user .
A good compromise would be to use spacial mode for documents and an explorer for everything else .
While this is true , the simple fact is most users do n't typically have to manage thousands - or even hundreds - of files .
The only real exceptions are MP3 files , which are usually managed for them by some application ( iTunes , iPhoto , Picasa , etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Not sure why this is moderated as interesting.
The point of a spacial file browser is to use your spacial memory (which is big, and is the reason why you can find things all around the house or on a messy desk easily) to manage your files.
Every time you open a folder, it opens in the same place on your screen.
This lets you mentally associate screen locations with files.
That's not what defines a spatial file browser at all.
It's a common feature, to be sure, but not one of the fundamental ones.
The purpose of a spatial file browser is to behave in the same fashion as the physical objects its metaphor is based on.
The most obvious (and frustrating) way this manifests is that you cannot have more than one window displaying the same directory/folder.
The problem with spacial browsers is that they don't scale beyond a certain point.
They were great on older machines where you'd only have a few hundred files, but managing a thousand files with a spacial UI will just confuse the user.
A good compromise would be to use spacial mode for documents and an explorer for everything else.
While this is true, the simple fact is most users don't typically have to manage thousands - or even hundreds - of files.
The only real exceptions are MP3 files, which are usually managed for them by some application (iTunes, iPhoto, Picasa, etc).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551574</id>
	<title>Re:why anyone would use gnome is another question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261765320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do you really think grandma is going to be able to debug source code and figure out why some crazy driver doesnt install, when on Windows you just put in the disk, click install and it works? I have always said that the deployment of open source software would increase by 100X if we allowed there to be a stable binary driver ABI on linux and we made it easy for hardware developers to write drivers for it. It would make Linux far more practical and useable. </p></div><p>Wait... seriously.  Do you think grandma knows what a driver is?</p><p>If your grandma is compiling hardware drivers in 2009 (2010) then something is really wrong.  I can't tell you the last time a $300 Dell Workstation didn't "Just Work"(tm) with Ubuntu.  In fact, I've had machines that DIDN'T work with Vista that did with Ubuntu.</p><p>We need to get away from the belief that hardware drivers and the like are what is causing adoption to lag.  The people who are pointing out UI issues are dead on.  I'd say from personal experience the biggest hindrance is knowledge about how good modern distros actually are.  That and the fear of losing the ability to run some obscure Windows program.</p><p>Now-a-days most of my friends (in their early 30's) are literate enough to take a 20 minute lesson in using Ubuntu and then they are off and running.  The most difficult part to explain is the software installation system and as of Karmic and the addition of the "Ubuntu Software Center"  this has become really simple.  Most of the people that I switch over are amazed at how everything "just works" and how compete the system is for their general tasks:  1) Email (web based), 2) Web surfing, 3) MP3, 4) Photos.</p><p>In general the (gnome) UI is close enough to the Windows UI to allow a competent user to make the switch without a hassle.  My friends (non-geeks) have done it without much trouble.</p><p>Now I'll admit 2 things:  1) I don't have an IPod and neither did my friends.  As a result I have yet to face that challenge.  My understanding though is that its pretty simple to make all that work.   2) The printers can be a huge pain in the ass.  I've been fortunate to face hardware that was compatible (yeah Brother and HP).  Beyond those issues though things usually go without a bump in the road.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you really think grandma is going to be able to debug source code and figure out why some crazy driver doesnt install , when on Windows you just put in the disk , click install and it works ?
I have always said that the deployment of open source software would increase by 100X if we allowed there to be a stable binary driver ABI on linux and we made it easy for hardware developers to write drivers for it .
It would make Linux far more practical and useable .
Wait... seriously .
Do you think grandma knows what a driver is ? If your grandma is compiling hardware drivers in 2009 ( 2010 ) then something is really wrong .
I ca n't tell you the last time a $ 300 Dell Workstation did n't " Just Work " ( tm ) with Ubuntu .
In fact , I 've had machines that DID N'T work with Vista that did with Ubuntu.We need to get away from the belief that hardware drivers and the like are what is causing adoption to lag .
The people who are pointing out UI issues are dead on .
I 'd say from personal experience the biggest hindrance is knowledge about how good modern distros actually are .
That and the fear of losing the ability to run some obscure Windows program.Now-a-days most of my friends ( in their early 30 's ) are literate enough to take a 20 minute lesson in using Ubuntu and then they are off and running .
The most difficult part to explain is the software installation system and as of Karmic and the addition of the " Ubuntu Software Center " this has become really simple .
Most of the people that I switch over are amazed at how everything " just works " and how compete the system is for their general tasks : 1 ) Email ( web based ) , 2 ) Web surfing , 3 ) MP3 , 4 ) Photos.In general the ( gnome ) UI is close enough to the Windows UI to allow a competent user to make the switch without a hassle .
My friends ( non-geeks ) have done it without much trouble.Now I 'll admit 2 things : 1 ) I do n't have an IPod and neither did my friends .
As a result I have yet to face that challenge .
My understanding though is that its pretty simple to make all that work .
2 ) The printers can be a huge pain in the ass .
I 've been fortunate to face hardware that was compatible ( yeah Brother and HP ) .
Beyond those issues though things usually go without a bump in the road .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you really think grandma is going to be able to debug source code and figure out why some crazy driver doesnt install, when on Windows you just put in the disk, click install and it works?
I have always said that the deployment of open source software would increase by 100X if we allowed there to be a stable binary driver ABI on linux and we made it easy for hardware developers to write drivers for it.
It would make Linux far more practical and useable.
Wait... seriously.
Do you think grandma knows what a driver is?If your grandma is compiling hardware drivers in 2009 (2010) then something is really wrong.
I can't tell you the last time a $300 Dell Workstation didn't "Just Work"(tm) with Ubuntu.
In fact, I've had machines that DIDN'T work with Vista that did with Ubuntu.We need to get away from the belief that hardware drivers and the like are what is causing adoption to lag.
The people who are pointing out UI issues are dead on.
I'd say from personal experience the biggest hindrance is knowledge about how good modern distros actually are.
That and the fear of losing the ability to run some obscure Windows program.Now-a-days most of my friends (in their early 30's) are literate enough to take a 20 minute lesson in using Ubuntu and then they are off and running.
The most difficult part to explain is the software installation system and as of Karmic and the addition of the "Ubuntu Software Center"  this has become really simple.
Most of the people that I switch over are amazed at how everything "just works" and how compete the system is for their general tasks:  1) Email (web based), 2) Web surfing, 3) MP3, 4) Photos.In general the (gnome) UI is close enough to the Windows UI to allow a competent user to make the switch without a hassle.
My friends (non-geeks) have done it without much trouble.Now I'll admit 2 things:  1) I don't have an IPod and neither did my friends.
As a result I have yet to face that challenge.
My understanding though is that its pretty simple to make all that work.
2) The printers can be a huge pain in the ass.
I've been fortunate to face hardware that was compatible (yeah Brother and HP).
Beyond those issues though things usually go without a bump in the road.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551584</id>
	<title>Re:Still waiting for a Total Commander equivalent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261765440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.obsession.se/gentoo/" title="obsession.se" rel="nofollow">gentoo filemanager</a> [obsession.se]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>gentoo filemanager [ obsession.se ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gentoo filemanager [obsession.se]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550812</id>
	<title>Re:why anyone would use gnome is another question</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1261755840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having a stable ABI ( which is something as a retailer I have suggested for years) would allow a penguin on the box and I predict would help Linux explode as it would solve the "Walmart problem" in that folks wouldn't have to study like it was a college entrance exam just to avoid the paperweight roulette game, but sadly it will never ever be. Why? Politics. It all comes down to RMS and his SCoN! (Source Code or Nothing!) brigade.</p><p>You see, if there was actually a stable ABI some manufacturers might actually pull an Nvidia and release drivers without code. While this would be a good thing, as those that completely ignore Linux now would at least have motivation to release drivers, penguins on the box would fix the Walmart problem, and word of mouth would quickly weed out the bad manufacturers, it would severely piss off those "Give us your specs!" and "Give us all the source code and we'll incorporate it in the kernel" zealots.</p><p> Never mind that this approach is ultimately fail because by the time the code trickles down from being approved by the kernel devs, who frankly should be maintaining the kernel and not printer drivers, to all the distros your hardware isn't being sold in stores anymore, but frankly making Linux easier is NOT something they care about. To them Linux is NOT an OS, but an ideology. To them it is all about "RMS style" freedom, where there can NEVER be compromises, even though hardcore political zealotry is never good for the people and helps to keep Linux locked into a niche. After all, what non developer wants to study like it is the ACTs just to keep from playing paperweight roulette? And what retailer like me is gonna want to carry your product knowing that less than 35\% of the devices in Walmart actually work and the users has NO WAY of actually telling that by looking?</p><p>

So I'm sorry dude, but Linux will always be a niche. In servers, where the hardware is very limited and rarely changes, and the corporations that build the hardware have millions invested in Linux? Yeah it will work great there, same as in cell phones and other devices where the hardware is locked down tighter than a nun's thighs and the user can only do what the developer allows them to. But in the consumer desktop market, where there are literally 1000s of hardware manufacturers, devices have a short window of shelf life, and keeping developers around to constantly update drivers because Linux is like a shifting sand, where if you actually tried to put a binary driver on a CD with your device the odds are that it won't work by the time you make it to market? Yeah not gonna happen friend. Back when Win9X was the buggy crap that folks had to deal with daily I thought "Surely they will come out with a stable ABI soon and then we'll have real choice in the market". But it has been 10 years, and the SCoN! brigade have kept everything the same. Just look at how many "update foo broke my sound" posts you have on Ubuntu. Yeah, good luck with that pal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having a stable ABI ( which is something as a retailer I have suggested for years ) would allow a penguin on the box and I predict would help Linux explode as it would solve the " Walmart problem " in that folks would n't have to study like it was a college entrance exam just to avoid the paperweight roulette game , but sadly it will never ever be .
Why ? Politics .
It all comes down to RMS and his SCoN !
( Source Code or Nothing !
) brigade.You see , if there was actually a stable ABI some manufacturers might actually pull an Nvidia and release drivers without code .
While this would be a good thing , as those that completely ignore Linux now would at least have motivation to release drivers , penguins on the box would fix the Walmart problem , and word of mouth would quickly weed out the bad manufacturers , it would severely piss off those " Give us your specs !
" and " Give us all the source code and we 'll incorporate it in the kernel " zealots .
Never mind that this approach is ultimately fail because by the time the code trickles down from being approved by the kernel devs , who frankly should be maintaining the kernel and not printer drivers , to all the distros your hardware is n't being sold in stores anymore , but frankly making Linux easier is NOT something they care about .
To them Linux is NOT an OS , but an ideology .
To them it is all about " RMS style " freedom , where there can NEVER be compromises , even though hardcore political zealotry is never good for the people and helps to keep Linux locked into a niche .
After all , what non developer wants to study like it is the ACTs just to keep from playing paperweight roulette ?
And what retailer like me is gon na want to carry your product knowing that less than 35 \ % of the devices in Walmart actually work and the users has NO WAY of actually telling that by looking ?
So I 'm sorry dude , but Linux will always be a niche .
In servers , where the hardware is very limited and rarely changes , and the corporations that build the hardware have millions invested in Linux ?
Yeah it will work great there , same as in cell phones and other devices where the hardware is locked down tighter than a nun 's thighs and the user can only do what the developer allows them to .
But in the consumer desktop market , where there are literally 1000s of hardware manufacturers , devices have a short window of shelf life , and keeping developers around to constantly update drivers because Linux is like a shifting sand , where if you actually tried to put a binary driver on a CD with your device the odds are that it wo n't work by the time you make it to market ?
Yeah not gon na happen friend .
Back when Win9X was the buggy crap that folks had to deal with daily I thought " Surely they will come out with a stable ABI soon and then we 'll have real choice in the market " .
But it has been 10 years , and the SCoN !
brigade have kept everything the same .
Just look at how many " update foo broke my sound " posts you have on Ubuntu .
Yeah , good luck with that pal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having a stable ABI ( which is something as a retailer I have suggested for years) would allow a penguin on the box and I predict would help Linux explode as it would solve the "Walmart problem" in that folks wouldn't have to study like it was a college entrance exam just to avoid the paperweight roulette game, but sadly it will never ever be.
Why? Politics.
It all comes down to RMS and his SCoN!
(Source Code or Nothing!
) brigade.You see, if there was actually a stable ABI some manufacturers might actually pull an Nvidia and release drivers without code.
While this would be a good thing, as those that completely ignore Linux now would at least have motivation to release drivers, penguins on the box would fix the Walmart problem, and word of mouth would quickly weed out the bad manufacturers, it would severely piss off those "Give us your specs!
" and "Give us all the source code and we'll incorporate it in the kernel" zealots.
Never mind that this approach is ultimately fail because by the time the code trickles down from being approved by the kernel devs, who frankly should be maintaining the kernel and not printer drivers, to all the distros your hardware isn't being sold in stores anymore, but frankly making Linux easier is NOT something they care about.
To them Linux is NOT an OS, but an ideology.
To them it is all about "RMS style" freedom, where there can NEVER be compromises, even though hardcore political zealotry is never good for the people and helps to keep Linux locked into a niche.
After all, what non developer wants to study like it is the ACTs just to keep from playing paperweight roulette?
And what retailer like me is gonna want to carry your product knowing that less than 35\% of the devices in Walmart actually work and the users has NO WAY of actually telling that by looking?
So I'm sorry dude, but Linux will always be a niche.
In servers, where the hardware is very limited and rarely changes, and the corporations that build the hardware have millions invested in Linux?
Yeah it will work great there, same as in cell phones and other devices where the hardware is locked down tighter than a nun's thighs and the user can only do what the developer allows them to.
But in the consumer desktop market, where there are literally 1000s of hardware manufacturers, devices have a short window of shelf life, and keeping developers around to constantly update drivers because Linux is like a shifting sand, where if you actually tried to put a binary driver on a CD with your device the odds are that it won't work by the time you make it to market?
Yeah not gonna happen friend.
Back when Win9X was the buggy crap that folks had to deal with daily I thought "Surely they will come out with a stable ABI soon and then we'll have real choice in the market".
But it has been 10 years, and the SCoN!
brigade have kept everything the same.
Just look at how many "update foo broke my sound" posts you have on Ubuntu.
Yeah, good luck with that pal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551446</id>
	<title>Re:why anyone would use gnome is another question</title>
	<author>Kman\_xth</author>
	<datestamp>1261763760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Linux On The Desktop has been an unachieved goal for about a decade now and it seems it's stuck with unreliable drivers. Especially graphics- and wireless drivers are notoriously in this regard, where every version offers some new surprises regarding errors and lack of stability.
<br> <br>
However, having a stable ABI won't be the magic solution to this. A lot (if not most) of the problems encountered on one platform with a stable ABI (Windows) seem to be related to buggy drivers. A more recent example: <a href="http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2008/03/vista-capable-lawsuit-paints-picture-of-buggy-nvidia-drivers.ars" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2008/03/vista-capable-lawsuit-paints-picture-of-buggy-nvidia-drivers.ars</a> [arstechnica.com]
<br> <br>
And even an open source driver doesn't guarantee quality. For at least a year now, drivers for Intel's graphics cards have been the source of a lot of problems on the desktop (see <a href="http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2009081702335OSHWKN" title="linuxtoday.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2009081702335OSHWKN</a> [linuxtoday.com]). And I'm not even mentioning the various buggy ALSA drivers that have been a plague for linux desktop users in the past.
<br> <br>
Taking these two observations, one can state that we cannot trust hardware companies nor kernel developers to produce quality and stable drivers. Both parties cannot and/or will not test against many possible hardware and software combinations. Kernel developers do not have the resources and I don't believe companies will invest a lot of effort as well (especially not for such a small market-share)
<br> <br>
Microsoft seems to know about this problem and offers the WHQL driver-certification to ensure a certain driver quality. I don't know what qualifies for such a certification but I won't be surprised they have a huge amount of resources available for testing various (popular?) hardware and software combinations. But again, even Microsoft cannot cover nearly all the bases.
<br> <br>
So what does that leave Desktop Linux? In my opinion, if it really wants to be better than Windows in terms of delivered quality and offer a smooth and stable environment, it needs to control the hardware offer as well. It's Apple's little public secret: the reason why their software is perceived to be so stable and seamless, is because you don't have to fiddle around with drivers. Plus, the OS guys can actually test the delivered system pretty thoroughly because of the limited variations in hardware.
<br> <br>
The way I see it Canonical should have released a Ubuntu laptop bundled with hardware that is well-tested to work with the current available drivers. But also release their OS for use on other hardware, but without the guarantee that everything will work as good as on the offered hardware. They had a good shot at this with their Dell deal roughly one or two years ago but it seems they dropped the ball on that. Even the Dell guys made the remark that it was getting pretty difficult to find quality drivers for some components (http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news\_item&amp;px=NTkxOA). From the outside it seems that Canonical only was interested in delivering the OS part and didn't really pay any attention to the complete product. The end result was a 'nice try', but riddled with problems regarding hibernation, wireless and dual-monitor support, not exactly trivial pieces of functionality on a laptop. I don't know if their current offerings are any better, but a bad first impression is pretty hard to make up for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux On The Desktop has been an unachieved goal for about a decade now and it seems it 's stuck with unreliable drivers .
Especially graphics- and wireless drivers are notoriously in this regard , where every version offers some new surprises regarding errors and lack of stability .
However , having a stable ABI wo n't be the magic solution to this .
A lot ( if not most ) of the problems encountered on one platform with a stable ABI ( Windows ) seem to be related to buggy drivers .
A more recent example : http : //arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2008/03/vista-capable-lawsuit-paints-picture-of-buggy-nvidia-drivers.ars [ arstechnica.com ] And even an open source driver does n't guarantee quality .
For at least a year now , drivers for Intel 's graphics cards have been the source of a lot of problems on the desktop ( see http : //www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2009081702335OSHWKN [ linuxtoday.com ] ) .
And I 'm not even mentioning the various buggy ALSA drivers that have been a plague for linux desktop users in the past .
Taking these two observations , one can state that we can not trust hardware companies nor kernel developers to produce quality and stable drivers .
Both parties can not and/or will not test against many possible hardware and software combinations .
Kernel developers do not have the resources and I do n't believe companies will invest a lot of effort as well ( especially not for such a small market-share ) Microsoft seems to know about this problem and offers the WHQL driver-certification to ensure a certain driver quality .
I do n't know what qualifies for such a certification but I wo n't be surprised they have a huge amount of resources available for testing various ( popular ?
) hardware and software combinations .
But again , even Microsoft can not cover nearly all the bases .
So what does that leave Desktop Linux ?
In my opinion , if it really wants to be better than Windows in terms of delivered quality and offer a smooth and stable environment , it needs to control the hardware offer as well .
It 's Apple 's little public secret : the reason why their software is perceived to be so stable and seamless , is because you do n't have to fiddle around with drivers .
Plus , the OS guys can actually test the delivered system pretty thoroughly because of the limited variations in hardware .
The way I see it Canonical should have released a Ubuntu laptop bundled with hardware that is well-tested to work with the current available drivers .
But also release their OS for use on other hardware , but without the guarantee that everything will work as good as on the offered hardware .
They had a good shot at this with their Dell deal roughly one or two years ago but it seems they dropped the ball on that .
Even the Dell guys made the remark that it was getting pretty difficult to find quality drivers for some components ( http : //www.phoronix.com/scan.php ? page = news \ _item&amp;px = NTkxOA ) .
From the outside it seems that Canonical only was interested in delivering the OS part and did n't really pay any attention to the complete product .
The end result was a 'nice try ' , but riddled with problems regarding hibernation , wireless and dual-monitor support , not exactly trivial pieces of functionality on a laptop .
I do n't know if their current offerings are any better , but a bad first impression is pretty hard to make up for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux On The Desktop has been an unachieved goal for about a decade now and it seems it's stuck with unreliable drivers.
Especially graphics- and wireless drivers are notoriously in this regard, where every version offers some new surprises regarding errors and lack of stability.
However, having a stable ABI won't be the magic solution to this.
A lot (if not most) of the problems encountered on one platform with a stable ABI (Windows) seem to be related to buggy drivers.
A more recent example: http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2008/03/vista-capable-lawsuit-paints-picture-of-buggy-nvidia-drivers.ars [arstechnica.com]
 
And even an open source driver doesn't guarantee quality.
For at least a year now, drivers for Intel's graphics cards have been the source of a lot of problems on the desktop (see http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2009081702335OSHWKN [linuxtoday.com]).
And I'm not even mentioning the various buggy ALSA drivers that have been a plague for linux desktop users in the past.
Taking these two observations, one can state that we cannot trust hardware companies nor kernel developers to produce quality and stable drivers.
Both parties cannot and/or will not test against many possible hardware and software combinations.
Kernel developers do not have the resources and I don't believe companies will invest a lot of effort as well (especially not for such a small market-share)
 
Microsoft seems to know about this problem and offers the WHQL driver-certification to ensure a certain driver quality.
I don't know what qualifies for such a certification but I won't be surprised they have a huge amount of resources available for testing various (popular?
) hardware and software combinations.
But again, even Microsoft cannot cover nearly all the bases.
So what does that leave Desktop Linux?
In my opinion, if it really wants to be better than Windows in terms of delivered quality and offer a smooth and stable environment, it needs to control the hardware offer as well.
It's Apple's little public secret: the reason why their software is perceived to be so stable and seamless, is because you don't have to fiddle around with drivers.
Plus, the OS guys can actually test the delivered system pretty thoroughly because of the limited variations in hardware.
The way I see it Canonical should have released a Ubuntu laptop bundled with hardware that is well-tested to work with the current available drivers.
But also release their OS for use on other hardware, but without the guarantee that everything will work as good as on the offered hardware.
They had a good shot at this with their Dell deal roughly one or two years ago but it seems they dropped the ball on that.
Even the Dell guys made the remark that it was getting pretty difficult to find quality drivers for some components (http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news\_item&amp;px=NTkxOA).
From the outside it seems that Canonical only was interested in delivering the OS part and didn't really pay any attention to the complete product.
The end result was a 'nice try', but riddled with problems regarding hibernation, wireless and dual-monitor support, not exactly trivial pieces of functionality on a laptop.
I don't know if their current offerings are any better, but a bad first impression is pretty hard to make up for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552448</id>
	<title>You're joking, right?</title>
	<author>anti-NAT</author>
	<datestamp>1261734120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The fact is, people dont want to wait years for someone to back engineer some piece of hardware and the idea that hardware companies will provide the specs is unrealistic idealism, even with specs it can be months after Windows users have been able to use the hardware."</p><p>Unrealistic idealism? How do you explain the 5618<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.c files (which we'll be conservative and assume only supports one hardware device each - unlike the realtiy where there are drivers that support many different hardware revsions e.g. the e1000e driver supports *all* 1Gbps Intel PCI-E cards) in the Linux 2.6.31 drivers directory? How do you think the came about? The Linux driver tooth fairy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The fact is , people dont want to wait years for someone to back engineer some piece of hardware and the idea that hardware companies will provide the specs is unrealistic idealism , even with specs it can be months after Windows users have been able to use the hardware .
" Unrealistic idealism ?
How do you explain the 5618 .c files ( which we 'll be conservative and assume only supports one hardware device each - unlike the realtiy where there are drivers that support many different hardware revsions e.g .
the e1000e driver supports * all * 1Gbps Intel PCI-E cards ) in the Linux 2.6.31 drivers directory ?
How do you think the came about ?
The Linux driver tooth fairy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The fact is, people dont want to wait years for someone to back engineer some piece of hardware and the idea that hardware companies will provide the specs is unrealistic idealism, even with specs it can be months after Windows users have been able to use the hardware.
"Unrealistic idealism?
How do you explain the 5618 .c files (which we'll be conservative and assume only supports one hardware device each - unlike the realtiy where there are drivers that support many different hardware revsions e.g.
the e1000e driver supports *all* 1Gbps Intel PCI-E cards) in the Linux 2.6.31 drivers directory?
How do you think the came about?
The Linux driver tooth fairy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551296</id>
	<title>Re:Now for List Mode...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261762440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only that but the Gtk+ tree view needs those lines like Explorer uses (or used, haven't been paying attention to what Win7 uses).  I hate those disconnected arrows.  In a deep tree you can't make heads or tails of anything without the connecting lines.</p><p>A lot of these stupid features (spatial view, tree view without connecting lines, etc) seem to be copied from MacOS.  Which is really nothing more than fanboism or whatever because frankly a lot people people don't like the OS X interface.  Especially Finder, even Mac people hate that damn thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that but the Gtk + tree view needs those lines like Explorer uses ( or used , have n't been paying attention to what Win7 uses ) .
I hate those disconnected arrows .
In a deep tree you ca n't make heads or tails of anything without the connecting lines.A lot of these stupid features ( spatial view , tree view without connecting lines , etc ) seem to be copied from MacOS .
Which is really nothing more than fanboism or whatever because frankly a lot people people do n't like the OS X interface .
Especially Finder , even Mac people hate that damn thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that but the Gtk+ tree view needs those lines like Explorer uses (or used, haven't been paying attention to what Win7 uses).
I hate those disconnected arrows.
In a deep tree you can't make heads or tails of anything without the connecting lines.A lot of these stupid features (spatial view, tree view without connecting lines, etc) seem to be copied from MacOS.
Which is really nothing more than fanboism or whatever because frankly a lot people people don't like the OS X interface.
Especially Finder, even Mac people hate that damn thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550178</id>
	<title>long live spatial mode!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261742040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's much better than browser mode. Almost no buttons and clutter, very simple navigation. All you have to learn is to open all windows with the middle button (open new folder in same window).</p><p>Browser mode is clunky as hell. Way to much cruft in the window. If you want KDE clutter use KDE</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's much better than browser mode .
Almost no buttons and clutter , very simple navigation .
All you have to learn is to open all windows with the middle button ( open new folder in same window ) .Browser mode is clunky as hell .
Way to much cruft in the window .
If you want KDE clutter use KDE</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's much better than browser mode.
Almost no buttons and clutter, very simple navigation.
All you have to learn is to open all windows with the middle button (open new folder in same window).Browser mode is clunky as hell.
Way to much cruft in the window.
If you want KDE clutter use KDE</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550108</id>
	<title>Thougt it was default</title>
	<author>sorennielsen</author>
	<datestamp>1261740240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Didn't even notice. Haven't used a distro that didn't have "browsermode" set as default.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't even notice .
Have n't used a distro that did n't have " browsermode " set as default .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't even notice.
Haven't used a distro that didn't have "browsermode" set as default.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30553492</id>
	<title>Re:Nautilus following KDE's Dolphin?</title>
	<author>AmiMoJo</author>
	<datestamp>1261749840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Yes, they have copied the "split view" (one of the killer features of dolphin/konqueror).</p></div></blockquote><p>Split view is a killer feature? I thought we left that behind in the mid 90s.</p><p>Directory Opus 5 on the Amiga was the first file manager to combine traditional file manager features with multiple windows. Rather than having just two file displays you can have as many as you like with the source/destination displays automatically switching to the current and last selected windows respectively. It really helps when you are trying to work on more than one set of files at a time. Besides that, the old two column split view was reasonable on low resolution 4:3 screens but doesn't work with high resolution widescreen displays.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , they have copied the " split view " ( one of the killer features of dolphin/konqueror ) .Split view is a killer feature ?
I thought we left that behind in the mid 90s.Directory Opus 5 on the Amiga was the first file manager to combine traditional file manager features with multiple windows .
Rather than having just two file displays you can have as many as you like with the source/destination displays automatically switching to the current and last selected windows respectively .
It really helps when you are trying to work on more than one set of files at a time .
Besides that , the old two column split view was reasonable on low resolution 4 : 3 screens but does n't work with high resolution widescreen displays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, they have copied the "split view" (one of the killer features of dolphin/konqueror).Split view is a killer feature?
I thought we left that behind in the mid 90s.Directory Opus 5 on the Amiga was the first file manager to combine traditional file manager features with multiple windows.
Rather than having just two file displays you can have as many as you like with the source/destination displays automatically switching to the current and last selected windows respectively.
It really helps when you are trying to work on more than one set of files at a time.
Besides that, the old two column split view was reasonable on low resolution 4:3 screens but doesn't work with high resolution widescreen displays.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550660</id>
	<title>Re:Still waiting for a Total Commander equivalent</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1261752900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually I personally in my long kde time always found Konqueror superior to total commander in everything except that much of the goodyness was hidden behind kio::slaves (sftp://blabla for instance)<br>and in shortcuts, you could reach various notworked filesystem you could split and tab as youd like and etc... but it took time to learn it, most of the functionality was not obvious.<br>I never missed total commander in Linux, on OSX however... sure there is pathfinder, but it is not the same!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I personally in my long kde time always found Konqueror superior to total commander in everything except that much of the goodyness was hidden behind kio : : slaves ( sftp : //blabla for instance ) and in shortcuts , you could reach various notworked filesystem you could split and tab as youd like and etc... but it took time to learn it , most of the functionality was not obvious.I never missed total commander in Linux , on OSX however... sure there is pathfinder , but it is not the same !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I personally in my long kde time always found Konqueror superior to total commander in everything except that much of the goodyness was hidden behind kio::slaves (sftp://blabla for instance)and in shortcuts, you could reach various notworked filesystem you could split and tab as youd like and etc... but it took time to learn it, most of the functionality was not obvious.I never missed total commander in Linux, on OSX however... sure there is pathfinder, but it is not the same!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550256</id>
	<title>Re:Now for List Mode...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261744080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely.  Everyone I know, on EVERY environment (windows explorer, KDE, gnome,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...) always changes the default to detail view.</p><p>Why on earth isn't the the default?  It's what most everyone prefers, and it gives you an actual useful view if you have more than a few files.  Finding them by icon is great for 4 things, but not so great otherwise.  It just looks unprofessional to have icon view as the default - that's not how people use their computers in the real world.  It's great in some academic "simple is best!" theory, but it's not what people really want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely .
Everyone I know , on EVERY environment ( windows explorer , KDE , gnome , ... ) always changes the default to detail view.Why on earth is n't the the default ?
It 's what most everyone prefers , and it gives you an actual useful view if you have more than a few files .
Finding them by icon is great for 4 things , but not so great otherwise .
It just looks unprofessional to have icon view as the default - that 's not how people use their computers in the real world .
It 's great in some academic " simple is best !
" theory , but it 's not what people really want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely.
Everyone I know, on EVERY environment (windows explorer, KDE, gnome, ...) always changes the default to detail view.Why on earth isn't the the default?
It's what most everyone prefers, and it gives you an actual useful view if you have more than a few files.
Finding them by icon is great for 4 things, but not so great otherwise.
It just looks unprofessional to have icon view as the default - that's not how people use their computers in the real world.
It's great in some academic "simple is best!
" theory, but it's not what people really want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551032</id>
	<title>Re:Now for List Mode...</title>
	<author>Fred\_A</author>
	<datestamp>1261759140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nautilus and most other file browsers also default to Icon view, which is fine if you have only about 5 files on your computer, which was probably true for Windows for Workgroups 3.1, but these days List view should be the default.</p></div><p>That's fine for generic fine but not for media files. If you dabble a bit in photography, you absolutely want preview view, not a list. 300 files named \_IGP* aren't very helpful when you're quickly looking for something and you don't want to be bothered with a dedicated app.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nautilus and most other file browsers also default to Icon view , which is fine if you have only about 5 files on your computer , which was probably true for Windows for Workgroups 3.1 , but these days List view should be the default.That 's fine for generic fine but not for media files .
If you dabble a bit in photography , you absolutely want preview view , not a list .
300 files named \ _IGP * are n't very helpful when you 're quickly looking for something and you do n't want to be bothered with a dedicated app .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nautilus and most other file browsers also default to Icon view, which is fine if you have only about 5 files on your computer, which was probably true for Windows for Workgroups 3.1, but these days List view should be the default.That's fine for generic fine but not for media files.
If you dabble a bit in photography, you absolutely want preview view, not a list.
300 files named \_IGP* aren't very helpful when you're quickly looking for something and you don't want to be bothered with a dedicated app.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550118</id>
	<title>Does it matter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261740540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I only saw the weird "open a new window" mode once, I think it was on Solaris 10.  Ubuntu, Opensolaris, etc all seam to have configured gnome to use the normal "browser" mode.  If the distros set the gnome configuration, does it really matter what the default is?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I only saw the weird " open a new window " mode once , I think it was on Solaris 10 .
Ubuntu , Opensolaris , etc all seam to have configured gnome to use the normal " browser " mode .
If the distros set the gnome configuration , does it really matter what the default is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I only saw the weird "open a new window" mode once, I think it was on Solaris 10.
Ubuntu, Opensolaris, etc all seam to have configured gnome to use the normal "browser" mode.
If the distros set the gnome configuration, does it really matter what the default is?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550266</id>
	<title>Re:Those who like the new-window-every-folder view</title>
	<author>mspohr</author>
	<datestamp>1261744140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, that's how I have my FireFox set up... opens each hyperlink in a new tab (not window).  I do this so I can keep reading then go on to check out the links.  Also, many times I want to view more than one link from a page and this lets me keep the page open to find the other links.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , that 's how I have my FireFox set up... opens each hyperlink in a new tab ( not window ) .
I do this so I can keep reading then go on to check out the links .
Also , many times I want to view more than one link from a page and this lets me keep the page open to find the other links .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, that's how I have my FireFox set up... opens each hyperlink in a new tab (not window).
I do this so I can keep reading then go on to check out the links.
Also, many times I want to view more than one link from a page and this lets me keep the page open to find the other links.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550936</id>
	<title>Re:The futility of HIGs is what it shows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261757340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you are using an acronym like "HIG" please enlighten people as to what it means.  I had to go look it up.  I believe you are referring to "Human Interface Guidelines", but I'm still not sure.</p><p>A great number of us are interested in this discussion and would like to learn more on the subject but aren't familiar with all of the TLAs (Three letter acronyms).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you are using an acronym like " HIG " please enlighten people as to what it means .
I had to go look it up .
I believe you are referring to " Human Interface Guidelines " , but I 'm still not sure.A great number of us are interested in this discussion and would like to learn more on the subject but are n't familiar with all of the TLAs ( Three letter acronyms ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you are using an acronym like "HIG" please enlighten people as to what it means.
I had to go look it up.
I believe you are referring to "Human Interface Guidelines", but I'm still not sure.A great number of us are interested in this discussion and would like to learn more on the subject but aren't familiar with all of the TLAs (Three letter acronyms).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550624</id>
	<title>Catastrophical ... this could mean the end ...</title>
	<author>freaker\_TuC</author>
	<datestamp>1261751940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The plot thickens<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it always starts like that.</p><p>I've always knew these little Gnomes were going to take over the world. First they'll start 20,000 miles under the sea by putting the Nautilus back to browser mode.</p><p>bottom line: Don't trust Gnomes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Don't trust Dwarves either, since Santa isn't a real Elf anyways!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The plot thickens ... it always starts like that.I 've always knew these little Gnomes were going to take over the world .
First they 'll start 20,000 miles under the sea by putting the Nautilus back to browser mode.bottom line : Do n't trust Gnomes ... Do n't trust Dwarves either , since Santa is n't a real Elf anyways !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The plot thickens ... it always starts like that.I've always knew these little Gnomes were going to take over the world.
First they'll start 20,000 miles under the sea by putting the Nautilus back to browser mode.bottom line: Don't trust Gnomes ... Don't trust Dwarves either, since Santa isn't a real Elf anyways!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550806</id>
	<title>yay!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261755780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Literally the first thing I do after installing a gnome based distro is change nautilus to browser mode.</p><p>Best christmas present ever!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Literally the first thing I do after installing a gnome based distro is change nautilus to browser mode.Best christmas present ever !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Literally the first thing I do after installing a gnome based distro is change nautilus to browser mode.Best christmas present ever!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552024</id>
	<title>Re:why anyone would use gnome is another question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261771320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>General, rough agreement with you on driver hell, but want to take polite issue with 'ease of use'. I've just watched Dad (80s) go from Ubuntu to W7. I had to buy him a book.[1] Windows was not as easy to use, though he'd had XP, w98/5, w3, DOS before Ubuntu. He hadn't needed a book for Ubuntu. Ubuntu was not without frustrations, but it was often pretty easy and he misses that.</p><p>This sort of thing - you still can't just hit PrnScn and have a save-screenshot with numbered shot ready to save in your default directory. Windows<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/still/ doesn't do that. Another thing is Synaptic/apt-get; now he has to keep track of his third party apps and regularly check for patches. These are important items for 'Grandma SixPack' - Microsoft's alleged more extensive usability testing didn't figure it out.</p><p>Ubuntu is slowly pushing things along in ease of use. In small ways they're exceeding Windows now, though I heartily agree I want Ubuntu to get a hell of a lot better. I just want to point out it's a moving comparison, and things aren't what they were five years ago, when your comment would be more accurate.</p><p>[1] <a href="http://www.fehily.com/books/win7.htm" title="fehily.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.fehily.com/books/win7.htm</a> [fehily.com]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/Great/ book. Thorough, and he's not afraid to express opinions. This is the 'missing manual' that you want to get your friends &amp; relations using W7.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>General , rough agreement with you on driver hell , but want to take polite issue with 'ease of use' .
I 've just watched Dad ( 80s ) go from Ubuntu to W7 .
I had to buy him a book .
[ 1 ] Windows was not as easy to use , though he 'd had XP , w98/5 , w3 , DOS before Ubuntu .
He had n't needed a book for Ubuntu .
Ubuntu was not without frustrations , but it was often pretty easy and he misses that.This sort of thing - you still ca n't just hit PrnScn and have a save-screenshot with numbered shot ready to save in your default directory .
Windows /still/ does n't do that .
Another thing is Synaptic/apt-get ; now he has to keep track of his third party apps and regularly check for patches .
These are important items for 'Grandma SixPack ' - Microsoft 's alleged more extensive usability testing did n't figure it out.Ubuntu is slowly pushing things along in ease of use .
In small ways they 're exceeding Windows now , though I heartily agree I want Ubuntu to get a hell of a lot better .
I just want to point out it 's a moving comparison , and things are n't what they were five years ago , when your comment would be more accurate .
[ 1 ] http : //www.fehily.com/books/win7.htm [ fehily.com ] /Great/ book .
Thorough , and he 's not afraid to express opinions .
This is the 'missing manual ' that you want to get your friends &amp; relations using W7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>General, rough agreement with you on driver hell, but want to take polite issue with 'ease of use'.
I've just watched Dad (80s) go from Ubuntu to W7.
I had to buy him a book.
[1] Windows was not as easy to use, though he'd had XP, w98/5, w3, DOS before Ubuntu.
He hadn't needed a book for Ubuntu.
Ubuntu was not without frustrations, but it was often pretty easy and he misses that.This sort of thing - you still can't just hit PrnScn and have a save-screenshot with numbered shot ready to save in your default directory.
Windows /still/ doesn't do that.
Another thing is Synaptic/apt-get; now he has to keep track of his third party apps and regularly check for patches.
These are important items for 'Grandma SixPack' - Microsoft's alleged more extensive usability testing didn't figure it out.Ubuntu is slowly pushing things along in ease of use.
In small ways they're exceeding Windows now, though I heartily agree I want Ubuntu to get a hell of a lot better.
I just want to point out it's a moving comparison, and things aren't what they were five years ago, when your comment would be more accurate.
[1] http://www.fehily.com/books/win7.htm [fehily.com] /Great/ book.
Thorough, and he's not afraid to express opinions.
This is the 'missing manual' that you want to get your friends &amp; relations using W7.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550204</id>
	<title>As a 49 year old feminist grandmother</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261742700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm glad that gnome developers are no longer living in the museum of contemporary art and are making the default functionality logical for rational humanoids.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad that gnome developers are no longer living in the museum of contemporary art and are making the default functionality logical for rational humanoids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad that gnome developers are no longer living in the museum of contemporary art and are making the default functionality logical for rational humanoids.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550710</id>
	<title>Re:Corporates in the Gnome Foundation</title>
	<author>digitalhermit</author>
	<datestamp>1261754100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not defending Gnome in any way. Personally I've always found their defaults and UI design non-intuitive. However, one of the things I've always believed is that "ease of use" is more subjective than we imagine. People new to the Linux desktop may find it counter-intuitive compared to the Windows desktop they've used for years.</p><p>But imagine if we were blank slates with no pre-conceived notions of how a desktop should behave?</p><p>For example, when I sort things in a desk drawer, I don't put my pens near my printer because they both start with the same letter or they both put images on paper. I put labels on my DVDs and MiniDV tapes and I label the items themselves, not the box where I put them in. In short, I mix all types of media.  The current desktop metaphor completely breaks this free-form approach that many of use have.  I don't think it's a technical barrier; just that people are used to doing things a certain way.</p><p>So, though I don't agree with Gnome decisions I do give them credit for trying to do new things (as difficult and bizarre as those decisions can be).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not defending Gnome in any way .
Personally I 've always found their defaults and UI design non-intuitive .
However , one of the things I 've always believed is that " ease of use " is more subjective than we imagine .
People new to the Linux desktop may find it counter-intuitive compared to the Windows desktop they 've used for years.But imagine if we were blank slates with no pre-conceived notions of how a desktop should behave ? For example , when I sort things in a desk drawer , I do n't put my pens near my printer because they both start with the same letter or they both put images on paper .
I put labels on my DVDs and MiniDV tapes and I label the items themselves , not the box where I put them in .
In short , I mix all types of media .
The current desktop metaphor completely breaks this free-form approach that many of use have .
I do n't think it 's a technical barrier ; just that people are used to doing things a certain way.So , though I do n't agree with Gnome decisions I do give them credit for trying to do new things ( as difficult and bizarre as those decisions can be ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not defending Gnome in any way.
Personally I've always found their defaults and UI design non-intuitive.
However, one of the things I've always believed is that "ease of use" is more subjective than we imagine.
People new to the Linux desktop may find it counter-intuitive compared to the Windows desktop they've used for years.But imagine if we were blank slates with no pre-conceived notions of how a desktop should behave?For example, when I sort things in a desk drawer, I don't put my pens near my printer because they both start with the same letter or they both put images on paper.
I put labels on my DVDs and MiniDV tapes and I label the items themselves, not the box where I put them in.
In short, I mix all types of media.
The current desktop metaphor completely breaks this free-form approach that many of use have.
I don't think it's a technical barrier; just that people are used to doing things a certain way.So, though I don't agree with Gnome decisions I do give them credit for trying to do new things (as difficult and bizarre as those decisions can be).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30554350</id>
	<title>Re:Is it really anything *new*?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261766820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fedora uses spatial mode by default.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fedora uses spatial mode by default .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fedora uses spatial mode by default.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552124</id>
	<title>Re:Those who like the new-window-every-folder view</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1261772340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The point of a spacial file browser is to use your spacial memory</p><p>I thought spacial file browsers were for "spacial people" e.g. retards<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;).</p><p>Seriously though, I agree. Lots of these "fancy UIs" that these jokers come up with only work fine for users who just need to manage a handful of objects (windows, tasks, files, folders) at a time.</p><p>I find this silly since there is evidence that people are already able to manage a handful of objects at a time ( <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Magical\_Number\_Seven,\_Plus\_or\_Minus\_Two" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Magical\_Number\_Seven,\_Plus\_or\_Minus\_Two</a> [wikipedia.org] ), but can't manage far more.</p><p>We don't really need help when there are a few objects and need help when there are lots. But that's when all those stupid GUIs start getting in the way.</p><p>For example: thumbnailed windows don't really help when you have &gt; 10 of them (especially if they are similar looking documents - using the same standardized template), same goes for those graphical selectors where they show the windows from a 3d or fancy perspective. Useless if you have 20+ windows, cool looking when you have three or four windows, but why'd you need them when you only have a few windows?</p><p>When you have a few objects to track you should be able to remember which ones are which. When you have way more, you need some help. That's where computers and software should help. But they don't!</p><p>The exceptions are some game UIs. Some of which are proof that you can build UIs that work for "noobs" and still help skilled users.</p><p>Games are also proof that people, when sufficiently motivated to, can actually do far more than what these Desktop GUI makers assume. Very many actions per second. Keeping track of stuff. Learning of difficult combos. So where's the Desktop GUI that actually helps you to sustain a high "actions per second" average?</p><p>I've personally suggested this:</p><p><a href="http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/DesignersPlayground/KeyboardShortcuts" title="gnome.org">http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/DesignersPlayground/KeyboardShortcuts</a> [gnome.org]</p><p>And something like it in 2006:<br><a href="http://bugs.kde.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=121349" title="kde.org">http://bugs.kde.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=121349</a> [kde.org]</p><p>I think this sort of thing will help skilled users more, while not getting in the way of "naive" users (you can still leave the flashy stuff for them).</p><p>Car analogy: current OS GUI designers seem to be making cars that look really cool (and are theme-able) but have top speed of 30kph (play a beautiful animation while doing so), have a range of 3km, and have only space for one person at a time.</p><p>Not really helpful when we need to do some serious traveling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The point of a spacial file browser is to use your spacial memoryI thought spacial file browsers were for " spacial people " e.g .
retards ; ) .Seriously though , I agree .
Lots of these " fancy UIs " that these jokers come up with only work fine for users who just need to manage a handful of objects ( windows , tasks , files , folders ) at a time.I find this silly since there is evidence that people are already able to manage a handful of objects at a time ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The \ _Magical \ _Number \ _Seven , \ _Plus \ _or \ _Minus \ _Two [ wikipedia.org ] ) , but ca n't manage far more.We do n't really need help when there are a few objects and need help when there are lots .
But that 's when all those stupid GUIs start getting in the way.For example : thumbnailed windows do n't really help when you have &gt; 10 of them ( especially if they are similar looking documents - using the same standardized template ) , same goes for those graphical selectors where they show the windows from a 3d or fancy perspective .
Useless if you have 20 + windows , cool looking when you have three or four windows , but why 'd you need them when you only have a few windows ? When you have a few objects to track you should be able to remember which ones are which .
When you have way more , you need some help .
That 's where computers and software should help .
But they do n't ! The exceptions are some game UIs .
Some of which are proof that you can build UIs that work for " noobs " and still help skilled users.Games are also proof that people , when sufficiently motivated to , can actually do far more than what these Desktop GUI makers assume .
Very many actions per second .
Keeping track of stuff .
Learning of difficult combos .
So where 's the Desktop GUI that actually helps you to sustain a high " actions per second " average ? I 've personally suggested this : http : //live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/DesignersPlayground/KeyboardShortcuts [ gnome.org ] And something like it in 2006 : http : //bugs.kde.org/show \ _bug.cgi ? id = 121349 [ kde.org ] I think this sort of thing will help skilled users more , while not getting in the way of " naive " users ( you can still leave the flashy stuff for them ) .Car analogy : current OS GUI designers seem to be making cars that look really cool ( and are theme-able ) but have top speed of 30kph ( play a beautiful animation while doing so ) , have a range of 3km , and have only space for one person at a time.Not really helpful when we need to do some serious traveling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The point of a spacial file browser is to use your spacial memoryI thought spacial file browsers were for "spacial people" e.g.
retards ;).Seriously though, I agree.
Lots of these "fancy UIs" that these jokers come up with only work fine for users who just need to manage a handful of objects (windows, tasks, files, folders) at a time.I find this silly since there is evidence that people are already able to manage a handful of objects at a time ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Magical\_Number\_Seven,\_Plus\_or\_Minus\_Two [wikipedia.org] ), but can't manage far more.We don't really need help when there are a few objects and need help when there are lots.
But that's when all those stupid GUIs start getting in the way.For example: thumbnailed windows don't really help when you have &gt; 10 of them (especially if they are similar looking documents - using the same standardized template), same goes for those graphical selectors where they show the windows from a 3d or fancy perspective.
Useless if you have 20+ windows, cool looking when you have three or four windows, but why'd you need them when you only have a few windows?When you have a few objects to track you should be able to remember which ones are which.
When you have way more, you need some help.
That's where computers and software should help.
But they don't!The exceptions are some game UIs.
Some of which are proof that you can build UIs that work for "noobs" and still help skilled users.Games are also proof that people, when sufficiently motivated to, can actually do far more than what these Desktop GUI makers assume.
Very many actions per second.
Keeping track of stuff.
Learning of difficult combos.
So where's the Desktop GUI that actually helps you to sustain a high "actions per second" average?I've personally suggested this:http://live.gnome.org/GnomeShell/DesignersPlayground/KeyboardShortcuts [gnome.org]And something like it in 2006:http://bugs.kde.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=121349 [kde.org]I think this sort of thing will help skilled users more, while not getting in the way of "naive" users (you can still leave the flashy stuff for them).Car analogy: current OS GUI designers seem to be making cars that look really cool (and are theme-able) but have top speed of 30kph (play a beautiful animation while doing so), have a range of 3km, and have only space for one person at a time.Not really helpful when we need to do some serious traveling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550888</id>
	<title>WTF?</title>
	<author>gbutler69</author>
	<datestamp>1261756860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I happened to like and prefer Spatial Mode (for most things). It is easy enough to switch to browswer mode when/if needed. As long as they make this an option (that is properly tested) then I don't mind, but, I'm starting to get disconcerted with changes for changes sake.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I happened to like and prefer Spatial Mode ( for most things ) .
It is easy enough to switch to browswer mode when/if needed .
As long as they make this an option ( that is properly tested ) then I do n't mind , but , I 'm starting to get disconcerted with changes for changes sake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I happened to like and prefer Spatial Mode (for most things).
It is easy enough to switch to browswer mode when/if needed.
As long as they make this an option (that is properly tested) then I don't mind, but, I'm starting to get disconcerted with changes for changes sake.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550464</id>
	<title>Not a bad idea...</title>
	<author>RichiH</author>
	<datestamp>1261748520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is something FreeDesktop could fix. Though please please please use a path like</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; ~/.etc/desktop/preferences</p><p>I suggest you write to their mailing list about it and see what you get. If you don't, please reply to this post and I will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is something FreeDesktop could fix .
Though please please please use a path like     ~ /.etc/desktop/preferencesI suggest you write to their mailing list about it and see what you get .
If you do n't , please reply to this post and I will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is something FreeDesktop could fix.
Though please please please use a path like
    ~/.etc/desktop/preferencesI suggest you write to their mailing list about it and see what you get.
If you don't, please reply to this post and I will.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552372</id>
	<title>Re:why anyone would use gnome is another question</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1261733040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Note that just because there are lots of people who don't know how to use something (Windows interface) doesn't inherently mean it's hard to use - there are lots of people who probably struggled with infant games involving putting square pegs in square holes and round ones in round holes. Some people just don't get any vaguely technical interface at all - they can learn to use it by rote, but they will never understand it really.</p><p>As a technical person who still has trouble with GNOME (I'm fine with KDE, but GNOME's configuration/customization is really unintuitive to me), I suspect that if you had equal numbers of GNOME-using friends as Widnows-using, you'd get a *lot* more questions from the GNOME users. One major advantage of Windows is that there's lots of ways to do the same thing, so whatever method somebody finds intuitive is often supported. By comparison, Linux interfaces seem to have lots of things that *look* like they should do the same thing, but in the end each is different, and you'll never find the right one on the first try.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Note that just because there are lots of people who do n't know how to use something ( Windows interface ) does n't inherently mean it 's hard to use - there are lots of people who probably struggled with infant games involving putting square pegs in square holes and round ones in round holes .
Some people just do n't get any vaguely technical interface at all - they can learn to use it by rote , but they will never understand it really.As a technical person who still has trouble with GNOME ( I 'm fine with KDE , but GNOME 's configuration/customization is really unintuitive to me ) , I suspect that if you had equal numbers of GNOME-using friends as Widnows-using , you 'd get a * lot * more questions from the GNOME users .
One major advantage of Windows is that there 's lots of ways to do the same thing , so whatever method somebody finds intuitive is often supported .
By comparison , Linux interfaces seem to have lots of things that * look * like they should do the same thing , but in the end each is different , and you 'll never find the right one on the first try .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note that just because there are lots of people who don't know how to use something (Windows interface) doesn't inherently mean it's hard to use - there are lots of people who probably struggled with infant games involving putting square pegs in square holes and round ones in round holes.
Some people just don't get any vaguely technical interface at all - they can learn to use it by rote, but they will never understand it really.As a technical person who still has trouble with GNOME (I'm fine with KDE, but GNOME's configuration/customization is really unintuitive to me), I suspect that if you had equal numbers of GNOME-using friends as Widnows-using, you'd get a *lot* more questions from the GNOME users.
One major advantage of Windows is that there's lots of ways to do the same thing, so whatever method somebody finds intuitive is often supported.
By comparison, Linux interfaces seem to have lots of things that *look* like they should do the same thing, but in the end each is different, and you'll never find the right one on the first try.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550214</id>
	<title>Re:universal preferences</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261742820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're supposed to "twiddle" not tweedle, I think that's your problem...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're supposed to " twiddle " not tweedle , I think that 's your problem.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're supposed to "twiddle" not tweedle, I think that's your problem...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550550</id>
	<title>The futility of HIGs is what it shows</title>
	<author>Budenny</author>
	<datestamp>1261750440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in the 80s there was some point in HIGs, and Apple back then was generally felt to lead the way.  The reason was that there were, among your users, a very high proportion of new users.  So we conflated ease of use with ease of learning, and it was not completely stupid, for much of the market using and learning were the same thing.</p><p>Now however HIGs have become part of the problem rather than part of the solution, because they make the implicit assumption that everyone works in the same way, and has the same basic skills.  We just do not.  And anyone who experiments a bit with end users will find this out in a flash.  I have had people who loved spatial browsing because it might be cluttered, but they always knew where they were.  Then there are people who love Gnome and the desktop and love to put all their files all over it where they can see them.  And then you have the odd case of some totally non-technical person, who you try out with Fluxbox, and you get the reaction that this is great, this is how I always thought Linux was supposed to be, no clutter and very minimalist and above all fast.  It turns out that hand edited menus and the explicit startup of the file manager are actually something some non-technical people welcome and find refreshing.  Others of course will run a mile.  One size does not fit all.</p><p>The Gnome ideal, that there is such a thing as the right way to set up a desktop, an application, is the problem.  There simply is not, and when you take that approach, the penalty is that you inconvenience and impair working for at least one third of the people using it.  Far beter to have a few broad choices, and then let people refine within it, and offer some guidelines.  If you are not very computer familiar, start out with this, then see if, a while later, you want to move to this, and here is a very minimalist alternative.</p><p>HIGs are a snare and a delusion, very apt that they are sometimes rudely referred to as 'interface fascism'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the 80s there was some point in HIGs , and Apple back then was generally felt to lead the way .
The reason was that there were , among your users , a very high proportion of new users .
So we conflated ease of use with ease of learning , and it was not completely stupid , for much of the market using and learning were the same thing.Now however HIGs have become part of the problem rather than part of the solution , because they make the implicit assumption that everyone works in the same way , and has the same basic skills .
We just do not .
And anyone who experiments a bit with end users will find this out in a flash .
I have had people who loved spatial browsing because it might be cluttered , but they always knew where they were .
Then there are people who love Gnome and the desktop and love to put all their files all over it where they can see them .
And then you have the odd case of some totally non-technical person , who you try out with Fluxbox , and you get the reaction that this is great , this is how I always thought Linux was supposed to be , no clutter and very minimalist and above all fast .
It turns out that hand edited menus and the explicit startup of the file manager are actually something some non-technical people welcome and find refreshing .
Others of course will run a mile .
One size does not fit all.The Gnome ideal , that there is such a thing as the right way to set up a desktop , an application , is the problem .
There simply is not , and when you take that approach , the penalty is that you inconvenience and impair working for at least one third of the people using it .
Far beter to have a few broad choices , and then let people refine within it , and offer some guidelines .
If you are not very computer familiar , start out with this , then see if , a while later , you want to move to this , and here is a very minimalist alternative.HIGs are a snare and a delusion , very apt that they are sometimes rudely referred to as 'interface fascism' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the 80s there was some point in HIGs, and Apple back then was generally felt to lead the way.
The reason was that there were, among your users, a very high proportion of new users.
So we conflated ease of use with ease of learning, and it was not completely stupid, for much of the market using and learning were the same thing.Now however HIGs have become part of the problem rather than part of the solution, because they make the implicit assumption that everyone works in the same way, and has the same basic skills.
We just do not.
And anyone who experiments a bit with end users will find this out in a flash.
I have had people who loved spatial browsing because it might be cluttered, but they always knew where they were.
Then there are people who love Gnome and the desktop and love to put all their files all over it where they can see them.
And then you have the odd case of some totally non-technical person, who you try out with Fluxbox, and you get the reaction that this is great, this is how I always thought Linux was supposed to be, no clutter and very minimalist and above all fast.
It turns out that hand edited menus and the explicit startup of the file manager are actually something some non-technical people welcome and find refreshing.
Others of course will run a mile.
One size does not fit all.The Gnome ideal, that there is such a thing as the right way to set up a desktop, an application, is the problem.
There simply is not, and when you take that approach, the penalty is that you inconvenience and impair working for at least one third of the people using it.
Far beter to have a few broad choices, and then let people refine within it, and offer some guidelines.
If you are not very computer familiar, start out with this, then see if, a while later, you want to move to this, and here is a very minimalist alternative.HIGs are a snare and a delusion, very apt that they are sometimes rudely referred to as 'interface fascism'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552292</id>
	<title>Re:why anyone would use gnome is another question</title>
	<author>ChrisMaple</author>
	<datestamp>1261774680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Linux has 4\% or less of the desktop market and around half of that are gnome users.</p></div></blockquote><blockquote><div><p>I have always said that the deployment of open source software would increase by 100X if we allowed there to be a stable binary driver ABI on linux...</p></div></blockquote><p>
So, according to you, Linux has the potential to achieve almost 400\% market share. Nice trick. Depth of thinking is about Microsoft level.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux has 4 \ % or less of the desktop market and around half of that are gnome users.I have always said that the deployment of open source software would increase by 100X if we allowed there to be a stable binary driver ABI on linux.. . So , according to you , Linux has the potential to achieve almost 400 \ % market share .
Nice trick .
Depth of thinking is about Microsoft level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux has 4\% or less of the desktop market and around half of that are gnome users.I have always said that the deployment of open source software would increase by 100X if we allowed there to be a stable binary driver ABI on linux...
So, according to you, Linux has the potential to achieve almost 400\% market share.
Nice trick.
Depth of thinking is about Microsoft level.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550828</id>
	<title>Re:Those who like the new-window-every-folder view</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261755960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you know you can just hold control and click the link with the left mouse button?</htmltext>
<tokenext>you know you can just hold control and click the link with the left mouse button ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you know you can just hold control and click the link with the left mouse button?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550908</id>
	<title>Re:why anyone would use gnome is another question</title>
	<author>gbutler69</author>
	<datestamp>1261757040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>windows just works while Linux is usually a pain in the ass to configure</p></div><p>Bullshit. You've obviously never had to do anything serious on either platform. If you had, you'd realize that Linux is much easier to customize and configure to the desired needs. Much easier to lock-down. Much easier to prevent virus infectiions. Much easier to install software reliably. This is all bunk spread by idiots who barely know how to wipe their own asses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>windows just works while Linux is usually a pain in the ass to configureBullshit .
You 've obviously never had to do anything serious on either platform .
If you had , you 'd realize that Linux is much easier to customize and configure to the desired needs .
Much easier to lock-down .
Much easier to prevent virus infectiions .
Much easier to install software reliably .
This is all bunk spread by idiots who barely know how to wipe their own asses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>windows just works while Linux is usually a pain in the ass to configureBullshit.
You've obviously never had to do anything serious on either platform.
If you had, you'd realize that Linux is much easier to customize and configure to the desired needs.
Much easier to lock-down.
Much easier to prevent virus infectiions.
Much easier to install software reliably.
This is all bunk spread by idiots who barely know how to wipe their own asses.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30556274</id>
	<title>Re:Still waiting for a Total Commander equivalent</title>
	<author>richlv</author>
	<datestamp>1261847580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i left windows around the time when far manager pretty much ruled windows file manager field, so i haven't used total commander.</p><p>what's wrong with mc overall, why can't you use it (that's what i am mostly doing) ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i left windows around the time when far manager pretty much ruled windows file manager field , so i have n't used total commander.what 's wrong with mc overall , why ca n't you use it ( that 's what i am mostly doing ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i left windows around the time when far manager pretty much ruled windows file manager field, so i haven't used total commander.what's wrong with mc overall, why can't you use it (that's what i am mostly doing) ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551976</id>
	<title>Re:why anyone would use gnome is another question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261770660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never had much of a problem with the windows ui. it's not the ui that's dogshit,it's the majorty of users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never had much of a problem with the windows ui .
it 's not the ui that 's dogshit,it 's the majorty of users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never had much of a problem with the windows ui.
it's not the ui that's dogshit,it's the majorty of users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30553552</id>
	<title>Re:Well, of course they did.</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1261750800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Of course. They always copy the worst of all ideas Microsoft, and on top of it, do it way too late too. To make sure that really everybody already knows and hates that from MS, and disables it as the first action of installing a Gnome... uuum I mean Windows desktop.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</i></p><p>Goddamned I'm going to see this over and over again in this thread.</p><p>Look, listen-up...</p><p>Apple introduced the spatial concept in 1984 with Mac OS, and it worked beautifully-- they quickly gained a reputation for being the easiest-to-use and highest-quality GUI at the time, and really until OS X was introduced. Ok? Apple.</p><p>Microsoft, when they released Windows 95, attempted to copy the spatial concept... <b>but they fucked it up.</b> What really bugs me is why people would assume that Microsoft *didn't* fuck it up and that the concept was flawed and not Microsoft's particular implementation-- when did people on Slashdot start thinking that all Microsoft software is perfect?</p><p>What you're complaining about isn't the concept of spatial file browsing, which is a really good idea that's had at least one extremely strong implementation. What you're complaining about is Microsoft fucked-up implementation, which was awful.</p><p>If your first exposure to spatial file browsers was the Mac Classic Finder, then you'd probably love the concept and you'd demand it in your current OS of choice. Mine was, and I do. If your first exposure to the spatial concept was the Windows 95 abomination, then you've never experienced a real spatial file browser.</p><p>(Unfortunately, with this decision, they seem to not exist any longer. Windows has never had one. OS X certainly doesn't, a sore spot for Mac Classic users. I can't speak for the quality of GNOME's, as I've never been able to use Linux due to hardware incompatibilities.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course .
They always copy the worst of all ideas Microsoft , and on top of it , do it way too late too .
To make sure that really everybody already knows and hates that from MS , and disables it as the first action of installing a Gnome... uuum I mean Windows desktop .
; ) Goddamned I 'm going to see this over and over again in this thread.Look , listen-up...Apple introduced the spatial concept in 1984 with Mac OS , and it worked beautifully-- they quickly gained a reputation for being the easiest-to-use and highest-quality GUI at the time , and really until OS X was introduced .
Ok ? Apple.Microsoft , when they released Windows 95 , attempted to copy the spatial concept... but they fucked it up .
What really bugs me is why people would assume that Microsoft * did n't * fuck it up and that the concept was flawed and not Microsoft 's particular implementation-- when did people on Slashdot start thinking that all Microsoft software is perfect ? What you 're complaining about is n't the concept of spatial file browsing , which is a really good idea that 's had at least one extremely strong implementation .
What you 're complaining about is Microsoft fucked-up implementation , which was awful.If your first exposure to spatial file browsers was the Mac Classic Finder , then you 'd probably love the concept and you 'd demand it in your current OS of choice .
Mine was , and I do .
If your first exposure to the spatial concept was the Windows 95 abomination , then you 've never experienced a real spatial file browser .
( Unfortunately , with this decision , they seem to not exist any longer .
Windows has never had one .
OS X certainly does n't , a sore spot for Mac Classic users .
I ca n't speak for the quality of GNOME 's , as I 've never been able to use Linux due to hardware incompatibilities .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course.
They always copy the worst of all ideas Microsoft, and on top of it, do it way too late too.
To make sure that really everybody already knows and hates that from MS, and disables it as the first action of installing a Gnome... uuum I mean Windows desktop.
;)Goddamned I'm going to see this over and over again in this thread.Look, listen-up...Apple introduced the spatial concept in 1984 with Mac OS, and it worked beautifully-- they quickly gained a reputation for being the easiest-to-use and highest-quality GUI at the time, and really until OS X was introduced.
Ok? Apple.Microsoft, when they released Windows 95, attempted to copy the spatial concept... but they fucked it up.
What really bugs me is why people would assume that Microsoft *didn't* fuck it up and that the concept was flawed and not Microsoft's particular implementation-- when did people on Slashdot start thinking that all Microsoft software is perfect?What you're complaining about isn't the concept of spatial file browsing, which is a really good idea that's had at least one extremely strong implementation.
What you're complaining about is Microsoft fucked-up implementation, which was awful.If your first exposure to spatial file browsers was the Mac Classic Finder, then you'd probably love the concept and you'd demand it in your current OS of choice.
Mine was, and I do.
If your first exposure to the spatial concept was the Windows 95 abomination, then you've never experienced a real spatial file browser.
(Unfortunately, with this decision, they seem to not exist any longer.
Windows has never had one.
OS X certainly doesn't, a sore spot for Mac Classic users.
I can't speak for the quality of GNOME's, as I've never been able to use Linux due to hardware incompatibilities.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550156</id>
	<title>universal preferences</title>
	<author>StripedCow</author>
	<datestamp>1261741500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>obviously what one likes, the other may not like.</p><p>perhaps there should be some "universal" preference file format...</p><p>for example, a file ".preferences" in your home directory, that every distribution and window manager can read, so that you only have to copy that file after you've installed a new distro. basically the file contains things such as: "when i click a link, a new window should open". or: "i like to have 4 virtual desktops", etc.</p><p>saves a lot of tweedling with the settings...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>obviously what one likes , the other may not like.perhaps there should be some " universal " preference file format...for example , a file " .preferences " in your home directory , that every distribution and window manager can read , so that you only have to copy that file after you 've installed a new distro .
basically the file contains things such as : " when i click a link , a new window should open " .
or : " i like to have 4 virtual desktops " , etc.saves a lot of tweedling with the settings.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>obviously what one likes, the other may not like.perhaps there should be some "universal" preference file format...for example, a file ".preferences" in your home directory, that every distribution and window manager can read, so that you only have to copy that file after you've installed a new distro.
basically the file contains things such as: "when i click a link, a new window should open".
or: "i like to have 4 virtual desktops", etc.saves a lot of tweedling with the settings...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552502</id>
	<title>Re:Well, of course they did.</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1261734600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Look at the firestorm over Gnome 3.0. It looks like a nice new way of using a computer, and I love it. Apparently nobody else does, though. And when they genuinely innovate, the Windows fanboys rip them apart for being user-unfriendly (even if it isn't - the current definition of user friendly is like Windows). The Linux developers lose either way.<br> <br>The Linux Desktop sector could use a Jobs-esque speaker that praises and extols the virtues of their desktop environment. As Apple (and Windows 7 on a certain scale) has proven, if you say something enough times, with the right amount of bravado, it slowly becomes a reality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at the firestorm over Gnome 3.0 .
It looks like a nice new way of using a computer , and I love it .
Apparently nobody else does , though .
And when they genuinely innovate , the Windows fanboys rip them apart for being user-unfriendly ( even if it is n't - the current definition of user friendly is like Windows ) .
The Linux developers lose either way .
The Linux Desktop sector could use a Jobs-esque speaker that praises and extols the virtues of their desktop environment .
As Apple ( and Windows 7 on a certain scale ) has proven , if you say something enough times , with the right amount of bravado , it slowly becomes a reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at the firestorm over Gnome 3.0.
It looks like a nice new way of using a computer, and I love it.
Apparently nobody else does, though.
And when they genuinely innovate, the Windows fanboys rip them apart for being user-unfriendly (even if it isn't - the current definition of user friendly is like Windows).
The Linux developers lose either way.
The Linux Desktop sector could use a Jobs-esque speaker that praises and extols the virtues of their desktop environment.
As Apple (and Windows 7 on a certain scale) has proven, if you say something enough times, with the right amount of bravado, it slowly becomes a reality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598</id>
	<title>why anyone would use gnome is another question</title>
	<author>Eravnrekaree</author>
	<datestamp>1261751580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its amazing how people agonise over minute features of software that hardly anyone actually uses in the real world. Linux has 4\% or less of the desktop market and around half of that are gnome users. Its not a whole lot of people compared to Windows. This is not entirely due to Gnome or KDE but it has a lot to do with it. These systems are in general difficult to use and have not undergone the same useability testing that something like Windows has. Lets face it, windows just works while Linux is usually a pain in the ass to configure. This is due to the arrogance and elitism of its developers, especially its kernel developers. The fact that Linux has horrendously documented hardware APIs and that it has  no stable driver binary interfaces and that getting anything to work is a huge mess of kernel header errors, compiler errors, etc. Do you really think grandma is going to be able to debug source code and figure out why some crazy driver doesnt install, when on Windows you just put in the disk, click install and it works? I have always said that the deployment of open source software would increase by 100X if we allowed there to be a stable binary driver ABI on linux and we made it easy for hardware developers to write drivers for it. It would make Linux far more practical and useable. Hardware developers put drivers through extensive QA testing to make sure it works well so it would be more reliable than open source drivers. But the binary drivers could speed up development of open source ones since the binary drivers could be back engineered by watching communication with them. Though, The fact is, people dont want to wait years for someone to back engineer some piece of hardware and the idea that hardware companies will provide the specs is unrealistic idealism, even with specs it can be months after Windows users have been able to use the hardware.</p><p>The UI developers have somehow created a UI system that somehow blows dozens of MB but actually provides less customisability and ease of use than Windows. Often important features that allow people to customise it are removed or don't exist because some developer decided they didn't use the feature and just didn't care that there might be someone else who used it. The key to developing is in offering many features and flexibility, but in laying it out so that most used features are up front. useability is all about layout not in few features. The system can be expert and average user friendly by simply allowing everything to be done with CLI or GUI and building software in a layered modular fashion with a user friendly layer on top of nitty gritty layers that the experts can directly work with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its amazing how people agonise over minute features of software that hardly anyone actually uses in the real world .
Linux has 4 \ % or less of the desktop market and around half of that are gnome users .
Its not a whole lot of people compared to Windows .
This is not entirely due to Gnome or KDE but it has a lot to do with it .
These systems are in general difficult to use and have not undergone the same useability testing that something like Windows has .
Lets face it , windows just works while Linux is usually a pain in the ass to configure .
This is due to the arrogance and elitism of its developers , especially its kernel developers .
The fact that Linux has horrendously documented hardware APIs and that it has no stable driver binary interfaces and that getting anything to work is a huge mess of kernel header errors , compiler errors , etc .
Do you really think grandma is going to be able to debug source code and figure out why some crazy driver doesnt install , when on Windows you just put in the disk , click install and it works ?
I have always said that the deployment of open source software would increase by 100X if we allowed there to be a stable binary driver ABI on linux and we made it easy for hardware developers to write drivers for it .
It would make Linux far more practical and useable .
Hardware developers put drivers through extensive QA testing to make sure it works well so it would be more reliable than open source drivers .
But the binary drivers could speed up development of open source ones since the binary drivers could be back engineered by watching communication with them .
Though , The fact is , people dont want to wait years for someone to back engineer some piece of hardware and the idea that hardware companies will provide the specs is unrealistic idealism , even with specs it can be months after Windows users have been able to use the hardware.The UI developers have somehow created a UI system that somehow blows dozens of MB but actually provides less customisability and ease of use than Windows .
Often important features that allow people to customise it are removed or do n't exist because some developer decided they did n't use the feature and just did n't care that there might be someone else who used it .
The key to developing is in offering many features and flexibility , but in laying it out so that most used features are up front .
useability is all about layout not in few features .
The system can be expert and average user friendly by simply allowing everything to be done with CLI or GUI and building software in a layered modular fashion with a user friendly layer on top of nitty gritty layers that the experts can directly work with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its amazing how people agonise over minute features of software that hardly anyone actually uses in the real world.
Linux has 4\% or less of the desktop market and around half of that are gnome users.
Its not a whole lot of people compared to Windows.
This is not entirely due to Gnome or KDE but it has a lot to do with it.
These systems are in general difficult to use and have not undergone the same useability testing that something like Windows has.
Lets face it, windows just works while Linux is usually a pain in the ass to configure.
This is due to the arrogance and elitism of its developers, especially its kernel developers.
The fact that Linux has horrendously documented hardware APIs and that it has  no stable driver binary interfaces and that getting anything to work is a huge mess of kernel header errors, compiler errors, etc.
Do you really think grandma is going to be able to debug source code and figure out why some crazy driver doesnt install, when on Windows you just put in the disk, click install and it works?
I have always said that the deployment of open source software would increase by 100X if we allowed there to be a stable binary driver ABI on linux and we made it easy for hardware developers to write drivers for it.
It would make Linux far more practical and useable.
Hardware developers put drivers through extensive QA testing to make sure it works well so it would be more reliable than open source drivers.
But the binary drivers could speed up development of open source ones since the binary drivers could be back engineered by watching communication with them.
Though, The fact is, people dont want to wait years for someone to back engineer some piece of hardware and the idea that hardware companies will provide the specs is unrealistic idealism, even with specs it can be months after Windows users have been able to use the hardware.The UI developers have somehow created a UI system that somehow blows dozens of MB but actually provides less customisability and ease of use than Windows.
Often important features that allow people to customise it are removed or don't exist because some developer decided they didn't use the feature and just didn't care that there might be someone else who used it.
The key to developing is in offering many features and flexibility, but in laying it out so that most used features are up front.
useability is all about layout not in few features.
The system can be expert and average user friendly by simply allowing everything to be done with CLI or GUI and building software in a layered modular fashion with a user friendly layer on top of nitty gritty layers that the experts can directly work with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551100</id>
	<title>don't feed the trolls</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1261760280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would someone please mod the parent article "troll"?  That diatribe gets posted again and again by Windows fanboys, and it contains many factual errors.  It isn't even worth responding to that idiocy point by point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would someone please mod the parent article " troll " ?
That diatribe gets posted again and again by Windows fanboys , and it contains many factual errors .
It is n't even worth responding to that idiocy point by point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would someone please mod the parent article "troll"?
That diatribe gets posted again and again by Windows fanboys, and it contains many factual errors.
It isn't even worth responding to that idiocy point by point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30554080</id>
	<title>Re:Is it really anything *new*?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261761420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fedora uses spatial and its the first setting to be changed (on my box anyway)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fedora uses spatial and its the first setting to be changed ( on my box anyway )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fedora uses spatial and its the first setting to be changed (on my box anyway)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550412</id>
	<title>Re:Now for List Mode...</title>
	<author>Sven Tuerpe</author>
	<datestamp>1261747260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nautilus and most other file browsers also default to Icon view, which is fine if you have only about 5 files on your computer, which was probably true for Windows for Workgroups 3.1, but these days List view should be the default.</p></div><p>If you have so many nits to pick, why don't you just pay someone to do it right for you? OSS projects aren't in a position to give you a usable system, they can only provide you with raw code. Someone has to take this code and turn it into something useful and usable. This can be you or somebody working for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nautilus and most other file browsers also default to Icon view , which is fine if you have only about 5 files on your computer , which was probably true for Windows for Workgroups 3.1 , but these days List view should be the default.If you have so many nits to pick , why do n't you just pay someone to do it right for you ?
OSS projects are n't in a position to give you a usable system , they can only provide you with raw code .
Someone has to take this code and turn it into something useful and usable .
This can be you or somebody working for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nautilus and most other file browsers also default to Icon view, which is fine if you have only about 5 files on your computer, which was probably true for Windows for Workgroups 3.1, but these days List view should be the default.If you have so many nits to pick, why don't you just pay someone to do it right for you?
OSS projects aren't in a position to give you a usable system, they can only provide you with raw code.
Someone has to take this code and turn it into something useful and usable.
This can be you or somebody working for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551672</id>
	<title>Re:Is it really anything *new*?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261766520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RHEL/Fedora does that</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RHEL/Fedora does that</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RHEL/Fedora does that</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30554872</id>
	<title>Per Folder settings.</title>
	<author>krischik</author>
	<datestamp>1261822560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually you should be able to set it per folder. I still have folders with only a few files where I prefer Icon view - especially if the Icon shows a preview of the content. And can be resized a little larger.</p><p>And guess what: It's precisely what the OS X Finder offers (as well as the dearly missed OS/2 workplace shell).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually you should be able to set it per folder .
I still have folders with only a few files where I prefer Icon view - especially if the Icon shows a preview of the content .
And can be resized a little larger.And guess what : It 's precisely what the OS X Finder offers ( as well as the dearly missed OS/2 workplace shell ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually you should be able to set it per folder.
I still have folders with only a few files where I prefer Icon view - especially if the Icon shows a preview of the content.
And can be resized a little larger.And guess what: It's precisely what the OS X Finder offers (as well as the dearly missed OS/2 workplace shell).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551810</id>
	<title>Re:why anyone would use gnome is another question</title>
	<author>Ash-Fox</author>
	<datestamp>1261768380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Lets face it, windows just works while Linux is usually a pain in the ass to configure.</p></div></blockquote><p>Absolute non-sense. Others or I buy a wireless card which has the "Designed for Windows XP" on it, insert the disc first like the instructions tell you, install the drivers, then plug in the wireless card. BLUESCREEN.</p><p>Why? Because apparently the drivers didn't support the service pack XP had. This issue has been repeated for me across a lot of hardware, graphic cards, soundcards, motherboard bus controller drivers, wireless cards, bluetooth and even a stupid printer driver (seriously, even Linux doesn't allow sticking drivers like printers directly into the kernel), even on Vista and 7.</p><blockquote><div><p>The fact that Linux has horrendously documented hardware APIs</p></div></blockquote><p>This is true.</p><blockquote><div><p>it has no stable driver binary interfaces</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually, usermode drivers in Linux have fully stable ABIs, you are able to take things compiled for previous versions of an ABI to future ABIs with no issues, provided you're not changing the architecture of the system in the process (ie: x86 to PPC). Usermode APIs exist for filesystems (although you cannot boot off said filesystem though when using a usermode driver), printers, scanners, softmodems etc. So, this statement is false.</p><blockquote><div><p>Do you really think grandma is going to be able to debug source code and figure out why some crazy driver doesnt install, when on Windows you just put in the disk, click install and it works?</p></div></blockquote><p>Honestly, I expect grandma to plug the device in and then either it instantly works (unlike the minutes you spend waiting for windows to recognize you plugged in something like a mouse to a USB port that had never had a mouse plugged into before) or restricted manager immediately pops up and offers to download and install the proprietary drivers by just clicking a checkbox. I expect that if grandma had the problems that others and I have had with hardware under windows, she would end up taking her computer to the shop to get them to fix it since the computer would BSOD on every boot even when the hardware wasn't connected.</p><blockquote><div><p>Hardware developers put drivers through extensive QA testing to make sure it works well so it would be more reliable than open source drivers.</p></div></blockquote><p>There are more unstable opensource drivers than there are proprietary windows ones? I mean, the worst I have really ran into these past few years when it comes to Linux support is either the hardware works, or it doesn't because there is no driver at all for it, the ones that did work did not had any stability issues with any drivers. Meanwhile I am using windows 7 right now and the stupid soundcard driver fritz out constantly even though it worked fine on Vista (And incase you do the, don't upgrade argument: Vista, which had such a pissy poor schedular that my system was SLOWWWW as hell when running second life, vmware, vlc, skype and various other apps, while running the same apps under Linux didn't have such issues - under 7 this issue is 'mostly' resolved, still huge problems with I/O freezes though).</p><blockquote><div><p>Though, The fact is, people dont want to wait years for someone to back engineer some piece of hardware and the idea that hardware companies</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually, the only thing I've had in the recent years that was unsupported was some ancient scanners I was given, all my new hardware has been working pretty fine under Linux, with a few minor problems that were easily resolved and when I say minor - I mean just literally copy pasting a piece of text to fix it, as compared to getting stuck with the problem permanently on the Windows OS I had.</p><p>So, to summarize my thoughts on your comments - I can't really visualize all these problems you claim as being common when backed from my own personal experiences and since I spend a hell of a lot of time helping people with both Windows and Linux. I'm going to say that there have been very few problems I couldn't resolve as simply in Linux as compared to Windows. I feel that your information maybe out of date by six years or so since I could certainly recall some of these problems being more evident back then.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets face it , windows just works while Linux is usually a pain in the ass to configure.Absolute non-sense .
Others or I buy a wireless card which has the " Designed for Windows XP " on it , insert the disc first like the instructions tell you , install the drivers , then plug in the wireless card .
BLUESCREEN.Why ? Because apparently the drivers did n't support the service pack XP had .
This issue has been repeated for me across a lot of hardware , graphic cards , soundcards , motherboard bus controller drivers , wireless cards , bluetooth and even a stupid printer driver ( seriously , even Linux does n't allow sticking drivers like printers directly into the kernel ) , even on Vista and 7.The fact that Linux has horrendously documented hardware APIsThis is true.it has no stable driver binary interfacesActually , usermode drivers in Linux have fully stable ABIs , you are able to take things compiled for previous versions of an ABI to future ABIs with no issues , provided you 're not changing the architecture of the system in the process ( ie : x86 to PPC ) .
Usermode APIs exist for filesystems ( although you can not boot off said filesystem though when using a usermode driver ) , printers , scanners , softmodems etc .
So , this statement is false.Do you really think grandma is going to be able to debug source code and figure out why some crazy driver doesnt install , when on Windows you just put in the disk , click install and it works ? Honestly , I expect grandma to plug the device in and then either it instantly works ( unlike the minutes you spend waiting for windows to recognize you plugged in something like a mouse to a USB port that had never had a mouse plugged into before ) or restricted manager immediately pops up and offers to download and install the proprietary drivers by just clicking a checkbox .
I expect that if grandma had the problems that others and I have had with hardware under windows , she would end up taking her computer to the shop to get them to fix it since the computer would BSOD on every boot even when the hardware was n't connected.Hardware developers put drivers through extensive QA testing to make sure it works well so it would be more reliable than open source drivers.There are more unstable opensource drivers than there are proprietary windows ones ?
I mean , the worst I have really ran into these past few years when it comes to Linux support is either the hardware works , or it does n't because there is no driver at all for it , the ones that did work did not had any stability issues with any drivers .
Meanwhile I am using windows 7 right now and the stupid soundcard driver fritz out constantly even though it worked fine on Vista ( And incase you do the , do n't upgrade argument : Vista , which had such a pissy poor schedular that my system was SLOWWWW as hell when running second life , vmware , vlc , skype and various other apps , while running the same apps under Linux did n't have such issues - under 7 this issue is 'mostly ' resolved , still huge problems with I/O freezes though ) .Though , The fact is , people dont want to wait years for someone to back engineer some piece of hardware and the idea that hardware companiesActually , the only thing I 've had in the recent years that was unsupported was some ancient scanners I was given , all my new hardware has been working pretty fine under Linux , with a few minor problems that were easily resolved and when I say minor - I mean just literally copy pasting a piece of text to fix it , as compared to getting stuck with the problem permanently on the Windows OS I had.So , to summarize my thoughts on your comments - I ca n't really visualize all these problems you claim as being common when backed from my own personal experiences and since I spend a hell of a lot of time helping people with both Windows and Linux .
I 'm going to say that there have been very few problems I could n't resolve as simply in Linux as compared to Windows .
I feel that your information maybe out of date by six years or so since I could certainly recall some of these problems being more evident back then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets face it, windows just works while Linux is usually a pain in the ass to configure.Absolute non-sense.
Others or I buy a wireless card which has the "Designed for Windows XP" on it, insert the disc first like the instructions tell you, install the drivers, then plug in the wireless card.
BLUESCREEN.Why? Because apparently the drivers didn't support the service pack XP had.
This issue has been repeated for me across a lot of hardware, graphic cards, soundcards, motherboard bus controller drivers, wireless cards, bluetooth and even a stupid printer driver (seriously, even Linux doesn't allow sticking drivers like printers directly into the kernel), even on Vista and 7.The fact that Linux has horrendously documented hardware APIsThis is true.it has no stable driver binary interfacesActually, usermode drivers in Linux have fully stable ABIs, you are able to take things compiled for previous versions of an ABI to future ABIs with no issues, provided you're not changing the architecture of the system in the process (ie: x86 to PPC).
Usermode APIs exist for filesystems (although you cannot boot off said filesystem though when using a usermode driver), printers, scanners, softmodems etc.
So, this statement is false.Do you really think grandma is going to be able to debug source code and figure out why some crazy driver doesnt install, when on Windows you just put in the disk, click install and it works?Honestly, I expect grandma to plug the device in and then either it instantly works (unlike the minutes you spend waiting for windows to recognize you plugged in something like a mouse to a USB port that had never had a mouse plugged into before) or restricted manager immediately pops up and offers to download and install the proprietary drivers by just clicking a checkbox.
I expect that if grandma had the problems that others and I have had with hardware under windows, she would end up taking her computer to the shop to get them to fix it since the computer would BSOD on every boot even when the hardware wasn't connected.Hardware developers put drivers through extensive QA testing to make sure it works well so it would be more reliable than open source drivers.There are more unstable opensource drivers than there are proprietary windows ones?
I mean, the worst I have really ran into these past few years when it comes to Linux support is either the hardware works, or it doesn't because there is no driver at all for it, the ones that did work did not had any stability issues with any drivers.
Meanwhile I am using windows 7 right now and the stupid soundcard driver fritz out constantly even though it worked fine on Vista (And incase you do the, don't upgrade argument: Vista, which had such a pissy poor schedular that my system was SLOWWWW as hell when running second life, vmware, vlc, skype and various other apps, while running the same apps under Linux didn't have such issues - under 7 this issue is 'mostly' resolved, still huge problems with I/O freezes though).Though, The fact is, people dont want to wait years for someone to back engineer some piece of hardware and the idea that hardware companiesActually, the only thing I've had in the recent years that was unsupported was some ancient scanners I was given, all my new hardware has been working pretty fine under Linux, with a few minor problems that were easily resolved and when I say minor - I mean just literally copy pasting a piece of text to fix it, as compared to getting stuck with the problem permanently on the Windows OS I had.So, to summarize my thoughts on your comments - I can't really visualize all these problems you claim as being common when backed from my own personal experiences and since I spend a hell of a lot of time helping people with both Windows and Linux.
I'm going to say that there have been very few problems I couldn't resolve as simply in Linux as compared to Windows.
I feel that your information maybe out of date by six years or so since I could certainly recall some of these problems being more evident back then.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30553618</id>
	<title>Re:why anyone would use gnome is another question</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1261752120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Bullshit. You've obviously never had to do anything serious on either platform. If you had, you'd realize that Linux is much easier to customize and configure to the desired needs. Much easier to lock-down. Much easier to prevent virus infectiions. Much easier to install software reliably. This is all bunk spread by idiots who barely know how to wipe their own asses.</i></p><p>Possibly, but if you're in a corporate environment, Windows makes it a lot easier to distribute that locked-down config (or any other config) to all of the computers on the network. And that's really the feature corporate environments care about most. (Well, most of them at least.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit .
You 've obviously never had to do anything serious on either platform .
If you had , you 'd realize that Linux is much easier to customize and configure to the desired needs .
Much easier to lock-down .
Much easier to prevent virus infectiions .
Much easier to install software reliably .
This is all bunk spread by idiots who barely know how to wipe their own asses.Possibly , but if you 're in a corporate environment , Windows makes it a lot easier to distribute that locked-down config ( or any other config ) to all of the computers on the network .
And that 's really the feature corporate environments care about most .
( Well , most of them at least .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit.
You've obviously never had to do anything serious on either platform.
If you had, you'd realize that Linux is much easier to customize and configure to the desired needs.
Much easier to lock-down.
Much easier to prevent virus infectiions.
Much easier to install software reliably.
This is all bunk spread by idiots who barely know how to wipe their own asses.Possibly, but if you're in a corporate environment, Windows makes it a lot easier to distribute that locked-down config (or any other config) to all of the computers on the network.
And that's really the feature corporate environments care about most.
(Well, most of them at least.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551532</id>
	<title>Five year cycle</title>
	<author>AttilaSz</author>
	<datestamp>1261764780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe they just operate on a five-year cycle; just wait when in 2014 they'll announce that spatial was actually better, and they'll return to it yet again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they just operate on a five-year cycle ; just wait when in 2014 they 'll announce that spatial was actually better , and they 'll return to it yet again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they just operate on a five-year cycle; just wait when in 2014 they'll announce that spatial was actually better, and they'll return to it yet again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550924</id>
	<title>Re:Ubuntu Gets Defaults Right</title>
	<author>Norsefire</author>
	<datestamp>1261757220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ubuntu is the first distro to get the choice of defaults right, something close to what is useful and what end users actually want.</p></div><p>You mean the update notifier popping over what you're doing rather with an icon notification? Or with (as of Karmic) IPV6 settings that break a lot of commonly used routers? Or (starting with 10.04) using a program that destroys image exif data as their default image-viewer? Ubuntu has done a lot for Linux and lately seems to be doing a lot against it too<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ubuntu is the first distro to get the choice of defaults right , something close to what is useful and what end users actually want.You mean the update notifier popping over what you 're doing rather with an icon notification ?
Or with ( as of Karmic ) IPV6 settings that break a lot of commonly used routers ?
Or ( starting with 10.04 ) using a program that destroys image exif data as their default image-viewer ?
Ubuntu has done a lot for Linux and lately seems to be doing a lot against it too : - (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ubuntu is the first distro to get the choice of defaults right, something close to what is useful and what end users actually want.You mean the update notifier popping over what you're doing rather with an icon notification?
Or with (as of Karmic) IPV6 settings that break a lot of commonly used routers?
Or (starting with 10.04) using a program that destroys image exif data as their default image-viewer?
Ubuntu has done a lot for Linux and lately seems to be doing a lot against it too :-(
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550174</id>
	<title>Re:Is it really anything *new*?</title>
	<author>byteframe</author>
	<datestamp>1261741980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>gnomeslackbuild.org uses most, or all available defaults.</htmltext>
<tokenext>gnomeslackbuild.org uses most , or all available defaults .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gnomeslackbuild.org uses most, or all available defaults.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551648</id>
	<title>Re:The futility of HIGs is what it shows</title>
	<author>schnablebg</author>
	<datestamp>1261766280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What does the default mode of a file browser have to do with HIG?  HIG means that the menu bar is always in the same place, the cancel and OK buttons are always in the same order, the Quit option is in the same place for every app, the Enter and Escape keys do the same thing on every dialog box.  These are Good Things because even experienced users do not want surprises or a treasure hunt when using new software, and having to remember different UI minutiae for every app is unproductive and inefficient.</p><p>The lack of good and consistent HIG is a huge problem with Linux.  GTK, QT, etc. all have different UI guidelines, not to mention that most devs do whatever they feel like anyway.  It makes using the Linux Desktop a less pleasant experience for most novice and experienced users. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What does the default mode of a file browser have to do with HIG ?
HIG means that the menu bar is always in the same place , the cancel and OK buttons are always in the same order , the Quit option is in the same place for every app , the Enter and Escape keys do the same thing on every dialog box .
These are Good Things because even experienced users do not want surprises or a treasure hunt when using new software , and having to remember different UI minutiae for every app is unproductive and inefficient.The lack of good and consistent HIG is a huge problem with Linux .
GTK , QT , etc .
all have different UI guidelines , not to mention that most devs do whatever they feel like anyway .
It makes using the Linux Desktop a less pleasant experience for most novice and experienced users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does the default mode of a file browser have to do with HIG?
HIG means that the menu bar is always in the same place, the cancel and OK buttons are always in the same order, the Quit option is in the same place for every app, the Enter and Escape keys do the same thing on every dialog box.
These are Good Things because even experienced users do not want surprises or a treasure hunt when using new software, and having to remember different UI minutiae for every app is unproductive and inefficient.The lack of good and consistent HIG is a huge problem with Linux.
GTK, QT, etc.
all have different UI guidelines, not to mention that most devs do whatever they feel like anyway.
It makes using the Linux Desktop a less pleasant experience for most novice and experienced users. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551068</id>
	<title>Re:Now for List Mode...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1261759920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm... Maybe you are too young to know, but the list view was the default since forever, in all software. It&rsquo;s why &ldquo;ls&ldquo; is named &ldquo;ls&rdquo;.<br>Microsoft also had the list view in its file manager of Windows 3.1 and before.</p><p>Only with Windows 95 did the resolution even become high enough to allow it for file management. And only then did they merge the program groups (windows with icons inside) with the file manager (a tree of folders and a list of files) to create the Explorer (then they naturally added the web browser in there, as it&rsquo;s just another space to browse).</p><p>It was hated by virtually everybody back then. As was the &ldquo;new window for every folder&lsquo; mode that became default.<br>I still have a script that fixes up all windows failures after installation. It&rsquo;s called AntiDAU (DAU = d&#252;mmster anzunehmender user = dumbest assumable user), similar to (XP)AntiSpy nowadays.</p><p>I fear that I have to port that script to Gnome and KDE too. Which should tell you a lot about the sad state that they both are headed for (or actually, always were in a bit).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm... Maybe you are too young to know , but the list view was the default since forever , in all software .
It    s why    ls    is named    ls    .Microsoft also had the list view in its file manager of Windows 3.1 and before.Only with Windows 95 did the resolution even become high enough to allow it for file management .
And only then did they merge the program groups ( windows with icons inside ) with the file manager ( a tree of folders and a list of files ) to create the Explorer ( then they naturally added the web browser in there , as it    s just another space to browse ) .It was hated by virtually everybody back then .
As was the    new window for every folder    mode that became default.I still have a script that fixes up all windows failures after installation .
It    s called AntiDAU ( DAU = d   mmster anzunehmender user = dumbest assumable user ) , similar to ( XP ) AntiSpy nowadays.I fear that I have to port that script to Gnome and KDE too .
Which should tell you a lot about the sad state that they both are headed for ( or actually , always were in a bit ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm... Maybe you are too young to know, but the list view was the default since forever, in all software.
It’s why “ls“ is named “ls”.Microsoft also had the list view in its file manager of Windows 3.1 and before.Only with Windows 95 did the resolution even become high enough to allow it for file management.
And only then did they merge the program groups (windows with icons inside) with the file manager (a tree of folders and a list of files) to create the Explorer (then they naturally added the web browser in there, as it’s just another space to browse).It was hated by virtually everybody back then.
As was the “new window for every folder‘ mode that became default.I still have a script that fixes up all windows failures after installation.
It’s called AntiDAU (DAU = dümmster anzunehmender user = dumbest assumable user), similar to (XP)AntiSpy nowadays.I fear that I have to port that script to Gnome and KDE too.
Which should tell you a lot about the sad state that they both are headed for (or actually, always were in a bit).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550198</id>
	<title>Re:Now for List Mode...</title>
	<author>byteframe</author>
	<datestamp>1261742340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I completely agree.

I would like that the List Column Gui Element (the thing you click on, to sort by that file attribute) auto-size itself to no larger than the longest filename.

ehh nautilus browser people know what I'm trying to express.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely agree .
I would like that the List Column Gui Element ( the thing you click on , to sort by that file attribute ) auto-size itself to no larger than the longest filename .
ehh nautilus browser people know what I 'm trying to express .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely agree.
I would like that the List Column Gui Element (the thing you click on, to sort by that file attribute) auto-size itself to no larger than the longest filename.
ehh nautilus browser people know what I'm trying to express.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550128</id>
	<title>Now for List Mode...</title>
	<author>flyingfsck</author>
	<datestamp>1261740960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nautilus and most other file browsers also default to Icon view, which is fine if you have only about 5 files on your computer, which was probably true for Windows for Workgroups 3.1, but these days List view should be the default.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nautilus and most other file browsers also default to Icon view , which is fine if you have only about 5 files on your computer , which was probably true for Windows for Workgroups 3.1 , but these days List view should be the default .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nautilus and most other file browsers also default to Icon view, which is fine if you have only about 5 files on your computer, which was probably true for Windows for Workgroups 3.1, but these days List view should be the default.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552274</id>
	<title>Re:Now for List Mode...</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1261774500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; And as soon as there are more than 20 files/directories in a directory, I am on the shell, anyway.<br><br>That's more an indication of how crap the Desktop GUI or file manager is. Seriously.<br><br>Using a CLI may be better over high latency low bandwidth links, or when you are scripting stuff.<br><br>But it is a really terrible GUI if it's better to use the shell just because you need to deal with more than 20 files.<br><br>I bet gamers will still find it easier to manage hundreds of "RTS game" units with a GUI than a CLI.<br><br>Perhaps game GUI designers have more clue than Desktop GUI designers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; And as soon as there are more than 20 files/directories in a directory , I am on the shell , anyway.That 's more an indication of how crap the Desktop GUI or file manager is .
Seriously.Using a CLI may be better over high latency low bandwidth links , or when you are scripting stuff.But it is a really terrible GUI if it 's better to use the shell just because you need to deal with more than 20 files.I bet gamers will still find it easier to manage hundreds of " RTS game " units with a GUI than a CLI.Perhaps game GUI designers have more clue than Desktop GUI designers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; And as soon as there are more than 20 files/directories in a directory, I am on the shell, anyway.That's more an indication of how crap the Desktop GUI or file manager is.
Seriously.Using a CLI may be better over high latency low bandwidth links, or when you are scripting stuff.But it is a really terrible GUI if it's better to use the shell just because you need to deal with more than 20 files.I bet gamers will still find it easier to manage hundreds of "RTS game" units with a GUI than a CLI.Perhaps game GUI designers have more clue than Desktop GUI designers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551392</id>
	<title>Fedora 12 (i686 Live) defaults to spatial mode</title>
	<author>mmell</author>
	<datestamp>1261763340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's easy enough to fix.  Install gconf-editor using 'yum'.<p>
Apps-&gt;nautilus-&gt;preferences: Always Use Browser (check for browser, uncheck for spatial).</p><p>
Also easy enough to configure different menu/desktop/panel launchers to let you choose on the fly if you prefer.  Not exactly a huge issue, except for those who are impressed by out-of-the-box default configurations (personally, I tend to <b>customize</b> <i>my</i> desktop - you know, wallpaper, screensavers, window decorations, default behaviors, etc.).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's easy enough to fix .
Install gconf-editor using 'yum' .
Apps- &gt; nautilus- &gt; preferences : Always Use Browser ( check for browser , uncheck for spatial ) .
Also easy enough to configure different menu/desktop/panel launchers to let you choose on the fly if you prefer .
Not exactly a huge issue , except for those who are impressed by out-of-the-box default configurations ( personally , I tend to customize my desktop - you know , wallpaper , screensavers , window decorations , default behaviors , etc .
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's easy enough to fix.
Install gconf-editor using 'yum'.
Apps-&gt;nautilus-&gt;preferences: Always Use Browser (check for browser, uncheck for spatial).
Also easy enough to configure different menu/desktop/panel launchers to let you choose on the fly if you prefer.
Not exactly a huge issue, except for those who are impressed by out-of-the-box default configurations (personally, I tend to customize my desktop - you know, wallpaper, screensavers, window decorations, default behaviors, etc.
).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30568042</id>
	<title>I'm a little the opposite</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261931520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember when it was weird for folders not to launch new windows. 'course I was used to using Mac OS 7. Then everybody up and changed things when the internet came around. Everything had to be 'integrated' with the browser and stuff like that.</p><p>The browser doesn't really need to determine how I use a computer.</p><p>That being said, I actually kind of like the 'browser' behavior better, but that doesn't mean I think anyone who likes new windows is wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember when it was weird for folders not to launch new windows .
'course I was used to using Mac OS 7 .
Then everybody up and changed things when the internet came around .
Everything had to be 'integrated ' with the browser and stuff like that.The browser does n't really need to determine how I use a computer.That being said , I actually kind of like the 'browser ' behavior better , but that does n't mean I think anyone who likes new windows is wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember when it was weird for folders not to launch new windows.
'course I was used to using Mac OS 7.
Then everybody up and changed things when the internet came around.
Everything had to be 'integrated' with the browser and stuff like that.The browser doesn't really need to determine how I use a computer.That being said, I actually kind of like the 'browser' behavior better, but that doesn't mean I think anyone who likes new windows is wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30554166</id>
	<title>Re:Is it really anything *new*?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261763520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If no one is noticing, maybe this is a good indication as to how many former Debian people jumped ship to Ubuntu.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If no one is noticing , maybe this is a good indication as to how many former Debian people jumped ship to Ubuntu .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If no one is noticing, maybe this is a good indication as to how many former Debian people jumped ship to Ubuntu.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551404</id>
	<title>What about a single task bar?</title>
	<author>flyingfsck</author>
	<datestamp>1261763460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find the Gnome default with two task bars particularly annoying, since the modern trend is to have laptops with short and wide displays, putting vertical pixels at a premium.  It seems that in another few years a typical laptop will have a display that is one pixel high and 10,000,000 pixels wide.  Yes, the damn taskbar can be changed, but it is somewhat tricky.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find the Gnome default with two task bars particularly annoying , since the modern trend is to have laptops with short and wide displays , putting vertical pixels at a premium .
It seems that in another few years a typical laptop will have a display that is one pixel high and 10,000,000 pixels wide .
Yes , the damn taskbar can be changed , but it is somewhat tricky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find the Gnome default with two task bars particularly annoying, since the modern trend is to have laptops with short and wide displays, putting vertical pixels at a premium.
It seems that in another few years a typical laptop will have a display that is one pixel high and 10,000,000 pixels wide.
Yes, the damn taskbar can be changed, but it is somewhat tricky.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30554830</id>
	<title>Re:Does it matter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261821360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The CentOS machines in our university labs have nautilus set to open in new window by default, and this setting is reset each time you log in. I dislike this option with a passion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The CentOS machines in our university labs have nautilus set to open in new window by default , and this setting is reset each time you log in .
I dislike this option with a passion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The CentOS machines in our university labs have nautilus set to open in new window by default, and this setting is reset each time you log in.
I dislike this option with a passion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30555306</id>
	<title>Re:Nautilus following KDE's Dolphin?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261834800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It does appear that Nautilus' people are taking many many lessons from (let's not say ripping off) KDE's Dolphin. I mean, if you compare <a href="http://www.gnome.org/~alexl/nautilus-2-29-1.png" title="gnome.org" rel="nofollow">Nautilus' demo screenshot</a> [gnome.org] and you use <a href="http://dolphin.kde.org/images/all\_features.png" title="kde.org" rel="nofollow">KDE's Dolphin</a> [kde.org] (please ignore the command line at the bottom and info dock widget at the right) on a daily basis you will be hard pressed to find any differences.</p></div><p>And they rip of XTree, Thunar, Apple Finder (OS X),  Windows Explorer (between 95 and XP) and  hundreds of other file navigators too. Just look at the screenshots (using the rigth set of preferences)!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does appear that Nautilus ' people are taking many many lessons from ( let 's not say ripping off ) KDE 's Dolphin .
I mean , if you compare Nautilus ' demo screenshot [ gnome.org ] and you use KDE 's Dolphin [ kde.org ] ( please ignore the command line at the bottom and info dock widget at the right ) on a daily basis you will be hard pressed to find any differences.And they rip of XTree , Thunar , Apple Finder ( OS X ) , Windows Explorer ( between 95 and XP ) and hundreds of other file navigators too .
Just look at the screenshots ( using the rigth set of preferences ) !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does appear that Nautilus' people are taking many many lessons from (let's not say ripping off) KDE's Dolphin.
I mean, if you compare Nautilus' demo screenshot [gnome.org] and you use KDE's Dolphin [kde.org] (please ignore the command line at the bottom and info dock widget at the right) on a daily basis you will be hard pressed to find any differences.And they rip of XTree, Thunar, Apple Finder (OS X),  Windows Explorer (between 95 and XP) and  hundreds of other file navigators too.
Just look at the screenshots (using the rigth set of preferences)!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551244</id>
	<title>Re:Still waiting for a Total Commander equivalent</title>
	<author>harmonise</author>
	<datestamp>1261761960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I switched to Linux 4 months ago, and what I still miss is a file manager as good as Total Commander.</p></div></blockquote><p>A Total Commander clone would be a good a start, but I wish there was <a href="http://nudel.dopus.com/opus9/" title="dopus.com">Directory Opus</a> [dopus.com] for for Linux. It actually makes Windows bearable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I switched to Linux 4 months ago , and what I still miss is a file manager as good as Total Commander.A Total Commander clone would be a good a start , but I wish there was Directory Opus [ dopus.com ] for for Linux .
It actually makes Windows bearable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I switched to Linux 4 months ago, and what I still miss is a file manager as good as Total Commander.A Total Commander clone would be a good a start, but I wish there was Directory Opus [dopus.com] for for Linux.
It actually makes Windows bearable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551152</id>
	<title>Re:why anyone would use gnome is another question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261761000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right! Grandma seriously finds Windows much easier to use, especially to "go to Google"!</p><p> <b>Windows:</b> <br>
She enters the correct IP Address, Default Gateway, Subnet Mask and DNS Server as she cracks a joke about how crazy the browser wars are becoming. Windows is designed so intuitively that she can just click Start for anything, go to All Programs, and find Mozilla Firefox!</p><p> <b>Ubuntu</b> <br>
This is the hard part, "Do I click 'Applications'?" she asks. Ubuntu sucks because it has already discovered her internet connection, so she doesn't configure it... She gives up after she finds the "Internet" menu. "These guys are hopeless. They don't know how to make anything intuitive!"</p><p>Jokes apart. Get a grip, dude! Ubuntu is much easier to use for Grandma!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right !
Grandma seriously finds Windows much easier to use , especially to " go to Google " !
Windows : She enters the correct IP Address , Default Gateway , Subnet Mask and DNS Server as she cracks a joke about how crazy the browser wars are becoming .
Windows is designed so intuitively that she can just click Start for anything , go to All Programs , and find Mozilla Firefox !
Ubuntu This is the hard part , " Do I click 'Applications ' ?
" she asks .
Ubuntu sucks because it has already discovered her internet connection , so she does n't configure it... She gives up after she finds the " Internet " menu .
" These guys are hopeless .
They do n't know how to make anything intuitive !
" Jokes apart .
Get a grip , dude !
Ubuntu is much easier to use for Grandma !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right!
Grandma seriously finds Windows much easier to use, especially to "go to Google"!
Windows: 
She enters the correct IP Address, Default Gateway, Subnet Mask and DNS Server as she cracks a joke about how crazy the browser wars are becoming.
Windows is designed so intuitively that she can just click Start for anything, go to All Programs, and find Mozilla Firefox!
Ubuntu 
This is the hard part, "Do I click 'Applications'?
" she asks.
Ubuntu sucks because it has already discovered her internet connection, so she doesn't configure it... She gives up after she finds the "Internet" menu.
"These guys are hopeless.
They don't know how to make anything intuitive!
"Jokes apart.
Get a grip, dude!
Ubuntu is much easier to use for Grandma!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30558350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30556274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30553552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30554080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30557166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30553326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30554166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30553812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30553616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30553492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30555316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30553816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30554872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30553776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30554350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30553172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30553560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30553618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30554830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30555306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30556584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_25_0259254_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_0259254.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_0259254.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30553552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30556584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30553616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_0259254.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550462
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30553816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30553812
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552672
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_0259254.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550350
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551068
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30553560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30554872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_0259254.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550764
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551454
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551108
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_0259254.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_0259254.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550368
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550202
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552804
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30553776
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30553326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551164
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552336
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551246
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30553492
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30555306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551338
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_0259254.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30554350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30554080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550136
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30554166
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550174
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_0259254.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550204
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_0259254.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_0259254.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550264
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_0259254.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550812
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551140
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550908
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551374
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30553618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30555316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551016
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552372
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551976
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30553172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_0259254.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30556274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30558350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30552222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_0259254.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550710
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_0259254.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550806
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_0259254.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30554830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_0259254.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30550230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30557166
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_25_0259254.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_25_0259254.30551404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
