<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_04_2024212</id>
	<title>Typical Windows User Patches Every 5 Days</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1267692420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CWmike writes <i>"The typical home user running Windows faces the <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9165738/Typical\_Windows\_user\_patches\_every\_5\_days">'unreasonable' task of patching software an average of every five days</a>, security research company Secunia said on Thursday. 'It's completely unreasonable to expect users to master so many different patch mechanisms and spend so much time patching,' said Thomas Kristensen, the company's CSO. The result: Few consumers devote the time and attention necessary to stay atop the patching job, which leaves them open to attack. Secunia says that of the users who ran the company's Personal Software Inspector in the last week of January, half had 66 or more programs from 22 or more different vendors on their machines.  ... Secunia has <a href="http://secunia.com/gfx/pdf/Secunia\_RSA\_Software\_Portfolio\_Security\_Exposure.pdf">published a white paper (PDF) that details its findings</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes " The typical home user running Windows faces the 'unreasonable ' task of patching software an average of every five days , security research company Secunia said on Thursday .
'It 's completely unreasonable to expect users to master so many different patch mechanisms and spend so much time patching, ' said Thomas Kristensen , the company 's CSO .
The result : Few consumers devote the time and attention necessary to stay atop the patching job , which leaves them open to attack .
Secunia says that of the users who ran the company 's Personal Software Inspector in the last week of January , half had 66 or more programs from 22 or more different vendors on their machines .
... Secunia has published a white paper ( PDF ) that details its findings .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes "The typical home user running Windows faces the 'unreasonable' task of patching software an average of every five days, security research company Secunia said on Thursday.
'It's completely unreasonable to expect users to master so many different patch mechanisms and spend so much time patching,' said Thomas Kristensen, the company's CSO.
The result: Few consumers devote the time and attention necessary to stay atop the patching job, which leaves them open to attack.
Secunia says that of the users who ran the company's Personal Software Inspector in the last week of January, half had 66 or more programs from 22 or more different vendors on their machines.
... Secunia has published a white paper (PDF) that details its findings.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362412</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>Xipe66</author>
	<datestamp>1267696500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>My Ubuntu installation updates and patches way more often than my Windows installs do.

Newsworthy?

Didn't think so<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My Ubuntu installation updates and patches way more often than my Windows installs do .
Newsworthy ? Did n't think so / .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Ubuntu installation updates and patches way more often than my Windows installs do.
Newsworthy?

Didn't think so /.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31367800</id>
	<title>MS new slogan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267729020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you want to patch today?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you want to patch today ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you want to patch today?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362498</id>
	<title>How about Linux users?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267696980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Running Ubuntu at home, seems like once a week there an update for something or other... Thank God Linux is *FAR* more graceful applying patches - I can update anything on the system and so long as the kernel is not touched, no reboot is required. Windoze just kills me... yo have to reboot for every damn thing! Glad I don't have to deal with that...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Running Ubuntu at home , seems like once a week there an update for something or other... Thank God Linux is * FAR * more graceful applying patches - I can update anything on the system and so long as the kernel is not touched , no reboot is required .
Windoze just kills me... yo have to reboot for every damn thing !
Glad I do n't have to deal with that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Running Ubuntu at home, seems like once a week there an update for something or other... Thank God Linux is *FAR* more graceful applying patches - I can update anything on the system and so long as the kernel is not touched, no reboot is required.
Windoze just kills me... yo have to reboot for every damn thing!
Glad I don't have to deal with that...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363770</id>
	<title>Re:But if they just buy our software</title>
	<author>userw014</author>
	<datestamp>1267702020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sure seems like Secunia trying to create a market and drum up business to me too.
</p><p>
On the other hand, the Mac world isn't innocent of this - if youve got a Mac loaded with a bunch of applications (mostly games), there's likely the same kind of mishmash of updaters too - and the HP Printer updater is the worst since it fails silently (but still nags you to do the update.)
</p><p>
Frankly, if you've got a bunch of independent applications and no standard way to update an application (or even if you do), then you're going to have update chaos.
</p><p>
Ubuntu gets around this by insisting you get all your applications through Ubuntu, rather like apps for the iPhone.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sure seems like Secunia trying to create a market and drum up business to me too .
On the other hand , the Mac world is n't innocent of this - if youve got a Mac loaded with a bunch of applications ( mostly games ) , there 's likely the same kind of mishmash of updaters too - and the HP Printer updater is the worst since it fails silently ( but still nags you to do the update .
) Frankly , if you 've got a bunch of independent applications and no standard way to update an application ( or even if you do ) , then you 're going to have update chaos .
Ubuntu gets around this by insisting you get all your applications through Ubuntu , rather like apps for the iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sure seems like Secunia trying to create a market and drum up business to me too.
On the other hand, the Mac world isn't innocent of this - if youve got a Mac loaded with a bunch of applications (mostly games), there's likely the same kind of mishmash of updaters too - and the HP Printer updater is the worst since it fails silently (but still nags you to do the update.
)

Frankly, if you've got a bunch of independent applications and no standard way to update an application (or even if you do), then you're going to have update chaos.
Ubuntu gets around this by insisting you get all your applications through Ubuntu, rather like apps for the iPhone.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31364046</id>
	<title>I dont patch every day.</title>
	<author>drolli</author>
	<datestamp>1267703220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since i only use my windows virtual machine in average every few months, i can not patch it everyday. However, i dont use it for receiving e-mail or surfing the web, only for compiling.</p><p>I also do not patch the measurement devices in our lab (oscilloscopes etc, they are strictly isolated from the internet), since all my attempts to ask the IT Department for a policy on that failed.</p><p>I also do not reboot measurement computers during a long running measurement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since i only use my windows virtual machine in average every few months , i can not patch it everyday .
However , i dont use it for receiving e-mail or surfing the web , only for compiling.I also do not patch the measurement devices in our lab ( oscilloscopes etc , they are strictly isolated from the internet ) , since all my attempts to ask the IT Department for a policy on that failed.I also do not reboot measurement computers during a long running measurement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since i only use my windows virtual machine in average every few months, i can not patch it everyday.
However, i dont use it for receiving e-mail or surfing the web, only for compiling.I also do not patch the measurement devices in our lab (oscilloscopes etc, they are strictly isolated from the internet), since all my attempts to ask the IT Department for a policy on that failed.I also do not reboot measurement computers during a long running measurement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363848</id>
	<title>Ha-Ha</title>
	<author>Tibor the Hun</author>
	<datestamp>1267702380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But at least those users don't need to worry themselves about being called Mac fanboys, zealots, or snobs.<br>It's a small price to pay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But at least those users do n't need to worry themselves about being called Mac fanboys , zealots , or snobs.It 's a small price to pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But at least those users don't need to worry themselves about being called Mac fanboys, zealots, or snobs.It's a small price to pay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362376</id>
	<title>why is it so unreasonable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267696260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>patching for Windows is largely automated...</p><p>Heck, my Linux has patches every day and I kinda see that as a good thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>patching for Windows is largely automated...Heck , my Linux has patches every day and I kinda see that as a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>patching for Windows is largely automated...Heck, my Linux has patches every day and I kinda see that as a good thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362474</id>
	<title>Patching holes in the Titanic</title>
	<author>ka9dgx</author>
	<datestamp>1267696860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's face it, doing patches this often is like putting mattresses in the hole on the side of the Titanic. It merely delays the inevitable, slightly. We need to rip out the ineffective system we're gotten used to, and to <a href="http://www.skyhunter.com/marcs/capabilityIntro/index.html" title="skyhunter.com">move on</a> [skyhunter.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's face it , doing patches this often is like putting mattresses in the hole on the side of the Titanic .
It merely delays the inevitable , slightly .
We need to rip out the ineffective system we 're gotten used to , and to move on [ skyhunter.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's face it, doing patches this often is like putting mattresses in the hole on the side of the Titanic.
It merely delays the inevitable, slightly.
We need to rip out the ineffective system we're gotten used to, and to move on [skyhunter.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362402</id>
	<title>Why just Windows?</title>
	<author>east coast</author>
	<datestamp>1267696440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've owned a Droid phone for 5 days now. I've already had to "patch" two of the apps for it out of about 10 apps that I have on the phone.<br> <br>By those standards I'd say MS is doing one hell of a fine job.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've owned a Droid phone for 5 days now .
I 've already had to " patch " two of the apps for it out of about 10 apps that I have on the phone .
By those standards I 'd say MS is doing one hell of a fine job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've owned a Droid phone for 5 days now.
I've already had to "patch" two of the apps for it out of about 10 apps that I have on the phone.
By those standards I'd say MS is doing one hell of a fine job.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362552</id>
	<title>That number includes all application patches...</title>
	<author>kgo</author>
	<datestamp>1267697160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think I've ever needed to install windows updates twice in a week.  Maybe twice in a month if there's a major issue.

But that report is counting Adobe Reader updates.  Java updates.  Firefox updates.  That annoying update that tells me I need to ugrade TortoiseSVN from version 1.6.4.12.a to 1.6.4.12.b. Etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think I 've ever needed to install windows updates twice in a week .
Maybe twice in a month if there 's a major issue .
But that report is counting Adobe Reader updates .
Java updates .
Firefox updates .
That annoying update that tells me I need to ugrade TortoiseSVN from version 1.6.4.12.a to 1.6.4.12.b .
Etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think I've ever needed to install windows updates twice in a week.
Maybe twice in a month if there's a major issue.
But that report is counting Adobe Reader updates.
Java updates.
Firefox updates.
That annoying update that tells me I need to ugrade TortoiseSVN from version 1.6.4.12.a to 1.6.4.12.b.
Etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31365590</id>
	<title>Re:Why just Windows?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267711200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Patches are a good thing. Every programmer makes mistakes, thus a lack of patches generally indicates a lack of proper support. The main issue with Windows (As compared to Mac and Linux, which tend to have centralized patch deployment measures) is that you have to search for all the individual programs that need updating: Flash, Java, Acrobat, Windows, Firefox, iTunes, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Patches are a good thing .
Every programmer makes mistakes , thus a lack of patches generally indicates a lack of proper support .
The main issue with Windows ( As compared to Mac and Linux , which tend to have centralized patch deployment measures ) is that you have to search for all the individual programs that need updating : Flash , Java , Acrobat , Windows , Firefox , iTunes , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patches are a good thing.
Every programmer makes mistakes, thus a lack of patches generally indicates a lack of proper support.
The main issue with Windows (As compared to Mac and Linux, which tend to have centralized patch deployment measures) is that you have to search for all the individual programs that need updating: Flash, Java, Acrobat, Windows, Firefox, iTunes, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363372</id>
	<title>Ho Hum</title>
	<author>thethibs</author>
	<datestamp>1267700040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>half had 66 or more programs from 22 or more different vendors on their machines.</i> </p><p>Is that all? Sounds like a pretty routine state of affairs. My wife, who is seriously non-technical has 134 apps on her machine, not counting the stuff in the Windows directory. We patch no more than once a month, just before running the trial versions of a few AVs, if I remember to do it. In more years than I care to count, the AVs have only found suspicious cookies and emails. We get more false positives than anything else.</p><p>This may be a black swan, but my use of PCs goes back to DOS 1 (I was an OEM). For a while I ran a 40-user BBS and I've never had fewer than 3 PC's hooked up to whatever the current network technology allowed (can you say PCboard? Fido? uucp?) In all that time and with all those machines, I've only had one infection--an isolated laptop that I mistakenly hooked to the internet via dialup with the firewall disabled. It took Blaster about 5 seconds to hit and it took about an hour to clean up the mess. Not bad for 25 years of exposure.</p><p>Risk management has two sides: cost and benefit. The rational thing is to keep the cost lower than the benefit. That's why the people who live by ITSec only do qualitative risk analysis; they don't want their clients to know that they are spending more than the protection is worth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>half had 66 or more programs from 22 or more different vendors on their machines .
Is that all ?
Sounds like a pretty routine state of affairs .
My wife , who is seriously non-technical has 134 apps on her machine , not counting the stuff in the Windows directory .
We patch no more than once a month , just before running the trial versions of a few AVs , if I remember to do it .
In more years than I care to count , the AVs have only found suspicious cookies and emails .
We get more false positives than anything else.This may be a black swan , but my use of PCs goes back to DOS 1 ( I was an OEM ) .
For a while I ran a 40-user BBS and I 've never had fewer than 3 PC 's hooked up to whatever the current network technology allowed ( can you say PCboard ?
Fido ? uucp ?
) In all that time and with all those machines , I 've only had one infection--an isolated laptop that I mistakenly hooked to the internet via dialup with the firewall disabled .
It took Blaster about 5 seconds to hit and it took about an hour to clean up the mess .
Not bad for 25 years of exposure.Risk management has two sides : cost and benefit .
The rational thing is to keep the cost lower than the benefit .
That 's why the people who live by ITSec only do qualitative risk analysis ; they do n't want their clients to know that they are spending more than the protection is worth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> half had 66 or more programs from 22 or more different vendors on their machines.
Is that all?
Sounds like a pretty routine state of affairs.
My wife, who is seriously non-technical has 134 apps on her machine, not counting the stuff in the Windows directory.
We patch no more than once a month, just before running the trial versions of a few AVs, if I remember to do it.
In more years than I care to count, the AVs have only found suspicious cookies and emails.
We get more false positives than anything else.This may be a black swan, but my use of PCs goes back to DOS 1 (I was an OEM).
For a while I ran a 40-user BBS and I've never had fewer than 3 PC's hooked up to whatever the current network technology allowed (can you say PCboard?
Fido? uucp?
) In all that time and with all those machines, I've only had one infection--an isolated laptop that I mistakenly hooked to the internet via dialup with the firewall disabled.
It took Blaster about 5 seconds to hit and it took about an hour to clean up the mess.
Not bad for 25 years of exposure.Risk management has two sides: cost and benefit.
The rational thing is to keep the cost lower than the benefit.
That's why the people who live by ITSec only do qualitative risk analysis; they don't want their clients to know that they are spending more than the protection is worth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31367712</id>
	<title>Obligatory Daily Dinosaur Comic</title>
	<author>The\_mad\_linguist</author>
	<datestamp>1267728120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=1579" title="qwantz.com">http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=1579</a> [qwantz.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.qwantz.com/index.php ? comic = 1579 [ qwantz.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=1579 [qwantz.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363316</id>
	<title>Re:Ignorant Haters</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1267699800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And if your workstation updates daily you're not part of the IT department and have no real reason to be an admin other than the updates?  What if you come into work, turn on your machine which takes far longer than it should anyway, you logon and immediately get a message telling you the computer is going to restart in 4 mins, no delay feature available because other users were abusing it and not updating ever?</p><p>What if you are running an expensive qPCR experiment, and the laptop capturing the data undergoes an automatic restart midway through when you've stepped out, ruining the entire experiment?</p><p>I ask because all those things have happened to people I know (not me).  Sure, there are workarounds for those, but when you're running an automated experiment, "make sure the IT guys remembered to set the automatic update correctly" is somewhere around #300 on the list of things to do, and is easily forgotten.  If you don't have control over every computer you need to use, it can vary from really annoying to a real problem.  A real taxpayer-supported-grant-wasting problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And if your workstation updates daily you 're not part of the IT department and have no real reason to be an admin other than the updates ?
What if you come into work , turn on your machine which takes far longer than it should anyway , you logon and immediately get a message telling you the computer is going to restart in 4 mins , no delay feature available because other users were abusing it and not updating ever ? What if you are running an expensive qPCR experiment , and the laptop capturing the data undergoes an automatic restart midway through when you 've stepped out , ruining the entire experiment ? I ask because all those things have happened to people I know ( not me ) .
Sure , there are workarounds for those , but when you 're running an automated experiment , " make sure the IT guys remembered to set the automatic update correctly " is somewhere around # 300 on the list of things to do , and is easily forgotten .
If you do n't have control over every computer you need to use , it can vary from really annoying to a real problem .
A real taxpayer-supported-grant-wasting problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if your workstation updates daily you're not part of the IT department and have no real reason to be an admin other than the updates?
What if you come into work, turn on your machine which takes far longer than it should anyway, you logon and immediately get a message telling you the computer is going to restart in 4 mins, no delay feature available because other users were abusing it and not updating ever?What if you are running an expensive qPCR experiment, and the laptop capturing the data undergoes an automatic restart midway through when you've stepped out, ruining the entire experiment?I ask because all those things have happened to people I know (not me).
Sure, there are workarounds for those, but when you're running an automated experiment, "make sure the IT guys remembered to set the automatic update correctly" is somewhere around #300 on the list of things to do, and is easily forgotten.
If you don't have control over every computer you need to use, it can vary from really annoying to a real problem.
A real taxpayer-supported-grant-wasting problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362708</id>
	<title>Re:Why just Windows?</title>
	<author>malakai</author>
	<datestamp>1267697760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pandora's jar was opened as soon as always-online systems became the norm. Software producers can ship code that has been less throughly tested, knowing they can patch or send out an update if they find something. Even console games, the once most ironclad software 4th only to military, medical, and flight software, now ships expecting patches to be available by the time the user gets it installed.</p><p>The good news is we get software more quickly. The bad news is we get software more quickly.</p><p>Luckily, the auto-update software is becoming better at it's job. More and more systems are being designed to hot-update. This is normally a result of modular architecture inside the software, allowing plugins to be unloaded at runtime, and new version loaded. This is even creeping into the OS. If you have the right mix of OS and Hardware, you may already be doing live video driver updates. Some RAID controllers allow you to swap drivers at runtime if the OS isn't on that controller.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pandora 's jar was opened as soon as always-online systems became the norm .
Software producers can ship code that has been less throughly tested , knowing they can patch or send out an update if they find something .
Even console games , the once most ironclad software 4th only to military , medical , and flight software , now ships expecting patches to be available by the time the user gets it installed.The good news is we get software more quickly .
The bad news is we get software more quickly.Luckily , the auto-update software is becoming better at it 's job .
More and more systems are being designed to hot-update .
This is normally a result of modular architecture inside the software , allowing plugins to be unloaded at runtime , and new version loaded .
This is even creeping into the OS .
If you have the right mix of OS and Hardware , you may already be doing live video driver updates .
Some RAID controllers allow you to swap drivers at runtime if the OS is n't on that controller .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pandora's jar was opened as soon as always-online systems became the norm.
Software producers can ship code that has been less throughly tested, knowing they can patch or send out an update if they find something.
Even console games, the once most ironclad software 4th only to military, medical, and flight software, now ships expecting patches to be available by the time the user gets it installed.The good news is we get software more quickly.
The bad news is we get software more quickly.Luckily, the auto-update software is becoming better at it's job.
More and more systems are being designed to hot-update.
This is normally a result of modular architecture inside the software, allowing plugins to be unloaded at runtime, and new version loaded.
This is even creeping into the OS.
If you have the right mix of OS and Hardware, you may already be doing live video driver updates.
Some RAID controllers allow you to swap drivers at runtime if the OS isn't on that controller.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362508</id>
	<title>Re:why is it so unreasonable?</title>
	<author>SectoidRandom</author>
	<datestamp>1267697040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you use the computer every day it is not, however if you only turn it on every week or two (like my mother) then expect 30minutes of prompts for different updates!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you use the computer every day it is not , however if you only turn it on every week or two ( like my mother ) then expect 30minutes of prompts for different updates !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you use the computer every day it is not, however if you only turn it on every week or two (like my mother) then expect 30minutes of prompts for different updates!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31371422</id>
	<title>Re:Seems to be automatic</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1267806720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft need not QA the patches, simply provide a vendor interface for distributing them to detected installed software.  The Vendor needs to QA their own patches before pushing them through.  This could easily be distinguished in the update GUI as "patches from 3rd parties" clearly disassociating responsibility.  The idea is simply a unified solution, which can be centrally controlled, scheduled, and which users would know that patches are coming from legitimate sources (not a mailware pretending to be a patch).</p><p>As for the iPhone/iPad, itunes itself, and the other supporting apple products should be patched (on windows) through Microsoft update like any other.  On OS X it's patched through Apple's central resource.  Further, it's patched when you dock it, not when it fells like notifying you of a patch, as an action of syncing and backing up, and all updated apps are patched at once, through a central resource.</p><p>Yes, you also get notifications on the iPhone of app updates and can patch directly, but it is still a central system, and still an all-at-once operation.    Also, the iPhone has no known vulnerabilities to exploit outside of the OS itself (apps can't access OS and other resources, and background operation of viruses and bots is not possible).  Even the "theorized" exploits require the hacker to know your phone number, and for you to have an SSH server running on the device, and still all they might be able to do is access your calendar and contact files.  It's a simple solution and has little or no security risk.  If PCs updated like the iPad I'd be happy.</p><p>Its not about deciding whether or not to update, it's about how and when I'm notified, understanding the nature of the patch, and the various systems that all abuse my network pinging against 50 different resources (and all consuming CPU cycles to do it) which can all be centralized and made much more secure.</p><p>yes, there may be some issues with posting delays due to patches.  However, if a back end system were properly designed, top vendors with worldwide distribution should be able to easily interface, and post their own patches and control the severity level, so same day patching should be viable.  The mechanism is there, it just needs to be USED!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft need not QA the patches , simply provide a vendor interface for distributing them to detected installed software .
The Vendor needs to QA their own patches before pushing them through .
This could easily be distinguished in the update GUI as " patches from 3rd parties " clearly disassociating responsibility .
The idea is simply a unified solution , which can be centrally controlled , scheduled , and which users would know that patches are coming from legitimate sources ( not a mailware pretending to be a patch ) .As for the iPhone/iPad , itunes itself , and the other supporting apple products should be patched ( on windows ) through Microsoft update like any other .
On OS X it 's patched through Apple 's central resource .
Further , it 's patched when you dock it , not when it fells like notifying you of a patch , as an action of syncing and backing up , and all updated apps are patched at once , through a central resource.Yes , you also get notifications on the iPhone of app updates and can patch directly , but it is still a central system , and still an all-at-once operation .
Also , the iPhone has no known vulnerabilities to exploit outside of the OS itself ( apps ca n't access OS and other resources , and background operation of viruses and bots is not possible ) .
Even the " theorized " exploits require the hacker to know your phone number , and for you to have an SSH server running on the device , and still all they might be able to do is access your calendar and contact files .
It 's a simple solution and has little or no security risk .
If PCs updated like the iPad I 'd be happy.Its not about deciding whether or not to update , it 's about how and when I 'm notified , understanding the nature of the patch , and the various systems that all abuse my network pinging against 50 different resources ( and all consuming CPU cycles to do it ) which can all be centralized and made much more secure.yes , there may be some issues with posting delays due to patches .
However , if a back end system were properly designed , top vendors with worldwide distribution should be able to easily interface , and post their own patches and control the severity level , so same day patching should be viable .
The mechanism is there , it just needs to be USED !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft need not QA the patches, simply provide a vendor interface for distributing them to detected installed software.
The Vendor needs to QA their own patches before pushing them through.
This could easily be distinguished in the update GUI as "patches from 3rd parties" clearly disassociating responsibility.
The idea is simply a unified solution, which can be centrally controlled, scheduled, and which users would know that patches are coming from legitimate sources (not a mailware pretending to be a patch).As for the iPhone/iPad, itunes itself, and the other supporting apple products should be patched (on windows) through Microsoft update like any other.
On OS X it's patched through Apple's central resource.
Further, it's patched when you dock it, not when it fells like notifying you of a patch, as an action of syncing and backing up, and all updated apps are patched at once, through a central resource.Yes, you also get notifications on the iPhone of app updates and can patch directly, but it is still a central system, and still an all-at-once operation.
Also, the iPhone has no known vulnerabilities to exploit outside of the OS itself (apps can't access OS and other resources, and background operation of viruses and bots is not possible).
Even the "theorized" exploits require the hacker to know your phone number, and for you to have an SSH server running on the device, and still all they might be able to do is access your calendar and contact files.
It's a simple solution and has little or no security risk.
If PCs updated like the iPad I'd be happy.Its not about deciding whether or not to update, it's about how and when I'm notified, understanding the nature of the patch, and the various systems that all abuse my network pinging against 50 different resources (and all consuming CPU cycles to do it) which can all be centralized and made much more secure.yes, there may be some issues with posting delays due to patches.
However, if a back end system were properly designed, top vendors with worldwide distribution should be able to easily interface, and post their own patches and control the severity level, so same day patching should be viable.
The mechanism is there, it just needs to be USED!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31367874</id>
	<title>Re:why is it so unreasonable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267729860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its really just the design of the thing.  Windows insists that whats running must also be on the disk.  Linux allows updates on the fly.  Unless they are kernel related, system software (and with most distributions, nearly everything installed) can have updates on the fly.  You never need shut down, and can stay current without ever shutting anything down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its really just the design of the thing .
Windows insists that whats running must also be on the disk .
Linux allows updates on the fly .
Unless they are kernel related , system software ( and with most distributions , nearly everything installed ) can have updates on the fly .
You never need shut down , and can stay current without ever shutting anything down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its really just the design of the thing.
Windows insists that whats running must also be on the disk.
Linux allows updates on the fly.
Unless they are kernel related, system software (and with most distributions, nearly everything installed) can have updates on the fly.
You never need shut down, and can stay current without ever shutting anything down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362984</id>
	<title>that's it?</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1267698660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The typical home user running Windows faces the 'unreasonable' task of patching software an average of every five days</p></div><p>Only once every five days?  That seems rather mild to me...</p><p>Between Windows, Firefox, Office, Java, Adobe Reader, my antivirus, VLC, Pidgin, VirtualBox, EVE, Songbird, and Steam it seems like I'm patching something on a daily basis.  And that's just my home machine.</p><p>Throw in the fileserver at home...  My workstation at the office...  My work netbook...  And the assortment of servers I'm responsible for...  And I'm <b>definitely</b> patching <i>something</i> on a daily basis.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The typical home user running Windows faces the 'unreasonable ' task of patching software an average of every five daysOnly once every five days ?
That seems rather mild to me...Between Windows , Firefox , Office , Java , Adobe Reader , my antivirus , VLC , Pidgin , VirtualBox , EVE , Songbird , and Steam it seems like I 'm patching something on a daily basis .
And that 's just my home machine.Throw in the fileserver at home... My workstation at the office... My work netbook... And the assortment of servers I 'm responsible for... And I 'm definitely patching something on a daily basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The typical home user running Windows faces the 'unreasonable' task of patching software an average of every five daysOnly once every five days?
That seems rather mild to me...Between Windows, Firefox, Office, Java, Adobe Reader, my antivirus, VLC, Pidgin, VirtualBox, EVE, Songbird, and Steam it seems like I'm patching something on a daily basis.
And that's just my home machine.Throw in the fileserver at home...  My workstation at the office...  My work netbook...  And the assortment of servers I'm responsible for...  And I'm definitely patching something on a daily basis.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362558</id>
	<title>Re:why is it so unreasonable?</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1267697220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By and large, patches are a good thing, unless and until they prevent you from getting work done on the machine.  Then they become a pain.</p><p>I was constantly frustrated and annoyed by the simple fact that Windows lacks a centralized update system that is open for everyone to use.  It's got automated updating, sure, but it's a series of individual solutions per vendor and everyone solves the problem in different ways.  And either there's an always-running app in the background (of which I had 15-20 at any given time, which gobbles up memory and occasionally CPU), or the software checks for updates when I start it up (the very least convenient time I want to update a bit of software is WHEN I'M STARTING IT - I opened Acroreader because I wanted to read a file, and now is not a good time to ask me if I want to wait ten minutes while my hard drive whirs getting the new shiny version installed.  PS:  As soon as I'm done reading the document, I'm going to shut down Acroread and not think about the update any more until you ask me at the least convenient time again, and I'll ignore it.  Again).</p><p>Then, of course, there's Patch Tuesday.  You never quite know what fresh hell awaits on Patch Tuesday, but it almost always includes a reboot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By and large , patches are a good thing , unless and until they prevent you from getting work done on the machine .
Then they become a pain.I was constantly frustrated and annoyed by the simple fact that Windows lacks a centralized update system that is open for everyone to use .
It 's got automated updating , sure , but it 's a series of individual solutions per vendor and everyone solves the problem in different ways .
And either there 's an always-running app in the background ( of which I had 15-20 at any given time , which gobbles up memory and occasionally CPU ) , or the software checks for updates when I start it up ( the very least convenient time I want to update a bit of software is WHEN I 'M STARTING IT - I opened Acroreader because I wanted to read a file , and now is not a good time to ask me if I want to wait ten minutes while my hard drive whirs getting the new shiny version installed .
PS : As soon as I 'm done reading the document , I 'm going to shut down Acroread and not think about the update any more until you ask me at the least convenient time again , and I 'll ignore it .
Again ) .Then , of course , there 's Patch Tuesday .
You never quite know what fresh hell awaits on Patch Tuesday , but it almost always includes a reboot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By and large, patches are a good thing, unless and until they prevent you from getting work done on the machine.
Then they become a pain.I was constantly frustrated and annoyed by the simple fact that Windows lacks a centralized update system that is open for everyone to use.
It's got automated updating, sure, but it's a series of individual solutions per vendor and everyone solves the problem in different ways.
And either there's an always-running app in the background (of which I had 15-20 at any given time, which gobbles up memory and occasionally CPU), or the software checks for updates when I start it up (the very least convenient time I want to update a bit of software is WHEN I'M STARTING IT - I opened Acroreader because I wanted to read a file, and now is not a good time to ask me if I want to wait ten minutes while my hard drive whirs getting the new shiny version installed.
PS:  As soon as I'm done reading the document, I'm going to shut down Acroread and not think about the update any more until you ask me at the least convenient time again, and I'll ignore it.
Again).Then, of course, there's Patch Tuesday.
You never quite know what fresh hell awaits on Patch Tuesday, but it almost always includes a reboot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363240</id>
	<title>Re:Seems to be automatic</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1267699500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>microsoft already extends the Microsoft Update system to their own apps, as well as 3rd party drivers, why can't they further extend it to 3rd party APPS!</i></p><p><i>It's not confusing, it's infuriating...</i> </p><p>I would suppose that it comes down to time.  Microsoft already has a terrible reputation for responding to security issues 'in a timely manner'.  Can you imagine the can of worms they'd be opening if they offered a centralized mechanism to patch non-MS applications?  Beyond the time required to receive the patch from the vendor and package it up and distribute it, can you imagine the legal liability if they didn't QA the patch first?  Do you remember the uproar when their patch caused malware infected XP boxes to blue screen because they changed a core system DLL?</p><p><i>This is the reason I want an iPad so bad: one less fucking system to patch.....</i> </p><p>I see you've bought into the hype.  Last I checked, OSX and iPhones still require "software updates".  I can bet that whatever app you download from the app store will eventually have a "newer, shinier" version available and you'll have to decide whether or not you want to download it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>microsoft already extends the Microsoft Update system to their own apps , as well as 3rd party drivers , why ca n't they further extend it to 3rd party APPS ! It 's not confusing , it 's infuriating... I would suppose that it comes down to time .
Microsoft already has a terrible reputation for responding to security issues 'in a timely manner' .
Can you imagine the can of worms they 'd be opening if they offered a centralized mechanism to patch non-MS applications ?
Beyond the time required to receive the patch from the vendor and package it up and distribute it , can you imagine the legal liability if they did n't QA the patch first ?
Do you remember the uproar when their patch caused malware infected XP boxes to blue screen because they changed a core system DLL ? This is the reason I want an iPad so bad : one less fucking system to patch..... I see you 've bought into the hype .
Last I checked , OSX and iPhones still require " software updates " .
I can bet that whatever app you download from the app store will eventually have a " newer , shinier " version available and you 'll have to decide whether or not you want to download it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>microsoft already extends the Microsoft Update system to their own apps, as well as 3rd party drivers, why can't they further extend it to 3rd party APPS!It's not confusing, it's infuriating... I would suppose that it comes down to time.
Microsoft already has a terrible reputation for responding to security issues 'in a timely manner'.
Can you imagine the can of worms they'd be opening if they offered a centralized mechanism to patch non-MS applications?
Beyond the time required to receive the patch from the vendor and package it up and distribute it, can you imagine the legal liability if they didn't QA the patch first?
Do you remember the uproar when their patch caused malware infected XP boxes to blue screen because they changed a core system DLL?This is the reason I want an iPad so bad: one less fucking system to patch..... I see you've bought into the hype.
Last I checked, OSX and iPhones still require "software updates".
I can bet that whatever app you download from the app store will eventually have a "newer, shinier" version available and you'll have to decide whether or not you want to download it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31366156</id>
	<title>Re:Seems to be automatic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267715580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Secunia is PARTIALLY right.<br>On the problem software like these, it should be all ONE update at adobe</p><p>Ahh, but what about that C:\WINDOWS\system32\Macromed\Flash\Flash10c.ocx that won't delete?</p><p>This is utter Adobe nonsense. It updates, but on some adobe updates not all instances of the file are updated, and in other circumstances files which are dangerous are not DELETED! THIS IS ADOBE'S FAULT. ADOBE'S</p><p>So yes you have to FIND that file in the first place and then delete it and make sure only Flash10e.ocx is in that same directory.<br>Oh I'm sorry if you have folders with file extensions turned off, on your win 7/vista eye candy box, you did have dos knowledge right? It don't have<br>+R+A+S+H attributes I hope... blagh..</p><p>secunia are WRONG when it comes to some software, for example ztree it don't need to be automatically updated. It comes in a ZIP for the betas. But.... While we're here, we'll use the ztree to delete the above file. Done, Reboot, PSI scan | good. Press the EASY BUTTON</p><p>Secunia is right some of the software is a pain in the ass, and wastes productivity time, which wastes money. Basically your security has to be as much knowledge, time and MONEY as you can AFFORD... That's the message here. And Adobe, christ stop building your aircraft out of bricks!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Secunia is PARTIALLY right.On the problem software like these , it should be all ONE update at adobeAhh , but what about that C : \ WINDOWS \ system32 \ Macromed \ Flash \ Flash10c.ocx that wo n't delete ? This is utter Adobe nonsense .
It updates , but on some adobe updates not all instances of the file are updated , and in other circumstances files which are dangerous are not DELETED !
THIS IS ADOBE 'S FAULT .
ADOBE'SSo yes you have to FIND that file in the first place and then delete it and make sure only Flash10e.ocx is in that same directory.Oh I 'm sorry if you have folders with file extensions turned off , on your win 7/vista eye candy box , you did have dos knowledge right ?
It do n't have + R + A + S + H attributes I hope... blagh..secunia are WRONG when it comes to some software , for example ztree it do n't need to be automatically updated .
It comes in a ZIP for the betas .
But.... While we 're here , we 'll use the ztree to delete the above file .
Done , Reboot , PSI scan | good .
Press the EASY BUTTONSecunia is right some of the software is a pain in the ass , and wastes productivity time , which wastes money .
Basically your security has to be as much knowledge , time and MONEY as you can AFFORD... That 's the message here .
And Adobe , christ stop building your aircraft out of bricks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Secunia is PARTIALLY right.On the problem software like these, it should be all ONE update at adobeAhh, but what about that C:\WINDOWS\system32\Macromed\Flash\Flash10c.ocx that won't delete?This is utter Adobe nonsense.
It updates, but on some adobe updates not all instances of the file are updated, and in other circumstances files which are dangerous are not DELETED!
THIS IS ADOBE'S FAULT.
ADOBE'SSo yes you have to FIND that file in the first place and then delete it and make sure only Flash10e.ocx is in that same directory.Oh I'm sorry if you have folders with file extensions turned off, on your win 7/vista eye candy box, you did have dos knowledge right?
It don't have+R+A+S+H attributes I hope... blagh..secunia are WRONG when it comes to some software, for example ztree it don't need to be automatically updated.
It comes in a ZIP for the betas.
But.... While we're here, we'll use the ztree to delete the above file.
Done, Reboot, PSI scan | good.
Press the EASY BUTTONSecunia is right some of the software is a pain in the ass, and wastes productivity time, which wastes money.
Basically your security has to be as much knowledge, time and MONEY as you can AFFORD... That's the message here.
And Adobe, christ stop building your aircraft out of bricks!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31364418</id>
	<title>Main reason it isn't "unreasonable"...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267704780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More secure software exists, with fewer patches, that get installed less frequently. Apparently it's "overpriced."</p><p>Happy patching!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More secure software exists , with fewer patches , that get installed less frequently .
Apparently it 's " overpriced .
" Happy patching !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More secure software exists, with fewer patches, that get installed less frequently.
Apparently it's "overpriced.
"Happy patching!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362596</id>
	<title>Re:Seems to be automatic</title>
	<author>Facegarden</author>
	<datestamp>1267697340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Funny--my Firefox updates when I start it up, my Flash and Java and Adobe Reader update essentially on their own, and Windows updates when I shut it down...Steam updates on its own...Trillian and uTorrent give me a button to push to update them...I'm pretty much a power user, but I've never been prompted to update something that was remotely confusing.  As long as things that need updating have an easy button to push to do it for you, I'm happy--extra bonus points if there's a checkbox in the installer to choose between "update automatically" and "prompt annoyingly when an update is available"</p></div><p>Yeah, i really don't see the issue here. The article makes it seem like the act of "patching" involves *any* work at all, but I generally just need to click "ok" unless its set to automatic. I never really have to do anything. I don't see it as "the user has to patch the machine", I see it as "the machine patches itself" every few days, which doesn't sound nearly as bad.</p><p>Seems like the article is just FUD.<br>-Taylor</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny--my Firefox updates when I start it up , my Flash and Java and Adobe Reader update essentially on their own , and Windows updates when I shut it down...Steam updates on its own...Trillian and uTorrent give me a button to push to update them...I 'm pretty much a power user , but I 've never been prompted to update something that was remotely confusing .
As long as things that need updating have an easy button to push to do it for you , I 'm happy--extra bonus points if there 's a checkbox in the installer to choose between " update automatically " and " prompt annoyingly when an update is available " Yeah , i really do n't see the issue here .
The article makes it seem like the act of " patching " involves * any * work at all , but I generally just need to click " ok " unless its set to automatic .
I never really have to do anything .
I do n't see it as " the user has to patch the machine " , I see it as " the machine patches itself " every few days , which does n't sound nearly as bad.Seems like the article is just FUD.-Taylor</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny--my Firefox updates when I start it up, my Flash and Java and Adobe Reader update essentially on their own, and Windows updates when I shut it down...Steam updates on its own...Trillian and uTorrent give me a button to push to update them...I'm pretty much a power user, but I've never been prompted to update something that was remotely confusing.
As long as things that need updating have an easy button to push to do it for you, I'm happy--extra bonus points if there's a checkbox in the installer to choose between "update automatically" and "prompt annoyingly when an update is available"Yeah, i really don't see the issue here.
The article makes it seem like the act of "patching" involves *any* work at all, but I generally just need to click "ok" unless its set to automatic.
I never really have to do anything.
I don't see it as "the user has to patch the machine", I see it as "the machine patches itself" every few days, which doesn't sound nearly as bad.Seems like the article is just FUD.-Taylor
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31369396</id>
	<title>Somebody tell these "typical users"...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267792620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..that Microsoft only releases updates once a month!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..that Microsoft only releases updates once a month !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..that Microsoft only releases updates once a month!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31367466</id>
	<title>Re:why is it so unreasonable?</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1267725720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed, this article is FUD/trolling. We chew windows out for patch tueday AND that they patch alot? That's pretty stupid. And like you said, linux updates plenty. No problem with this at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed , this article is FUD/trolling .
We chew windows out for patch tueday AND that they patch alot ?
That 's pretty stupid .
And like you said , linux updates plenty .
No problem with this at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed, this article is FUD/trolling.
We chew windows out for patch tueday AND that they patch alot?
That's pretty stupid.
And like you said, linux updates plenty.
No problem with this at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362496</id>
	<title>The problem is...</title>
	<author>QRDeNameland</author>
	<datestamp>1267696980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem, in my opinion, is the fact that patches, particularly Windows Updates, have a track record of breaking things.  This leads to a conundrum...automatically update and risk mysterious breakage, or manually update and risk falling behind and being insecure.  If you want to make patching less onerous, the first step is to make it as reliable as possible, and then a larger percentage of users will trust automatic updates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem , in my opinion , is the fact that patches , particularly Windows Updates , have a track record of breaking things .
This leads to a conundrum...automatically update and risk mysterious breakage , or manually update and risk falling behind and being insecure .
If you want to make patching less onerous , the first step is to make it as reliable as possible , and then a larger percentage of users will trust automatic updates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem, in my opinion, is the fact that patches, particularly Windows Updates, have a track record of breaking things.
This leads to a conundrum...automatically update and risk mysterious breakage, or manually update and risk falling behind and being insecure.
If you want to make patching less onerous, the first step is to make it as reliable as possible, and then a larger percentage of users will trust automatic updates.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31368432</id>
	<title>OS/software patching not required weekly</title>
	<author>chentiangemalc</author>
	<datestamp>1267779960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What this report doesn't understand is good Anti-Virus products such as McAfee and Symantec are already covering known software/OS vunerabilities, before the vendors provide software/OS updates. So while there may be a lot of security updates out there, that does not mean the Windows user is vunerable just because the software is not patched.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What this report does n't understand is good Anti-Virus products such as McAfee and Symantec are already covering known software/OS vunerabilities , before the vendors provide software/OS updates .
So while there may be a lot of security updates out there , that does not mean the Windows user is vunerable just because the software is not patched .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What this report doesn't understand is good Anti-Virus products such as McAfee and Symantec are already covering known software/OS vunerabilities, before the vendors provide software/OS updates.
So while there may be a lot of security updates out there, that does not mean the Windows user is vunerable just because the software is not patched.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31365738</id>
	<title>Re:Computers exist to serve people! Not the revers</title>
	<author>Twinbee</author>
	<datestamp>1267712340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd rather those programs you listed not bother to update at all, the risk of virii is minimal. Adobe is the worst offender - always bugging me, and the updates are probably because it wants to spam you more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd rather those programs you listed not bother to update at all , the risk of virii is minimal .
Adobe is the worst offender - always bugging me , and the updates are probably because it wants to spam you more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd rather those programs you listed not bother to update at all, the risk of virii is minimal.
Adobe is the worst offender - always bugging me, and the updates are probably because it wants to spam you more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31368960</id>
	<title>Re:Seems to be automatic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267786980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...Windows updates when I shut it down...</p></div><p>You shut Windows down frequently?  I almost always have at least one thing that I want to leave open, so I hardly ever reboot or shutdown.  This is why Windows updates that require reboots are a problem; it's a pain to close everything you're working on and then reopen them later (plus the time wasted during the shutdown/startup process).  And it's really bad when Windows automatically reboots after 45 seconds or whatever without input from the user, causing work to be lost.  I at least found a registry setting or something to disable that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...Windows updates when I shut it down...You shut Windows down frequently ?
I almost always have at least one thing that I want to leave open , so I hardly ever reboot or shutdown .
This is why Windows updates that require reboots are a problem ; it 's a pain to close everything you 're working on and then reopen them later ( plus the time wasted during the shutdown/startup process ) .
And it 's really bad when Windows automatically reboots after 45 seconds or whatever without input from the user , causing work to be lost .
I at least found a registry setting or something to disable that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...Windows updates when I shut it down...You shut Windows down frequently?
I almost always have at least one thing that I want to leave open, so I hardly ever reboot or shutdown.
This is why Windows updates that require reboots are a problem; it's a pain to close everything you're working on and then reopen them later (plus the time wasted during the shutdown/startup process).
And it's really bad when Windows automatically reboots after 45 seconds or whatever without input from the user, causing work to be lost.
I at least found a registry setting or something to disable that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31364342</id>
	<title>Re:Ignorant Haters</title>
	<author>macaulay805</author>
	<datestamp>1267704480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While in the home world, it may be acceptable to just allow automatic updates.  However, in the mission critical business world, allowing automatic updates without testing the patches increases the risk of something to go wrong.</p><p>It has happened plenty of times in the past, that some vendor pushes out an automatic update, and boom!  BSOD.  I also remembering a couple of times, a bad virus def. being pushed out automatically and flaging normal system DLL files as a trojan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While in the home world , it may be acceptable to just allow automatic updates .
However , in the mission critical business world , allowing automatic updates without testing the patches increases the risk of something to go wrong.It has happened plenty of times in the past , that some vendor pushes out an automatic update , and boom !
BSOD. I also remembering a couple of times , a bad virus def .
being pushed out automatically and flaging normal system DLL files as a trojan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While in the home world, it may be acceptable to just allow automatic updates.
However, in the mission critical business world, allowing automatic updates without testing the patches increases the risk of something to go wrong.It has happened plenty of times in the past, that some vendor pushes out an automatic update, and boom!
BSOD.  I also remembering a couple of times, a bad virus def.
being pushed out automatically and flaging normal system DLL files as a trojan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31371808</id>
	<title>Users can't have it both ways</title>
	<author>Skuld-Chan</author>
	<datestamp>1267808400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've done tier 3 support at companies like Microsoft - people complain constantly that we never fixed anything quickly right, so management took that as meaning we needed to release more patches and speed up the quality assurance process by adding more people.</p><p>Then when started releasing patches every quarter we got nothing but complaints we were releasing too many fixes. Argh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've done tier 3 support at companies like Microsoft - people complain constantly that we never fixed anything quickly right , so management took that as meaning we needed to release more patches and speed up the quality assurance process by adding more people.Then when started releasing patches every quarter we got nothing but complaints we were releasing too many fixes .
Argh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've done tier 3 support at companies like Microsoft - people complain constantly that we never fixed anything quickly right, so management took that as meaning we needed to release more patches and speed up the quality assurance process by adding more people.Then when started releasing patches every quarter we got nothing but complaints we were releasing too many fixes.
Argh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363094</id>
	<title>Re:sucks to be support</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267699020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like I always say, Windows is cheap if your time is worth nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like I always say , Windows is cheap if your time is worth nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like I always say, Windows is cheap if your time is worth nothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31365896</id>
	<title>Re:why is it so unreasonable?</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1267713840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like you should set it to "Automatic".</p><p>Welcome to year 2000 technology man, you're at least a decade behind the curve!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like you should set it to " Automatic " .Welcome to year 2000 technology man , you 're at least a decade behind the curve !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like you should set it to "Automatic".Welcome to year 2000 technology man, you're at least a decade behind the curve!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31369948</id>
	<title>Please can we get a MOD TROLL or FUD for articles?</title>
	<author>kenp2002</author>
	<datestamp>1267798380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I run Gentoo, Ubuntu, and most MS products. I patch every fucking day with Linux. First they don't patch enough, then they patch too much, then the patches are too<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... Jebus Trucking Rice -1 MOD TROLL and another -1 MOD FUD for this article. Too many fanboy editors with an agenda it seems...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I run Gentoo , Ubuntu , and most MS products .
I patch every fucking day with Linux .
First they do n't patch enough , then they patch too much , then the patches are too .... Jebus Trucking Rice -1 MOD TROLL and another -1 MOD FUD for this article .
Too many fanboy editors with an agenda it seems.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run Gentoo, Ubuntu, and most MS products.
I patch every fucking day with Linux.
First they don't patch enough, then they patch too much, then the patches are too .... Jebus Trucking Rice -1 MOD TROLL and another -1 MOD FUD for this article.
Too many fanboy editors with an agenda it seems...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362408</id>
	<title>But if they just buy our software</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267696440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We can manage all those patches for them!</p><p>Seriously, that is what this looks like to me. It is a load of bullshit over all. Reason being that few things actually need patches for security reasons. The OS, virus scanner, browser, browser plugins and so on sure. However a videogame? No probably not. Well guess what? Turns out most of the stuff that needs patching, patches itself. Windows downloads patches and applies them in the middle of the night. Firefox grabs new versions when you surf, and installs next time it starts up. Virus scanners update silently in the background all the time.</p><p>If people actually had to spend time managing patches on all their apps, sure ti might be a problem. However for the most part that isn't the case. In the default config most important apps update themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We can manage all those patches for them ! Seriously , that is what this looks like to me .
It is a load of bullshit over all .
Reason being that few things actually need patches for security reasons .
The OS , virus scanner , browser , browser plugins and so on sure .
However a videogame ?
No probably not .
Well guess what ?
Turns out most of the stuff that needs patching , patches itself .
Windows downloads patches and applies them in the middle of the night .
Firefox grabs new versions when you surf , and installs next time it starts up .
Virus scanners update silently in the background all the time.If people actually had to spend time managing patches on all their apps , sure ti might be a problem .
However for the most part that is n't the case .
In the default config most important apps update themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can manage all those patches for them!Seriously, that is what this looks like to me.
It is a load of bullshit over all.
Reason being that few things actually need patches for security reasons.
The OS, virus scanner, browser, browser plugins and so on sure.
However a videogame?
No probably not.
Well guess what?
Turns out most of the stuff that needs patching, patches itself.
Windows downloads patches and applies them in the middle of the night.
Firefox grabs new versions when you surf, and installs next time it starts up.
Virus scanners update silently in the background all the time.If people actually had to spend time managing patches on all their apps, sure ti might be a problem.
However for the most part that isn't the case.
In the default config most important apps update themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363738</id>
	<title>Patching Is Still A Problem?</title>
	<author>D Ninja</author>
	<datestamp>1267701840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know.  I haven't had a problem with patching in a looooong time.  I just turn on automatic patches and I never see a thing.  My virus scanner updates, Windows 7 updates, and a few of the applications that I use do autoupdates as well.  I think Secunia is probably just trying to sell something.  You know, like it's Personal Software Inspector...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know .
I have n't had a problem with patching in a looooong time .
I just turn on automatic patches and I never see a thing .
My virus scanner updates , Windows 7 updates , and a few of the applications that I use do autoupdates as well .
I think Secunia is probably just trying to sell something .
You know , like it 's Personal Software Inspector.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know.
I haven't had a problem with patching in a looooong time.
I just turn on automatic patches and I never see a thing.
My virus scanner updates, Windows 7 updates, and a few of the applications that I use do autoupdates as well.
I think Secunia is probably just trying to sell something.
You know, like it's Personal Software Inspector...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31377084</id>
	<title>Simple solution</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1267793160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Run a better OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Run a better OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Run a better OS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363032</id>
	<title>Re:Seems about right</title>
	<author>Compaqt</author>
	<datestamp>1267698780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is Windoze any different in this respect than most Linux distributions?</p><p>Ubuntu wants you to update with a trivial security fix, it seems, every day or so. And that's hundreds of megabytes of changes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is Windoze any different in this respect than most Linux distributions ? Ubuntu wants you to update with a trivial security fix , it seems , every day or so .
And that 's hundreds of megabytes of changes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is Windoze any different in this respect than most Linux distributions?Ubuntu wants you to update with a trivial security fix, it seems, every day or so.
And that's hundreds of megabytes of changes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363754</id>
	<title>The Linux Model</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267701960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I use Linux and Windows but one thing stands out for me and that is the Linux update/patch/bugfix model is far easier for the lay user. What Windows needs desperately is a repository system in the vein of Linux distro's Like Ubuntu, Red Hat etc that checks for updates at regular intervals. Yes some windows programs already do this but why have 20 different programs running an update manager in the background when one would do the job. Im not saying Microsoft should manage the repository, each software maker could have their own and just inform the repo manager were to get updates during the install process for that particular program.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Linux and Windows but one thing stands out for me and that is the Linux update/patch/bugfix model is far easier for the lay user .
What Windows needs desperately is a repository system in the vein of Linux distro 's Like Ubuntu , Red Hat etc that checks for updates at regular intervals .
Yes some windows programs already do this but why have 20 different programs running an update manager in the background when one would do the job .
Im not saying Microsoft should manage the repository , each software maker could have their own and just inform the repo manager were to get updates during the install process for that particular program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use Linux and Windows but one thing stands out for me and that is the Linux update/patch/bugfix model is far easier for the lay user.
What Windows needs desperately is a repository system in the vein of Linux distro's Like Ubuntu, Red Hat etc that checks for updates at regular intervals.
Yes some windows programs already do this but why have 20 different programs running an update manager in the background when one would do the job.
Im not saying Microsoft should manage the repository, each software maker could have their own and just inform the repo manager were to get updates during the install process for that particular program.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363308</id>
	<title>Re:Seems to be automatic</title>
	<author>Beelzebud</author>
	<datestamp>1267699800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you need to think about this for more than two seconds.   You're basically asking MS to review, and approve of, any 3rd party application update.  That's the only way they could implement a system like that, and no one in their right mind should want that...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you need to think about this for more than two seconds .
You 're basically asking MS to review , and approve of , any 3rd party application update .
That 's the only way they could implement a system like that , and no one in their right mind should want that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you need to think about this for more than two seconds.
You're basically asking MS to review, and approve of, any 3rd party application update.
That's the only way they could implement a system like that, and no one in their right mind should want that...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362812</id>
	<title>Re:Unreasonable?</title>
	<author>Volante3192</author>
	<datestamp>1267698060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't know you could add Adobe and Blackberry updates to WSUS, incredible!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't know you could add Adobe and Blackberry updates to WSUS , incredible !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't know you could add Adobe and Blackberry updates to WSUS, incredible!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362396</id>
	<title>Ignorant Haters</title>
	<author>Chicken04GTO</author>
	<datestamp>1267696380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah its real hard.  You do....nothing.  (Automatic settings).
If you want more control, you can change the settings.
More windows-hate circle jerking.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah its real hard .
You do....nothing .
( Automatic settings ) .
If you want more control , you can change the settings .
More windows-hate circle jerking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah its real hard.
You do....nothing.
(Automatic settings).
If you want more control, you can change the settings.
More windows-hate circle jerking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363730</id>
	<title>Re:sucks to be support</title>
	<author>Quantumstate</author>
	<datestamp>1267701780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Ubuntu they happen in the background while I'm working.  I think this is the ideal situation for me.  I have never noticed any significant slowdown.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Ubuntu they happen in the background while I 'm working .
I think this is the ideal situation for me .
I have never noticed any significant slowdown .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Ubuntu they happen in the background while I'm working.
I think this is the ideal situation for me.
I have never noticed any significant slowdown.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362644</id>
	<title>Re:Couldn't be more correct!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267697580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I literally couldn't or didn't believe it, but then I actually was there one day and watched as all the mostly default installed apps when through their motions of requesting updates. It literally took about half an hour before to computer was usable without something prompting "Do you want to install this update..."!</p><p>&gt;</p> </div><p>I can't believe it either because it's fucking bullshit. Get rid of her PII, sign her up for high speed internet, and remove the 100 spywares on her computer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I literally could n't or did n't believe it , but then I actually was there one day and watched as all the mostly default installed apps when through their motions of requesting updates .
It literally took about half an hour before to computer was usable without something prompting " Do you want to install this update... " ! &gt; I ca n't believe it either because it 's fucking bullshit .
Get rid of her PII , sign her up for high speed internet , and remove the 100 spywares on her computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I literally couldn't or didn't believe it, but then I actually was there one day and watched as all the mostly default installed apps when through their motions of requesting updates.
It literally took about half an hour before to computer was usable without something prompting "Do you want to install this update..."!&gt; I can't believe it either because it's fucking bullshit.
Get rid of her PII, sign her up for high speed internet, and remove the 100 spywares on her computer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31367498</id>
	<title>*This* makes a news "story"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267725960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm pretty new here, and the first thing I noticed about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is that most commenters will take any and every opportunity they can to say something - <i>anything</i> - in criticism of Microsoft, even if it's the most nit-picky little thing, even if it's completely irrelevant, redundant, unjustified, exaggerated, or unnecessary, or even completely false, just because Microsoft is "uncool". Or maybe they just want to be seen by other<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers, I don't know. Whatever the reason, people just love giving Microsoft shit over the tiniest things. It's stupid and lame, and this "story" is exactly that.<br> <br>

I know, I know. Welcome to Slashdot.<br> <br>

But just in case nobody noticed, Ubuntu asks to install updates <i>far</i> more often than Windows does. Its updates are also alot bigger. I have a Linux machine that I use almost every day, but I also I have an Ubuntu VM, and quite often if I don't use it for a week, it will pester me to download fricken like 70 updates totalling like 660MB. Hang on, <i>what?</i> That's almost as big as the entire distribution!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty new here , and the first thing I noticed about / .
is that most commenters will take any and every opportunity they can to say something - anything - in criticism of Microsoft , even if it 's the most nit-picky little thing , even if it 's completely irrelevant , redundant , unjustified , exaggerated , or unnecessary , or even completely false , just because Microsoft is " uncool " .
Or maybe they just want to be seen by other /.ers , I do n't know .
Whatever the reason , people just love giving Microsoft shit over the tiniest things .
It 's stupid and lame , and this " story " is exactly that .
I know , I know .
Welcome to Slashdot .
But just in case nobody noticed , Ubuntu asks to install updates far more often than Windows does .
Its updates are also alot bigger .
I have a Linux machine that I use almost every day , but I also I have an Ubuntu VM , and quite often if I do n't use it for a week , it will pester me to download fricken like 70 updates totalling like 660MB .
Hang on , what ?
That 's almost as big as the entire distribution !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty new here, and the first thing I noticed about /.
is that most commenters will take any and every opportunity they can to say something - anything - in criticism of Microsoft, even if it's the most nit-picky little thing, even if it's completely irrelevant, redundant, unjustified, exaggerated, or unnecessary, or even completely false, just because Microsoft is "uncool".
Or maybe they just want to be seen by other /.ers, I don't know.
Whatever the reason, people just love giving Microsoft shit over the tiniest things.
It's stupid and lame, and this "story" is exactly that.
I know, I know.
Welcome to Slashdot.
But just in case nobody noticed, Ubuntu asks to install updates far more often than Windows does.
Its updates are also alot bigger.
I have a Linux machine that I use almost every day, but I also I have an Ubuntu VM, and quite often if I don't use it for a week, it will pester me to download fricken like 70 updates totalling like 660MB.
Hang on, what?
That's almost as big as the entire distribution!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362494</id>
	<title>Re:sucks to be support</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267696920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My experience with Windows patches is that they download and install in the background after i log on, and then 5 min or so into my session i get a balloon saying either "Updates Completed!" or "Updates Completed, please restart." If it's the latter, I can decide whether I want to restart right away or when I'm done with the computer.</p><p>I've never been prevented from working while patches download.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My experience with Windows patches is that they download and install in the background after i log on , and then 5 min or so into my session i get a balloon saying either " Updates Completed !
" or " Updates Completed , please restart .
" If it 's the latter , I can decide whether I want to restart right away or when I 'm done with the computer.I 've never been prevented from working while patches download .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My experience with Windows patches is that they download and install in the background after i log on, and then 5 min or so into my session i get a balloon saying either "Updates Completed!
" or "Updates Completed, please restart.
" If it's the latter, I can decide whether I want to restart right away or when I'm done with the computer.I've never been prevented from working while patches download.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362372</id>
	<title>sucks to be support</title>
	<author>yagu</author>
	<datestamp>1267696260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm the guy in our household responsible for applying our patches, being an IT professional and all.
<p>
Since we have a "few" computers all around the house, it's pretty much every time I sit down to one I have to apply patches, and usually a reboot to boot.  Sometimes, it's a rarely used computer that I grab (laptop) just to get a few quick things done, and it requires multiple iterations of patches and reboots.  Sigh.
</p><p>
I find it exasperating that my experience is almost always, "apply these patches", and then you can do some work with Windows.  The good news (for me), I'm finally migrating EVERYTHING (as in replacing with) Macs and Linux.  Time and money, that's all it takes.
</p><p>
Interestingly the other day... I got in and was productive immediately on a Windows laptop.  Wow!  C'est vrai?  And when I went to shut it down?  "Please do not power down your computer.  Windows is installing (3 of 10...) updates..."  WTH?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm the guy in our household responsible for applying our patches , being an IT professional and all .
Since we have a " few " computers all around the house , it 's pretty much every time I sit down to one I have to apply patches , and usually a reboot to boot .
Sometimes , it 's a rarely used computer that I grab ( laptop ) just to get a few quick things done , and it requires multiple iterations of patches and reboots .
Sigh . I find it exasperating that my experience is almost always , " apply these patches " , and then you can do some work with Windows .
The good news ( for me ) , I 'm finally migrating EVERYTHING ( as in replacing with ) Macs and Linux .
Time and money , that 's all it takes .
Interestingly the other day... I got in and was productive immediately on a Windows laptop .
Wow ! C'est vrai ?
And when I went to shut it down ?
" Please do not power down your computer .
Windows is installing ( 3 of 10... ) updates... " WTH ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm the guy in our household responsible for applying our patches, being an IT professional and all.
Since we have a "few" computers all around the house, it's pretty much every time I sit down to one I have to apply patches, and usually a reboot to boot.
Sometimes, it's a rarely used computer that I grab (laptop) just to get a few quick things done, and it requires multiple iterations of patches and reboots.
Sigh.

I find it exasperating that my experience is almost always, "apply these patches", and then you can do some work with Windows.
The good news (for me), I'm finally migrating EVERYTHING (as in replacing with) Macs and Linux.
Time and money, that's all it takes.
Interestingly the other day... I got in and was productive immediately on a Windows laptop.
Wow!  C'est vrai?
And when I went to shut it down?
"Please do not power down your computer.
Windows is installing (3 of 10...) updates..."  WTH?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363392</id>
	<title>Do what you want, just spare my context switching.</title>
	<author>nozendo</author>
	<datestamp>1267700100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Context theft is the one thing that annoys me the most about all of this business. I don't care if my machine has thirty different update mechanisms churning away in the background on startup, just leave me out of it unless the box is about to catch fire, explode and maim me.</p><p>I've configure my machine as far as practical to have nothing that suddenly demands attention (it's used for graphics and illustration work, context theft can completely screw your flow, as per programming and etc), anything that insists on having popups or info balloons has its updates disabled or is replaced.</p><p>I'm hoping Windows 7's driver update approach indicates Microsoft is moving towards allowing vendors to use the windows update mechanisms for their applications - I seem to remember for major hardware vendors they contact their site directly and install drivers and utilities, I'd love to see this approach spread to the application space, providing they can manage the liabilities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Context theft is the one thing that annoys me the most about all of this business .
I do n't care if my machine has thirty different update mechanisms churning away in the background on startup , just leave me out of it unless the box is about to catch fire , explode and maim me.I 've configure my machine as far as practical to have nothing that suddenly demands attention ( it 's used for graphics and illustration work , context theft can completely screw your flow , as per programming and etc ) , anything that insists on having popups or info balloons has its updates disabled or is replaced.I 'm hoping Windows 7 's driver update approach indicates Microsoft is moving towards allowing vendors to use the windows update mechanisms for their applications - I seem to remember for major hardware vendors they contact their site directly and install drivers and utilities , I 'd love to see this approach spread to the application space , providing they can manage the liabilities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Context theft is the one thing that annoys me the most about all of this business.
I don't care if my machine has thirty different update mechanisms churning away in the background on startup, just leave me out of it unless the box is about to catch fire, explode and maim me.I've configure my machine as far as practical to have nothing that suddenly demands attention (it's used for graphics and illustration work, context theft can completely screw your flow, as per programming and etc), anything that insists on having popups or info balloons has its updates disabled or is replaced.I'm hoping Windows 7's driver update approach indicates Microsoft is moving towards allowing vendors to use the windows update mechanisms for their applications - I seem to remember for major hardware vendors they contact their site directly and install drivers and utilities, I'd love to see this approach spread to the application space, providing they can manage the liabilities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362874</id>
	<title>running windows "commando"</title>
	<author>edxwelch</author>
	<datestamp>1267698240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A friend of mine, runs his PC "commando": no virus software, no firewall, no patches, nothing. He's non-technical and assumes he is going to get a virus no matter what he does and it's just a waste of time pricking around with all that stuff, so he just reinstalls Windows about once every two months when it starts running slow from the viruses. Well, it's a daring tactic, but it seems to work for him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A friend of mine , runs his PC " commando " : no virus software , no firewall , no patches , nothing .
He 's non-technical and assumes he is going to get a virus no matter what he does and it 's just a waste of time pricking around with all that stuff , so he just reinstalls Windows about once every two months when it starts running slow from the viruses .
Well , it 's a daring tactic , but it seems to work for him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A friend of mine, runs his PC "commando": no virus software, no firewall, no patches, nothing.
He's non-technical and assumes he is going to get a virus no matter what he does and it's just a waste of time pricking around with all that stuff, so he just reinstalls Windows about once every two months when it starts running slow from the viruses.
Well, it's a daring tactic, but it seems to work for him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362416</id>
	<title>Unreasonable?</title>
	<author>COMON$</author>
	<datestamp>1267696500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ya it is completely unreasonable for a home user to check the "Automatic update button"  Wait...that is the default option.  Even in my Enterprise organization it isnt exactly a pain to setup a WSUS server...<p>This just sounds like someone trying to stir up trouble to get attention.  Patching is part of life.  It is not a pain, it is about as easy of a task as you can have, most home users don't even know they do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya it is completely unreasonable for a home user to check the " Automatic update button " Wait...that is the default option .
Even in my Enterprise organization it isnt exactly a pain to setup a WSUS server...This just sounds like someone trying to stir up trouble to get attention .
Patching is part of life .
It is not a pain , it is about as easy of a task as you can have , most home users do n't even know they do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ya it is completely unreasonable for a home user to check the "Automatic update button"  Wait...that is the default option.
Even in my Enterprise organization it isnt exactly a pain to setup a WSUS server...This just sounds like someone trying to stir up trouble to get attention.
Patching is part of life.
It is not a pain, it is about as easy of a task as you can have, most home users don't even know they do it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363136</id>
	<title>Re:But if they just buy our software</title>
	<author>rHBa</author>
	<datestamp>1267699140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Windows downloads patches and applies them in the middle of the night</p></div><p>
That's assuming you leave your computer switched on over night, most 'average users' I deal with switch their PC off when they're not using it so they have to deal with patching during the day when they're trying to work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows downloads patches and applies them in the middle of the night That 's assuming you leave your computer switched on over night , most 'average users ' I deal with switch their PC off when they 're not using it so they have to deal with patching during the day when they 're trying to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows downloads patches and applies them in the middle of the night
That's assuming you leave your computer switched on over night, most 'average users' I deal with switch their PC off when they're not using it so they have to deal with patching during the day when they're trying to work.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31365512</id>
	<title>We complain when they update...</title>
	<author>zullnero</author>
	<datestamp>1267710660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We complain when they don't update.
<br> <br>
Personally, I have no problem with updates.  I think any modern computer user should make themselves feel the same way.  Let's face it, this stuff we use is complex.  REALLY complex.  Things need to be updated and improved, the lifecycle of software is moving in that direction.  While the nuisance aspects of pop-up dialogs telling you you've updated could really be pared down to a minimum, this is just how it is.
<br> <br>
What you SHOULD get furious about is if there's a security hole that puts your system at risk, but the vendor of the OS doesn't bother patching it OR even tries to talk their way out of fixing it.  Yes, that includes Apple.  That includes Linux, as well.  The only difference between Linux and the rest is that there'll be a semi-public debate as to whether or not to fix it, and a corporate shill coming out and calling that flaw a feature or completely ignoring it until they can't hold out any longer.  But it doesn't matter...whether it's Linux, Apple, or Microsoft, you got to get used to the notion that this stuff needs to be patched and you just have to cope with that.  It'd be nice if the vendors didn't feel the need to pound their chests loudly with "new release" announcements, pop-up dialogs, and other nonsense when they fixed a bug in their own software, but developers are people too, and they like the feeling of accomplishment that goes into fixing something; they just want the users to know how proud they are of fixing that software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We complain when they do n't update .
Personally , I have no problem with updates .
I think any modern computer user should make themselves feel the same way .
Let 's face it , this stuff we use is complex .
REALLY complex .
Things need to be updated and improved , the lifecycle of software is moving in that direction .
While the nuisance aspects of pop-up dialogs telling you you 've updated could really be pared down to a minimum , this is just how it is .
What you SHOULD get furious about is if there 's a security hole that puts your system at risk , but the vendor of the OS does n't bother patching it OR even tries to talk their way out of fixing it .
Yes , that includes Apple .
That includes Linux , as well .
The only difference between Linux and the rest is that there 'll be a semi-public debate as to whether or not to fix it , and a corporate shill coming out and calling that flaw a feature or completely ignoring it until they ca n't hold out any longer .
But it does n't matter...whether it 's Linux , Apple , or Microsoft , you got to get used to the notion that this stuff needs to be patched and you just have to cope with that .
It 'd be nice if the vendors did n't feel the need to pound their chests loudly with " new release " announcements , pop-up dialogs , and other nonsense when they fixed a bug in their own software , but developers are people too , and they like the feeling of accomplishment that goes into fixing something ; they just want the users to know how proud they are of fixing that software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We complain when they don't update.
Personally, I have no problem with updates.
I think any modern computer user should make themselves feel the same way.
Let's face it, this stuff we use is complex.
REALLY complex.
Things need to be updated and improved, the lifecycle of software is moving in that direction.
While the nuisance aspects of pop-up dialogs telling you you've updated could really be pared down to a minimum, this is just how it is.
What you SHOULD get furious about is if there's a security hole that puts your system at risk, but the vendor of the OS doesn't bother patching it OR even tries to talk their way out of fixing it.
Yes, that includes Apple.
That includes Linux, as well.
The only difference between Linux and the rest is that there'll be a semi-public debate as to whether or not to fix it, and a corporate shill coming out and calling that flaw a feature or completely ignoring it until they can't hold out any longer.
But it doesn't matter...whether it's Linux, Apple, or Microsoft, you got to get used to the notion that this stuff needs to be patched and you just have to cope with that.
It'd be nice if the vendors didn't feel the need to pound their chests loudly with "new release" announcements, pop-up dialogs, and other nonsense when they fixed a bug in their own software, but developers are people too, and they like the feeling of accomplishment that goes into fixing something; they just want the users to know how proud they are of fixing that software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363796</id>
	<title>somebody must be patching every 15 minutes</title>
	<author>lee n. field</author>
	<datestamp>1267702140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To make the average work outsomeone must be running updates every 15 minutes, because I see a <i>lot</i> of people grossly out of date. XP SP2 and IE6 are not uncommon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To make the average work outsomeone must be running updates every 15 minutes , because I see a lot of people grossly out of date .
XP SP2 and IE6 are not uncommon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To make the average work outsomeone must be running updates every 15 minutes, because I see a lot of people grossly out of date.
XP SP2 and IE6 are not uncommon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362672</id>
	<title>Level of Expectation</title>
	<author>gpronger</author>
	<datestamp>1267697700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>For those involved in technology, one of our flaws is the level of expectation we have for the average citizen to be able to cope with. I recall a security expert stating that the average person should be able to memorize a ridiculously large number of random passwords. I developed a strong understanding of controlling memory allocation (back in the early '90's) on PC's, not for some esoteric application, but to get the games my preschoolers were playing to work. <br> <br>
It led me to the perspective, that all things being equal, it is fairly easy to argue, that for the home computer market, the "good-guy" lost (as in Apple vs DOS and Windows PCs) simply because Apple did not expect the level of user expertize and intervention to get the things to work.<br> <br>
So, with this situation, though the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. crowd will not be having issues with this aspect of maintaining your PC, it's a lot to ask someone with less expertise. If you consider this perspective, it may be more understandable how and why there are so many PC's doing double-duty as part of "Bot-Nets".</htmltext>
<tokenext>For those involved in technology , one of our flaws is the level of expectation we have for the average citizen to be able to cope with .
I recall a security expert stating that the average person should be able to memorize a ridiculously large number of random passwords .
I developed a strong understanding of controlling memory allocation ( back in the early '90 's ) on PC 's , not for some esoteric application , but to get the games my preschoolers were playing to work .
It led me to the perspective , that all things being equal , it is fairly easy to argue , that for the home computer market , the " good-guy " lost ( as in Apple vs DOS and Windows PCs ) simply because Apple did not expect the level of user expertize and intervention to get the things to work .
So , with this situation , though the / .
crowd will not be having issues with this aspect of maintaining your PC , it 's a lot to ask someone with less expertise .
If you consider this perspective , it may be more understandable how and why there are so many PC 's doing double-duty as part of " Bot-Nets " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those involved in technology, one of our flaws is the level of expectation we have for the average citizen to be able to cope with.
I recall a security expert stating that the average person should be able to memorize a ridiculously large number of random passwords.
I developed a strong understanding of controlling memory allocation (back in the early '90's) on PC's, not for some esoteric application, but to get the games my preschoolers were playing to work.
It led me to the perspective, that all things being equal, it is fairly easy to argue, that for the home computer market, the "good-guy" lost (as in Apple vs DOS and Windows PCs) simply because Apple did not expect the level of user expertize and intervention to get the things to work.
So, with this situation, though the /.
crowd will not be having issues with this aspect of maintaining your PC, it's a lot to ask someone with less expertise.
If you consider this perspective, it may be more understandable how and why there are so many PC's doing double-duty as part of "Bot-Nets".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362704</id>
	<title>Re:Seems to be automatic</title>
	<author>HockeyPuck</author>
	<datestamp>1267697760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>my Firefox updates when I start it up, my Flash and Java and Adobe Reader update essentially on their own, and Windows updates when I shut it down...Steam updates on its own...Trillian and uTorrent give me a button to push to update them</p></div><p>So that's 8 'auto-updaters' on your machine.  How many resident update/callhome processes would you want to have your average user running?  10? 12? 20? Atleast you use Trillian, some people use both AOL/yahoo/skype IM clients...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>my Firefox updates when I start it up , my Flash and Java and Adobe Reader update essentially on their own , and Windows updates when I shut it down...Steam updates on its own...Trillian and uTorrent give me a button to push to update themSo that 's 8 'auto-updaters ' on your machine .
How many resident update/callhome processes would you want to have your average user running ?
10 ? 12 ?
20 ? Atleast you use Trillian , some people use both AOL/yahoo/skype IM clients.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my Firefox updates when I start it up, my Flash and Java and Adobe Reader update essentially on their own, and Windows updates when I shut it down...Steam updates on its own...Trillian and uTorrent give me a button to push to update themSo that's 8 'auto-updaters' on your machine.
How many resident update/callhome processes would you want to have your average user running?
10? 12?
20? Atleast you use Trillian, some people use both AOL/yahoo/skype IM clients...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362450</id>
	<title>Couldn't be more correct!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267696740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last year I bought for my mother a new computer, she is quite computer literate but I was shocked to find 3 months after purchasing that she has gotten into the habit of turning it on once a week just to give it an hour to "update itself". That was to allow her to spend 30mins every other week doing her online stuff..</p><p>I literally couldn't or didn't believe it, but then I actually was there one day and watched as all the mostly default installed apps when through their motions of requesting updates. It literally took about half an hour before to computer was usable without something prompting "Do you want to install this update..."!</p><p>In the end I removed some of the crap like Java and the HP printer updater, and told her to turn it on only ever other week for the updates!</p><p>Definitely there is some need to consolidate updates into one program..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last year I bought for my mother a new computer , she is quite computer literate but I was shocked to find 3 months after purchasing that she has gotten into the habit of turning it on once a week just to give it an hour to " update itself " .
That was to allow her to spend 30mins every other week doing her online stuff..I literally could n't or did n't believe it , but then I actually was there one day and watched as all the mostly default installed apps when through their motions of requesting updates .
It literally took about half an hour before to computer was usable without something prompting " Do you want to install this update... " ! In the end I removed some of the crap like Java and the HP printer updater , and told her to turn it on only ever other week for the updates ! Definitely there is some need to consolidate updates into one program. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last year I bought for my mother a new computer, she is quite computer literate but I was shocked to find 3 months after purchasing that she has gotten into the habit of turning it on once a week just to give it an hour to "update itself".
That was to allow her to spend 30mins every other week doing her online stuff..I literally couldn't or didn't believe it, but then I actually was there one day and watched as all the mostly default installed apps when through their motions of requesting updates.
It literally took about half an hour before to computer was usable without something prompting "Do you want to install this update..."!In the end I removed some of the crap like Java and the HP printer updater, and told her to turn it on only ever other week for the updates!Definitely there is some need to consolidate updates into one program..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31365442</id>
	<title>Don't patch automatically</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1267710240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Automated patches have broken vital functionality for me once too often and I simply don't have time to patch every time I sit at a computer. One of the first things I do is turn off automated patching on any software I install. I apply the patches I choose when I choose. I'm sure some of you will be horrified but for me the computer is sometimes a tool and sometimes a plaything. When it's a tool I'm very pragmatic about how I do things. As for security vulnerabilities etc so many remain unpatched for so long that I find the idea of dropping everything I'm doing to get the latest patches idiotic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Automated patches have broken vital functionality for me once too often and I simply do n't have time to patch every time I sit at a computer .
One of the first things I do is turn off automated patching on any software I install .
I apply the patches I choose when I choose .
I 'm sure some of you will be horrified but for me the computer is sometimes a tool and sometimes a plaything .
When it 's a tool I 'm very pragmatic about how I do things .
As for security vulnerabilities etc so many remain unpatched for so long that I find the idea of dropping everything I 'm doing to get the latest patches idiotic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Automated patches have broken vital functionality for me once too often and I simply don't have time to patch every time I sit at a computer.
One of the first things I do is turn off automated patching on any software I install.
I apply the patches I choose when I choose.
I'm sure some of you will be horrified but for me the computer is sometimes a tool and sometimes a plaything.
When it's a tool I'm very pragmatic about how I do things.
As for security vulnerabilities etc so many remain unpatched for so long that I find the idea of dropping everything I'm doing to get the latest patches idiotic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363112</id>
	<title>FUDSTER</title>
	<author>frist</author>
	<datestamp>1267699080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe if the OP would run windows update, and set it to autoupdate, he'd never have to patch. I know I don't ever patch explicitly, and my OS and windows apps are always up to date...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe if the OP would run windows update , and set it to autoupdate , he 'd never have to patch .
I know I do n't ever patch explicitly , and my OS and windows apps are always up to date.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe if the OP would run windows update, and set it to autoupdate, he'd never have to patch.
I know I don't ever patch explicitly, and my OS and windows apps are always up to date...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31365002</id>
	<title>The problem with automatic updates</title>
	<author>Clifton Beach</author>
	<datestamp>1267707480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Programs like Foxit Reader and Adobe try to install toolbars, put shortcuts where you don't want them and links to third party web sites on your desktop, etc. Each time you run the update you have to manually uncheck all those options which are checked by default.

Another problem is that the programs that do update themselves do so by each running their check on Windows startup or own service ALL THE TIME.
A far better solution would be for Windows update to allow other programs to register for update checks that can then be handled by a single service.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Programs like Foxit Reader and Adobe try to install toolbars , put shortcuts where you do n't want them and links to third party web sites on your desktop , etc .
Each time you run the update you have to manually uncheck all those options which are checked by default .
Another problem is that the programs that do update themselves do so by each running their check on Windows startup or own service ALL THE TIME .
A far better solution would be for Windows update to allow other programs to register for update checks that can then be handled by a single service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Programs like Foxit Reader and Adobe try to install toolbars, put shortcuts where you don't want them and links to third party web sites on your desktop, etc.
Each time you run the update you have to manually uncheck all those options which are checked by default.
Another problem is that the programs that do update themselves do so by each running their check on Windows startup or own service ALL THE TIME.
A far better solution would be for Windows update to allow other programs to register for update checks that can then be handled by a single service.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362718</id>
	<title>But most are WoW Addon patches!</title>
	<author>jayveekay</author>
	<datestamp>1267697760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>World of Warcraft Addons get updated at an insane rate, almost as insane as the rate at which a new WoW update patch breaks many of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>World of Warcraft Addons get updated at an insane rate , almost as insane as the rate at which a new WoW update patch breaks many of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>World of Warcraft Addons get updated at an insane rate, almost as insane as the rate at which a new WoW update patch breaks many of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31368134</id>
	<title>How is this newsworthy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267819380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh noes! My computer takes a little while longer to shut down because it's applying updates! Oh no!</p><p>It seems that Slashdot really loves to lay it on Microsoft at every chance they get.</p><p>Oh who am I kidding, this is pretty much the norm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh noes !
My computer takes a little while longer to shut down because it 's applying updates !
Oh no ! It seems that Slashdot really loves to lay it on Microsoft at every chance they get.Oh who am I kidding , this is pretty much the norm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh noes!
My computer takes a little while longer to shut down because it's applying updates!
Oh no!It seems that Slashdot really loves to lay it on Microsoft at every chance they get.Oh who am I kidding, this is pretty much the norm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31365502</id>
	<title>Patches that show an improvement?</title>
	<author>esmrg</author>
	<datestamp>1267710600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>181 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 6 not upgraded.<br>
Need to get 275MB of archives.<br>
After this operation, 8,425kB disk space will be freed.</tt> <br> <br>

Such a beautiful thing. Show me a Windows system that can do that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>181 upgraded , 0 newly installed , 0 to remove and 6 not upgraded .
Need to get 275MB of archives .
After this operation , 8,425kB disk space will be freed .
Such a beautiful thing .
Show me a Windows system that can do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>181 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 6 not upgraded.
Need to get 275MB of archives.
After this operation, 8,425kB disk space will be freed.
Such a beautiful thing.
Show me a Windows system that can do that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363712</id>
	<title>Re:Seems to be automatic</title>
	<author>xactuary</author>
	<datestamp>1267701720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That trojan you don't know you're running also has an automatic update feature.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That trojan you do n't know you 're running also has an automatic update feature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That trojan you don't know you're running also has an automatic update feature.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362912</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>The MAZZTer</author>
	<datestamp>1267698360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>apt-get update</p><p>apt-get upgrade</p><p>Done!</p><p>With Windows I have to keep feeds in Google Reader for apps that don't automatically update so I can go to their individual sites, download the newest installers, run them, change the install paths since they were poorly coded and forgot it, do the same with the start menu shortcuts path, uncheck the options to install spyware, toolbars, and change my search page, and finally I can let it do its thing, but I have to go back to close it later.  Then for installers that don't let me change the start menu path I have to go in and clean up after them.</p><p>Thankfully more apps have automatic update now, so the process is automated, but even some of those leave messes in my start menu.  Bad!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>apt-get updateapt-get upgradeDone ! With Windows I have to keep feeds in Google Reader for apps that do n't automatically update so I can go to their individual sites , download the newest installers , run them , change the install paths since they were poorly coded and forgot it , do the same with the start menu shortcuts path , uncheck the options to install spyware , toolbars , and change my search page , and finally I can let it do its thing , but I have to go back to close it later .
Then for installers that do n't let me change the start menu path I have to go in and clean up after them.Thankfully more apps have automatic update now , so the process is automated , but even some of those leave messes in my start menu .
Bad !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>apt-get updateapt-get upgradeDone!With Windows I have to keep feeds in Google Reader for apps that don't automatically update so I can go to their individual sites, download the newest installers, run them, change the install paths since they were poorly coded and forgot it, do the same with the start menu shortcuts path, uncheck the options to install spyware, toolbars, and change my search page, and finally I can let it do its thing, but I have to go back to close it later.
Then for installers that don't let me change the start menu path I have to go in and clean up after them.Thankfully more apps have automatic update now, so the process is automated, but even some of those leave messes in my start menu.
Bad!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362544</id>
	<title>I go months before patching</title>
	<author>mandark1967</author>
	<datestamp>1267697160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All but 2 of my home computers are configured as Media Center PCs, I do not patch them.</p><p>They connect to the internet only to update the program guide. Since that's the extent of their interraction with the rest of the world, I do not see the need to patch them. I do, however, regularly patch my gaming machine and my Netbook since I use them almost daily.</p><p>I think September 2009 was the last time I updated Windows Vista Home Premium on my Dell E510 doing HTPC duties.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All but 2 of my home computers are configured as Media Center PCs , I do not patch them.They connect to the internet only to update the program guide .
Since that 's the extent of their interraction with the rest of the world , I do not see the need to patch them .
I do , however , regularly patch my gaming machine and my Netbook since I use them almost daily.I think September 2009 was the last time I updated Windows Vista Home Premium on my Dell E510 doing HTPC duties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All but 2 of my home computers are configured as Media Center PCs, I do not patch them.They connect to the internet only to update the program guide.
Since that's the extent of their interraction with the rest of the world, I do not see the need to patch them.
I do, however, regularly patch my gaming machine and my Netbook since I use them almost daily.I think September 2009 was the last time I updated Windows Vista Home Premium on my Dell E510 doing HTPC duties.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363506</id>
	<title>Headline Should Read...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267700700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Typical user running Secunia patches every five days.</p><p>Actual typical Windows users probably update automatically every day but don't get patches nearly that often. Applications should update themselves and vendors should sign their code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Typical user running Secunia patches every five days.Actual typical Windows users probably update automatically every day but do n't get patches nearly that often .
Applications should update themselves and vendors should sign their code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Typical user running Secunia patches every five days.Actual typical Windows users probably update automatically every day but don't get patches nearly that often.
Applications should update themselves and vendors should sign their code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362520</id>
	<title>so what?</title>
	<author>gandhi\_2</author>
	<datestamp>1267697040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not a 7-day span goes by without ubuntu patches it seems.</p><p>it would be better if everything would be more like apple? just ignore problems for months at a time then release large patch sets?</p><p>what the world needs now is another "security expert" interpreting useless data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not a 7-day span goes by without ubuntu patches it seems.it would be better if everything would be more like apple ?
just ignore problems for months at a time then release large patch sets ? what the world needs now is another " security expert " interpreting useless data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not a 7-day span goes by without ubuntu patches it seems.it would be better if everything would be more like apple?
just ignore problems for months at a time then release large patch sets?what the world needs now is another "security expert" interpreting useless data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362970</id>
	<title>Re:why is it so unreasonable?</title>
	<author>mjschultz</author>
	<datestamp>1267698600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the major complaint here is that there are so many updating systems for a Windows machine.  On Linux, yeah I update every day, but it is all done through the same interface.  I'm not saying this is perfect.  But, it beats running the Windows Update, then the Office Update, then the Adobe Update, then the Apple Update, then the * Update, ad nauseum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the major complaint here is that there are so many updating systems for a Windows machine .
On Linux , yeah I update every day , but it is all done through the same interface .
I 'm not saying this is perfect .
But , it beats running the Windows Update , then the Office Update , then the Adobe Update , then the Apple Update , then the * Update , ad nauseum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the major complaint here is that there are so many updating systems for a Windows machine.
On Linux, yeah I update every day, but it is all done through the same interface.
I'm not saying this is perfect.
But, it beats running the Windows Update, then the Office Update, then the Adobe Update, then the Apple Update, then the * Update, ad nauseum.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31364222</id>
	<title>Regular person here</title>
	<author>PattyMc</author>
	<datestamp>1267704000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I do not allow anything but AVG and Comodo to automatically download. I check the chatter on Windows patches before installing them because, as you know, they sometimes cause problems. I signed up for Secunia's reminder service which makes updating easy. However, it always indicates that java needs updating when it does not which I know because I check. I recommend this method to all my fellow female retiree friends. I think it is interesting and perhaps would surprise Slashdot that many of these retired females are in charge of the home pc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not allow anything but AVG and Comodo to automatically download .
I check the chatter on Windows patches before installing them because , as you know , they sometimes cause problems .
I signed up for Secunia 's reminder service which makes updating easy .
However , it always indicates that java needs updating when it does not which I know because I check .
I recommend this method to all my fellow female retiree friends .
I think it is interesting and perhaps would surprise Slashdot that many of these retired females are in charge of the home pc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not allow anything but AVG and Comodo to automatically download.
I check the chatter on Windows patches before installing them because, as you know, they sometimes cause problems.
I signed up for Secunia's reminder service which makes updating easy.
However, it always indicates that java needs updating when it does not which I know because I check.
I recommend this method to all my fellow female retiree friends.
I think it is interesting and perhaps would surprise Slashdot that many of these retired females are in charge of the home pc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363390</id>
	<title>Of course all the patches are beneficial</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267700100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One thing that seems to get washed away with this ongoing flood of patches is any meaningful testing of the patch in the users technical environment and the assurance that the patch does not break some application coding specific to work around the flaw being corrected. It is nice that Microsoft patching usually triggers a system restore snapshot -- but not every application does this. Most of the time this dreamland assumption is valid and our systems continue to work although maybe a bit slower than before. But if they don't, I wonder how many end users (not the typical slashdotters...) would be able to back out one patch at a time, doing restores as need be, untill the patch-engendered problem was resolved? I would suggest that this cascade of changes was inherently dangerous and is a topic we all might want to worry about, just a bit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing that seems to get washed away with this ongoing flood of patches is any meaningful testing of the patch in the users technical environment and the assurance that the patch does not break some application coding specific to work around the flaw being corrected .
It is nice that Microsoft patching usually triggers a system restore snapshot -- but not every application does this .
Most of the time this dreamland assumption is valid and our systems continue to work although maybe a bit slower than before .
But if they do n't , I wonder how many end users ( not the typical slashdotters... ) would be able to back out one patch at a time , doing restores as need be , untill the patch-engendered problem was resolved ?
I would suggest that this cascade of changes was inherently dangerous and is a topic we all might want to worry about , just a bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing that seems to get washed away with this ongoing flood of patches is any meaningful testing of the patch in the users technical environment and the assurance that the patch does not break some application coding specific to work around the flaw being corrected.
It is nice that Microsoft patching usually triggers a system restore snapshot -- but not every application does this.
Most of the time this dreamland assumption is valid and our systems continue to work although maybe a bit slower than before.
But if they don't, I wonder how many end users (not the typical slashdotters...) would be able to back out one patch at a time, doing restores as need be, untill the patch-engendered problem was resolved?
I would suggest that this cascade of changes was inherently dangerous and is a topic we all might want to worry about, just a bit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363732</id>
	<title>erm</title>
	<author>Stumbles</author>
	<datestamp>1267701780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>how can that be if Microsoft only releases patches once every thirty days?</htmltext>
<tokenext>how can that be if Microsoft only releases patches once every thirty days ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how can that be if Microsoft only releases patches once every thirty days?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31365966</id>
	<title>Re:But if they just buy our software</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1267714380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod this man up.</p><p>Updates were annoying 10 years ago.  Now any company that expects to make any money at all in the market has a decent update and patching system built in.  Hell Microsoft gives one to you for free if you choose to use it (it's part of the MSI toolkit).  If the user hasn't approved auto-updates, well they've asked for the harassment, now haven't they?  Those probably aren't the users who will be going out and buying a mass auto-update software (that probably needs its own regular updates, to boot!).</p><p>The only exception I could see is where the misguided anti-Microsoft geek has helpfully chosen "Ask me before installing" for updates on his mom's Windows box "because, you know, like, Micro$haft updates break more than they fix, 'n stuff.  M$ suuuuucks!!".</p><p>Then the machines are turned into zombies within six months, because vulnerabilities never get patched.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod this man up.Updates were annoying 10 years ago .
Now any company that expects to make any money at all in the market has a decent update and patching system built in .
Hell Microsoft gives one to you for free if you choose to use it ( it 's part of the MSI toolkit ) .
If the user has n't approved auto-updates , well they 've asked for the harassment , now have n't they ?
Those probably are n't the users who will be going out and buying a mass auto-update software ( that probably needs its own regular updates , to boot !
) .The only exception I could see is where the misguided anti-Microsoft geek has helpfully chosen " Ask me before installing " for updates on his mom 's Windows box " because , you know , like , Micro $ haft updates break more than they fix , 'n stuff .
M $ suuuuucks ! !
" .Then the machines are turned into zombies within six months , because vulnerabilities never get patched .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod this man up.Updates were annoying 10 years ago.
Now any company that expects to make any money at all in the market has a decent update and patching system built in.
Hell Microsoft gives one to you for free if you choose to use it (it's part of the MSI toolkit).
If the user hasn't approved auto-updates, well they've asked for the harassment, now haven't they?
Those probably aren't the users who will be going out and buying a mass auto-update software (that probably needs its own regular updates, to boot!
).The only exception I could see is where the misguided anti-Microsoft geek has helpfully chosen "Ask me before installing" for updates on his mom's Windows box "because, you know, like, Micro$haft updates break more than they fix, 'n stuff.
M$ suuuuucks!!
".Then the machines are turned into zombies within six months, because vulnerabilities never get patched.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362636</id>
	<title>Re:Seems to be automatic</title>
	<author>pushing-robot</author>
	<datestamp>1267697580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, "frequency of patches" is a useless metric.  "How much time the user loses to software patching" would have made far more sense.</p><p>Developer PROTIP:  Unless you've fixed a huge, critical issue, just silently update your program the next time it's shut down.  Don't notify me about regular updates, and don't make me manually check for them - I'll forget.  And whatever you do, don't make your updater load every time I start my computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , " frequency of patches " is a useless metric .
" How much time the user loses to software patching " would have made far more sense.Developer PROTIP : Unless you 've fixed a huge , critical issue , just silently update your program the next time it 's shut down .
Do n't notify me about regular updates , and do n't make me manually check for them - I 'll forget .
And whatever you do , do n't make your updater load every time I start my computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, "frequency of patches" is a useless metric.
"How much time the user loses to software patching" would have made far more sense.Developer PROTIP:  Unless you've fixed a huge, critical issue, just silently update your program the next time it's shut down.
Don't notify me about regular updates, and don't make me manually check for them - I'll forget.
And whatever you do, don't make your updater load every time I start my computer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363054</id>
	<title>it aint just windows...</title>
	<author>Rexel99</author>
	<datestamp>1267698900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and yes this may be 'automated' but I don't leave my pc's on all hours so they dont all automate the patches that are released, and if I do leave it on it's for a reason so I get really upset finding my PC is running blank when I return the next day with a note saying your PC rebooted because of updates and my downloads/rendering/processing apps were all terminated Doh.
It all the extra stuff though, Adobe, Firefox (and add-ins), Java, Virus, Logitech (kb's and webcams), Apps like torrent/tweet/scanner/etc/etc all look at the web and offer updates over and over again.
It's a constant task to do this, and the 'regular' user like me is probably doing it on 2 or 3 machines at home and on behalf of their parents/family/friends pc's also.
Not to mention this impacts on my downloads/net.
Perhaps nice way to do all of this automatically and run a proxy so it only downloads once would be nice, but can I see these companies getting together to make it a nice quality service for the user, unlikely.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and yes this may be 'automated ' but I do n't leave my pc 's on all hours so they dont all automate the patches that are released , and if I do leave it on it 's for a reason so I get really upset finding my PC is running blank when I return the next day with a note saying your PC rebooted because of updates and my downloads/rendering/processing apps were all terminated Doh .
It all the extra stuff though , Adobe , Firefox ( and add-ins ) , Java , Virus , Logitech ( kb 's and webcams ) , Apps like torrent/tweet/scanner/etc/etc all look at the web and offer updates over and over again .
It 's a constant task to do this , and the 'regular ' user like me is probably doing it on 2 or 3 machines at home and on behalf of their parents/family/friends pc 's also .
Not to mention this impacts on my downloads/net .
Perhaps nice way to do all of this automatically and run a proxy so it only downloads once would be nice , but can I see these companies getting together to make it a nice quality service for the user , unlikely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and yes this may be 'automated' but I don't leave my pc's on all hours so they dont all automate the patches that are released, and if I do leave it on it's for a reason so I get really upset finding my PC is running blank when I return the next day with a note saying your PC rebooted because of updates and my downloads/rendering/processing apps were all terminated Doh.
It all the extra stuff though, Adobe, Firefox (and add-ins), Java, Virus, Logitech (kb's and webcams), Apps like torrent/tweet/scanner/etc/etc all look at the web and offer updates over and over again.
It's a constant task to do this, and the 'regular' user like me is probably doing it on 2 or 3 machines at home and on behalf of their parents/family/friends pc's also.
Not to mention this impacts on my downloads/net.
Perhaps nice way to do all of this automatically and run a proxy so it only downloads once would be nice, but can I see these companies getting together to make it a nice quality service for the user, unlikely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363636</id>
	<title>Eh, bit confused are we?</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1267701240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows and Linux are not the same. Windows only patches once per month. Linux patches almost never. Because we are not comparing an OS with a distro are we?
</p><p>Ubuntu patches fairly regular, but that is a LOT more then just the OS/Desktop AND it includes upgrades. IE only has major releases and patches but firefox alone is regularly updated and expanded. So how you do you compare the two.
</p><p>The problem for windows users is that they have got all these seperate programs to take care off. All with their own methods for keeping up-to-date. For linux it is just a single command to update everything, but a windows user got to have a dozen "check latest version" proggies running.
</p><p>That is what the story about.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows and Linux are not the same .
Windows only patches once per month .
Linux patches almost never .
Because we are not comparing an OS with a distro are we ?
Ubuntu patches fairly regular , but that is a LOT more then just the OS/Desktop AND it includes upgrades .
IE only has major releases and patches but firefox alone is regularly updated and expanded .
So how you do you compare the two .
The problem for windows users is that they have got all these seperate programs to take care off .
All with their own methods for keeping up-to-date .
For linux it is just a single command to update everything , but a windows user got to have a dozen " check latest version " proggies running .
That is what the story about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows and Linux are not the same.
Windows only patches once per month.
Linux patches almost never.
Because we are not comparing an OS with a distro are we?
Ubuntu patches fairly regular, but that is a LOT more then just the OS/Desktop AND it includes upgrades.
IE only has major releases and patches but firefox alone is regularly updated and expanded.
So how you do you compare the two.
The problem for windows users is that they have got all these seperate programs to take care off.
All with their own methods for keeping up-to-date.
For linux it is just a single command to update everything, but a windows user got to have a dozen "check latest version" proggies running.
That is what the story about.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31368736</id>
	<title>Re:Seems to be automatic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267783860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>my Firefox updates when I start it up, my Flash and Java and Adobe Reader update essentially on their own, and Windows updates when I shut it down</p></div><p>Firefox on XP would not update for me without switching to an account with admin rights. So are you using an admin account for your normal login or is there a way to get firefox to update automatically from a user account?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>my Firefox updates when I start it up , my Flash and Java and Adobe Reader update essentially on their own , and Windows updates when I shut it downFirefox on XP would not update for me without switching to an account with admin rights .
So are you using an admin account for your normal login or is there a way to get firefox to update automatically from a user account ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my Firefox updates when I start it up, my Flash and Java and Adobe Reader update essentially on their own, and Windows updates when I shut it downFirefox on XP would not update for me without switching to an account with admin rights.
So are you using an admin account for your normal login or is there a way to get firefox to update automatically from a user account?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363148</id>
	<title>QQ</title>
	<author>negRo\_slim</author>
	<datestamp>1267699200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm the guy in our household responsible for applying our patches, being an IT professional and all.<br>
Since we have a "few" computers all around the house, it's pretty much every time I sit down to one I have to apply patches, and usually a reboot to boot. Sometimes, it's a rarely used computer that I grab (laptop) just to get a few quick things done, and it requires multiple iterations of patches and reboots. Sigh.</p></div><p>I'm the guy in our household responsible for applying our patches, being an part time Web Developer and all.<br>
Since we have a "few" computers all around the house, I just set Windows Update to download and notify me when updates are available. Providing me convienence and still retaining the ability to opt to not to install a patch.<br> <br>
Since Win7 got installed on my desktop I rarely have to restart for 99.9\% of all day to day tasks, but when something out of left field like patch time comes it's increased speed to the login screen makes it much seem less of a chore having to wait 5 minutes while my PC is being updated.<br> <br>And on my gf's laptop with Vista the reboots are slightly more often and and take a little longer.<br> <br>
But then again I'm on the computer 12 hours out of the day, so 5-10 mins once a week for maintenance really seems to be a non issue.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm the guy in our household responsible for applying our patches , being an IT professional and all .
Since we have a " few " computers all around the house , it 's pretty much every time I sit down to one I have to apply patches , and usually a reboot to boot .
Sometimes , it 's a rarely used computer that I grab ( laptop ) just to get a few quick things done , and it requires multiple iterations of patches and reboots .
Sigh.I 'm the guy in our household responsible for applying our patches , being an part time Web Developer and all .
Since we have a " few " computers all around the house , I just set Windows Update to download and notify me when updates are available .
Providing me convienence and still retaining the ability to opt to not to install a patch .
Since Win7 got installed on my desktop I rarely have to restart for 99.9 \ % of all day to day tasks , but when something out of left field like patch time comes it 's increased speed to the login screen makes it much seem less of a chore having to wait 5 minutes while my PC is being updated .
And on my gf 's laptop with Vista the reboots are slightly more often and and take a little longer .
But then again I 'm on the computer 12 hours out of the day , so 5-10 mins once a week for maintenance really seems to be a non issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm the guy in our household responsible for applying our patches, being an IT professional and all.
Since we have a "few" computers all around the house, it's pretty much every time I sit down to one I have to apply patches, and usually a reboot to boot.
Sometimes, it's a rarely used computer that I grab (laptop) just to get a few quick things done, and it requires multiple iterations of patches and reboots.
Sigh.I'm the guy in our household responsible for applying our patches, being an part time Web Developer and all.
Since we have a "few" computers all around the house, I just set Windows Update to download and notify me when updates are available.
Providing me convienence and still retaining the ability to opt to not to install a patch.
Since Win7 got installed on my desktop I rarely have to restart for 99.9\% of all day to day tasks, but when something out of left field like patch time comes it's increased speed to the login screen makes it much seem less of a chore having to wait 5 minutes while my PC is being updated.
And on my gf's laptop with Vista the reboots are slightly more often and and take a little longer.
But then again I'm on the computer 12 hours out of the day, so 5-10 mins once a week for maintenance really seems to be a non issue.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363734</id>
	<title>They all do it!</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1267701780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft's system updates tend to be unobtrusive, at least until a restart is required. Even then, however, the entire update can be downloaded in the background and I can save the restart for later. Their updates for Office, however, are exceedingly obnoxious. I'll open an application, getting ready to do some work, and I'm greeted to an update prompt.</p><p>Updates in OSX are as frequent as those for Windows, expect that by default the system checks for them on a weekly basis. What's really annoying is how system updates seem to always require immediate restarts.</p><p>iWork and iLife seem to have far more frequent updates than Microsoft's apps. But the absolute worst are Quicktime and iTunes, there seem to be updates almost every time I open those apps.</p><p>Adobe is annoying with updates as well, especially considering they never address outstanding issues. Acrobat is the worst of all, particularly since the updates come frequently.</p><p>Firefox has gotten pretty bad over the past couple of years. Start it up and oops! I have to wait for an update.</p><p>So what's my point? They all do it. Hell, even games and consoles feature regular updates nowadays. The difference is they force you to do them. I guess this is simply the nature of computing today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft 's system updates tend to be unobtrusive , at least until a restart is required .
Even then , however , the entire update can be downloaded in the background and I can save the restart for later .
Their updates for Office , however , are exceedingly obnoxious .
I 'll open an application , getting ready to do some work , and I 'm greeted to an update prompt.Updates in OSX are as frequent as those for Windows , expect that by default the system checks for them on a weekly basis .
What 's really annoying is how system updates seem to always require immediate restarts.iWork and iLife seem to have far more frequent updates than Microsoft 's apps .
But the absolute worst are Quicktime and iTunes , there seem to be updates almost every time I open those apps.Adobe is annoying with updates as well , especially considering they never address outstanding issues .
Acrobat is the worst of all , particularly since the updates come frequently.Firefox has gotten pretty bad over the past couple of years .
Start it up and oops !
I have to wait for an update.So what 's my point ?
They all do it .
Hell , even games and consoles feature regular updates nowadays .
The difference is they force you to do them .
I guess this is simply the nature of computing today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft's system updates tend to be unobtrusive, at least until a restart is required.
Even then, however, the entire update can be downloaded in the background and I can save the restart for later.
Their updates for Office, however, are exceedingly obnoxious.
I'll open an application, getting ready to do some work, and I'm greeted to an update prompt.Updates in OSX are as frequent as those for Windows, expect that by default the system checks for them on a weekly basis.
What's really annoying is how system updates seem to always require immediate restarts.iWork and iLife seem to have far more frequent updates than Microsoft's apps.
But the absolute worst are Quicktime and iTunes, there seem to be updates almost every time I open those apps.Adobe is annoying with updates as well, especially considering they never address outstanding issues.
Acrobat is the worst of all, particularly since the updates come frequently.Firefox has gotten pretty bad over the past couple of years.
Start it up and oops!
I have to wait for an update.So what's my point?
They all do it.
Hell, even games and consoles feature regular updates nowadays.
The difference is they force you to do them.
I guess this is simply the nature of computing today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362934</id>
	<title>Re:Couldn't be more correct!</title>
	<author>The MAZZTer</author>
	<datestamp>1267698480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or just disable the UPDATERS.  No reason why that stuff needs to slow down startup, the app vendors should just do it like Firefox and check when you run it and download silently in the background for you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or just disable the UPDATERS .
No reason why that stuff needs to slow down startup , the app vendors should just do it like Firefox and check when you run it and download silently in the background for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or just disable the UPDATERS.
No reason why that stuff needs to slow down startup, the app vendors should just do it like Firefox and check when you run it and download silently in the background for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362366</id>
	<title>Seems about right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267696200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There seem to have been loads of updates recently</htmltext>
<tokenext>There seem to have been loads of updates recently</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There seem to have been loads of updates recently</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362856</id>
	<title>Re:why is it so unreasonable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267698180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would assume it's talking about individual apps.  Many do not automatically update and must be manually patched if you want to be up to date, but most users shouldn't care about those since they won't be nagged...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would assume it 's talking about individual apps .
Many do not automatically update and must be manually patched if you want to be up to date , but most users should n't care about those since they wo n't be nagged.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would assume it's talking about individual apps.
Many do not automatically update and must be manually patched if you want to be up to date, but most users shouldn't care about those since they won't be nagged...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362660</id>
	<title>Reboot Patches</title>
	<author>Khomar</author>
	<datestamp>1267697640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't really mind patches.  They are usually quiet and seamless, working in the background and not interfering with my work.</p><p>The real killers are the updates that require a reboot, and these seem to be on the rise of late.  Even worse, these are typically for software that I do not use (IE, Windows Media Player, etc.), but I am required to interrupt my work to reboot my machine so that I can be "secure".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really mind patches .
They are usually quiet and seamless , working in the background and not interfering with my work.The real killers are the updates that require a reboot , and these seem to be on the rise of late .
Even worse , these are typically for software that I do not use ( IE , Windows Media Player , etc .
) , but I am required to interrupt my work to reboot my machine so that I can be " secure " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really mind patches.
They are usually quiet and seamless, working in the background and not interfering with my work.The real killers are the updates that require a reboot, and these seem to be on the rise of late.
Even worse, these are typically for software that I do not use (IE, Windows Media Player, etc.
), but I am required to interrupt my work to reboot my machine so that I can be "secure".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31364804</id>
	<title>Re:But if they just buy our software</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1267706460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We can manage all those patches for them!</i> </p><p><a href="http://secunia.com/vulnerability\_scanning/personal/" title="secunia.com">Secunia PSI</a> [secunia.com] is free and has about 2.3 million users.</p><p>But by Secunia's own estimates, most users would score a respectable 85\% or so without their update scanner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We can manage all those patches for them !
Secunia PSI [ secunia.com ] is free and has about 2.3 million users.But by Secunia 's own estimates , most users would score a respectable 85 \ % or so without their update scanner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can manage all those patches for them!
Secunia PSI [secunia.com] is free and has about 2.3 million users.But by Secunia's own estimates, most users would score a respectable 85\% or so without their update scanner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31366374</id>
	<title>Re:Computers exist to serve people! Not the revers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267717440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yah.  For me, it's that one little patch that sneaks in a 'security fix' - for someone else.  That, just for example, bricks a previously broken iPhone.  That turns back on the 'phone home for validation' routine.  That disables the previously fine software because someone got an injunction against a software patent somewhere.  It's the crap they sneak in under the guise of, or packaged with (take it all or leave it all) a "security update" that's really infuriating.</p><p>AC.  S.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yah .
For me , it 's that one little patch that sneaks in a 'security fix ' - for someone else .
That , just for example , bricks a previously broken iPhone .
That turns back on the 'phone home for validation ' routine .
That disables the previously fine software because someone got an injunction against a software patent somewhere .
It 's the crap they sneak in under the guise of , or packaged with ( take it all or leave it all ) a " security update " that 's really infuriating.AC .
S .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yah.
For me, it's that one little patch that sneaks in a 'security fix' - for someone else.
That, just for example, bricks a previously broken iPhone.
That turns back on the 'phone home for validation' routine.
That disables the previously fine software because someone got an injunction against a software patent somewhere.
It's the crap they sneak in under the guise of, or packaged with (take it all or leave it all) a "security update" that's really infuriating.AC.
S.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363100</id>
	<title>Re:why is it so unreasonable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267699020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>patching for Windows is largely automated...<br></i><br>When I first installed XP, I set it to "automatic update" and the next day I couldn't get on the internet. Microsoft had replaced my perfectly good network driver with one that didn't work at all. So much for automation; from then on I had it download automatically but installed myself.</p><p>And as a Linux user, you're fortunate (OK, smart) to not have to reboot the damned computer five times for every update. You only have to reboot when the kernel gets patched, so patches don't get in your way very often.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>patching for Windows is largely automated...When I first installed XP , I set it to " automatic update " and the next day I could n't get on the internet .
Microsoft had replaced my perfectly good network driver with one that did n't work at all .
So much for automation ; from then on I had it download automatically but installed myself.And as a Linux user , you 're fortunate ( OK , smart ) to not have to reboot the damned computer five times for every update .
You only have to reboot when the kernel gets patched , so patches do n't get in your way very often .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>patching for Windows is largely automated...When I first installed XP, I set it to "automatic update" and the next day I couldn't get on the internet.
Microsoft had replaced my perfectly good network driver with one that didn't work at all.
So much for automation; from then on I had it download automatically but installed myself.And as a Linux user, you're fortunate (OK, smart) to not have to reboot the damned computer five times for every update.
You only have to reboot when the kernel gets patched, so patches don't get in your way very often.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362356</id>
	<title>Did you see the latest hole in windows?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267696140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">check it out, serious exploit</a> [goatse.fr]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>check it out , serious exploit [ goatse.fr ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>check it out, serious exploit [goatse.fr]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362392</id>
	<title>Stopped reading at 'unreasonable'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267696380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There nothing unreasonable about it. Especially if you have automatic updates. My fedora box updates just about every day so, does that make fedora more 'unreasonable'? </p><p>I guess in from the perspective of the authors, Windows is better than Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There nothing unreasonable about it .
Especially if you have automatic updates .
My fedora box updates just about every day so , does that make fedora more 'unreasonable ' ?
I guess in from the perspective of the authors , Windows is better than Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There nothing unreasonable about it.
Especially if you have automatic updates.
My fedora box updates just about every day so, does that make fedora more 'unreasonable'?
I guess in from the perspective of the authors, Windows is better than Linux.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363086</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267698960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow... point out a problem with a technology, and get flagged troll.... typical.</p><p>The ONLY security updates should be the ones in the microkernel or device drivers. Oh... wait, nobody uses a microkernel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow... point out a problem with a technology , and get flagged troll.... typical.The ONLY security updates should be the ones in the microkernel or device drivers .
Oh... wait , nobody uses a microkernel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow... point out a problem with a technology, and get flagged troll.... typical.The ONLY security updates should be the ones in the microkernel or device drivers.
Oh... wait, nobody uses a microkernel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31366276</id>
	<title>Really bad title.</title>
	<author>quadelirus</author>
	<datestamp>1267716540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This has a really misleading title. I think it should read, "Typical Windows User Needs to Patch Every Five Days." The article clearly states that people are NOT doing this. FTA: "Few consumers devote the time and attention necessary to stay atop the patching job." That means the typical user is not patching every five days.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This has a really misleading title .
I think it should read , " Typical Windows User Needs to Patch Every Five Days .
" The article clearly states that people are NOT doing this .
FTA : " Few consumers devote the time and attention necessary to stay atop the patching job .
" That means the typical user is not patching every five days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has a really misleading title.
I think it should read, "Typical Windows User Needs to Patch Every Five Days.
" The article clearly states that people are NOT doing this.
FTA: "Few consumers devote the time and attention necessary to stay atop the patching job.
" That means the typical user is not patching every five days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362790</id>
	<title>Re:Seems to be automatic</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1267698000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Confusing isn't the issue, knowing when it's important and not important to actually install the patch, and knowing when the patches requires/doesn't require a reboot is a problem.  In many cases it may also be confusing to know if a patch notification is legitimate or a scam as well.</p><p>I leave a LOT of stuff mid-process.  It REALLY pisses me off when I find Windows has automatically rebooted my machine, and I've gone to great pains to choose browsers and applications that can auto-resume or auto-save when this happens.  It's also annoying when you get prompted trying to open an app, it needs a patch that's non descriptive, and then it insists on rebooting the machine before you can proceed, in many cases causing you to loose the link you clicked on in the first place that launched said app.</p><p>If all of this was centralized, provided as a service, schedulable, and clearly defined both priority and impact of the patch, it would be better.  More so if multiple patches from multiple vendors could be concurrently installed.</p><p>microsoft already extends the Microsoft Update system to their own apps, as well as 3rd party drivers, why can't they further extend it to 3rd party APPS!</p><p>It's not confusing, it's infuriating...</p><p>Apple Update, Microsoft Update, Java, Adobe, browsers, Steam, games, apps, antivirus, anti-spyware, VM engine, and then all the patching inside the VMs...   This is the reason I want an iPad so bad: one less fucking system to patch.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Confusing is n't the issue , knowing when it 's important and not important to actually install the patch , and knowing when the patches requires/does n't require a reboot is a problem .
In many cases it may also be confusing to know if a patch notification is legitimate or a scam as well.I leave a LOT of stuff mid-process .
It REALLY pisses me off when I find Windows has automatically rebooted my machine , and I 've gone to great pains to choose browsers and applications that can auto-resume or auto-save when this happens .
It 's also annoying when you get prompted trying to open an app , it needs a patch that 's non descriptive , and then it insists on rebooting the machine before you can proceed , in many cases causing you to loose the link you clicked on in the first place that launched said app.If all of this was centralized , provided as a service , schedulable , and clearly defined both priority and impact of the patch , it would be better .
More so if multiple patches from multiple vendors could be concurrently installed.microsoft already extends the Microsoft Update system to their own apps , as well as 3rd party drivers , why ca n't they further extend it to 3rd party APPS ! It 's not confusing , it 's infuriating...Apple Update , Microsoft Update , Java , Adobe , browsers , Steam , games , apps , antivirus , anti-spyware , VM engine , and then all the patching inside the VMs... This is the reason I want an iPad so bad : one less fucking system to patch.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Confusing isn't the issue, knowing when it's important and not important to actually install the patch, and knowing when the patches requires/doesn't require a reboot is a problem.
In many cases it may also be confusing to know if a patch notification is legitimate or a scam as well.I leave a LOT of stuff mid-process.
It REALLY pisses me off when I find Windows has automatically rebooted my machine, and I've gone to great pains to choose browsers and applications that can auto-resume or auto-save when this happens.
It's also annoying when you get prompted trying to open an app, it needs a patch that's non descriptive, and then it insists on rebooting the machine before you can proceed, in many cases causing you to loose the link you clicked on in the first place that launched said app.If all of this was centralized, provided as a service, schedulable, and clearly defined both priority and impact of the patch, it would be better.
More so if multiple patches from multiple vendors could be concurrently installed.microsoft already extends the Microsoft Update system to their own apps, as well as 3rd party drivers, why can't they further extend it to 3rd party APPS!It's not confusing, it's infuriating...Apple Update, Microsoft Update, Java, Adobe, browsers, Steam, games, apps, antivirus, anti-spyware, VM engine, and then all the patching inside the VMs...   This is the reason I want an iPad so bad: one less fucking system to patch.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31365920</id>
	<title>Re:Seems about right</title>
	<author>ffreeloader</author>
	<datestamp>1267714020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just think how often you would be updating Windows if MS released a new OS every 6 months.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just think how often you would be updating Windows if MS released a new OS every 6 months .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just think how often you would be updating Windows if MS released a new OS every 6 months.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362880</id>
	<title>Switching is easy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267698240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am with Linus on this one<br>Linus is right<br>The man makes sense<br>He is absolutely correct on this one</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am with Linus on this oneLinus is rightThe man makes senseHe is absolutely correct on this one</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am with Linus on this oneLinus is rightThe man makes senseHe is absolutely correct on this one</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31365388</id>
	<title>WSUS/SCCM Anyone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267709820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Set the patch schedules, type of updates you want and approval rules, set computers to wake on lan and enjoy automated patching goodness. As for third party crap, I won't blame MS that other products need to be patched. The only third party programs I have running are firefox java and flash, they dont seem to bother me too often.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Set the patch schedules , type of updates you want and approval rules , set computers to wake on lan and enjoy automated patching goodness .
As for third party crap , I wo n't blame MS that other products need to be patched .
The only third party programs I have running are firefox java and flash , they dont seem to bother me too often .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Set the patch schedules, type of updates you want and approval rules, set computers to wake on lan and enjoy automated patching goodness.
As for third party crap, I won't blame MS that other products need to be patched.
The only third party programs I have running are firefox java and flash, they dont seem to bother me too often.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362906</id>
	<title>Re:sucks to be support</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1267698360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I find it exasperating that my experience is almost always, "apply these patches", and then you can do some work with Windows. The good news (for me), I'm finally migrating EVERYTHING (as in replacing with) Macs and Linux. Time and money, that's all it takes. </i> </p><p>Enjoy the brief respite while it lasts.  My OSX box seems to want patches to be installed at least every couple of weeks.  Even the Ubuntu server that I have in production seems to want an occasional reboot due to patch related processes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it exasperating that my experience is almost always , " apply these patches " , and then you can do some work with Windows .
The good news ( for me ) , I 'm finally migrating EVERYTHING ( as in replacing with ) Macs and Linux .
Time and money , that 's all it takes .
Enjoy the brief respite while it lasts .
My OSX box seems to want patches to be installed at least every couple of weeks .
Even the Ubuntu server that I have in production seems to want an occasional reboot due to patch related processes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it exasperating that my experience is almost always, "apply these patches", and then you can do some work with Windows.
The good news (for me), I'm finally migrating EVERYTHING (as in replacing with) Macs and Linux.
Time and money, that's all it takes.
Enjoy the brief respite while it lasts.
My OSX box seems to want patches to be installed at least every couple of weeks.
Even the Ubuntu server that I have in production seems to want an occasional reboot due to patch related processes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363842</id>
	<title>Re:Difference in update methods not number of upda</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1267702320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This isnt unique to Windows. Its the same on OSX.<br>
<br>
If Linux ever gets a strong software presence, it will have the same issues.<br>
<br>
In Big-O notation, repositories scale linearly with the number of developers making demands of it. Double the number of developers and you've doubled the workload for the maintainers of the repository. The Linux ecosystem needs to double about 15 times (pulled that out of my ass, 32768x) to be comparable in scale with the Windows ecosystem.<br>
<br>
Are the Linux repositories prepared for The Year of the Linux Desktop? I suggest that no, no they are not prepared at all. They wont know what hit them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This isnt unique to Windows .
Its the same on OSX .
If Linux ever gets a strong software presence , it will have the same issues .
In Big-O notation , repositories scale linearly with the number of developers making demands of it .
Double the number of developers and you 've doubled the workload for the maintainers of the repository .
The Linux ecosystem needs to double about 15 times ( pulled that out of my ass , 32768x ) to be comparable in scale with the Windows ecosystem .
Are the Linux repositories prepared for The Year of the Linux Desktop ?
I suggest that no , no they are not prepared at all .
They wont know what hit them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isnt unique to Windows.
Its the same on OSX.
If Linux ever gets a strong software presence, it will have the same issues.
In Big-O notation, repositories scale linearly with the number of developers making demands of it.
Double the number of developers and you've doubled the workload for the maintainers of the repository.
The Linux ecosystem needs to double about 15 times (pulled that out of my ass, 32768x) to be comparable in scale with the Windows ecosystem.
Are the Linux repositories prepared for The Year of the Linux Desktop?
I suggest that no, no they are not prepared at all.
They wont know what hit them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363038</id>
	<title>Re:sucks to be support</title>
	<author>jtownatpunk.net</author>
	<datestamp>1267698840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, good plan there.  'cause other operating systems NEVER get patches.  Nor does any of the software installed on it.  Oh, hang on.  Something just popped up.  Microsoft AutoUpdate says there's a patch for Office.  BRB.  Dangit.  Now there's like 3 more for various parts of CS4.  And now 5 updates for OSX.  CyberDuck says there's a new version.  Firefox is installing updates.</p><p>Um...You might want to come back later.  This is going to take a while.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , good plan there .
'cause other operating systems NEVER get patches .
Nor does any of the software installed on it .
Oh , hang on .
Something just popped up .
Microsoft AutoUpdate says there 's a patch for Office .
BRB. Dangit .
Now there 's like 3 more for various parts of CS4 .
And now 5 updates for OSX .
CyberDuck says there 's a new version .
Firefox is installing updates.Um...You might want to come back later .
This is going to take a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, good plan there.
'cause other operating systems NEVER get patches.
Nor does any of the software installed on it.
Oh, hang on.
Something just popped up.
Microsoft AutoUpdate says there's a patch for Office.
BRB.  Dangit.
Now there's like 3 more for various parts of CS4.
And now 5 updates for OSX.
CyberDuck says there's a new version.
Firefox is installing updates.Um...You might want to come back later.
This is going to take a while.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31364472</id>
	<title>Re:running windows "commando"</title>
	<author>macaulay805</author>
	<datestamp>1267704960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to say it'll happen, but it'll be interesting if his user credentials or other sensitive information gets compromised.<br>Most of the time, taking 5 minutes out of your day to proactivley take care of something is worth the 5 days of follow-up fixing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to say it 'll happen , but it 'll be interesting if his user credentials or other sensitive information gets compromised.Most of the time , taking 5 minutes out of your day to proactivley take care of something is worth the 5 days of follow-up fixing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to say it'll happen, but it'll be interesting if his user credentials or other sensitive information gets compromised.Most of the time, taking 5 minutes out of your day to proactivley take care of something is worth the 5 days of follow-up fixing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362860</id>
	<title>Re:sucks to be support</title>
	<author>ekgringo</author>
	<datestamp>1267698180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It really aggravates me the way that Vista and now Windows 7 force patch installation at shutdown. Usually when I shut down, I'm taking my laptop somewhere else and often running late. When the patching happens I have no recourse but to let the damn thing finish running in my backpack, with my fingers crossed hoping the battery doesn't die and the laptop doesn't overheat while running full-tilt in a small enclosed space.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It really aggravates me the way that Vista and now Windows 7 force patch installation at shutdown .
Usually when I shut down , I 'm taking my laptop somewhere else and often running late .
When the patching happens I have no recourse but to let the damn thing finish running in my backpack , with my fingers crossed hoping the battery does n't die and the laptop does n't overheat while running full-tilt in a small enclosed space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It really aggravates me the way that Vista and now Windows 7 force patch installation at shutdown.
Usually when I shut down, I'm taking my laptop somewhere else and often running late.
When the patching happens I have no recourse but to let the damn thing finish running in my backpack, with my fingers crossed hoping the battery doesn't die and the laptop doesn't overheat while running full-tilt in a small enclosed space.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31364034</id>
	<title>Re:Seems to be automatic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267703160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry for anonymity. New here and I'm off to sleep soon.</p><p>Anyway, I hate it when Firefox updates the add-ons. Just giving the screen and asking you to press "continue" or "cancel" and throwing in a flurry of errors if some are unreachable. (rikai-chan translator for example some while ago). I'd love to see a "remember this selection" button in it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry for anonymity .
New here and I 'm off to sleep soon.Anyway , I hate it when Firefox updates the add-ons .
Just giving the screen and asking you to press " continue " or " cancel " and throwing in a flurry of errors if some are unreachable .
( rikai-chan translator for example some while ago ) .
I 'd love to see a " remember this selection " button in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry for anonymity.
New here and I'm off to sleep soon.Anyway, I hate it when Firefox updates the add-ons.
Just giving the screen and asking you to press "continue" or "cancel" and throwing in a flurry of errors if some are unreachable.
(rikai-chan translator for example some while ago).
I'd love to see a "remember this selection" button in it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31365812</id>
	<title>Re:sucks to be support</title>
	<author>cffrost</author>
	<datestamp>1267713240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>[...] usually a reboot to boot.</p></div><p>Durr... I think we all know what the purpose of a reboot is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ ... ] usually a reboot to boot.Durr... I think we all know what the purpose of a reboot is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[...] usually a reboot to boot.Durr... I think we all know what the purpose of a reboot is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31369446</id>
	<title>Numerous updates posted for FreeBSD daily</title>
	<author>Pigskin-Referee</author>
	<datestamp>1267792980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I run a FreeBSD-7.2 server. with 862 ports installed. On any given day, I receive notice of at least one or more updates available. Personally, I am relieved to see that someone is actually actively working on improving the software that is available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I run a FreeBSD-7.2 server .
with 862 ports installed .
On any given day , I receive notice of at least one or more updates available .
Personally , I am relieved to see that someone is actually actively working on improving the software that is available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run a FreeBSD-7.2 server.
with 862 ports installed.
On any given day, I receive notice of at least one or more updates available.
Personally, I am relieved to see that someone is actually actively working on improving the software that is available.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31365256</id>
	<title>Solved: Appupdater</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267708980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Runs in the background, installs your updates for you, all without prompting you.</p><p>http://www.nabber.org/projects/appupdater/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Runs in the background , installs your updates for you , all without prompting you.http : //www.nabber.org/projects/appupdater/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Runs in the background, installs your updates for you, all without prompting you.http://www.nabber.org/projects/appupdater/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362476</id>
	<title>I'm a typical home user</title>
	<author>mschuyler</author>
	<datestamp>1267696860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and I surely do not experience that amount of 'patching.' I also think updating virus signatures shouldn't be considered a 'patch' per se. Those are essentially database records, not bug fixes. Windows gives me updates about once per month. Once in awhile I get an Adobe or a Java update, but the total is nowhere near what these guys are saying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and I surely do not experience that amount of 'patching .
' I also think updating virus signatures should n't be considered a 'patch ' per se .
Those are essentially database records , not bug fixes .
Windows gives me updates about once per month .
Once in awhile I get an Adobe or a Java update , but the total is nowhere near what these guys are saying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and I surely do not experience that amount of 'patching.
' I also think updating virus signatures shouldn't be considered a 'patch' per se.
Those are essentially database records, not bug fixes.
Windows gives me updates about once per month.
Once in awhile I get an Adobe or a Java update, but the total is nowhere near what these guys are saying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362390</id>
	<title>Seems to be automatic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267696320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Funny--my Firefox updates when I start it up, my Flash and Java and Adobe Reader update essentially on their own, and Windows updates when I shut it down...Steam updates on its own...Trillian and uTorrent give me a button to push to update them...I'm pretty much a power user, but I've never been prompted to update something that was remotely confusing.  As long as things that need updating have an easy button to push to do it for you, I'm happy--extra bonus points if there's a checkbox in the installer to choose between "update automatically" and "prompt annoyingly when an update is available"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny--my Firefox updates when I start it up , my Flash and Java and Adobe Reader update essentially on their own , and Windows updates when I shut it down...Steam updates on its own...Trillian and uTorrent give me a button to push to update them...I 'm pretty much a power user , but I 've never been prompted to update something that was remotely confusing .
As long as things that need updating have an easy button to push to do it for you , I 'm happy--extra bonus points if there 's a checkbox in the installer to choose between " update automatically " and " prompt annoyingly when an update is available "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny--my Firefox updates when I start it up, my Flash and Java and Adobe Reader update essentially on their own, and Windows updates when I shut it down...Steam updates on its own...Trillian and uTorrent give me a button to push to update them...I'm pretty much a power user, but I've never been prompted to update something that was remotely confusing.
As long as things that need updating have an easy button to push to do it for you, I'm happy--extra bonus points if there's a checkbox in the installer to choose between "update automatically" and "prompt annoyingly when an update is available"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362530</id>
	<title>Difference in update methods not number of updates</title>
	<author>fwittekind</author>
	<datestamp>1267697100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the difference is that with Windows, you have to install updates from Microsoft via one method, updates to Adobe software via another method, updates to Firefox by another method.  Lots of things for the user to learn, there isn't just a click one thing and it updates everything.</p><p>My Linux box on the other hand, does have quite a few updates, and requires updating often, but, it's just one interface to update everything, including from third party vendors (i.e. Adobe)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the difference is that with Windows , you have to install updates from Microsoft via one method , updates to Adobe software via another method , updates to Firefox by another method .
Lots of things for the user to learn , there is n't just a click one thing and it updates everything.My Linux box on the other hand , does have quite a few updates , and requires updating often , but , it 's just one interface to update everything , including from third party vendors ( i.e .
Adobe )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the difference is that with Windows, you have to install updates from Microsoft via one method, updates to Adobe software via another method, updates to Firefox by another method.
Lots of things for the user to learn, there isn't just a click one thing and it updates everything.My Linux box on the other hand, does have quite a few updates, and requires updating often, but, it's just one interface to update everything, including from third party vendors (i.e.
Adobe)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31366018</id>
	<title>Re:sucks to be support</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267714740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>its a completely borked model if you can't let the update go on autopilot.  linux and mac users have had this working for DECADES.  really Microsoft, lets get software patching and installation at least to the state of the art circa 2000</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>its a completely borked model if you ca n't let the update go on autopilot .
linux and mac users have had this working for DECADES .
really Microsoft , lets get software patching and installation at least to the state of the art circa 2000</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its a completely borked model if you can't let the update go on autopilot.
linux and mac users have had this working for DECADES.
really Microsoft, lets get software patching and installation at least to the state of the art circa 2000</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362956</id>
	<title>Re:Couldn't be more correct!</title>
	<author>redmid17</author>
	<datestamp>1267698540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or maybe she could just leave the god damn thing on. It's not like they suck up power when they're asleep or in standby mode.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or maybe she could just leave the god damn thing on .
It 's not like they suck up power when they 're asleep or in standby mode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or maybe she could just leave the god damn thing on.
It's not like they suck up power when they're asleep or in standby mode.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31366164</id>
	<title>By any chance</title>
	<author>DrugCheese</author>
	<datestamp>1267715700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Secunia doesn't provide software for vulnerability management do they? Why look they do! How ironic!</p><p>White papers, are rarely white.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Secunia does n't provide software for vulnerability management do they ?
Why look they do !
How ironic ! White papers , are rarely white .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Secunia doesn't provide software for vulnerability management do they?
Why look they do!
How ironic!White papers, are rarely white.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31365554</id>
	<title>Re:why is it so unreasonable?</title>
	<author>jhol13</author>
	<datestamp>1267710900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't. I'd rather have a system which works than one which needs constant patching.</p><p>Linux has the dis-advantage of breaking binary kernel drivers on every kernel update. It is PITA to recompile them (yes, they are FOSS).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't .
I 'd rather have a system which works than one which needs constant patching.Linux has the dis-advantage of breaking binary kernel drivers on every kernel update .
It is PITA to recompile them ( yes , they are FOSS ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't.
I'd rather have a system which works than one which needs constant patching.Linux has the dis-advantage of breaking binary kernel drivers on every kernel update.
It is PITA to recompile them (yes, they are FOSS).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362456</id>
	<title>Re:why is it so unreasonable?</title>
	<author>fyrie</author>
	<datestamp>1267696740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed. Ubuntu prompts me to update every week or so it seems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Ubuntu prompts me to update every week or so it seems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Ubuntu prompts me to update every week or so it seems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31364790</id>
	<title>It's So Awesome!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267706400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's so awesome that it is indeed automated! Isn't it? Pick any random system, pull up the task list and look what's actively running, consuming memory and cpu cycles.</p><p>Windows Update<br>Java Update<br>Quicktime update.<br>iTunes update.<br>Flash update.<br>Adobe Reader updater.<br>InstallShield updater.<br>Google updater for Toolbar, Earth, Widgets...<br>Antivirus updater.<br>Real updater?</p><p>Why on Earth can't these pieces of crap terminate upon completion? It's no wonder the systems take an age to boot and can't be used for anything useful for the first 30 minutes. They're too tied up updating. There are no resources left to run applications.</p><p>Not that I'm at all bitter about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's so awesome that it is indeed automated !
Is n't it ?
Pick any random system , pull up the task list and look what 's actively running , consuming memory and cpu cycles.Windows UpdateJava UpdateQuicktime update.iTunes update.Flash update.Adobe Reader updater.InstallShield updater.Google updater for Toolbar , Earth , Widgets...Antivirus updater.Real updater ? Why on Earth ca n't these pieces of crap terminate upon completion ?
It 's no wonder the systems take an age to boot and ca n't be used for anything useful for the first 30 minutes .
They 're too tied up updating .
There are no resources left to run applications.Not that I 'm at all bitter about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's so awesome that it is indeed automated!
Isn't it?
Pick any random system, pull up the task list and look what's actively running, consuming memory and cpu cycles.Windows UpdateJava UpdateQuicktime update.iTunes update.Flash update.Adobe Reader updater.InstallShield updater.Google updater for Toolbar, Earth, Widgets...Antivirus updater.Real updater?Why on Earth can't these pieces of crap terminate upon completion?
It's no wonder the systems take an age to boot and can't be used for anything useful for the first 30 minutes.
They're too tied up updating.
There are no resources left to run applications.Not that I'm at all bitter about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362904</id>
	<title>Re:Seems about right</title>
	<author>bunratty</author>
	<datestamp>1267698360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My Fedora 11 system has patches to install nearly every day. At least all the updates come through one mechanism, and usually I don't need to reboot to apply the patches.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My Fedora 11 system has patches to install nearly every day .
At least all the updates come through one mechanism , and usually I do n't need to reboot to apply the patches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Fedora 11 system has patches to install nearly every day.
At least all the updates come through one mechanism, and usually I don't need to reboot to apply the patches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31364178</id>
	<title>The point?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267703820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the point of the article was to say the average uptime on a windows machine is 5 days?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the point of the article was to say the average uptime on a windows machine is 5 days ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the point of the article was to say the average uptime on a windows machine is 5 days?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362432</id>
	<title>Re:sucks to be support</title>
	<author>Sowelu</author>
	<datestamp>1267696620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just want to make sure I get what you're saying...  So you're complaining that if you don't use a computer for a month, then suddenly you have to catch up on a month's worth of updates?  Sure, it would be nice if they were cumulative--but these patches are designed for a daily user, and putting out multiple versions of updates just means there's more ways that something could go wrong.
<br> <br>
And if you have to patch BEFORE you start working, then that's bad, but if you have to patch when you shut down instead, that's bad too.  When should these updates happen, ideally?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just want to make sure I get what you 're saying... So you 're complaining that if you do n't use a computer for a month , then suddenly you have to catch up on a month 's worth of updates ?
Sure , it would be nice if they were cumulative--but these patches are designed for a daily user , and putting out multiple versions of updates just means there 's more ways that something could go wrong .
And if you have to patch BEFORE you start working , then that 's bad , but if you have to patch when you shut down instead , that 's bad too .
When should these updates happen , ideally ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just want to make sure I get what you're saying...  So you're complaining that if you don't use a computer for a month, then suddenly you have to catch up on a month's worth of updates?
Sure, it would be nice if they were cumulative--but these patches are designed for a daily user, and putting out multiple versions of updates just means there's more ways that something could go wrong.
And if you have to patch BEFORE you start working, then that's bad, but if you have to patch when you shut down instead, that's bad too.
When should these updates happen, ideally?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31364140</id>
	<title>Re:Computers exist to serve people! Not the revers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267703580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed, the number one thing I hate about windows is that it seems to think it knows better when to reboot than I do.</p><p>I also wish that FireFox would do its installations when I close it (in the background, at least on normal closes, obviously not on forced closes) instead of when I start it up. When I close it I typically don't care about it, thus if it is unusable for a while that is ok, when I start it up, I want it NOW, not after the installers get stuff figured out. Just run the installers with a low priority unless FireFox  is restarted, then bump it up to normal priority.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed , the number one thing I hate about windows is that it seems to think it knows better when to reboot than I do.I also wish that FireFox would do its installations when I close it ( in the background , at least on normal closes , obviously not on forced closes ) instead of when I start it up .
When I close it I typically do n't care about it , thus if it is unusable for a while that is ok , when I start it up , I want it NOW , not after the installers get stuff figured out .
Just run the installers with a low priority unless FireFox is restarted , then bump it up to normal priority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed, the number one thing I hate about windows is that it seems to think it knows better when to reboot than I do.I also wish that FireFox would do its installations when I close it (in the background, at least on normal closes, obviously not on forced closes) instead of when I start it up.
When I close it I typically don't care about it, thus if it is unusable for a while that is ok, when I start it up, I want it NOW, not after the installers get stuff figured out.
Just run the installers with a low priority unless FireFox  is restarted, then bump it up to normal priority.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363022</id>
	<title>Computers exist to serve people! Not the reverse.</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1267698780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows can patch itself to hell. Firefox and Adobe too, for all I care -</p><p>AS LONG AS THEY DON'T INTERRUPT, STEAL MY FOCUS, PUT UP CRAP ERROR MESSAGES OR REBOOT WITHOUT ASKING!</p><p>There's a portable at home I open only on weekends. Want to guess what happens for the first 30 minutes after I turn it on? Yup. An unusable computer that's *updating* itself. Java. Adobe. Firefox.  Firefox *add-ins", Windows, and possibly, the current timeline in which I exist.</p><p>Needless to say, ALL of these want me to agree/disagree, actually *view* their updates, click a modal dialog, or reboot - repeatedly. I really don't care if updates have to happen, BUT KEEP THEM OUT OF MY FACE.</p><p>And don't slow the computer to a crawl. If the update takes all day, do I care? Not if it doesn't interfere with me.</p><p>Computers exist to serve ME. Make the computer wait, NOT ME!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows can patch itself to hell .
Firefox and Adobe too , for all I care -AS LONG AS THEY DO N'T INTERRUPT , STEAL MY FOCUS , PUT UP CRAP ERROR MESSAGES OR REBOOT WITHOUT ASKING ! There 's a portable at home I open only on weekends .
Want to guess what happens for the first 30 minutes after I turn it on ?
Yup. An unusable computer that 's * updating * itself .
Java. Adobe .
Firefox. Firefox * add-ins " , Windows , and possibly , the current timeline in which I exist.Needless to say , ALL of these want me to agree/disagree , actually * view * their updates , click a modal dialog , or reboot - repeatedly .
I really do n't care if updates have to happen , BUT KEEP THEM OUT OF MY FACE.And do n't slow the computer to a crawl .
If the update takes all day , do I care ?
Not if it does n't interfere with me.Computers exist to serve ME .
Make the computer wait , NOT ME !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows can patch itself to hell.
Firefox and Adobe too, for all I care -AS LONG AS THEY DON'T INTERRUPT, STEAL MY FOCUS, PUT UP CRAP ERROR MESSAGES OR REBOOT WITHOUT ASKING!There's a portable at home I open only on weekends.
Want to guess what happens for the first 30 minutes after I turn it on?
Yup. An unusable computer that's *updating* itself.
Java. Adobe.
Firefox.  Firefox *add-ins", Windows, and possibly, the current timeline in which I exist.Needless to say, ALL of these want me to agree/disagree, actually *view* their updates, click a modal dialog, or reboot - repeatedly.
I really don't care if updates have to happen, BUT KEEP THEM OUT OF MY FACE.And don't slow the computer to a crawl.
If the update takes all day, do I care?
Not if it doesn't interfere with me.Computers exist to serve ME.
Make the computer wait, NOT ME!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362546</id>
	<title>Re:Seems to be automatic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267697160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most programs do have such update features. The question is more how well they work.</p><p>When people bring me computers needing a tuneup, usually they have Adobe Reader 8.1.0, Java 1.6.5 to 15 (not 18, the newest), and Flash 10.x (Congrats, Flash. Now if only you had less vulnerabilities)</p><p>This is despite them having auto-updaters. Multiple reboots leads to no prompts. Why aren't the updaters working? No idea - at first.</p><p>At that point I'll check winver and note it's an XP SP2 machine. After updating to XP SP3, suddenly they all work.</p><p>If anyone is having issues managing updates, you might be interested in something like this: <a href="http://www.filehippo.com/updatechecker/" title="filehippo.com">http://www.filehippo.com/updatechecker/</a> [filehippo.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most programs do have such update features .
The question is more how well they work.When people bring me computers needing a tuneup , usually they have Adobe Reader 8.1.0 , Java 1.6.5 to 15 ( not 18 , the newest ) , and Flash 10.x ( Congrats , Flash .
Now if only you had less vulnerabilities ) This is despite them having auto-updaters .
Multiple reboots leads to no prompts .
Why are n't the updaters working ?
No idea - at first.At that point I 'll check winver and note it 's an XP SP2 machine .
After updating to XP SP3 , suddenly they all work.If anyone is having issues managing updates , you might be interested in something like this : http : //www.filehippo.com/updatechecker/ [ filehippo.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most programs do have such update features.
The question is more how well they work.When people bring me computers needing a tuneup, usually they have Adobe Reader 8.1.0, Java 1.6.5 to 15 (not 18, the newest), and Flash 10.x (Congrats, Flash.
Now if only you had less vulnerabilities)This is despite them having auto-updaters.
Multiple reboots leads to no prompts.
Why aren't the updaters working?
No idea - at first.At that point I'll check winver and note it's an XP SP2 machine.
After updating to XP SP3, suddenly they all work.If anyone is having issues managing updates, you might be interested in something like this: http://www.filehippo.com/updatechecker/ [filehippo.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31366190</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is...</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1267715940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's bullshit.</p><p>What there is a track record of is vendors building an entire software suite based on a bug in an API, and when Microsoft <i>fixes</i> the bugged API the software breaks.  Except for the lead up to Vista, Microsoft has always been very good about working with software developers to put workaround code in the API so their <i>incorrect</i> usage would still work.  Before you drone on about how many bugs there are, Linux has just as many, if not more.  The bugs just affect fewer people, so you don't get the level of bitching as when it happens in Windows.  Bugs are a fact of life, how you deal with them is what matters.</p><p>That is where any update breakage comes from, and the following patch usually has the workarounds for the software that broke (because it should never have worked in the first place).</p><p>You don't get that level of service with Linux.  When similar cases come up it's "Sorry, you did it wrong, you fix it."  That's why Repository based updates are so critical for a halfway usable desktop Linux distro.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's bullshit.What there is a track record of is vendors building an entire software suite based on a bug in an API , and when Microsoft fixes the bugged API the software breaks .
Except for the lead up to Vista , Microsoft has always been very good about working with software developers to put workaround code in the API so their incorrect usage would still work .
Before you drone on about how many bugs there are , Linux has just as many , if not more .
The bugs just affect fewer people , so you do n't get the level of bitching as when it happens in Windows .
Bugs are a fact of life , how you deal with them is what matters.That is where any update breakage comes from , and the following patch usually has the workarounds for the software that broke ( because it should never have worked in the first place ) .You do n't get that level of service with Linux .
When similar cases come up it 's " Sorry , you did it wrong , you fix it .
" That 's why Repository based updates are so critical for a halfway usable desktop Linux distro .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's bullshit.What there is a track record of is vendors building an entire software suite based on a bug in an API, and when Microsoft fixes the bugged API the software breaks.
Except for the lead up to Vista, Microsoft has always been very good about working with software developers to put workaround code in the API so their incorrect usage would still work.
Before you drone on about how many bugs there are, Linux has just as many, if not more.
The bugs just affect fewer people, so you don't get the level of bitching as when it happens in Windows.
Bugs are a fact of life, how you deal with them is what matters.That is where any update breakage comes from, and the following patch usually has the workarounds for the software that broke (because it should never have worked in the first place).You don't get that level of service with Linux.
When similar cases come up it's "Sorry, you did it wrong, you fix it.
"  That's why Repository based updates are so critical for a halfway usable desktop Linux distro.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31364470</id>
	<title>Re:Seems to be automatic</title>
	<author>eulernet</author>
	<datestamp>1267704960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>you might be interested in something like this: <a href="http://www.filehippo.com/updatechecker/" title="filehippo.com">http://www.filehippo.com/updatechecker/</a> [filehippo.com] </p></div><p>Here are 2 better ones:</p><p><a href="http://www.kcsoftwares.com/index.php?sumo" title="kcsoftwares.com">http://www.kcsoftwares.com/index.php?sumo</a> [kcsoftwares.com]<br><a href="http://cleansofts.org/view/update-notifier.html" title="cleansofts.org">http://cleansofts.org/view/update-notifier.html</a> [cleansofts.org]</p><p>They are free too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>you might be interested in something like this : http : //www.filehippo.com/updatechecker/ [ filehippo.com ] Here are 2 better ones : http : //www.kcsoftwares.com/index.php ? sumo [ kcsoftwares.com ] http : //cleansofts.org/view/update-notifier.html [ cleansofts.org ] They are free too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you might be interested in something like this: http://www.filehippo.com/updatechecker/ [filehippo.com] Here are 2 better ones:http://www.kcsoftwares.com/index.php?sumo [kcsoftwares.com]http://cleansofts.org/view/update-notifier.html [cleansofts.org]They are free too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31368152</id>
	<title>Re:Seems about right</title>
	<author>Z00L00K</author>
	<datestamp>1267819560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would say that there is a continuous stream of updates and patches all the time. Mostly anti-virus, but then we have Adobe reader/flash, Windows (and other M$ items) and whatever other software that you have installed. Many softwares have their own method of updates and patches, and it's seldom compatible with the other software update packages in the system.</p><p>So every time you boot/login there are a lot of processes started that are competing for resources trying to make an upgrade and whatever which makes the startup time horrible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say that there is a continuous stream of updates and patches all the time .
Mostly anti-virus , but then we have Adobe reader/flash , Windows ( and other M $ items ) and whatever other software that you have installed .
Many softwares have their own method of updates and patches , and it 's seldom compatible with the other software update packages in the system.So every time you boot/login there are a lot of processes started that are competing for resources trying to make an upgrade and whatever which makes the startup time horrible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say that there is a continuous stream of updates and patches all the time.
Mostly anti-virus, but then we have Adobe reader/flash, Windows (and other M$ items) and whatever other software that you have installed.
Many softwares have their own method of updates and patches, and it's seldom compatible with the other software update packages in the system.So every time you boot/login there are a lot of processes started that are competing for resources trying to make an upgrade and whatever which makes the startup time horrible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362366</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31365256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31366190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31366018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31368736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31364034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31365812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31365966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31367874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31367466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31365590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31365738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31366156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31366374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31364342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31364804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31371422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31364790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31365554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31364140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31364472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31365896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31365920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31368152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31364470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2024212_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31368960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_2024212.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31365966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31364804
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_2024212.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31366190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_2024212.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31365590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_2024212.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363100
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31367874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31365554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31367466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362508
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31365896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_2024212.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31365512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_2024212.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_2024212.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31364140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31365738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31366374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31365256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_2024212.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31364222
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_2024212.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362498
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_2024212.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31368152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31365920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362904
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_2024212.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_2024212.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363754
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_2024212.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_2024212.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31364472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_2024212.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31366018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31365812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_2024212.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_2024212.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31364342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363316
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_2024212.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_2024212.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31364790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31366156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362546
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31364470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362790
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363240
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31371422
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31368960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31363712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31368736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31364034
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_2024212.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362356
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_2024212.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2024212.31362812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
