<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_22_1635205</id>
	<title>Open Source Is Not a Democracy</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1269277200000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>itwbennett writes <i>"A recent kerfuffle within the Ubuntu community serves as a reminder of an inconvenient truth: <a href="http://www.itworld.com/open-source/101641/open-source-not-democracy">open source is not a democracy</a>, writes blogger Brian Proffitt. 'The discussion started innocuously enough, within <a href="https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/light-themes/+bug/532633?comments=all">Bug #532633</a> in light-themes (Ubuntu) on Launchpad, where the order of the window controls within the Light theme were requested to be re-arranged to be on the upper right side of any given window. Light, it seemed, now placed the buttons on the left side, similar to the Mac OS X interface.' The discussion <a href="https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/light-themes/+bug/532633/comments/167">turned into an argument</a> and culminated in this exchange in which Mark Shuttleworth lays down the law:
'It's fair comment that this was a big change, and landed without warning. There aren't any good reasons for that, but it's also true that no amount of warning would produce consensus about a decision like this... No. This is not a democracy. Good feedback, good data, are welcome. But we are not voting on design decisions.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>itwbennett writes " A recent kerfuffle within the Ubuntu community serves as a reminder of an inconvenient truth : open source is not a democracy , writes blogger Brian Proffitt .
'The discussion started innocuously enough , within Bug # 532633 in light-themes ( Ubuntu ) on Launchpad , where the order of the window controls within the Light theme were requested to be re-arranged to be on the upper right side of any given window .
Light , it seemed , now placed the buttons on the left side , similar to the Mac OS X interface .
' The discussion turned into an argument and culminated in this exchange in which Mark Shuttleworth lays down the law : 'It 's fair comment that this was a big change , and landed without warning .
There are n't any good reasons for that , but it 's also true that no amount of warning would produce consensus about a decision like this... No. This is not a democracy .
Good feedback , good data , are welcome .
But we are not voting on design decisions .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>itwbennett writes "A recent kerfuffle within the Ubuntu community serves as a reminder of an inconvenient truth: open source is not a democracy, writes blogger Brian Proffitt.
'The discussion started innocuously enough, within Bug #532633 in light-themes (Ubuntu) on Launchpad, where the order of the window controls within the Light theme were requested to be re-arranged to be on the upper right side of any given window.
Light, it seemed, now placed the buttons on the left side, similar to the Mac OS X interface.
' The discussion turned into an argument and culminated in this exchange in which Mark Shuttleworth lays down the law:
'It's fair comment that this was a big change, and landed without warning.
There aren't any good reasons for that, but it's also true that no amount of warning would produce consensus about a decision like this... No. This is not a democracy.
Good feedback, good data, are welcome.
But we are not voting on design decisions.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571682</id>
	<title>Meritocracy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269282420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always thought that the best word that describes opensource is meritocracy. The best people makes the decisions. You are free to fork the tree, but other people is not forced to listen you if they think you are stupid. I agree with Shuttleworth, they can (and must) listen users...but allowing users to have a veto on decisions? Hell, no.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always thought that the best word that describes opensource is meritocracy .
The best people makes the decisions .
You are free to fork the tree , but other people is not forced to listen you if they think you are stupid .
I agree with Shuttleworth , they can ( and must ) listen users...but allowing users to have a veto on decisions ?
Hell , no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always thought that the best word that describes opensource is meritocracy.
The best people makes the decisions.
You are free to fork the tree, but other people is not forced to listen you if they think you are stupid.
I agree with Shuttleworth, they can (and must) listen users...but allowing users to have a veto on decisions?
Hell, no.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31574964</id>
	<title>Re:Users do vote...</title>
	<author>pcmacpc</author>
	<datestamp>1269250560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So what happens when I moved to Slackware because KDE 4.x sucks, and I still hate GNOME even more, and even Slackware has gone KDE 4.x? And no, I'm not going to settle for out-of-date features because I absolutely agree that KDE 3.x had a long way to go, and it was merely the only GUI that I found acceptable.

If open source is still a democracy, then my vote's not being counted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what happens when I moved to Slackware because KDE 4.x sucks , and I still hate GNOME even more , and even Slackware has gone KDE 4.x ?
And no , I 'm not going to settle for out-of-date features because I absolutely agree that KDE 3.x had a long way to go , and it was merely the only GUI that I found acceptable .
If open source is still a democracy , then my vote 's not being counted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what happens when I moved to Slackware because KDE 4.x sucks, and I still hate GNOME even more, and even Slackware has gone KDE 4.x?
And no, I'm not going to settle for out-of-date features because I absolutely agree that KDE 3.x had a long way to go, and it was merely the only GUI that I found acceptable.
If open source is still a democracy, then my vote's not being counted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31574204</id>
	<title>It has to be said</title>
	<author>jamrock</author>
	<datestamp>1269291180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Submit inflammatory article</p><p>2) Watch the hit count spike</p><p>3) ???</p><p>4) Proffitt!</p><p>Sorry; I couldn't resist. I'll let myself out now...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Submit inflammatory article2 ) Watch the hit count spike3 ) ? ?
? 4 ) Proffitt ! Sorry ; I could n't resist .
I 'll let myself out now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Submit inflammatory article2) Watch the hit count spike3) ??
?4) Proffitt!Sorry; I couldn't resist.
I'll let myself out now...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571432</id>
	<title>Right, it's more of a perfected anarchy.</title>
	<author>HeckRuler</author>
	<datestamp>1269281760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Speaking of anarchy, <br>
Two Forks Enter! One Fork Leaves!!!<br>
Two Forks Enter! One Fork Leaves!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking of anarchy , Two Forks Enter !
One Fork Leaves ! ! !
Two Forks Enter !
One Fork Leaves ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking of anarchy, 
Two Forks Enter!
One Fork Leaves!!!
Two Forks Enter!
One Fork Leaves!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571868</id>
	<title>Re:But.... it's open....</title>
	<author>phayes</author>
	<datestamp>1269282840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not even in the code, it's a theme level modification unless I'm mistaken. Nothing is stopping people from adding a "lightright" theme which moves the buttons back &amp; making it popular enough to figure on the first page of the theme addins to make it easy to find &amp; install.</p><p>The difference between left &amp; right scrollbars/window decorations is minimal in my opinion. I find that I need move the mouse less when the scrollbar is on the left because text I copy/paste/yank/move is more often on the left &amp; having the scrollbar on the left means it is closer. My preferring the window decorations on the right is just due to habit as I have spent more time on X/Motif/fwcm/Windows than MacOS/OSX.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not even in the code , it 's a theme level modification unless I 'm mistaken .
Nothing is stopping people from adding a " lightright " theme which moves the buttons back &amp; making it popular enough to figure on the first page of the theme addins to make it easy to find &amp; install.The difference between left &amp; right scrollbars/window decorations is minimal in my opinion .
I find that I need move the mouse less when the scrollbar is on the left because text I copy/paste/yank/move is more often on the left &amp; having the scrollbar on the left means it is closer .
My preferring the window decorations on the right is just due to habit as I have spent more time on X/Motif/fwcm/Windows than MacOS/OSX .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not even in the code, it's a theme level modification unless I'm mistaken.
Nothing is stopping people from adding a "lightright" theme which moves the buttons back &amp; making it popular enough to figure on the first page of the theme addins to make it easy to find &amp; install.The difference between left &amp; right scrollbars/window decorations is minimal in my opinion.
I find that I need move the mouse less when the scrollbar is on the left because text I copy/paste/yank/move is more often on the left &amp; having the scrollbar on the left means it is closer.
My preferring the window decorations on the right is just due to habit as I have spent more time on X/Motif/fwcm/Windows than MacOS/OSX.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31577534</id>
	<title>As it should be...</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1269262740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your not forced to use Ubuntu, even if you do use Ubuntu you aren't forced to use the default theme.. Far too much time gets wasted arguing over how the default themes etc will look, much better to have someone simply dictate the defaults. If you don't like it, you can change the settings or choose a different distro.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your not forced to use Ubuntu , even if you do use Ubuntu you are n't forced to use the default theme.. Far too much time gets wasted arguing over how the default themes etc will look , much better to have someone simply dictate the defaults .
If you do n't like it , you can change the settings or choose a different distro .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your not forced to use Ubuntu, even if you do use Ubuntu you aren't forced to use the default theme.. Far too much time gets wasted arguing over how the default themes etc will look, much better to have someone simply dictate the defaults.
If you don't like it, you can change the settings or choose a different distro.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572150</id>
	<title>It's Ubuntu!! Deal with it!</title>
	<author>Xeleema</author>
	<datestamp>1269283680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I applaud the efforts of the Ubuntu community.  They seem to have whole-heartedly gathered up a Linux distro under the "Year of the Linux Desktop!!1!" flag and stood in front of the tanks that are Windows-users-looking-for-something-better.
Truely a noble cause. But one that I will stay away from.</p><p>Windows users learned bad habits (not their fault), then apply flawed logic based on those habits to a wholly different environment (definitely their fault). If you have a problem with a Gnome theme, CHANGE THE DAMN THEME!<br>
Seriously, it's not that difficult. <br>Hell, it's in the Gnome documentation.</p><p>And those guys (sysadmins?) shouting about their userbase taking up pitchforks and screamin about "lost productivity"; The site sysadmin's should have tested things before they pushed out the LTS update to their "Enterprise".  It's not hard to roll a fix and push it out, it just takes a wee bit of time.</p><p> <i>Note:</i> This doesn't apply if you're wielding an MCSE, need a mouse to delete files, and dumped Ubuntu onto 500 Ph.Ds in the past year because you/they/everyone wanted to "Stick it to the Man".  For that, you deserve to be lynched over something as trivial as Title bar buttons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I applaud the efforts of the Ubuntu community .
They seem to have whole-heartedly gathered up a Linux distro under the " Year of the Linux Desktop ! ! 1 !
" flag and stood in front of the tanks that are Windows-users-looking-for-something-better .
Truely a noble cause .
But one that I will stay away from.Windows users learned bad habits ( not their fault ) , then apply flawed logic based on those habits to a wholly different environment ( definitely their fault ) .
If you have a problem with a Gnome theme , CHANGE THE DAMN THEME !
Seriously , it 's not that difficult .
Hell , it 's in the Gnome documentation.And those guys ( sysadmins ?
) shouting about their userbase taking up pitchforks and screamin about " lost productivity " ; The site sysadmin 's should have tested things before they pushed out the LTS update to their " Enterprise " .
It 's not hard to roll a fix and push it out , it just takes a wee bit of time .
Note : This does n't apply if you 're wielding an MCSE , need a mouse to delete files , and dumped Ubuntu onto 500 Ph.Ds in the past year because you/they/everyone wanted to " Stick it to the Man " .
For that , you deserve to be lynched over something as trivial as Title bar buttons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I applaud the efforts of the Ubuntu community.
They seem to have whole-heartedly gathered up a Linux distro under the "Year of the Linux Desktop!!1!
" flag and stood in front of the tanks that are Windows-users-looking-for-something-better.
Truely a noble cause.
But one that I will stay away from.Windows users learned bad habits (not their fault), then apply flawed logic based on those habits to a wholly different environment (definitely their fault).
If you have a problem with a Gnome theme, CHANGE THE DAMN THEME!
Seriously, it's not that difficult.
Hell, it's in the Gnome documentation.And those guys (sysadmins?
) shouting about their userbase taking up pitchforks and screamin about "lost productivity"; The site sysadmin's should have tested things before they pushed out the LTS update to their "Enterprise".
It's not hard to roll a fix and push it out, it just takes a wee bit of time.
Note: This doesn't apply if you're wielding an MCSE, need a mouse to delete files, and dumped Ubuntu onto 500 Ph.Ds in the past year because you/they/everyone wanted to "Stick it to the Man".
For that, you deserve to be lynched over something as trivial as Title bar buttons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31585442</id>
	<title>Open Source is a "Do-Ocracy" not a DEMocracy</title>
	<author>obscuro</author>
	<datestamp>1269366000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The people who do it first and do it most have the most say. If someone has enough going to fork and succeed at getting adoption and support then they had enough doers. Requirements requests and bug fixes are information for doers, not votes. Doers respond because they care about the quality of what they do and they trust that there is a relationship between delivering quality and satisfying those requests.

The reason Open Source has flourished instead of getting mired in bs is precisely because it avoids direct enslavement to the dollar and the vote. Political bs in open source either kills a thing pretty fast or results in a new creation often superior to the one that got bogged down.

Amen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The people who do it first and do it most have the most say .
If someone has enough going to fork and succeed at getting adoption and support then they had enough doers .
Requirements requests and bug fixes are information for doers , not votes .
Doers respond because they care about the quality of what they do and they trust that there is a relationship between delivering quality and satisfying those requests .
The reason Open Source has flourished instead of getting mired in bs is precisely because it avoids direct enslavement to the dollar and the vote .
Political bs in open source either kills a thing pretty fast or results in a new creation often superior to the one that got bogged down .
Amen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people who do it first and do it most have the most say.
If someone has enough going to fork and succeed at getting adoption and support then they had enough doers.
Requirements requests and bug fixes are information for doers, not votes.
Doers respond because they care about the quality of what they do and they trust that there is a relationship between delivering quality and satisfying those requests.
The reason Open Source has flourished instead of getting mired in bs is precisely because it avoids direct enslavement to the dollar and the vote.
Political bs in open source either kills a thing pretty fast or results in a new creation often superior to the one that got bogged down.
Amen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571534</id>
	<title>More of the Same</title>
	<author>hduff</author>
	<datestamp>1269282000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This kind of bickering is the ugly dark side of an otherwise decent philosophy. The cult of personality and hubris, especially within Ubuntu/Debian where it seems to erupt with regularity, is both useful and unpleasant and will always be a locus of justifiable criticism of the FOSS community in general.</p><p>Move along. Nothing new to see here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This kind of bickering is the ugly dark side of an otherwise decent philosophy .
The cult of personality and hubris , especially within Ubuntu/Debian where it seems to erupt with regularity , is both useful and unpleasant and will always be a locus of justifiable criticism of the FOSS community in general.Move along .
Nothing new to see here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This kind of bickering is the ugly dark side of an otherwise decent philosophy.
The cult of personality and hubris, especially within Ubuntu/Debian where it seems to erupt with regularity, is both useful and unpleasant and will always be a locus of justifiable criticism of the FOSS community in general.Move along.
Nothing new to see here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571452</id>
	<title>Open Source is not Ubuntu</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1269281820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, Ubuntu is popular.  I get it.  But it is not the totality of open source.  Neither is Linux, for that matter.  This example is specifically about Ubuntu, not about open source.  Ubuntu is a dictatorship obeying the golden rule; Shuttlewood has the gold so he makes the rules.  If you don't like it, fork it or use something different.  </p><p>
Most open source projects are democracies, although not all votes are equal.  Their constituents are people who who contribute something to the project, and the greater the contribution the more say they have in the direction of the project.  Contributions come in the form of code, documentation, artwork, bug reports, and money.  If you've never contributed any of these things to a project, then you don't get a vote.  </p><p>
If you have, you get some say, although the person who wrote 90\% of the code gets a lot more say than someone who only filed one bug report.  People contribute to open source projects because they expect to get something back.  In my experience, most developers will put some extra effort into feature requests from people who have contributed something that they consider valuable.</p><p>
Ubuntu isn't actually unusual in this respect at all.  Shuttlewood contributes the developers' salaries, and they give priority to his feature requests.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , Ubuntu is popular .
I get it .
But it is not the totality of open source .
Neither is Linux , for that matter .
This example is specifically about Ubuntu , not about open source .
Ubuntu is a dictatorship obeying the golden rule ; Shuttlewood has the gold so he makes the rules .
If you do n't like it , fork it or use something different .
Most open source projects are democracies , although not all votes are equal .
Their constituents are people who who contribute something to the project , and the greater the contribution the more say they have in the direction of the project .
Contributions come in the form of code , documentation , artwork , bug reports , and money .
If you 've never contributed any of these things to a project , then you do n't get a vote .
If you have , you get some say , although the person who wrote 90 \ % of the code gets a lot more say than someone who only filed one bug report .
People contribute to open source projects because they expect to get something back .
In my experience , most developers will put some extra effort into feature requests from people who have contributed something that they consider valuable .
Ubuntu is n't actually unusual in this respect at all .
Shuttlewood contributes the developers ' salaries , and they give priority to his feature requests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, Ubuntu is popular.
I get it.
But it is not the totality of open source.
Neither is Linux, for that matter.
This example is specifically about Ubuntu, not about open source.
Ubuntu is a dictatorship obeying the golden rule; Shuttlewood has the gold so he makes the rules.
If you don't like it, fork it or use something different.
Most open source projects are democracies, although not all votes are equal.
Their constituents are people who who contribute something to the project, and the greater the contribution the more say they have in the direction of the project.
Contributions come in the form of code, documentation, artwork, bug reports, and money.
If you've never contributed any of these things to a project, then you don't get a vote.
If you have, you get some say, although the person who wrote 90\% of the code gets a lot more say than someone who only filed one bug report.
People contribute to open source projects because they expect to get something back.
In my experience, most developers will put some extra effort into feature requests from people who have contributed something that they consider valuable.
Ubuntu isn't actually unusual in this respect at all.
Shuttlewood contributes the developers' salaries, and they give priority to his feature requests.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572426</id>
	<title>User Interface Design</title>
	<author>donscarletti</author>
	<datestamp>1269284580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The old metaphor is: if someone builds a nuclear reactor, it is left to the most qualified engineers. But if you build a bike shed everyone wants to have their opinion heard. I.e. if you want to change the way an IO scheduler or a pagefault handler works, only experienced kernel hackers will bother discussing it, but if you move around two buttons, everyone understand what you've done and wants to weigh in.</p><p>But honestly if you are an specialist in building bikesheds, you can never expect to be taken as seriously as those who build nuclear reactors. Someone just reconfigured Metacity to switch some buttons because they thought it was better that way, surely this feat proves that they are the experts here and their judgement should be deferred to.</p><p>Back when I regularly contributed to Gnome they switched the button order on dialog boxes, I actually liked the new layout but it was just personal taste, their was no objective improvement to be worth the enormous amount of bitching from the community. And in the end this will be the same, I will get used to this new layout, all that will change is a few indignant people will stop using Ubuntu and it will mainly serve to piss off anyone who borrows my computer.</p><p>In a way, the new button order makes more sense, maximise is the opposite of close and should be on the opposite side, but ultimately, it's just not all that important but it serves to attract a lot of attention and impact a lot of people's habits. Surely a software developer who has nothing better to change than this is hardly worth taking seriously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The old metaphor is : if someone builds a nuclear reactor , it is left to the most qualified engineers .
But if you build a bike shed everyone wants to have their opinion heard .
I.e. if you want to change the way an IO scheduler or a pagefault handler works , only experienced kernel hackers will bother discussing it , but if you move around two buttons , everyone understand what you 've done and wants to weigh in.But honestly if you are an specialist in building bikesheds , you can never expect to be taken as seriously as those who build nuclear reactors .
Someone just reconfigured Metacity to switch some buttons because they thought it was better that way , surely this feat proves that they are the experts here and their judgement should be deferred to.Back when I regularly contributed to Gnome they switched the button order on dialog boxes , I actually liked the new layout but it was just personal taste , their was no objective improvement to be worth the enormous amount of bitching from the community .
And in the end this will be the same , I will get used to this new layout , all that will change is a few indignant people will stop using Ubuntu and it will mainly serve to piss off anyone who borrows my computer.In a way , the new button order makes more sense , maximise is the opposite of close and should be on the opposite side , but ultimately , it 's just not all that important but it serves to attract a lot of attention and impact a lot of people 's habits .
Surely a software developer who has nothing better to change than this is hardly worth taking seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The old metaphor is: if someone builds a nuclear reactor, it is left to the most qualified engineers.
But if you build a bike shed everyone wants to have their opinion heard.
I.e. if you want to change the way an IO scheduler or a pagefault handler works, only experienced kernel hackers will bother discussing it, but if you move around two buttons, everyone understand what you've done and wants to weigh in.But honestly if you are an specialist in building bikesheds, you can never expect to be taken as seriously as those who build nuclear reactors.
Someone just reconfigured Metacity to switch some buttons because they thought it was better that way, surely this feat proves that they are the experts here and their judgement should be deferred to.Back when I regularly contributed to Gnome they switched the button order on dialog boxes, I actually liked the new layout but it was just personal taste, their was no objective improvement to be worth the enormous amount of bitching from the community.
And in the end this will be the same, I will get used to this new layout, all that will change is a few indignant people will stop using Ubuntu and it will mainly serve to piss off anyone who borrows my computer.In a way, the new button order makes more sense, maximise is the opposite of close and should be on the opposite side, but ultimately, it's just not all that important but it serves to attract a lot of attention and impact a lot of people's habits.
Surely a software developer who has nothing better to change than this is hardly worth taking seriously.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571808</id>
	<title>How are people voting?</title>
	<author>Midnight Thunder</author>
	<datestamp>1269282660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How the 'democracy' works depends on the given project. Some projects are very top-down, while others are more cooperative. In other cases its only a democracy if you know how to code.</p><p>As as user you get to have input, but in the end it is put up or change allegiances. This is no different that a buying a product from a private company. The difference is that most users don't pay a dime for their open source solutions and won't pay a dime to encourage the development of a given feature. If you want something for free, then accept it for what it is. If you don't want to vote with a contribution (fiscal or otherwise), then don't expect the Earth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How the 'democracy ' works depends on the given project .
Some projects are very top-down , while others are more cooperative .
In other cases its only a democracy if you know how to code.As as user you get to have input , but in the end it is put up or change allegiances .
This is no different that a buying a product from a private company .
The difference is that most users do n't pay a dime for their open source solutions and wo n't pay a dime to encourage the development of a given feature .
If you want something for free , then accept it for what it is .
If you do n't want to vote with a contribution ( fiscal or otherwise ) , then do n't expect the Earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How the 'democracy' works depends on the given project.
Some projects are very top-down, while others are more cooperative.
In other cases its only a democracy if you know how to code.As as user you get to have input, but in the end it is put up or change allegiances.
This is no different that a buying a product from a private company.
The difference is that most users don't pay a dime for their open source solutions and won't pay a dime to encourage the development of a given feature.
If you want something for free, then accept it for what it is.
If you don't want to vote with a contribution (fiscal or otherwise), then don't expect the Earth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31575086</id>
	<title>Not a democracy, just stupidity.</title>
	<author>Requiem18th</author>
	<datestamp>1269251100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure Mark can do anything he wants with "his ubuntu". But it isn't intelligent to change something against the wishes of the community, for no good reason. And no, "we will put something there later" is not a good reason because whatever he plans to put on the right can go in the left.</p><p>The fanbois and the dev team itself have answered with childish "get used to it", "it's not a big deal", "have you tried it yet?"</p><p>Look, before you did shut down the poll, 75\% said they hated it and 20\% didn't care, about 5\% like it and I bet none of those -safe for the dev team itself- actually asked for it.</p><p>Personally I think it is a tragedy that it is so easy to fix... </p><p><div class="quote"><p>$ gconftool-2 --set<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/apps/metacity/general/button\_layout --type string menu:minimize,maximize,close</p></div><p>... because Mark and the dev team will think they made a great choice when the truth is that they are only going to make ubuntu less appealing and the only reason people aren't going to vote with their feet is because we are ubuntu geeks and know how to change this.</p><p>Problem is, all signs point Mark isn't interested in geek users, but *mac* users instead, which explains why he hired a bunch of Apple rejects to change the direction of development.</p><p>Linux Mint here I go...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure Mark can do anything he wants with " his ubuntu " .
But it is n't intelligent to change something against the wishes of the community , for no good reason .
And no , " we will put something there later " is not a good reason because whatever he plans to put on the right can go in the left.The fanbois and the dev team itself have answered with childish " get used to it " , " it 's not a big deal " , " have you tried it yet ?
" Look , before you did shut down the poll , 75 \ % said they hated it and 20 \ % did n't care , about 5 \ % like it and I bet none of those -safe for the dev team itself- actually asked for it.Personally I think it is a tragedy that it is so easy to fix... $ gconftool-2 --set /apps/metacity/general/button \ _layout --type string menu : minimize,maximize,close... because Mark and the dev team will think they made a great choice when the truth is that they are only going to make ubuntu less appealing and the only reason people are n't going to vote with their feet is because we are ubuntu geeks and know how to change this.Problem is , all signs point Mark is n't interested in geek users , but * mac * users instead , which explains why he hired a bunch of Apple rejects to change the direction of development.Linux Mint here I go.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure Mark can do anything he wants with "his ubuntu".
But it isn't intelligent to change something against the wishes of the community, for no good reason.
And no, "we will put something there later" is not a good reason because whatever he plans to put on the right can go in the left.The fanbois and the dev team itself have answered with childish "get used to it", "it's not a big deal", "have you tried it yet?
"Look, before you did shut down the poll, 75\% said they hated it and 20\% didn't care, about 5\% like it and I bet none of those -safe for the dev team itself- actually asked for it.Personally I think it is a tragedy that it is so easy to fix... $ gconftool-2 --set /apps/metacity/general/button\_layout --type string menu:minimize,maximize,close... because Mark and the dev team will think they made a great choice when the truth is that they are only going to make ubuntu less appealing and the only reason people aren't going to vote with their feet is because we are ubuntu geeks and know how to change this.Problem is, all signs point Mark isn't interested in geek users, but *mac* users instead, which explains why he hired a bunch of Apple rejects to change the direction of development.Linux Mint here I go...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571558</id>
	<title>I don't see any difference at all...</title>
	<author>Rainefan</author>
	<datestamp>1269282120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interesting if you compare to a democratic government and the critical decisions they make without any popular consensus...The people voted for that government and many time, their decision aren't orthogonal to people's desire, and unlike opensource,if you don't like it you can emigrate to other country. Yep..this is really hard to accomplish unlike opensource since you can fork the country and govern it the way you want or even you can change to another country or in opensource terms, to another project.

The Ubuntu governors are taking some critical(design) decisions based on their know-how expecting the hole community to adopt it as a good decision.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting if you compare to a democratic government and the critical decisions they make without any popular consensus...The people voted for that government and many time , their decision are n't orthogonal to people 's desire , and unlike opensource,if you do n't like it you can emigrate to other country .
Yep..this is really hard to accomplish unlike opensource since you can fork the country and govern it the way you want or even you can change to another country or in opensource terms , to another project .
The Ubuntu governors are taking some critical ( design ) decisions based on their know-how expecting the hole community to adopt it as a good decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting if you compare to a democratic government and the critical decisions they make without any popular consensus...The people voted for that government and many time, their decision aren't orthogonal to people's desire, and unlike opensource,if you don't like it you can emigrate to other country.
Yep..this is really hard to accomplish unlike opensource since you can fork the country and govern it the way you want or even you can change to another country or in opensource terms, to another project.
The Ubuntu governors are taking some critical(design) decisions based on their know-how expecting the hole community to adopt it as a good decision.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31575922</id>
	<title>Re:It's so simple</title>
	<author>bky1701</author>
	<datestamp>1269254640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ubuntu has already been forked (and outdone) many times. Linux Mint, which I just installed for a non-technical person, is far easier to use and install than Ubuntu ever was. Hell, Debian is more stable and usable than Ubuntu these days, and I've used both for long periods of time.
<br> <br>
All that Ubuntu has is money. They obviously have little security sense, as their answer to all security problems was to make su difficult to use; somehow, sudu magically fixes all security problems, by conditioning users to blindly type their password for any dialog box that asks. They have no UI sense, given this decision (among many, many others). Their package repos are basically a 1:1 copy of Debian, so no innovation there. They've shown they don't really care about stability; using Kubuntu, I had my system utterly screwed beyond all repair just because I upgraded to their KDE4 travesty (who releases a production distro based around a beta desktop environment?)
<br> <br>
Shuttleworth is buying a nice little cult, where his word is gospel, and he can screw with whatever he wants to screw with; nobody can say otherwise. Ubuntu is really not something to care much about because among Linux distros it is neither groundbreaking nor particularly good. Use better distros, suggest better distros, and let Shuttleworth play Civilization Linux from his ivory tower.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ubuntu has already been forked ( and outdone ) many times .
Linux Mint , which I just installed for a non-technical person , is far easier to use and install than Ubuntu ever was .
Hell , Debian is more stable and usable than Ubuntu these days , and I 've used both for long periods of time .
All that Ubuntu has is money .
They obviously have little security sense , as their answer to all security problems was to make su difficult to use ; somehow , sudu magically fixes all security problems , by conditioning users to blindly type their password for any dialog box that asks .
They have no UI sense , given this decision ( among many , many others ) .
Their package repos are basically a 1 : 1 copy of Debian , so no innovation there .
They 've shown they do n't really care about stability ; using Kubuntu , I had my system utterly screwed beyond all repair just because I upgraded to their KDE4 travesty ( who releases a production distro based around a beta desktop environment ?
) Shuttleworth is buying a nice little cult , where his word is gospel , and he can screw with whatever he wants to screw with ; nobody can say otherwise .
Ubuntu is really not something to care much about because among Linux distros it is neither groundbreaking nor particularly good .
Use better distros , suggest better distros , and let Shuttleworth play Civilization Linux from his ivory tower .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ubuntu has already been forked (and outdone) many times.
Linux Mint, which I just installed for a non-technical person, is far easier to use and install than Ubuntu ever was.
Hell, Debian is more stable and usable than Ubuntu these days, and I've used both for long periods of time.
All that Ubuntu has is money.
They obviously have little security sense, as their answer to all security problems was to make su difficult to use; somehow, sudu magically fixes all security problems, by conditioning users to blindly type their password for any dialog box that asks.
They have no UI sense, given this decision (among many, many others).
Their package repos are basically a 1:1 copy of Debian, so no innovation there.
They've shown they don't really care about stability; using Kubuntu, I had my system utterly screwed beyond all repair just because I upgraded to their KDE4 travesty (who releases a production distro based around a beta desktop environment?
)
 
Shuttleworth is buying a nice little cult, where his word is gospel, and he can screw with whatever he wants to screw with; nobody can say otherwise.
Ubuntu is really not something to care much about because among Linux distros it is neither groundbreaking nor particularly good.
Use better distros, suggest better distros, and let Shuttleworth play Civilization Linux from his ivory tower.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31578518</id>
	<title>Just move the buttons yourself???</title>
	<author>Bryan3000000</author>
	<datestamp>1269269460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's freakishly easy to move the buttons.  A single config file in gnome.  People have been doing this to make Ubuntu look more like OS X for a long time.  Of course, what would be really nice is if they would put this option in the GUI.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's freakishly easy to move the buttons .
A single config file in gnome .
People have been doing this to make Ubuntu look more like OS X for a long time .
Of course , what would be really nice is if they would put this option in the GUI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's freakishly easy to move the buttons.
A single config file in gnome.
People have been doing this to make Ubuntu look more like OS X for a long time.
Of course, what would be really nice is if they would put this option in the GUI.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31578016</id>
	<title>Re:User Interface Design</title>
	<author>iris-n</author>
	<datestamp>1269265620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not a good example. See:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In a way, the new button order makes more sense, maximise is the opposite of close and should be on the opposite side</p></div><p>"Makes sense", "opposite", blah blah. You're just demonstrating that there can't be objectivity on this issue. Nuclear reactors, OTOH, can be quite fatal if you change the order of the buttons.</p><p>The design team did not explain their decision because there's no explanation. It makes no sense, it's not better or worse. In the end, Mark was sincere: he put them on the left 'cos he wanted to toy with the right, that's it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not a good example .
See : In a way , the new button order makes more sense , maximise is the opposite of close and should be on the opposite side " Makes sense " , " opposite " , blah blah .
You 're just demonstrating that there ca n't be objectivity on this issue .
Nuclear reactors , OTOH , can be quite fatal if you change the order of the buttons.The design team did not explain their decision because there 's no explanation .
It makes no sense , it 's not better or worse .
In the end , Mark was sincere : he put them on the left 'cos he wanted to toy with the right , that 's it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not a good example.
See:In a way, the new button order makes more sense, maximise is the opposite of close and should be on the opposite side"Makes sense", "opposite", blah blah.
You're just demonstrating that there can't be objectivity on this issue.
Nuclear reactors, OTOH, can be quite fatal if you change the order of the buttons.The design team did not explain their decision because there's no explanation.
It makes no sense, it's not better or worse.
In the end, Mark was sincere: he put them on the left 'cos he wanted to toy with the right, that's it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572492</id>
	<title>Linux and the Church</title>
	<author>HikingStick</author>
	<datestamp>1269284760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Linux community is starting to come to terms with something the Church has been learning to deal with for years: the more you fork (denominationalize), the less commonality you have in the pursuit of your broader purpose or goal.  In time, different branches end up competing with each other for support. Because of the way things are in the FOSS community, if enough people felt strongly enough about the issue (the placement of menu items/controls), they could fork and start their own project. [I'm not saying it will happen over this issue, but it stirred the thought in my mind.]<br> <br>You can't have true democracy in any project, because you need someone (project manager) or something (project plan) making sure that all changes align with the ultimate project plan.  True democracy in a software build suggests that the software can be changed any time and any way desired by a simple majority.  That would not lend to stability (another lesson the Church seems only marginally able to understand).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Linux community is starting to come to terms with something the Church has been learning to deal with for years : the more you fork ( denominationalize ) , the less commonality you have in the pursuit of your broader purpose or goal .
In time , different branches end up competing with each other for support .
Because of the way things are in the FOSS community , if enough people felt strongly enough about the issue ( the placement of menu items/controls ) , they could fork and start their own project .
[ I 'm not saying it will happen over this issue , but it stirred the thought in my mind .
] You ca n't have true democracy in any project , because you need someone ( project manager ) or something ( project plan ) making sure that all changes align with the ultimate project plan .
True democracy in a software build suggests that the software can be changed any time and any way desired by a simple majority .
That would not lend to stability ( another lesson the Church seems only marginally able to understand ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Linux community is starting to come to terms with something the Church has been learning to deal with for years: the more you fork (denominationalize), the less commonality you have in the pursuit of your broader purpose or goal.
In time, different branches end up competing with each other for support.
Because of the way things are in the FOSS community, if enough people felt strongly enough about the issue (the placement of menu items/controls), they could fork and start their own project.
[I'm not saying it will happen over this issue, but it stirred the thought in my mind.
] You can't have true democracy in any project, because you need someone (project manager) or something (project plan) making sure that all changes align with the ultimate project plan.
True democracy in a software build suggests that the software can be changed any time and any way desired by a simple majority.
That would not lend to stability (another lesson the Church seems only marginally able to understand).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572048</id>
	<title>Free software versus open source</title>
	<author>FoolishOwl</author>
	<datestamp>1269283380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I may have been getting lazy: I get tired of the FSF's polemics, and it was easy to believe that the split between free software and open source software was more noise than light. But, this sort of thing reminds me that there really is a fundamental issue at stake.</p><p>I want software with open source code, adhering to public standards decided by democratic committees. I want the structure of an operating system to reflect the principle that users make the decisions, not the distributors, and not the principle of control by a benevolent dictator, whether it's Gates, Jobs, Shuttleworth, Torvalds, or even Stallman.</p><p>I keep wondering whether to switch from Ubuntu to some other distribution. But on the one hand, I'm still struggling to get my family to accept Linux at all, and on the other, I don't get the impression that the other distributions are that much better. Even gNewsense is transparently a fork of Ubuntu.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I may have been getting lazy : I get tired of the FSF 's polemics , and it was easy to believe that the split between free software and open source software was more noise than light .
But , this sort of thing reminds me that there really is a fundamental issue at stake.I want software with open source code , adhering to public standards decided by democratic committees .
I want the structure of an operating system to reflect the principle that users make the decisions , not the distributors , and not the principle of control by a benevolent dictator , whether it 's Gates , Jobs , Shuttleworth , Torvalds , or even Stallman.I keep wondering whether to switch from Ubuntu to some other distribution .
But on the one hand , I 'm still struggling to get my family to accept Linux at all , and on the other , I do n't get the impression that the other distributions are that much better .
Even gNewsense is transparently a fork of Ubuntu .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I may have been getting lazy: I get tired of the FSF's polemics, and it was easy to believe that the split between free software and open source software was more noise than light.
But, this sort of thing reminds me that there really is a fundamental issue at stake.I want software with open source code, adhering to public standards decided by democratic committees.
I want the structure of an operating system to reflect the principle that users make the decisions, not the distributors, and not the principle of control by a benevolent dictator, whether it's Gates, Jobs, Shuttleworth, Torvalds, or even Stallman.I keep wondering whether to switch from Ubuntu to some other distribution.
But on the one hand, I'm still struggling to get my family to accept Linux at all, and on the other, I don't get the impression that the other distributions are that much better.
Even gNewsense is transparently a fork of Ubuntu.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31592234</id>
	<title>Re:Why left?</title>
	<author>Risen888</author>
	<datestamp>1269352680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And there's no reason a design expert should be forced to explain those reasons to a layman</i></p><p>Bullshit. In a project which prides itself on its community, there is every reason.</p><p><i>as windows resize, the top left corner is the anchor from which all resizing is done</i></p><p>That's an interesting hypothesis. I hadn't thought of that.</p><p><i>as left-to-right/top-to-bottom readers, our eyes are naturally drawn to the top left, so putting critical controls there makes sense</i></p><p>I'd say that's a reason to put the most destructive controls (closing and minimizing) as far away from that corner as possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And there 's no reason a design expert should be forced to explain those reasons to a laymanBullshit .
In a project which prides itself on its community , there is every reason.as windows resize , the top left corner is the anchor from which all resizing is doneThat 's an interesting hypothesis .
I had n't thought of that.as left-to-right/top-to-bottom readers , our eyes are naturally drawn to the top left , so putting critical controls there makes senseI 'd say that 's a reason to put the most destructive controls ( closing and minimizing ) as far away from that corner as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And there's no reason a design expert should be forced to explain those reasons to a laymanBullshit.
In a project which prides itself on its community, there is every reason.as windows resize, the top left corner is the anchor from which all resizing is doneThat's an interesting hypothesis.
I hadn't thought of that.as left-to-right/top-to-bottom readers, our eyes are naturally drawn to the top left, so putting critical controls there makes senseI'd say that's a reason to put the most destructive controls (closing and minimizing) as far away from that corner as possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572432</id>
	<title>Of course not!</title>
	<author>alex67500</author>
	<datestamp>1269284580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The GPL license is what is closest to communism. Ever seen a communist regime that was a democracy ?
(I need to leave now, the Party is looking for me)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The GPL license is what is closest to communism .
Ever seen a communist regime that was a democracy ?
( I need to leave now , the Party is looking for me )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The GPL license is what is closest to communism.
Ever seen a communist regime that was a democracy ?
(I need to leave now, the Party is looking for me)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571644</id>
	<title>Re:Why left?</title>
	<author>icannotthinkofaname</author>
	<datestamp>1269282300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mark Shuttleworth wants to de-clutter the right so as to <a href="http://www.webupd8.org/2010/03/and-reason-why-metacity-window-buttons.html" title="webupd8.org">add nifty new stuff on the right in the future</a> [webupd8.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mark Shuttleworth wants to de-clutter the right so as to add nifty new stuff on the right in the future [ webupd8.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mark Shuttleworth wants to de-clutter the right so as to add nifty new stuff on the right in the future [webupd8.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31575466</id>
	<title>Why is this **** hardcoded?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269252720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they know it's going to be controversial, why not have this **** in a configuration file? Would it add as much as 0.001\% to startup time for the window manager?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they know it 's going to be controversial , why not have this * * * * in a configuration file ?
Would it add as much as 0.001 \ % to startup time for the window manager ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they know it's going to be controversial, why not have this **** in a configuration file?
Would it add as much as 0.001\% to startup time for the window manager?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31575196</id>
	<title>Re:Why left?</title>
	<author>Dhalka226</author>
	<datestamp>1269251520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I certainly agree that "because Mac does it" is not a good reason. But that doesn't mean there isn't a good reason</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, that's fair enough.  The funny part, however, is that they actually <em>didn't</em> do what Mac does.  Oh, sure, superficially they moved the buttons to be on the same side and that's what Mac does, but they actually reversed the button positions.

</p><blockquote><div><p>And there's no reason a design expert should be forced to explain those reasons to a layman. That's asking too much.</p></div></blockquote><p>I suppose nobody HAS to do explain anything to anybody, but sometimes it is appropriate.  For starters, when users are consistently telling you they don't like what you're doing, that sounds like a pretty good time.  A lot of times it's nothing more than a general distaste for change.  On the other hand, change for the sake of change is disruptive and destructive.  Articulating why they should go through the short-term pain of learning a new layout may not be required, but it should be proffered.

</p><p>The reason I brought up the Mac difference before is the second reason I think their decisions should be explained.  I'm 99.99\% sure that Apple has some seriously professional UI people working for them who weighed into the decision of where to place their buttons and in what order.  I'm 95\% sure that Microsoft does as well, and they reached a completely different conclusion.  Apparently, Ubuntu has people who they consider to be experts working for them (in a paid capacity or not) and they have arrived at yet a <em>third</em> conclusion, which they apparently only defend by claiming that their users haven't proven themselves expert enough to weigh into the decision.

</p><p>Two out of three sets of professionals are against their approach, and in fact they specifically altered their approach from agreeing* with Microsoft's approach to inventing one of their own.  As the newest entrant into this particular battlefield, they have the advantage of time to study and evaluate the previous two approaches and they rejected them.  Why?  If their approach is superior to the ones that come before, let's hear it.  It will be educational for everybody.  Many of their users are against them, two other sets of professionals are against them -- what's wrong with asking them to articulate their reasoning?  Hell, for that matter why does anybody even <em>need</em> to ask?

</p><p>* They most likely did this just to help Windows users in the transition, but that is not my point.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I certainly agree that " because Mac does it " is not a good reason .
But that does n't mean there is n't a good reasonWell , that 's fair enough .
The funny part , however , is that they actually did n't do what Mac does .
Oh , sure , superficially they moved the buttons to be on the same side and that 's what Mac does , but they actually reversed the button positions .
And there 's no reason a design expert should be forced to explain those reasons to a layman .
That 's asking too much.I suppose nobody HAS to do explain anything to anybody , but sometimes it is appropriate .
For starters , when users are consistently telling you they do n't like what you 're doing , that sounds like a pretty good time .
A lot of times it 's nothing more than a general distaste for change .
On the other hand , change for the sake of change is disruptive and destructive .
Articulating why they should go through the short-term pain of learning a new layout may not be required , but it should be proffered .
The reason I brought up the Mac difference before is the second reason I think their decisions should be explained .
I 'm 99.99 \ % sure that Apple has some seriously professional UI people working for them who weighed into the decision of where to place their buttons and in what order .
I 'm 95 \ % sure that Microsoft does as well , and they reached a completely different conclusion .
Apparently , Ubuntu has people who they consider to be experts working for them ( in a paid capacity or not ) and they have arrived at yet a third conclusion , which they apparently only defend by claiming that their users have n't proven themselves expert enough to weigh into the decision .
Two out of three sets of professionals are against their approach , and in fact they specifically altered their approach from agreeing * with Microsoft 's approach to inventing one of their own .
As the newest entrant into this particular battlefield , they have the advantage of time to study and evaluate the previous two approaches and they rejected them .
Why ? If their approach is superior to the ones that come before , let 's hear it .
It will be educational for everybody .
Many of their users are against them , two other sets of professionals are against them -- what 's wrong with asking them to articulate their reasoning ?
Hell , for that matter why does anybody even need to ask ?
* They most likely did this just to help Windows users in the transition , but that is not my point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I certainly agree that "because Mac does it" is not a good reason.
But that doesn't mean there isn't a good reasonWell, that's fair enough.
The funny part, however, is that they actually didn't do what Mac does.
Oh, sure, superficially they moved the buttons to be on the same side and that's what Mac does, but they actually reversed the button positions.
And there's no reason a design expert should be forced to explain those reasons to a layman.
That's asking too much.I suppose nobody HAS to do explain anything to anybody, but sometimes it is appropriate.
For starters, when users are consistently telling you they don't like what you're doing, that sounds like a pretty good time.
A lot of times it's nothing more than a general distaste for change.
On the other hand, change for the sake of change is disruptive and destructive.
Articulating why they should go through the short-term pain of learning a new layout may not be required, but it should be proffered.
The reason I brought up the Mac difference before is the second reason I think their decisions should be explained.
I'm 99.99\% sure that Apple has some seriously professional UI people working for them who weighed into the decision of where to place their buttons and in what order.
I'm 95\% sure that Microsoft does as well, and they reached a completely different conclusion.
Apparently, Ubuntu has people who they consider to be experts working for them (in a paid capacity or not) and they have arrived at yet a third conclusion, which they apparently only defend by claiming that their users haven't proven themselves expert enough to weigh into the decision.
Two out of three sets of professionals are against their approach, and in fact they specifically altered their approach from agreeing* with Microsoft's approach to inventing one of their own.
As the newest entrant into this particular battlefield, they have the advantage of time to study and evaluate the previous two approaches and they rejected them.
Why?  If their approach is superior to the ones that come before, let's hear it.
It will be educational for everybody.
Many of their users are against them, two other sets of professionals are against them -- what's wrong with asking them to articulate their reasoning?
Hell, for that matter why does anybody even need to ask?
* They most likely did this just to help Windows users in the transition, but that is not my point.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571734</id>
	<title>Re:Why left?</title>
	<author>guruevi</author>
	<datestamp>1269282540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe the reason the Mac does this is because you don't need those 3 buttons as often. According to the Apple Design Guidelines, the initial window size (when you open the program) should be adjusted to the size of the content that's going to be in it. Scrolling to left-right or excessive whitespace should not exist (according to the specs). Since the underlying layers use PDF-like properties to render window content, all content should be uniform regardless of the media it's being carried on (print or screen).</p><p>I don't know if there are similar guidelines in Gnome/Windows but it seems that a lot of developers on those platforms don't really care so you're continuously adjusting windows, so it should probably be on the right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe the reason the Mac does this is because you do n't need those 3 buttons as often .
According to the Apple Design Guidelines , the initial window size ( when you open the program ) should be adjusted to the size of the content that 's going to be in it .
Scrolling to left-right or excessive whitespace should not exist ( according to the specs ) .
Since the underlying layers use PDF-like properties to render window content , all content should be uniform regardless of the media it 's being carried on ( print or screen ) .I do n't know if there are similar guidelines in Gnome/Windows but it seems that a lot of developers on those platforms do n't really care so you 're continuously adjusting windows , so it should probably be on the right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe the reason the Mac does this is because you don't need those 3 buttons as often.
According to the Apple Design Guidelines, the initial window size (when you open the program) should be adjusted to the size of the content that's going to be in it.
Scrolling to left-right or excessive whitespace should not exist (according to the specs).
Since the underlying layers use PDF-like properties to render window content, all content should be uniform regardless of the media it's being carried on (print or screen).I don't know if there are similar guidelines in Gnome/Windows but it seems that a lot of developers on those platforms don't really care so you're continuously adjusting windows, so it should probably be on the right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572524</id>
	<title>Re:Why left?</title>
	<author>Stormwatch</author>
	<datestamp>1269284880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And no, "because Mac does it" is not a good reason.</p></div><p>Actually, that must be the reason: they want to make Ubuntu more "user-friendly", so they just rip off the Mac. Sadly, it seems they don't truly understand what gives the Mac such reputation. So they can't even rip it off correctly: they completely fucked up everything by having "close" as the third button!</p><p>Apple's order actually makes sense, and it's even color-coded: [red X] [yellow -] [green +]. Or, respectively: close, minimize, expand. By order of "seriousness" of the result of clicking it. By the way, the "classic" Mac OS made even more sense: the close button was on the left, and the others on the right. So you would never close a window by accident when you just meant to expand it. If you're going to copy Apple anyway, why not copy that instead?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And no , " because Mac does it " is not a good reason.Actually , that must be the reason : they want to make Ubuntu more " user-friendly " , so they just rip off the Mac .
Sadly , it seems they do n't truly understand what gives the Mac such reputation .
So they ca n't even rip it off correctly : they completely fucked up everything by having " close " as the third button ! Apple 's order actually makes sense , and it 's even color-coded : [ red X ] [ yellow - ] [ green + ] .
Or , respectively : close , minimize , expand .
By order of " seriousness " of the result of clicking it .
By the way , the " classic " Mac OS made even more sense : the close button was on the left , and the others on the right .
So you would never close a window by accident when you just meant to expand it .
If you 're going to copy Apple anyway , why not copy that instead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And no, "because Mac does it" is not a good reason.Actually, that must be the reason: they want to make Ubuntu more "user-friendly", so they just rip off the Mac.
Sadly, it seems they don't truly understand what gives the Mac such reputation.
So they can't even rip it off correctly: they completely fucked up everything by having "close" as the third button!Apple's order actually makes sense, and it's even color-coded: [red X] [yellow -] [green +].
Or, respectively: close, minimize, expand.
By order of "seriousness" of the result of clicking it.
By the way, the "classic" Mac OS made even more sense: the close button was on the left, and the others on the right.
So you would never close a window by accident when you just meant to expand it.
If you're going to copy Apple anyway, why not copy that instead?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571560</id>
	<title>Full quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269282120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As it often happens the summary is rather sensationalist, as I would not dare accuse anyone of actually RTFA, here's Shuttleworth's full response (with which I could not agree more):</p><p>Mark Shuttleworth  wrote on 2010-03-17:  Re: [Bug 532633] Re: [light-theme] please revert the order of the window controls back to "menu:minimize, maximize, close"          #167</p><p>On 15/03/10 23:42, Pablo Quir&#243;s wrote:<br>&gt; It'd have been nice if this comment had been made some time ago,<br>&gt; together with a deep reasoning on the concrete changes that are in mind.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; We are supposed to be a community, we all use Ubuntu and contribute to<br>&gt; it, and we deserve some respect regarding these kind of decisions. We<br>&gt; all make Ubuntu together, or is it a big lie?</p><p>We all make Ubuntu, but we do not all make all of it. In other words, we<br>delegate well. We have a kernel team, and they make kernel decisions.<br>You don't get to make kernel decisions unless you're in that kernel<br>team. You can file bugs and comment, and engage, but you don't get to<br>second-guess their decisions. We have a security team. They get to make<br>decisions about security. You don't get to see a lot of what they see<br>unless you're on that team. We have processes to help make sure we're<br>doing a good job of delegation, but being an open community is not the<br>same as saying everybody has a say in everything.</p><p>This is a difference between Ubuntu and several other community<br>distributions. It may feel less democratic, but it's more meritocratic,<br>and most importantly it means (a) we should have the best people making<br>any given decision, and (b) it's worth investing your time to become the<br>best person to make certain decisions, because you should have that<br>competence recognised and rewarded with the freedom to make hard<br>decisions and not get second-guessed all the time.</p><p>It's fair comment that this was a big change, and landed without<br>warning. There aren't any good reasons for that, but it's also true that<br>no amount of warning would produce consensus about a decision like this.</p><p>&gt; If you want to tell us<br>&gt; that we are all part of it, we want information, and we want our opinion<br>&gt; to be decisive.<br>&gt;</p><p>No. This is not a democracy. Good feedback, good data, are welcome. But<br>we are not voting on design decisions.</p><p>Mark</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As it often happens the summary is rather sensationalist , as I would not dare accuse anyone of actually RTFA , here 's Shuttleworth 's full response ( with which I could not agree more ) : Mark Shuttleworth wrote on 2010-03-17 : Re : [ Bug 532633 ] Re : [ light-theme ] please revert the order of the window controls back to " menu : minimize , maximize , close " # 167On 15/03/10 23 : 42 , Pablo Quir   s wrote : &gt; It 'd have been nice if this comment had been made some time ago , &gt; together with a deep reasoning on the concrete changes that are in mind. &gt; &gt; We are supposed to be a community , we all use Ubuntu and contribute to &gt; it , and we deserve some respect regarding these kind of decisions .
We &gt; all make Ubuntu together , or is it a big lie ? We all make Ubuntu , but we do not all make all of it .
In other words , wedelegate well .
We have a kernel team , and they make kernel decisions.You do n't get to make kernel decisions unless you 're in that kernelteam .
You can file bugs and comment , and engage , but you do n't get tosecond-guess their decisions .
We have a security team .
They get to makedecisions about security .
You do n't get to see a lot of what they seeunless you 're on that team .
We have processes to help make sure we'redoing a good job of delegation , but being an open community is not thesame as saying everybody has a say in everything.This is a difference between Ubuntu and several other communitydistributions .
It may feel less democratic , but it 's more meritocratic,and most importantly it means ( a ) we should have the best people makingany given decision , and ( b ) it 's worth investing your time to become thebest person to make certain decisions , because you should have thatcompetence recognised and rewarded with the freedom to make harddecisions and not get second-guessed all the time.It 's fair comment that this was a big change , and landed withoutwarning .
There are n't any good reasons for that , but it 's also true thatno amount of warning would produce consensus about a decision like this. &gt; If you want to tell us &gt; that we are all part of it , we want information , and we want our opinion &gt; to be decisive. &gt; No .
This is not a democracy .
Good feedback , good data , are welcome .
Butwe are not voting on design decisions.Mark</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As it often happens the summary is rather sensationalist, as I would not dare accuse anyone of actually RTFA, here's Shuttleworth's full response (with which I could not agree more):Mark Shuttleworth  wrote on 2010-03-17:  Re: [Bug 532633] Re: [light-theme] please revert the order of the window controls back to "menu:minimize, maximize, close"          #167On 15/03/10 23:42, Pablo Quirós wrote:&gt; It'd have been nice if this comment had been made some time ago,&gt; together with a deep reasoning on the concrete changes that are in mind.&gt;&gt; We are supposed to be a community, we all use Ubuntu and contribute to&gt; it, and we deserve some respect regarding these kind of decisions.
We&gt; all make Ubuntu together, or is it a big lie?We all make Ubuntu, but we do not all make all of it.
In other words, wedelegate well.
We have a kernel team, and they make kernel decisions.You don't get to make kernel decisions unless you're in that kernelteam.
You can file bugs and comment, and engage, but you don't get tosecond-guess their decisions.
We have a security team.
They get to makedecisions about security.
You don't get to see a lot of what they seeunless you're on that team.
We have processes to help make sure we'redoing a good job of delegation, but being an open community is not thesame as saying everybody has a say in everything.This is a difference between Ubuntu and several other communitydistributions.
It may feel less democratic, but it's more meritocratic,and most importantly it means (a) we should have the best people makingany given decision, and (b) it's worth investing your time to become thebest person to make certain decisions, because you should have thatcompetence recognised and rewarded with the freedom to make harddecisions and not get second-guessed all the time.It's fair comment that this was a big change, and landed withoutwarning.
There aren't any good reasons for that, but it's also true thatno amount of warning would produce consensus about a decision like this.&gt; If you want to tell us&gt; that we are all part of it, we want information, and we want our opinion&gt; to be decisive.&gt;No.
This is not a democracy.
Good feedback, good data, are welcome.
Butwe are not voting on design decisions.Mark</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31578434</id>
	<title>The Order of the Window Controls</title>
	<author>formfeed</author>
	<datestamp>1269268860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> the order of the window controls within the Light</p> </div><p>WTF? </p><p>
<b> The Order of the Window Controls within the Light </b>
</p><p>
-that sounds like a secret society to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the order of the window controls within the Light WTF ?
The Order of the Window Controls within the Light -that sounds like a secret society to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> the order of the window controls within the Light WTF?
The Order of the Window Controls within the Light 

-that sounds like a secret society to me.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573452</id>
	<title>Why does anyone care?</title>
	<author>OptimusPaul</author>
	<datestamp>1269288240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who even clicks on those controls anyway, aren't there shortcuts for all those?

Really though, is it any surprise that someone suggested that OSS isn't a democracy? Of course it's not, it's barely organized. It's more like a theocracy.  You've got some doofus who thinks he/she is god and makes all kinds of crazy decisions for the software that make no sense.  Much of the time there are actual moments that we feel blessed that "god" has provided for us.  But then there are the days that are the day of rest, which often go on for weeks or months.  I don't blame them, they are for the most part doing this for free.  And in many cases it is there creation and they have a lot invested in it.  You can try petitioning the commiter with prayer but good luck with that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who even clicks on those controls anyway , are n't there shortcuts for all those ?
Really though , is it any surprise that someone suggested that OSS is n't a democracy ?
Of course it 's not , it 's barely organized .
It 's more like a theocracy .
You 've got some doofus who thinks he/she is god and makes all kinds of crazy decisions for the software that make no sense .
Much of the time there are actual moments that we feel blessed that " god " has provided for us .
But then there are the days that are the day of rest , which often go on for weeks or months .
I do n't blame them , they are for the most part doing this for free .
And in many cases it is there creation and they have a lot invested in it .
You can try petitioning the commiter with prayer but good luck with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who even clicks on those controls anyway, aren't there shortcuts for all those?
Really though, is it any surprise that someone suggested that OSS isn't a democracy?
Of course it's not, it's barely organized.
It's more like a theocracy.
You've got some doofus who thinks he/she is god and makes all kinds of crazy decisions for the software that make no sense.
Much of the time there are actual moments that we feel blessed that "god" has provided for us.
But then there are the days that are the day of rest, which often go on for weeks or months.
I don't blame them, they are for the most part doing this for free.
And in many cases it is there creation and they have a lot invested in it.
You can try petitioning the commiter with prayer but good luck with that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31574088</id>
	<title>Benevolent Dictator vs. Consensus-Based Democracy</title>
	<author>\_\_roo</author>
	<datestamp>1269290700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reading through a lot of the replies, I think it would help a lot of people to understand the two most prevalent kinds of political and social infrastructure for open source projects: <em>benevolent dictator</em> and <em>consensus-based democracy</em>. Karl Fogel, in his excellent book, <a href="http://producingoss.com/" title="producingoss.com">Producing Open Source Software (O'Reilly)</a> [producingoss.com] -- which itself is open source and available for free download -- summarizes them extremely well. Reading TFA and replies, it seems to me that this is a really good case study in how an open source project is managed. I highly recommend reading Karl's section on <a href="http://producingoss.com/en/producingoss.html#social-infrastructure" title="producingoss.com">Political and Social Infrastructure</a> [producingoss.com]. I'll include two relevant excerpts, because I think they shine light on exactly this situation.</p><p>From  his section on <a href="http://producingoss.com/en/producingoss.html#benevolent-dictator" title="producingoss.com">benevolent dictators</a> [producingoss.com]:</p><blockquote><div><p>The benevolent dictator model is exactly what it sounds like: final decision-making authority rests with one person, who, by virtue of personality and experience, is expected to use it wisely.</p><p>Although "benevolent dictator" (or BD)is the standard term for this role, it would be better to think of it as "community-approved arbitrator" or "judge". Generally, benevolent dictators do not actually make all the decisions, or even most of the decisions. It's unlikely that one person could have enough expertise to make consistently good decisions across all areas of the project, and anyway, quality developers won't stay around unless they have some influence on the project's direction. Therefore, benevolent dictators commonly do not dictate much. Instead, they let things work themselves out through discussion and experimentation whenever possible. They participate in those discussions themselves, but as regular developers, often deferring to an area maintainer who has more expertise. Only when it is clear that no consensus can be reached, and that most of the group wants someone to guide the decision so that development can move on, do they put their foot down and say "This is the way it's going to be." Reluctance to make decisions by fiat is a trait shared by virtually all successful benevolent dictators; it is one of the reasons they manage to keep the role.</p></div></blockquote><p>and on <a href="http://producingoss.com/en/producingoss.html#consensus-democracy" title="producingoss.com">consensus-based democracy</a> [producingoss.com]:</p><blockquote><div><p>As projects get older, they tend to move away from the benevolent dictatorship model and toward more openly democratic systems. This is not necessarily out of dissatisfaction with a particular BD. It's simply that group-based governance is more "evolutionarily stable", to borrow a biological metaphor. Whenever a benevolent dictator steps down, or attempts to spread decision-making responsibility more evenly, it is an opportunity for the group to settle on a new, non-dictatorial system&mdash;establish a constitution, as it were. The group may not take this opportunity the first time, or the second, but eventually they will; once they do, the decision is unlikely ever to be reversed. Common sense explains why: if a group of N people were to vest one person with special power, it would mean that N - 1 people were each agreeing to decrease their individual influence. People usually don't want to do that. Even if they did, the resulting dictatorship would still be conditional: the group anointed the BD, clearly the group could depose the BD. Therefore, once a project has moved from leadership by a charismatic individual to a more formal, group-based system, it rarely moves back.</p><p>The details of how these systems work vary widely, but there are two common elements: one, the group works by consensus most of the time; two, there is a formal voting mechanism to fall back on when consensus cannot be reached.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading through a lot of the replies , I think it would help a lot of people to understand the two most prevalent kinds of political and social infrastructure for open source projects : benevolent dictator and consensus-based democracy .
Karl Fogel , in his excellent book , Producing Open Source Software ( O'Reilly ) [ producingoss.com ] -- which itself is open source and available for free download -- summarizes them extremely well .
Reading TFA and replies , it seems to me that this is a really good case study in how an open source project is managed .
I highly recommend reading Karl 's section on Political and Social Infrastructure [ producingoss.com ] .
I 'll include two relevant excerpts , because I think they shine light on exactly this situation.From his section on benevolent dictators [ producingoss.com ] : The benevolent dictator model is exactly what it sounds like : final decision-making authority rests with one person , who , by virtue of personality and experience , is expected to use it wisely.Although " benevolent dictator " ( or BD ) is the standard term for this role , it would be better to think of it as " community-approved arbitrator " or " judge " .
Generally , benevolent dictators do not actually make all the decisions , or even most of the decisions .
It 's unlikely that one person could have enough expertise to make consistently good decisions across all areas of the project , and anyway , quality developers wo n't stay around unless they have some influence on the project 's direction .
Therefore , benevolent dictators commonly do not dictate much .
Instead , they let things work themselves out through discussion and experimentation whenever possible .
They participate in those discussions themselves , but as regular developers , often deferring to an area maintainer who has more expertise .
Only when it is clear that no consensus can be reached , and that most of the group wants someone to guide the decision so that development can move on , do they put their foot down and say " This is the way it 's going to be .
" Reluctance to make decisions by fiat is a trait shared by virtually all successful benevolent dictators ; it is one of the reasons they manage to keep the role.and on consensus-based democracy [ producingoss.com ] : As projects get older , they tend to move away from the benevolent dictatorship model and toward more openly democratic systems .
This is not necessarily out of dissatisfaction with a particular BD .
It 's simply that group-based governance is more " evolutionarily stable " , to borrow a biological metaphor .
Whenever a benevolent dictator steps down , or attempts to spread decision-making responsibility more evenly , it is an opportunity for the group to settle on a new , non-dictatorial system    establish a constitution , as it were .
The group may not take this opportunity the first time , or the second , but eventually they will ; once they do , the decision is unlikely ever to be reversed .
Common sense explains why : if a group of N people were to vest one person with special power , it would mean that N - 1 people were each agreeing to decrease their individual influence .
People usually do n't want to do that .
Even if they did , the resulting dictatorship would still be conditional : the group anointed the BD , clearly the group could depose the BD .
Therefore , once a project has moved from leadership by a charismatic individual to a more formal , group-based system , it rarely moves back.The details of how these systems work vary widely , but there are two common elements : one , the group works by consensus most of the time ; two , there is a formal voting mechanism to fall back on when consensus can not be reached .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading through a lot of the replies, I think it would help a lot of people to understand the two most prevalent kinds of political and social infrastructure for open source projects: benevolent dictator and consensus-based democracy.
Karl Fogel, in his excellent book, Producing Open Source Software (O'Reilly) [producingoss.com] -- which itself is open source and available for free download -- summarizes them extremely well.
Reading TFA and replies, it seems to me that this is a really good case study in how an open source project is managed.
I highly recommend reading Karl's section on Political and Social Infrastructure [producingoss.com].
I'll include two relevant excerpts, because I think they shine light on exactly this situation.From  his section on benevolent dictators [producingoss.com]:The benevolent dictator model is exactly what it sounds like: final decision-making authority rests with one person, who, by virtue of personality and experience, is expected to use it wisely.Although "benevolent dictator" (or BD)is the standard term for this role, it would be better to think of it as "community-approved arbitrator" or "judge".
Generally, benevolent dictators do not actually make all the decisions, or even most of the decisions.
It's unlikely that one person could have enough expertise to make consistently good decisions across all areas of the project, and anyway, quality developers won't stay around unless they have some influence on the project's direction.
Therefore, benevolent dictators commonly do not dictate much.
Instead, they let things work themselves out through discussion and experimentation whenever possible.
They participate in those discussions themselves, but as regular developers, often deferring to an area maintainer who has more expertise.
Only when it is clear that no consensus can be reached, and that most of the group wants someone to guide the decision so that development can move on, do they put their foot down and say "This is the way it's going to be.
" Reluctance to make decisions by fiat is a trait shared by virtually all successful benevolent dictators; it is one of the reasons they manage to keep the role.and on consensus-based democracy [producingoss.com]:As projects get older, they tend to move away from the benevolent dictatorship model and toward more openly democratic systems.
This is not necessarily out of dissatisfaction with a particular BD.
It's simply that group-based governance is more "evolutionarily stable", to borrow a biological metaphor.
Whenever a benevolent dictator steps down, or attempts to spread decision-making responsibility more evenly, it is an opportunity for the group to settle on a new, non-dictatorial system—establish a constitution, as it were.
The group may not take this opportunity the first time, or the second, but eventually they will; once they do, the decision is unlikely ever to be reversed.
Common sense explains why: if a group of N people were to vest one person with special power, it would mean that N - 1 people were each agreeing to decrease their individual influence.
People usually don't want to do that.
Even if they did, the resulting dictatorship would still be conditional: the group anointed the BD, clearly the group could depose the BD.
Therefore, once a project has moved from leadership by a charismatic individual to a more formal, group-based system, it rarely moves back.The details of how these systems work vary widely, but there are two common elements: one, the group works by consensus most of the time; two, there is a formal voting mechanism to fall back on when consensus cannot be reached.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571758</id>
	<title>Democracy is a means, not an end</title>
	<author>MikeRT</author>
	<datestamp>1269282600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is too much fetishism about democracy in the West today and not enough honest questioning of what we really have. Are we freer than we were at any point the past? Are we safer? Are we more prosperous? Do our laws and courts secure justice better or worse than they used to?</p><p>One of the major problems with democracy is that every Tom, Dick and Harry wants to have his say without having to put his money where his mouth is. The moment a democracy lets people vote without paying any taxes is the moment it begins its death spiral. For a FOSS project, the moment it starts weighing the input of every two-bit commenter as much as the core community (barring them having a genuine insight) is the moment it becomes consigned to ad hoc, designed-by-committee hell.</p><p>The way I see it, FOSS projects are like republican city states except with an infinite supply of land. Don't like someone's decision? Fork the code and move on. That stops contrarians pretty quickly. People want the democratic input because they don't want to have to do the leg work like, for example, supporting multiple L&amp;F packages on ubuntu.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is too much fetishism about democracy in the West today and not enough honest questioning of what we really have .
Are we freer than we were at any point the past ?
Are we safer ?
Are we more prosperous ?
Do our laws and courts secure justice better or worse than they used to ? One of the major problems with democracy is that every Tom , Dick and Harry wants to have his say without having to put his money where his mouth is .
The moment a democracy lets people vote without paying any taxes is the moment it begins its death spiral .
For a FOSS project , the moment it starts weighing the input of every two-bit commenter as much as the core community ( barring them having a genuine insight ) is the moment it becomes consigned to ad hoc , designed-by-committee hell.The way I see it , FOSS projects are like republican city states except with an infinite supply of land .
Do n't like someone 's decision ?
Fork the code and move on .
That stops contrarians pretty quickly .
People want the democratic input because they do n't want to have to do the leg work like , for example , supporting multiple L&amp;F packages on ubuntu .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is too much fetishism about democracy in the West today and not enough honest questioning of what we really have.
Are we freer than we were at any point the past?
Are we safer?
Are we more prosperous?
Do our laws and courts secure justice better or worse than they used to?One of the major problems with democracy is that every Tom, Dick and Harry wants to have his say without having to put his money where his mouth is.
The moment a democracy lets people vote without paying any taxes is the moment it begins its death spiral.
For a FOSS project, the moment it starts weighing the input of every two-bit commenter as much as the core community (barring them having a genuine insight) is the moment it becomes consigned to ad hoc, designed-by-committee hell.The way I see it, FOSS projects are like republican city states except with an infinite supply of land.
Don't like someone's decision?
Fork the code and move on.
That stops contrarians pretty quickly.
People want the democratic input because they don't want to have to do the leg work like, for example, supporting multiple L&amp;F packages on ubuntu.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31575148</id>
	<title>Re:More of the Same</title>
	<author>bit01</author>
	<datestamp>1269251340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>The cult of personality and hubris,</em> </p><p>And this is different from closed source software how? Fact is that closed source software projects are also run by humans with hangups and have similar problems. It's just that open source projects are more visible to the general community. That's what open source <em>is.</em></p><p> <em>and will always be a locus of justifiable criticism of the FOSS community in general.</em> </p><p>Only when people like you acknowledge that these problems apply equally to any large project involving people. Until then you're being bigoted.</p><p> <em>Move along. Nothing new to see here.</em> </p><p>I get very tired of people making claims about open or closed source software that apply equally to all software. Makes me wonder if they've got an agenda.</p><p>---</p><p> <em>Don't waste your life on marketing drivel/nonsense</em> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The cult of personality and hubris , And this is different from closed source software how ?
Fact is that closed source software projects are also run by humans with hangups and have similar problems .
It 's just that open source projects are more visible to the general community .
That 's what open source is .
and will always be a locus of justifiable criticism of the FOSS community in general .
Only when people like you acknowledge that these problems apply equally to any large project involving people .
Until then you 're being bigoted .
Move along .
Nothing new to see here .
I get very tired of people making claims about open or closed source software that apply equally to all software .
Makes me wonder if they 've got an agenda.--- Do n't waste your life on marketing drivel/nonsense</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The cult of personality and hubris, And this is different from closed source software how?
Fact is that closed source software projects are also run by humans with hangups and have similar problems.
It's just that open source projects are more visible to the general community.
That's what open source is.
and will always be a locus of justifiable criticism of the FOSS community in general.
Only when people like you acknowledge that these problems apply equally to any large project involving people.
Until then you're being bigoted.
Move along.
Nothing new to see here.
I get very tired of people making claims about open or closed source software that apply equally to all software.
Makes me wonder if they've got an agenda.--- Don't waste your life on marketing drivel/nonsense </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572710</id>
	<title>"This" == Ubuntu</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1269285420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This is not a democracy.</p></div></blockquote><p>Shuttleworth's "this" refers to Ubuntu.  Ubuntu is not a democracy.</p><p>Dunno how that got twisted into meaning "Open Source is not a democracy" because Free Software marketshare <em>is</em> a democracy, and Ubuntu happens to have received a lot of votes.  Saying it's not a democracy is like saying your country is not a democracy when you <strong>elect</strong> a president and then he doesn't take a poll before making every single decision.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not a democracy.Shuttleworth 's " this " refers to Ubuntu .
Ubuntu is not a democracy.Dunno how that got twisted into meaning " Open Source is not a democracy " because Free Software marketshare is a democracy , and Ubuntu happens to have received a lot of votes .
Saying it 's not a democracy is like saying your country is not a democracy when you elect a president and then he does n't take a poll before making every single decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not a democracy.Shuttleworth's "this" refers to Ubuntu.
Ubuntu is not a democracy.Dunno how that got twisted into meaning "Open Source is not a democracy" because Free Software marketshare is a democracy, and Ubuntu happens to have received a lot of votes.
Saying it's not a democracy is like saying your country is not a democracy when you elect a president and then he doesn't take a poll before making every single decision.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573792</id>
	<title>No reason to move them to the right, either!</title>
	<author>danielsfca2</author>
	<datestamp>1269289560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was Windows NT or 95 that decided randomly to move the close box to the right side (3.1 had only the window menu for closing, and you had to double-click it or drop it down and click "close"). The only reason I can imagine why they did that was a juvenile attempt to differentiate vs. classic Mac OS. See also:</p><p>- Icons lined up by default on the left of the desktop instead of right.<br>- White mouse arrow (stupid!) instead of black<br>- global "bar" (taskbar vs mac menu bar) at the bottom of the screen by default instead of the top</p><p>All these changes were so obviously made to be "the opposite of whatever Apple does" in order to give Windows a veneer of different-ness so that the inexperienced user (or judge) would say "Wow, this is definitely NOT a knock-off of Mac OS! In fact, it's the <strong>opposite!</strong></p><p>Therefore, since the original justification for moving it to the right was nonexistent, none is needed to move it back where it belongs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was Windows NT or 95 that decided randomly to move the close box to the right side ( 3.1 had only the window menu for closing , and you had to double-click it or drop it down and click " close " ) .
The only reason I can imagine why they did that was a juvenile attempt to differentiate vs. classic Mac OS .
See also : - Icons lined up by default on the left of the desktop instead of right.- White mouse arrow ( stupid !
) instead of black- global " bar " ( taskbar vs mac menu bar ) at the bottom of the screen by default instead of the topAll these changes were so obviously made to be " the opposite of whatever Apple does " in order to give Windows a veneer of different-ness so that the inexperienced user ( or judge ) would say " Wow , this is definitely NOT a knock-off of Mac OS !
In fact , it 's the opposite ! Therefore , since the original justification for moving it to the right was nonexistent , none is needed to move it back where it belongs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was Windows NT or 95 that decided randomly to move the close box to the right side (3.1 had only the window menu for closing, and you had to double-click it or drop it down and click "close").
The only reason I can imagine why they did that was a juvenile attempt to differentiate vs. classic Mac OS.
See also:- Icons lined up by default on the left of the desktop instead of right.- White mouse arrow (stupid!
) instead of black- global "bar" (taskbar vs mac menu bar) at the bottom of the screen by default instead of the topAll these changes were so obviously made to be "the opposite of whatever Apple does" in order to give Windows a veneer of different-ness so that the inexperienced user (or judge) would say "Wow, this is definitely NOT a knock-off of Mac OS!
In fact, it's the opposite!Therefore, since the original justification for moving it to the right was nonexistent, none is needed to move it back where it belongs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573700</id>
	<title>Re:Meritocracy</title>
	<author>hduff</author>
	<datestamp>1269289200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I always thought that the best word that describes opensource is meritocracy. The best people makes the decisions.</p></div><p>A goal rarely, if ever, achieved.</p><p>The people with the most power, control and influence make the decisions. Merit may help get them there, but usually doesn't keep them there. then the games begin . . .</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always thought that the best word that describes opensource is meritocracy .
The best people makes the decisions.A goal rarely , if ever , achieved.The people with the most power , control and influence make the decisions .
Merit may help get them there , but usually does n't keep them there .
then the games begin .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always thought that the best word that describes opensource is meritocracy.
The best people makes the decisions.A goal rarely, if ever, achieved.The people with the most power, control and influence make the decisions.
Merit may help get them there, but usually doesn't keep them there.
then the games begin .
. .
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573060</id>
	<title>Too many preferences</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1269286860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As per part 3 of above, why not have the button locations configurable?</p></div><p>It is configurable. As for why this is not exposed with a checkbox, usability tests show that users quickly become lost in a bewildering array of checkboxes, and testing all combinations of exposed preferences quickly becomes intractable. See <a href="http://www106.pair.com/rhp/free-software-ui.html" title="pair.com">The Question of Preferences</a> [pair.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As per part 3 of above , why not have the button locations configurable ? It is configurable .
As for why this is not exposed with a checkbox , usability tests show that users quickly become lost in a bewildering array of checkboxes , and testing all combinations of exposed preferences quickly becomes intractable .
See The Question of Preferences [ pair.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As per part 3 of above, why not have the button locations configurable?It is configurable.
As for why this is not exposed with a checkbox, usability tests show that users quickly become lost in a bewildering array of checkboxes, and testing all combinations of exposed preferences quickly becomes intractable.
See The Question of Preferences [pair.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573710</id>
	<title>Torvalds Said It Best</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269289260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea of open source being a democracy has long ago been laid to rest with the remark made by Linus Torvalds that the Linux project  is a "benevolent dictatorship."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea of open source being a democracy has long ago been laid to rest with the remark made by Linus Torvalds that the Linux project is a " benevolent dictatorship .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea of open source being a democracy has long ago been laid to rest with the remark made by Linus Torvalds that the Linux project  is a "benevolent dictatorship.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573608</id>
	<title>BSD's never been democratic...</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1269288840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and it's still open source.  Last time I checked, it's design was by invite only.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and it 's still open source .
Last time I checked , it 's design was by invite only .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and it's still open source.
Last time I checked, it's design was by invite only.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31576270</id>
	<title>Re:Why left?</title>
	<author>Patch86</author>
	<datestamp>1269256080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It may seem like a weak argument, but "we've always done it this way" actually should hold a lot of wait- particularly when dealing with "experts" who want to tweak a hundred things in their specifica area.</p><p>There is no denying that what people are familiar with is a hugely important factor on their preferences. People like what they're used to. And there's no denying that the ever-popular Windows, as well as the vast majority of GNOME, KDE, XFCE and other Linux WMs all do it in the same way, while Apple have a long history of doing things their way.</p><p>When arguing that a very common feature should be changed, the arguments in favour have to be phenomenal- better than just "it's a bit better this way".</p><p>That said, I'm not sure I actually care about the issue that sparked all this. Left or right, seems like I'll get used to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It may seem like a weak argument , but " we 've always done it this way " actually should hold a lot of wait- particularly when dealing with " experts " who want to tweak a hundred things in their specifica area.There is no denying that what people are familiar with is a hugely important factor on their preferences .
People like what they 're used to .
And there 's no denying that the ever-popular Windows , as well as the vast majority of GNOME , KDE , XFCE and other Linux WMs all do it in the same way , while Apple have a long history of doing things their way.When arguing that a very common feature should be changed , the arguments in favour have to be phenomenal- better than just " it 's a bit better this way " .That said , I 'm not sure I actually care about the issue that sparked all this .
Left or right , seems like I 'll get used to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may seem like a weak argument, but "we've always done it this way" actually should hold a lot of wait- particularly when dealing with "experts" who want to tweak a hundred things in their specifica area.There is no denying that what people are familiar with is a hugely important factor on their preferences.
People like what they're used to.
And there's no denying that the ever-popular Windows, as well as the vast majority of GNOME, KDE, XFCE and other Linux WMs all do it in the same way, while Apple have a long history of doing things their way.When arguing that a very common feature should be changed, the arguments in favour have to be phenomenal- better than just "it's a bit better this way".That said, I'm not sure I actually care about the issue that sparked all this.
Left or right, seems like I'll get used to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571830</id>
	<title>Re:Why left?</title>
	<author>NRP128</author>
	<datestamp>1269282720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're assuming that everybody idles with their mouse on the right.  I'm right handed and idle on the left.  Why?  Because I READ left-to-right.  I view controls left-to-right. I read the MenuBar left to right.  I look at a table left-to-right, top to bottom.  When I look a window on a computer, I look left to right.  When I cascade windows, I want them cascaded left to right, so that the upper left corner of every window is visible (and closable).</p><p>I have a wheel, a trackpad, and arrow keys to control my position in a window, other than as a visual indicator of my position in the Window, a Scrollbar serves little purpose.</p><p>Right-justified stuff pisses me off.  If you read in one of the dozens of languages that runs right-to-left, i'm sure you'd feel the same way about left-justified.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're assuming that everybody idles with their mouse on the right .
I 'm right handed and idle on the left .
Why ? Because I READ left-to-right .
I view controls left-to-right .
I read the MenuBar left to right .
I look at a table left-to-right , top to bottom .
When I look a window on a computer , I look left to right .
When I cascade windows , I want them cascaded left to right , so that the upper left corner of every window is visible ( and closable ) .I have a wheel , a trackpad , and arrow keys to control my position in a window , other than as a visual indicator of my position in the Window , a Scrollbar serves little purpose.Right-justified stuff pisses me off .
If you read in one of the dozens of languages that runs right-to-left , i 'm sure you 'd feel the same way about left-justified .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're assuming that everybody idles with their mouse on the right.
I'm right handed and idle on the left.
Why?  Because I READ left-to-right.
I view controls left-to-right.
I read the MenuBar left to right.
I look at a table left-to-right, top to bottom.
When I look a window on a computer, I look left to right.
When I cascade windows, I want them cascaded left to right, so that the upper left corner of every window is visible (and closable).I have a wheel, a trackpad, and arrow keys to control my position in a window, other than as a visual indicator of my position in the Window, a Scrollbar serves little purpose.Right-justified stuff pisses me off.
If you read in one of the dozens of languages that runs right-to-left, i'm sure you'd feel the same way about left-justified.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31579704</id>
	<title>Ubuntu is not a democracy.. but.. devel Vs users</title>
	<author>nikanth</author>
	<datestamp>1269281400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ubuntu is not democracy.. but open-source is

In open-source any group who contribute software engineering can fork the project.. so it is perfect democracy.

But ubuntu needs money from shuttleworth.. so he has an upper-hand

Also ubuntu users cannot demand something from ubuntu developers...
Only developers can vote in open-source</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ubuntu is not democracy.. but open-source is In open-source any group who contribute software engineering can fork the project.. so it is perfect democracy .
But ubuntu needs money from shuttleworth.. so he has an upper-hand Also ubuntu users can not demand something from ubuntu developers.. . Only developers can vote in open-source</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ubuntu is not democracy.. but open-source is

In open-source any group who contribute software engineering can fork the project.. so it is perfect democracy.
But ubuntu needs money from shuttleworth.. so he has an upper-hand

Also ubuntu users cannot demand something from ubuntu developers...
Only developers can vote in open-source</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31574826</id>
	<title>Who cares where the buttons are?</title>
	<author>cawdad</author>
	<datestamp>1269250080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Last time I used buttons to close a window or access a menu was circa Windows 3.1. Keyboard shortcuts, people!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last time I used buttons to close a window or access a menu was circa Windows 3.1 .
Keyboard shortcuts , people !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last time I used buttons to close a window or access a menu was circa Windows 3.1.
Keyboard shortcuts, people!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572844</id>
	<title>Why not let the user just choose?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269286080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't get it... Why not let the user just choose? Implement left AND right.... and put some nice panel somewhere so the USER can tell you what should be were.<br>And don't forget: if changed, send a call home, so we know how many like it left, and right.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/me personally LEFT<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/my GF: RIGHT<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/my sysadmin (Anonymous Coward): what the heck: why have buttons when when we have shortcuts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get it... Why not let the user just choose ?
Implement left AND right.... and put some nice panel somewhere so the USER can tell you what should be were.And do n't forget : if changed , send a call home , so we know how many like it left , and right .
/me personally LEFT /my GF : RIGHT /my sysadmin ( Anonymous Coward ) : what the heck : why have buttons when when we have shortcuts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get it... Why not let the user just choose?
Implement left AND right.... and put some nice panel somewhere so the USER can tell you what should be were.And don't forget: if changed, send a call home, so we know how many like it left, and right.
/me personally LEFT /my GF: RIGHT /my sysadmin (Anonymous Coward): what the heck: why have buttons when when we have shortcuts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572506</id>
	<title>Missing the point.</title>
	<author>supersloshy</author>
	<datestamp>1269284820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone fine with the button change, including Mark and the all-knowing design team, is missing a huge point: the change wasn't transparent and brought around right when the User Interface Freeze for Ubuntu 10.04 happened.</p><p>Think of it this way: each operating system is its own country. Linux-based OSes are a lot like the United States of America in that there's lots of different parts that make one huge country. Ubuntu is huge, and in this way it's like the state of Texas. Ubuntu changing the button order and location is like this: Lets say Texas decided to do things differently than everyone else in the country. They changed state law to say that everyone not only drove on the left side of the road instead of the right side, but they used a totally different layout than what everyone in the entire world was used to for the gas, break, steering wheel, etc. They also made this change out of nowhere without asking people in the state about it. How would you feel as a citizen of Texas once you heard this? Would you not question the ability of those running your state? Of course, you could always just "get used to it", but driving from one state to another would be horribly inconsistent. The state later said that they wanted to "use the left side for some innovative things later on" (like how Mark said he wanted to use the right side for things) regardless of the fact that the other side was completely empty before they switched!</p><p>Because they changed everything, citizens are complaining over and over about how things should be what's considered the standard for consistency's sake. Others are yelling at the complainers to "just live with it or move out". Then there's people also saying "they know what they're doing, they're professionals! How dare you ever question the opinions of those whose profession is making our laws"!</p><p>I love Linux, I really do, but if you don't do things transparently then you'll have a lot of people opposing the change, a lot more than usual. I would be perfectly fine with this change if they told us about it and asked our opinion before it actually happened (10.04 comes out in one month; people writing documentation for Ubuntu will have to re-write a few things and take new screenshots if these decisions are ever reversed). The whole "don't argue with them because they know what they're doing" approach is not only ignorant, but it assumes that everyone in a profession does their job perfectly. Have you ever been able to trust every doctor you've visited? Every dentist? Every polititian? Every president? If you answered yes to those then I suggest waking up: that's now how things work in the real world.</p><p>I've since switched to Linux Mint from Ubuntu and I am loving it! =)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone fine with the button change , including Mark and the all-knowing design team , is missing a huge point : the change was n't transparent and brought around right when the User Interface Freeze for Ubuntu 10.04 happened.Think of it this way : each operating system is its own country .
Linux-based OSes are a lot like the United States of America in that there 's lots of different parts that make one huge country .
Ubuntu is huge , and in this way it 's like the state of Texas .
Ubuntu changing the button order and location is like this : Lets say Texas decided to do things differently than everyone else in the country .
They changed state law to say that everyone not only drove on the left side of the road instead of the right side , but they used a totally different layout than what everyone in the entire world was used to for the gas , break , steering wheel , etc .
They also made this change out of nowhere without asking people in the state about it .
How would you feel as a citizen of Texas once you heard this ?
Would you not question the ability of those running your state ?
Of course , you could always just " get used to it " , but driving from one state to another would be horribly inconsistent .
The state later said that they wanted to " use the left side for some innovative things later on " ( like how Mark said he wanted to use the right side for things ) regardless of the fact that the other side was completely empty before they switched ! Because they changed everything , citizens are complaining over and over about how things should be what 's considered the standard for consistency 's sake .
Others are yelling at the complainers to " just live with it or move out " .
Then there 's people also saying " they know what they 're doing , they 're professionals !
How dare you ever question the opinions of those whose profession is making our laws " ! I love Linux , I really do , but if you do n't do things transparently then you 'll have a lot of people opposing the change , a lot more than usual .
I would be perfectly fine with this change if they told us about it and asked our opinion before it actually happened ( 10.04 comes out in one month ; people writing documentation for Ubuntu will have to re-write a few things and take new screenshots if these decisions are ever reversed ) .
The whole " do n't argue with them because they know what they 're doing " approach is not only ignorant , but it assumes that everyone in a profession does their job perfectly .
Have you ever been able to trust every doctor you 've visited ?
Every dentist ?
Every polititian ?
Every president ?
If you answered yes to those then I suggest waking up : that 's now how things work in the real world.I 've since switched to Linux Mint from Ubuntu and I am loving it !
= )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone fine with the button change, including Mark and the all-knowing design team, is missing a huge point: the change wasn't transparent and brought around right when the User Interface Freeze for Ubuntu 10.04 happened.Think of it this way: each operating system is its own country.
Linux-based OSes are a lot like the United States of America in that there's lots of different parts that make one huge country.
Ubuntu is huge, and in this way it's like the state of Texas.
Ubuntu changing the button order and location is like this: Lets say Texas decided to do things differently than everyone else in the country.
They changed state law to say that everyone not only drove on the left side of the road instead of the right side, but they used a totally different layout than what everyone in the entire world was used to for the gas, break, steering wheel, etc.
They also made this change out of nowhere without asking people in the state about it.
How would you feel as a citizen of Texas once you heard this?
Would you not question the ability of those running your state?
Of course, you could always just "get used to it", but driving from one state to another would be horribly inconsistent.
The state later said that they wanted to "use the left side for some innovative things later on" (like how Mark said he wanted to use the right side for things) regardless of the fact that the other side was completely empty before they switched!Because they changed everything, citizens are complaining over and over about how things should be what's considered the standard for consistency's sake.
Others are yelling at the complainers to "just live with it or move out".
Then there's people also saying "they know what they're doing, they're professionals!
How dare you ever question the opinions of those whose profession is making our laws"!I love Linux, I really do, but if you don't do things transparently then you'll have a lot of people opposing the change, a lot more than usual.
I would be perfectly fine with this change if they told us about it and asked our opinion before it actually happened (10.04 comes out in one month; people writing documentation for Ubuntu will have to re-write a few things and take new screenshots if these decisions are ever reversed).
The whole "don't argue with them because they know what they're doing" approach is not only ignorant, but it assumes that everyone in a profession does their job perfectly.
Have you ever been able to trust every doctor you've visited?
Every dentist?
Every polititian?
Every president?
If you answered yes to those then I suggest waking up: that's now how things work in the real world.I've since switched to Linux Mint from Ubuntu and I am loving it!
=)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31576054</id>
	<title>Re:Open Source is not Ubuntu</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269255240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This example is specifically about Ubuntu, not about open source.</p></div><p>Thank you.  Thought I was the only one here who'd noticed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This example is specifically about Ubuntu , not about open source.Thank you .
Thought I was the only one here who 'd noticed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This example is specifically about Ubuntu, not about open source.Thank you.
Thought I was the only one here who'd noticed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572992</id>
	<title>Isn't Linux Mint open source democracy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269286620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I started using it recently and I love it.  I was told it is a fork of Ubuntu.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I started using it recently and I love it .
I was told it is a fork of Ubuntu .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I started using it recently and I love it.
I was told it is a fork of Ubuntu.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573502</id>
	<title>Re:Why left?</title>
	<author>Looshi</author>
	<datestamp>1269288480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From what I understand the buttons were moved to the left so that notifications will no longer cover the buttons. At least that's the most reasonable explanation I've heard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I understand the buttons were moved to the left so that notifications will no longer cover the buttons .
At least that 's the most reasonable explanation I 've heard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I understand the buttons were moved to the left so that notifications will no longer cover the buttons.
At least that's the most reasonable explanation I've heard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571466</id>
	<title>Other than health care...</title>
	<author>stakovahflow</author>
	<datestamp>1269281820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been a fan of Communism/Socialism for years. How is this much different?</p><p>--Stak</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been a fan of Communism/Socialism for years .
How is this much different ? --Stak</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been a fan of Communism/Socialism for years.
How is this much different?--Stak</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571942</id>
	<title>Show me software that's a democracy....</title>
	<author>HerculesMO</author>
	<datestamp>1269283080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll show you an unshipped product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll show you an unshipped product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll show you an unshipped product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571888</id>
	<title>Who thought it was?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269282900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought open source was meritocratic anarchy. Since when has open source as a concept ever involved voting or any form of representation?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought open source was meritocratic anarchy .
Since when has open source as a concept ever involved voting or any form of representation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought open source was meritocratic anarchy.
Since when has open source as a concept ever involved voting or any form of representation?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31574234</id>
	<title>North Korea is democracy. FLOSS is a free market.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269291300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except of course when it relies on government force (and I was banned from UbuntuForums.org, forums.freebsd.org, etc for pointing this out - not to mention my endless -1 Troll ratings here on Slashdot)...  Fortunately most governments haven't jumped in front of the open source parade just yet (wait for GPL v4), so I can still use it as an example of voluntary action.</p><p>Take away all the government / public university funding and restrictive licenses (ex. GPL), and what you end up with is a perfect model of free market capitalism in action.  Remember that the "capital" in "capitalism" isn't just about money, it covers all aspects of individual self-ownership: your body, your time, your skills, your reputation, your self-esteem, etc, etc, etc.</p><p>People who donate their capital to free software usually do so voluntarily, whether they're paid for it or not.  (And I've seen plenty of open source jobs on Freelancer.com type sites - someone needs a new feature and they pay for it, and then share.)</p><p>(Signed: Alex Libman's sock-puppet.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except of course when it relies on government force ( and I was banned from UbuntuForums.org , forums.freebsd.org , etc for pointing this out - not to mention my endless -1 Troll ratings here on Slashdot ) ... Fortunately most governments have n't jumped in front of the open source parade just yet ( wait for GPL v4 ) , so I can still use it as an example of voluntary action.Take away all the government / public university funding and restrictive licenses ( ex .
GPL ) , and what you end up with is a perfect model of free market capitalism in action .
Remember that the " capital " in " capitalism " is n't just about money , it covers all aspects of individual self-ownership : your body , your time , your skills , your reputation , your self-esteem , etc , etc , etc.People who donate their capital to free software usually do so voluntarily , whether they 're paid for it or not .
( And I 've seen plenty of open source jobs on Freelancer.com type sites - someone needs a new feature and they pay for it , and then share .
) ( Signed : Alex Libman 's sock-puppet .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except of course when it relies on government force (and I was banned from UbuntuForums.org, forums.freebsd.org, etc for pointing this out - not to mention my endless -1 Troll ratings here on Slashdot)...  Fortunately most governments haven't jumped in front of the open source parade just yet (wait for GPL v4), so I can still use it as an example of voluntary action.Take away all the government / public university funding and restrictive licenses (ex.
GPL), and what you end up with is a perfect model of free market capitalism in action.
Remember that the "capital" in "capitalism" isn't just about money, it covers all aspects of individual self-ownership: your body, your time, your skills, your reputation, your self-esteem, etc, etc, etc.People who donate their capital to free software usually do so voluntarily, whether they're paid for it or not.
(And I've seen plenty of open source jobs on Freelancer.com type sites - someone needs a new feature and they pay for it, and then share.
)(Signed: Alex Libman's sock-puppet.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573032</id>
	<title>Re:It's so simple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269286740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And then we have Linux Mint http://www.linuxmint.com/.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And then we have Linux Mint http : //www.linuxmint.com/ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then we have Linux Mint http://www.linuxmint.com/.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573762</id>
	<title>Re:Users do vote...</title>
	<author>hduff</author>
	<datestamp>1269289440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Every time a user chooses what distro to use, they vote.</p><p>Don't like the way a distribution does things? Use a different one.</p></div><p>You should file bug reports first because that's how you provide direct feedback.Sometimes the user learns as well and becomes a better member of the community. But if the maintainers get their collective assess on their "not a bug" shoulders, vote with your feet.</p><p>Make an effort to make it better, but don't make yourself crazy over it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time a user chooses what distro to use , they vote.Do n't like the way a distribution does things ?
Use a different one.You should file bug reports first because that 's how you provide direct feedback.Sometimes the user learns as well and becomes a better member of the community .
But if the maintainers get their collective assess on their " not a bug " shoulders , vote with your feet.Make an effort to make it better , but do n't make yourself crazy over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time a user chooses what distro to use, they vote.Don't like the way a distribution does things?
Use a different one.You should file bug reports first because that's how you provide direct feedback.Sometimes the user learns as well and becomes a better member of the community.
But if the maintainers get their collective assess on their "not a bug" shoulders, vote with your feet.Make an effort to make it better, but don't make yourself crazy over it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572342</id>
	<title>Start your own country</title>
	<author>mwvdlee</author>
	<datestamp>1269284280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What can be more democratic than being allowed to start your own country with your own laws if you don't like your current one?</p><p>Open Source is democratic because, if you care enough about it, your vote will always count.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What can be more democratic than being allowed to start your own country with your own laws if you do n't like your current one ? Open Source is democratic because , if you care enough about it , your vote will always count .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What can be more democratic than being allowed to start your own country with your own laws if you don't like your current one?Open Source is democratic because, if you care enough about it, your vote will always count.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571554</id>
	<title>Open source is a republic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269282060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have a bunch of sovereigns come together voluntarily under nothing more than the banner of their various constitutions embodied in the open source licenses.</p><p>There is little to no strong central government to stand in the way of the flowers of federalism of blooming. No one can impose development techniques or standards from the top down beyond the standards specified in the open source constitutions.</p><p>A natural variety of standards and results will appear in the sovereign states and resources will be naturally directed to those with the best results by moving to them or emulating them.  Not through force imposed from the top.</p><p>We should organize a government like this one day. We should only dream.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have a bunch of sovereigns come together voluntarily under nothing more than the banner of their various constitutions embodied in the open source licenses.There is little to no strong central government to stand in the way of the flowers of federalism of blooming .
No one can impose development techniques or standards from the top down beyond the standards specified in the open source constitutions.A natural variety of standards and results will appear in the sovereign states and resources will be naturally directed to those with the best results by moving to them or emulating them .
Not through force imposed from the top.We should organize a government like this one day .
We should only dream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have a bunch of sovereigns come together voluntarily under nothing more than the banner of their various constitutions embodied in the open source licenses.There is little to no strong central government to stand in the way of the flowers of federalism of blooming.
No one can impose development techniques or standards from the top down beyond the standards specified in the open source constitutions.A natural variety of standards and results will appear in the sovereign states and resources will be naturally directed to those with the best results by moving to them or emulating them.
Not through force imposed from the top.We should organize a government like this one day.
We should only dream.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31577194</id>
	<title>Re:Iain Bank's Culture</title>
	<author>pongo000</author>
	<datestamp>1269260580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Links, please...this sounds interesting!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Links , please...this sounds interesting !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Links, please...this sounds interesting!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572216</id>
	<title>Democracy and Open Source</title>
	<author>Owlyn</author>
	<datestamp>1269283920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Democracy is one kind of freedom; Open Source is another kind of freedom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Democracy is one kind of freedom ; Open Source is another kind of freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Democracy is one kind of freedom; Open Source is another kind of freedom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31584774</id>
	<title>Re:Why left?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269363660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Why do you assume mouse side on the right determines that putting scroll bars on the right is the most effecient thing to do?</p></div><p>[...]From this, assuming that the mouse is on the right hand side of the screen</p></div><p>What? How do you get from "physical mouse on the right of the physical keyboard" to "mouse pointer on the right hand side of the screen"? If the mouse pointer is mostly on the right side, why are the great majority of menus, icons and sidebars on the left?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you assume mouse side on the right determines that putting scroll bars on the right is the most effecient thing to do ? [ .. .
] From this , assuming that the mouse is on the right hand side of the screenWhat ?
How do you get from " physical mouse on the right of the physical keyboard " to " mouse pointer on the right hand side of the screen " ?
If the mouse pointer is mostly on the right side , why are the great majority of menus , icons and sidebars on the left ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you assume mouse side on the right determines that putting scroll bars on the right is the most effecient thing to do?[...
]From this, assuming that the mouse is on the right hand side of the screenWhat?
How do you get from "physical mouse on the right of the physical keyboard" to "mouse pointer on the right hand side of the screen"?
If the mouse pointer is mostly on the right side, why are the great majority of menus, icons and sidebars on the left?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31574256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31574310</id>
	<title>Rough Consensus</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269291540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Never have i seen a more appropriate time for this quite from David Clark, one of our forefathers:</p><blockquote><div><p>We reject: kings, presidents and voting.</p><p>We believe in: rough consensus and running code.</p></div></blockquote><p>Links:</p><ul><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David\_D.\_Clark" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David\_D.\_Clark</a> [wikipedia.org]</li><li> <a href="http://xys.ccert.edu.cn/reference/future\_ietf\_92.pdf" title="ccert.edu.cn" rel="nofollow">http://xys.ccert.edu.cn/reference/future\_ietf\_92.pdf</a> [ccert.edu.cn]</li></ul></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Never have i seen a more appropriate time for this quite from David Clark , one of our forefathers : We reject : kings , presidents and voting.We believe in : rough consensus and running code.Links : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David \ _D. \ _Clark [ wikipedia.org ] http : //xys.ccert.edu.cn/reference/future \ _ietf \ _92.pdf [ ccert.edu.cn ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never have i seen a more appropriate time for this quite from David Clark, one of our forefathers:We reject: kings, presidents and voting.We believe in: rough consensus and running code.Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David\_D.\_Clark [wikipedia.org] http://xys.ccert.edu.cn/reference/future\_ietf\_92.pdf [ccert.edu.cn]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573290</id>
	<title>Re:But.... it's open....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269287580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a combination of two things that makes this a very bad decision:</p><p>1) Muscle Memory.<br>As someone who has been using Ubuntu for 4 years as my primary work OS (2 boxen) and my only home OS (4 boxen), I'm really rather used to it. The quick wrist flick to the close button is a natural motion. In fact the outside flick is a more natural 'quick' gesture than the inside flick.</p><p>2) Guidance<br>The 'x' is the most used button on a window (this is not proven, but I am nearly certain). So designers can talk about 'most destructive action not being first in LTR reading language modes' until they're blue in the face, but fact is, you want the most visual guidance for the 'x' and that means aligning with the right edge of the relevant window is an extremely useful UX hint.</p><p>Sure I can fix these with a script on my own box, but should I really have to based on the fact the design team are clearly Jobsian in their inclinations? Poor choice, and not too pleased to see Shuttles take a dictatorial approach without a clear UX-centric explanation offered for the move.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a combination of two things that makes this a very bad decision : 1 ) Muscle Memory.As someone who has been using Ubuntu for 4 years as my primary work OS ( 2 boxen ) and my only home OS ( 4 boxen ) , I 'm really rather used to it .
The quick wrist flick to the close button is a natural motion .
In fact the outside flick is a more natural 'quick ' gesture than the inside flick.2 ) GuidanceThe 'x ' is the most used button on a window ( this is not proven , but I am nearly certain ) .
So designers can talk about 'most destructive action not being first in LTR reading language modes ' until they 're blue in the face , but fact is , you want the most visual guidance for the 'x ' and that means aligning with the right edge of the relevant window is an extremely useful UX hint.Sure I can fix these with a script on my own box , but should I really have to based on the fact the design team are clearly Jobsian in their inclinations ?
Poor choice , and not too pleased to see Shuttles take a dictatorial approach without a clear UX-centric explanation offered for the move .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a combination of two things that makes this a very bad decision:1) Muscle Memory.As someone who has been using Ubuntu for 4 years as my primary work OS (2 boxen) and my only home OS (4 boxen), I'm really rather used to it.
The quick wrist flick to the close button is a natural motion.
In fact the outside flick is a more natural 'quick' gesture than the inside flick.2) GuidanceThe 'x' is the most used button on a window (this is not proven, but I am nearly certain).
So designers can talk about 'most destructive action not being first in LTR reading language modes' until they're blue in the face, but fact is, you want the most visual guidance for the 'x' and that means aligning with the right edge of the relevant window is an extremely useful UX hint.Sure I can fix these with a script on my own box, but should I really have to based on the fact the design team are clearly Jobsian in their inclinations?
Poor choice, and not too pleased to see Shuttles take a dictatorial approach without a clear UX-centric explanation offered for the move.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571320</id>
	<title>Re:-1 Troll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269281460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Open source is communism, not democracy. All are equal, but some are more equal than others<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>I love how a lot of comments are all about this is how decisions should be made, just one person at the top gets the final say - period.<br>Makes it clear, I think. I'll keep on keeping out of F/OSS, thank you very much. I'm not going to waste my time contributing to someone else's dictatorship, benevolent or otherwise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open source is communism , not democracy .
All are equal , but some are more equal than others : ) I love how a lot of comments are all about this is how decisions should be made , just one person at the top gets the final say - period.Makes it clear , I think .
I 'll keep on keeping out of F/OSS , thank you very much .
I 'm not going to waste my time contributing to someone else 's dictatorship , benevolent or otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open source is communism, not democracy.
All are equal, but some are more equal than others :)I love how a lot of comments are all about this is how decisions should be made, just one person at the top gets the final say - period.Makes it clear, I think.
I'll keep on keeping out of F/OSS, thank you very much.
I'm not going to waste my time contributing to someone else's dictatorship, benevolent or otherwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572530</id>
	<title>I'm not even sure</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1269284880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what a democracy is.</p><p>how do we define the "demos": developpers ? users ? admins ? companies too ? stakeholders ? anyone who wants to ?</p><p>does representative democracy count as democracy ? When I see the huge disconnect between the election campaign and the happenings during a congress session, I sometimes think not.</p><p>who controls the agenda ? being free to vote is fine, being free to decide on what to vote on is better.</p><p>is there any need for non-democratic basic "stuff" ?</p><p>Oh, and I'm not even sure what Linux is: the bare kernel ? one distro ? all the distros ?</p><p>My take right now is that Linux is not a democracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what a democracy is.how do we define the " demos " : developpers ?
users ?
admins ?
companies too ?
stakeholders ?
anyone who wants to ? does representative democracy count as democracy ?
When I see the huge disconnect between the election campaign and the happenings during a congress session , I sometimes think not.who controls the agenda ?
being free to vote is fine , being free to decide on what to vote on is better.is there any need for non-democratic basic " stuff " ? Oh , and I 'm not even sure what Linux is : the bare kernel ?
one distro ?
all the distros ? My take right now is that Linux is not a democracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what a democracy is.how do we define the "demos": developpers ?
users ?
admins ?
companies too ?
stakeholders ?
anyone who wants to ?does representative democracy count as democracy ?
When I see the huge disconnect between the election campaign and the happenings during a congress session, I sometimes think not.who controls the agenda ?
being free to vote is fine, being free to decide on what to vote on is better.is there any need for non-democratic basic "stuff" ?Oh, and I'm not even sure what Linux is: the bare kernel ?
one distro ?
all the distros ?My take right now is that Linux is not a democracy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572042</id>
	<title>Mass confusion</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1269283380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then there's the Debian model, where project policy and other project wide decisions are pure democracy, yet individual package maintainers have a dictatorship over their individual package within the wide limitations of policy.</p><p>Actually its even more complicated in that the individual whom ran an individual package as a dictator is completely free to decide to operate as a triumvirate or whatever they please, and many do operate as anarchic teams, but the initial state is a dictatorship.</p><p>If a dictator is a miserable failure, thats OK too, since its all open source it just works.</p><p>It seems to be a much more reasonable balance of power than the Ubuntu community.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then there 's the Debian model , where project policy and other project wide decisions are pure democracy , yet individual package maintainers have a dictatorship over their individual package within the wide limitations of policy.Actually its even more complicated in that the individual whom ran an individual package as a dictator is completely free to decide to operate as a triumvirate or whatever they please , and many do operate as anarchic teams , but the initial state is a dictatorship.If a dictator is a miserable failure , thats OK too , since its all open source it just works.It seems to be a much more reasonable balance of power than the Ubuntu community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then there's the Debian model, where project policy and other project wide decisions are pure democracy, yet individual package maintainers have a dictatorship over their individual package within the wide limitations of policy.Actually its even more complicated in that the individual whom ran an individual package as a dictator is completely free to decide to operate as a triumvirate or whatever they please, and many do operate as anarchic teams, but the initial state is a dictatorship.If a dictator is a miserable failure, thats OK too, since its all open source it just works.It seems to be a much more reasonable balance of power than the Ubuntu community.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573816</id>
	<title>You can always switch to something else...</title>
	<author>kdekorte</author>
	<datestamp>1269289680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you don't like where the buttons are by default in Ubuntu. So you have a few options.</p><p>1. Learn to like the new button positions</p><p>2. Switch to a different theme and move the buttons around, I do understand that the bug quotes is about how the theme locks in the button positions<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; which appears to be a limitation of the theme specification, which probably should be fixed.</p><p>3. Switch to a version of Linux that doesn't come this way</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you do n't like where the buttons are by default in Ubuntu .
So you have a few options.1 .
Learn to like the new button positions2 .
Switch to a different theme and move the buttons around , I do understand that the bug quotes is about how the theme locks in the button positions         which appears to be a limitation of the theme specification , which probably should be fixed.3 .
Switch to a version of Linux that does n't come this way</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you don't like where the buttons are by default in Ubuntu.
So you have a few options.1.
Learn to like the new button positions2.
Switch to a different theme and move the buttons around, I do understand that the bug quotes is about how the theme locks in the button positions
        which appears to be a limitation of the theme specification, which probably should be fixed.3.
Switch to a version of Linux that doesn't come this way</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571754</id>
	<title>Users do vote...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269282600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every time a user chooses what distro to use, they vote.</p><p>Don't like the way a distribution does things? Use a different one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time a user chooses what distro to use , they vote.Do n't like the way a distribution does things ?
Use a different one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time a user chooses what distro to use, they vote.Don't like the way a distribution does things?
Use a different one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31591064</id>
	<title>Here, fixed that for you!</title>
	<author>DadLeopard</author>
	<datestamp>1269346620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/13535/move-window-buttons-back-to-the-right-in-ubuntu-10.04/" title="howtogeek.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/13535/move-window-buttons-back-to-the-right-in-ubuntu-10.04/</a> [howtogeek.com]  Yada, Yada, Blah, Blah, Blah! Get over it! this is Ubuntu we are talking about, if you don't like something you can change it!</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.howtogeek.com/howto/13535/move-window-buttons-back-to-the-right-in-ubuntu-10.04/ [ howtogeek.com ] Yada , Yada , Blah , Blah , Blah !
Get over it !
this is Ubuntu we are talking about , if you do n't like something you can change it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/13535/move-window-buttons-back-to-the-right-in-ubuntu-10.04/ [howtogeek.com]  Yada, Yada, Blah, Blah, Blah!
Get over it!
this is Ubuntu we are talking about, if you don't like something you can change it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31575324</id>
	<title>Laugh or Cry ?</title>
	<author>Zoxed</author>
	<datestamp>1269252000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not sure whether to laugh or cry when someone describes moving window buttons from one side to the other a "big change" !!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not sure whether to laugh or cry when someone describes moving window buttons from one side to the other a " big change " !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not sure whether to laugh or cry when someone describes moving window buttons from one side to the other a "big change" !
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572998</id>
	<title>I can vote if I want to, and you can't stop me ;)</title>
	<author>fox171171</author>
	<datestamp>1269286620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>This is not a democracy. Good feedback, good data, are welcome. But we are not voting on design decisions.</i> <br> <br>

Hate to break it to you, but I am voting... by not using it.

If I wanted an Apple, I'd get an Apple. Maybe it's a minor thing, but I don't like it, and I don't have to use it any more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not a democracy .
Good feedback , good data , are welcome .
But we are not voting on design decisions .
Hate to break it to you , but I am voting... by not using it .
If I wanted an Apple , I 'd get an Apple .
Maybe it 's a minor thing , but I do n't like it , and I do n't have to use it any more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not a democracy.
Good feedback, good data, are welcome.
But we are not voting on design decisions.
Hate to break it to you, but I am voting... by not using it.
If I wanted an Apple, I'd get an Apple.
Maybe it's a minor thing, but I don't like it, and I don't have to use it any more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571434</id>
	<title>But.... it's open....</title>
	<author>santax</author>
	<datestamp>1269281760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just move the damn buttons yourself!
I actually agree with camp that wants the buttons back in the old way, but I can't stop thinking... I have the source... I might just do that myself and place the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.diff online. Problem solved. Unfortunately for all Ubuntu users, I use Debian so I'm fine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just move the damn buttons yourself !
I actually agree with camp that wants the buttons back in the old way , but I ca n't stop thinking... I have the source... I might just do that myself and place the .diff online .
Problem solved .
Unfortunately for all Ubuntu users , I use Debian so I 'm fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just move the damn buttons yourself!
I actually agree with camp that wants the buttons back in the old way, but I can't stop thinking... I have the source... I might just do that myself and place the .diff online.
Problem solved.
Unfortunately for all Ubuntu users, I use Debian so I'm fine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571512</id>
	<title>A Pirate Analogy ...</title>
	<author>perpenso</author>
	<datestamp>1269281940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a geek who loves history I can't help but think about the organizational strategy of american (as in region not nationality) colonial era pirates.  In general they were not democratic in their decision making, they understood the inefficiency and impracticality of that path, but they were democratic in choosing a captain.  Once a captain was chosen he had command.  A wise captain did exercise his authority justly though.  It seems to have been a quite reasonable self organizational strategy and it may also work for open source organizations.  There are some parallels: the populations are mobile and independent minded, share a meritocracy based organizational philosophy,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a geek who loves history I ca n't help but think about the organizational strategy of american ( as in region not nationality ) colonial era pirates .
In general they were not democratic in their decision making , they understood the inefficiency and impracticality of that path , but they were democratic in choosing a captain .
Once a captain was chosen he had command .
A wise captain did exercise his authority justly though .
It seems to have been a quite reasonable self organizational strategy and it may also work for open source organizations .
There are some parallels : the populations are mobile and independent minded , share a meritocracy based organizational philosophy , .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a geek who loves history I can't help but think about the organizational strategy of american (as in region not nationality) colonial era pirates.
In general they were not democratic in their decision making, they understood the inefficiency and impracticality of that path, but they were democratic in choosing a captain.
Once a captain was chosen he had command.
A wise captain did exercise his authority justly though.
It seems to have been a quite reasonable self organizational strategy and it may also work for open source organizations.
There are some parallels: the populations are mobile and independent minded, share a meritocracy based organizational philosophy, ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571590</id>
	<title>Democracy in Open Source</title>
	<author>ardor</author>
	<datestamp>1269282180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>An earlier posting already hit the big misunderstanding with democracy in open source projects:

<ul>
<li>Democracy INSIDE a project is doomed to fail. There must be one leader who does the final decisions, otherwise you get design by committee.</li><li>Democracy ACROSS projects (more exactly, project versions, e.g. forks) is likely to succeed. If said leader does very unpopular and/or plain stupid decisions, the project gets forked. The majority thus "voted" against the decision. Case in point: Xfree vs. Xorg.</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>An earlier posting already hit the big misunderstanding with democracy in open source projects : Democracy INSIDE a project is doomed to fail .
There must be one leader who does the final decisions , otherwise you get design by committee.Democracy ACROSS projects ( more exactly , project versions , e.g .
forks ) is likely to succeed .
If said leader does very unpopular and/or plain stupid decisions , the project gets forked .
The majority thus " voted " against the decision .
Case in point : Xfree vs. Xorg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An earlier posting already hit the big misunderstanding with democracy in open source projects:


Democracy INSIDE a project is doomed to fail.
There must be one leader who does the final decisions, otherwise you get design by committee.Democracy ACROSS projects (more exactly, project versions, e.g.
forks) is likely to succeed.
If said leader does very unpopular and/or plain stupid decisions, the project gets forked.
The majority thus "voted" against the decision.
Case in point: Xfree vs. Xorg.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572324</id>
	<title>Re:the unix way...</title>
	<author>dancingmilk</author>
	<datestamp>1269284220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Best part, as j1976 above pointed out. They are configurable, you just have to dig for a couple minutes:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It's easy to change even within the current distribution. Steps to fix:</p><p>* Start gconf-editor<br>* expand in this order: apps, metacity, general<br>* Find entry "button\_layout"<br>* change it to "menu:minimize,maximize,close"</p><p>The colon separates left side and right side.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Best part , as j1976 above pointed out .
They are configurable , you just have to dig for a couple minutes : It 's easy to change even within the current distribution .
Steps to fix : * Start gconf-editor * expand in this order : apps , metacity , general * Find entry " button \ _layout " * change it to " menu : minimize,maximize,close " The colon separates left side and right side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Best part, as j1976 above pointed out.
They are configurable, you just have to dig for a couple minutes:It's easy to change even within the current distribution.
Steps to fix:* Start gconf-editor* expand in this order: apps, metacity, general* Find entry "button\_layout"* change it to "menu:minimize,maximize,close"The colon separates left side and right side.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572560</id>
	<title>Why should it be?  Why would it need to be?</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1269284940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you take democracy to mean something along the lines of "majority rule" then, no, open source isn't that.  It's something that's more flexible, made possible by the almost total lack of resource scarcity in the production and copying of computer software.  It's basically anarchist, in a positive sense.  Everyone can be completely independent if they want, or they can work together according to shared goals or ideals - but it's all self-organized without top-down control except for where it accepted by consent as being expedient.  The "raw materials" - software and ideas - can flow freely because it's practically free to produce and copy them.  There doesn't need to be a democratic decision over where to commit resources because for practical purposes there's no limit on resources and no way of centrally controlling them anyhow.  Readers of Iain M Bank's Culture books will see similarities with that civilisation, made possible by near-infinite resources.</p><p>Also, all the issue at hand really seems to demonstrate is that Ubuntu isn't a democracy.  It can be run as a completely top-down regime but as long as the components are basically open source people have the freedom to come and go as they please according to whether that regime serves their needs, so it's up to Ubuntu to decide whether that approach is reasonable.  That said, if they're sensible, they should realise that they're fortunate to have a large community of users and that it's worth responding to their needs.  But that doesn't mean they are wrong have someone make tough or unpopular judgement calls if they believe that's the best approach overall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you take democracy to mean something along the lines of " majority rule " then , no , open source is n't that .
It 's something that 's more flexible , made possible by the almost total lack of resource scarcity in the production and copying of computer software .
It 's basically anarchist , in a positive sense .
Everyone can be completely independent if they want , or they can work together according to shared goals or ideals - but it 's all self-organized without top-down control except for where it accepted by consent as being expedient .
The " raw materials " - software and ideas - can flow freely because it 's practically free to produce and copy them .
There does n't need to be a democratic decision over where to commit resources because for practical purposes there 's no limit on resources and no way of centrally controlling them anyhow .
Readers of Iain M Bank 's Culture books will see similarities with that civilisation , made possible by near-infinite resources.Also , all the issue at hand really seems to demonstrate is that Ubuntu is n't a democracy .
It can be run as a completely top-down regime but as long as the components are basically open source people have the freedom to come and go as they please according to whether that regime serves their needs , so it 's up to Ubuntu to decide whether that approach is reasonable .
That said , if they 're sensible , they should realise that they 're fortunate to have a large community of users and that it 's worth responding to their needs .
But that does n't mean they are wrong have someone make tough or unpopular judgement calls if they believe that 's the best approach overall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you take democracy to mean something along the lines of "majority rule" then, no, open source isn't that.
It's something that's more flexible, made possible by the almost total lack of resource scarcity in the production and copying of computer software.
It's basically anarchist, in a positive sense.
Everyone can be completely independent if they want, or they can work together according to shared goals or ideals - but it's all self-organized without top-down control except for where it accepted by consent as being expedient.
The "raw materials" - software and ideas - can flow freely because it's practically free to produce and copy them.
There doesn't need to be a democratic decision over where to commit resources because for practical purposes there's no limit on resources and no way of centrally controlling them anyhow.
Readers of Iain M Bank's Culture books will see similarities with that civilisation, made possible by near-infinite resources.Also, all the issue at hand really seems to demonstrate is that Ubuntu isn't a democracy.
It can be run as a completely top-down regime but as long as the components are basically open source people have the freedom to come and go as they please according to whether that regime serves their needs, so it's up to Ubuntu to decide whether that approach is reasonable.
That said, if they're sensible, they should realise that they're fortunate to have a large community of users and that it's worth responding to their needs.
But that doesn't mean they are wrong have someone make tough or unpopular judgement calls if they believe that's the best approach overall.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572162</id>
	<title>FOSS</title>
	<author>^\_^x</author>
	<datestamp>1269283740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are a lot of assumptions tying FOSS to various ideals and greater concepts where it's not really deserving. It's already been proven that even with the Internet, opening your source code doesn't mean "someone knowledgeable will fix it" or that more contributors means fewer bugs and exploits, or that they will be seen to in a timely way.</p><p>That doesn't mean it's the wrong way for everything either, but... it is what it is in each case, and no more than that. Also, on a big project, making everything a democracy would just stall it indefinitely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a lot of assumptions tying FOSS to various ideals and greater concepts where it 's not really deserving .
It 's already been proven that even with the Internet , opening your source code does n't mean " someone knowledgeable will fix it " or that more contributors means fewer bugs and exploits , or that they will be seen to in a timely way.That does n't mean it 's the wrong way for everything either , but... it is what it is in each case , and no more than that .
Also , on a big project , making everything a democracy would just stall it indefinitely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a lot of assumptions tying FOSS to various ideals and greater concepts where it's not really deserving.
It's already been proven that even with the Internet, opening your source code doesn't mean "someone knowledgeable will fix it" or that more contributors means fewer bugs and exploits, or that they will be seen to in a timely way.That doesn't mean it's the wrong way for everything either, but... it is what it is in each case, and no more than that.
Also, on a big project, making everything a democracy would just stall it indefinitely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571776</id>
	<title>Re:But.... it's open....</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1269282600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If i'm not mistaken, the newest version of UbuntTweak has this ability.</p><p><a href="http://ubuntu-tweak.com/" title="ubuntu-tweak.com">http://ubuntu-tweak.com/</a> [ubuntu-tweak.com]</p><p>Just an FYI</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If i 'm not mistaken , the newest version of UbuntTweak has this ability.http : //ubuntu-tweak.com/ [ ubuntu-tweak.com ] Just an FYI</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If i'm not mistaken, the newest version of UbuntTweak has this ability.http://ubuntu-tweak.com/ [ubuntu-tweak.com]Just an FYI</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572990</id>
	<title>If Linux was democracy I'd likely not be using it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269286620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because I haven't the technical knowledge that the long time LInux users have.
<br> <br>
If the majority was always voting for what they wanted, Linux could very well have remained rather obscure.  Thankfully, some people decided to make Linux more available to users like myself.
<br> <br>
It seems to me that Linux is far bigger nowadays due to a few people opening the door wider.  I'm thankful for that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because I have n't the technical knowledge that the long time LInux users have .
If the majority was always voting for what they wanted , Linux could very well have remained rather obscure .
Thankfully , some people decided to make Linux more available to users like myself .
It seems to me that Linux is far bigger nowadays due to a few people opening the door wider .
I 'm thankful for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because I haven't the technical knowledge that the long time LInux users have.
If the majority was always voting for what they wanted, Linux could very well have remained rather obscure.
Thankfully, some people decided to make Linux more available to users like myself.
It seems to me that Linux is far bigger nowadays due to a few people opening the door wider.
I'm thankful for that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572026</id>
	<title>Not the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269283320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The point here is not that Open Source is not a democracy, it's that Design should not be a democracy.  Stop design in any kind of a project requires someone with a strong vision calling the shots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point here is not that Open Source is not a democracy , it 's that Design should not be a democracy .
Stop design in any kind of a project requires someone with a strong vision calling the shots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point here is not that Open Source is not a democracy, it's that Design should not be a democracy.
Stop design in any kind of a project requires someone with a strong vision calling the shots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572778</id>
	<title>Duh! No software program is a democracy</title>
	<author>DontBlameCanada</author>
	<datestamp>1269285840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could you imagine?</p><p>Sprint item #1: Nominate alphanumeric names to assign to for-loop index in procedure named last week. Due: Monday - noon<br>Sprint item #2: Vote on nominated for loop index names - top 5 continue to run-off. Due: Monday 6pm<br>Sprint item #3: Run off vote simple majority. In event of tie, Sprint Master will cast deciding vote. Due: Tuesday noon<br>Sprint item #4: Marvel at the code dev efficiency and speed of the archaic waterfall model ensconced in the Mil-Spec 498. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIL-STD-498" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIL-STD-498</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could you imagine ? Sprint item # 1 : Nominate alphanumeric names to assign to for-loop index in procedure named last week .
Due : Monday - noonSprint item # 2 : Vote on nominated for loop index names - top 5 continue to run-off .
Due : Monday 6pmSprint item # 3 : Run off vote simple majority .
In event of tie , Sprint Master will cast deciding vote .
Due : Tuesday noonSprint item # 4 : Marvel at the code dev efficiency and speed of the archaic waterfall model ensconced in the Mil-Spec 498. http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIL-STD-498 [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could you imagine?Sprint item #1: Nominate alphanumeric names to assign to for-loop index in procedure named last week.
Due: Monday - noonSprint item #2: Vote on nominated for loop index names - top 5 continue to run-off.
Due: Monday 6pmSprint item #3: Run off vote simple majority.
In event of tie, Sprint Master will cast deciding vote.
Due: Tuesday noonSprint item #4: Marvel at the code dev efficiency and speed of the archaic waterfall model ensconced in the Mil-Spec 498. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIL-STD-498 [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31575948</id>
	<title>Re:Open Source is not Ubuntu</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1269254700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Shuttlewood has the gold so he makes the rules.</p></div><p>Shuttleworth must be pissed that this Shuttlewood impostor stole his money and his project.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Shuttlewood has the gold so he makes the rules.Shuttleworth must be pissed that this Shuttlewood impostor stole his money and his project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shuttlewood has the gold so he makes the rules.Shuttleworth must be pissed that this Shuttlewood impostor stole his money and his project.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572840</id>
	<title>No matttar what the design decision says...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269286020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>left side buttons are still ghey...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>left side buttons are still ghey.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>left side buttons are still ghey...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31584560</id>
	<title>Re:Full quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269362760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, it's a meritocracy. On what merits (other than $$$) did Mr Shuttleworth come to be a dictator?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , it 's a meritocracy .
On what merits ( other than $ $ $ ) did Mr Shuttleworth come to be a dictator ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, it's a meritocracy.
On what merits (other than $$$) did Mr Shuttleworth come to be a dictator?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572010</id>
	<title>Fork!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269283260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fork!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fork !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fork!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571874</id>
	<title>Re:But.... it's open....</title>
	<author>masterQba</author>
	<datestamp>1269282900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The changing of the location of the buttons isn't really as complicated a matter as that. You can move the buttons manually in a tool like Ubuntu Tweak. Or if that is too difficult you can change the window border of the theme to something else entirely.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The changing of the location of the buttons is n't really as complicated a matter as that .
You can move the buttons manually in a tool like Ubuntu Tweak .
Or if that is too difficult you can change the window border of the theme to something else entirely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The changing of the location of the buttons isn't really as complicated a matter as that.
You can move the buttons manually in a tool like Ubuntu Tweak.
Or if that is too difficult you can change the window border of the theme to something else entirely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396</id>
	<title>Why left?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269281640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is the logic of having the buttons on the left? The vast majority of users are right handed, and mouse right handed. Thus, the scrollbar is on the right side, and an idle mouse cursor is on the right side. Therefore, widnow controls should be ont he right side, where possible. Putting it on the left for no good reason* just makes you have to mouse farther to accomplish the same task.</p><p>* And no, "because Mac does it" is not a good reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is the logic of having the buttons on the left ?
The vast majority of users are right handed , and mouse right handed .
Thus , the scrollbar is on the right side , and an idle mouse cursor is on the right side .
Therefore , widnow controls should be ont he right side , where possible .
Putting it on the left for no good reason * just makes you have to mouse farther to accomplish the same task .
* And no , " because Mac does it " is not a good reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is the logic of having the buttons on the left?
The vast majority of users are right handed, and mouse right handed.
Thus, the scrollbar is on the right side, and an idle mouse cursor is on the right side.
Therefore, widnow controls should be ont he right side, where possible.
Putting it on the left for no good reason* just makes you have to mouse farther to accomplish the same task.
* And no, "because Mac does it" is not a good reason.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31583186</id>
	<title>Open Source vs  Ubuntu</title>
	<author>pomerane</author>
	<datestamp>1269357240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Open Source is not Ubuntu just like trapezoids are not triangles. There are about a trillion Open-sourced operating systems out there an just to prove the point search for  Distrowatch. If you don't like the defaults that are given there are several options: 1) learn the program, many things are either in C or Python. 2) wait for someone to come out with the Gui app for you. 3) Decide that you are too lazy and live with it (in which case you have no right to complain just like you have no right to complain of someone in office when YOU CHOSE not to vote). Or 4)Search for another distribution, Ubuntu speaks the loudest but they are just like any other Linux distribution these days, again search up distrowatch or better yet Youtube and see what they can do.  No democracy? I think it is flooded with democracy,you just have to know where to look and what to look for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Open Source is not Ubuntu just like trapezoids are not triangles .
There are about a trillion Open-sourced operating systems out there an just to prove the point search for Distrowatch .
If you do n't like the defaults that are given there are several options : 1 ) learn the program , many things are either in C or Python .
2 ) wait for someone to come out with the Gui app for you .
3 ) Decide that you are too lazy and live with it ( in which case you have no right to complain just like you have no right to complain of someone in office when YOU CHOSE not to vote ) .
Or 4 ) Search for another distribution , Ubuntu speaks the loudest but they are just like any other Linux distribution these days , again search up distrowatch or better yet Youtube and see what they can do .
No democracy ?
I think it is flooded with democracy,you just have to know where to look and what to look for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open Source is not Ubuntu just like trapezoids are not triangles.
There are about a trillion Open-sourced operating systems out there an just to prove the point search for  Distrowatch.
If you don't like the defaults that are given there are several options: 1) learn the program, many things are either in C or Python.
2) wait for someone to come out with the Gui app for you.
3) Decide that you are too lazy and live with it (in which case you have no right to complain just like you have no right to complain of someone in office when YOU CHOSE not to vote).
Or 4)Search for another distribution, Ubuntu speaks the loudest but they are just like any other Linux distribution these days, again search up distrowatch or better yet Youtube and see what they can do.
No democracy?
I think it is flooded with democracy,you just have to know where to look and what to look for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571898</id>
	<title>Re:the unix way...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269282960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ubuntu has a policy of choosing what is best for you, and giving you the least amount of control possible over how your system is configured.  You know, to make it more simple.</p><p>I don't see the problem with a simple interface, but these newbies they want to draw in aren't going to go hunting through configuration options.  They just want to use the computer.  Still, they don't want to "confuse" them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ubuntu has a policy of choosing what is best for you , and giving you the least amount of control possible over how your system is configured .
You know , to make it more simple.I do n't see the problem with a simple interface , but these newbies they want to draw in are n't going to go hunting through configuration options .
They just want to use the computer .
Still , they do n't want to " confuse " them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ubuntu has a policy of choosing what is best for you, and giving you the least amount of control possible over how your system is configured.
You know, to make it more simple.I don't see the problem with a simple interface, but these newbies they want to draw in aren't going to go hunting through configuration options.
They just want to use the computer.
Still, they don't want to "confuse" them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573440</id>
	<title>Debian with taste.</title>
	<author>spinkham</author>
	<datestamp>1269288180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linus Torvalds famously called himself "cvs with taste".<br>Ubuntu is pretty much "Debian with taste."  If you don't like their taste, go to Debian, who IS a democracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linus Torvalds famously called himself " cvs with taste " .Ubuntu is pretty much " Debian with taste .
" If you do n't like their taste , go to Debian , who IS a democracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linus Torvalds famously called himself "cvs with taste".Ubuntu is pretty much "Debian with taste.
"  If you don't like their taste, go to Debian, who IS a democracy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573388</id>
	<title>Re:It's so simple</title>
	<author>deafdaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1269288000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Couldn't agree more. Since it's not a democracy - leave and create/join project that is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't agree more .
Since it 's not a democracy - leave and create/join project that is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't agree more.
Since it's not a democracy - leave and create/join project that is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31576038</id>
	<title>Mouse or mouse POINTER?</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1269255120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>1.  Things that are closer to the mouse are quicker to access than things far away from the mouse</i></p><p><i>From this, assuming that the mouse is on the right hand side of the screen, accessing a same-sized scrollbar would be quicker if it is on the right than if it were on the left.</i></p><p>Why would you assume the mouse <b>pointer</b> is on the right-hand side of the screen?  Because the mouse itself is on the right-hand side of the keyboard (for right-handed folks)?  The mouse is always on the right side, regardless of where the pointer is!</p><p>Fitt's law says that minimizing total distance traveled is good.  This means moving the mouse minimally, which means moving the mouse pointer minimally, irrespective of the absolute position of your hand relative to the screen.  Why does that matter?  It looks like an argument for clustering UI elements together, not an argument that scroll bars belong on the right side of the window to account for right-handedness.</p><p>In fact, since most active UI elements in a window (menu items, tool bar icons) are on the left side, it sounds to me that Fitt's Law is an argument for having the scroll bars and window controls on the left.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Things that are closer to the mouse are quicker to access than things far away from the mouseFrom this , assuming that the mouse is on the right hand side of the screen , accessing a same-sized scrollbar would be quicker if it is on the right than if it were on the left.Why would you assume the mouse pointer is on the right-hand side of the screen ?
Because the mouse itself is on the right-hand side of the keyboard ( for right-handed folks ) ?
The mouse is always on the right side , regardless of where the pointer is ! Fitt 's law says that minimizing total distance traveled is good .
This means moving the mouse minimally , which means moving the mouse pointer minimally , irrespective of the absolute position of your hand relative to the screen .
Why does that matter ?
It looks like an argument for clustering UI elements together , not an argument that scroll bars belong on the right side of the window to account for right-handedness.In fact , since most active UI elements in a window ( menu items , tool bar icons ) are on the left side , it sounds to me that Fitt 's Law is an argument for having the scroll bars and window controls on the left .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Things that are closer to the mouse are quicker to access than things far away from the mouseFrom this, assuming that the mouse is on the right hand side of the screen, accessing a same-sized scrollbar would be quicker if it is on the right than if it were on the left.Why would you assume the mouse pointer is on the right-hand side of the screen?
Because the mouse itself is on the right-hand side of the keyboard (for right-handed folks)?
The mouse is always on the right side, regardless of where the pointer is!Fitt's law says that minimizing total distance traveled is good.
This means moving the mouse minimally, which means moving the mouse pointer minimally, irrespective of the absolute position of your hand relative to the screen.
Why does that matter?
It looks like an argument for clustering UI elements together, not an argument that scroll bars belong on the right side of the window to account for right-handedness.In fact, since most active UI elements in a window (menu items, tool bar icons) are on the left side, it sounds to me that Fitt's Law is an argument for having the scroll bars and window controls on the left.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31574256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571470</id>
	<title>UI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269281820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good luck on making \_everyone\_ agree on a layout.<br>Not that's impossible but unless people make some concession, it will never work out.</p><p>Also, from a random user point of view, I don't care that much if buttons are in a specific order than an other or in some other place to reach, as long as it doesn't change every time and not in a remote and hidden place.</p><p>My 2 cents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good luck on making \ _everyone \ _ agree on a layout.Not that 's impossible but unless people make some concession , it will never work out.Also , from a random user point of view , I do n't care that much if buttons are in a specific order than an other or in some other place to reach , as long as it does n't change every time and not in a remote and hidden place.My 2 cents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good luck on making \_everyone\_ agree on a layout.Not that's impossible but unless people make some concession, it will never work out.Also, from a random user point of view, I don't care that much if buttons are in a specific order than an other or in some other place to reach, as long as it doesn't change every time and not in a remote and hidden place.My 2 cents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572680</id>
	<title>Re:Why left?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269285300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because a non-trivial number of people are left-handed?<p>Look, the world has already chosen to support leftys. You can get left-handed scissors - and they cost more money to make - why is it a problem to ask that a user environment be adaptible?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because a non-trivial number of people are left-handed ? Look , the world has already chosen to support leftys .
You can get left-handed scissors - and they cost more money to make - why is it a problem to ask that a user environment be adaptible ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because a non-trivial number of people are left-handed?Look, the world has already chosen to support leftys.
You can get left-handed scissors - and they cost more money to make - why is it a problem to ask that a user environment be adaptible?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571916</id>
	<title>You've never heard of the man who went in for a si</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269283020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've never heard of the man who went in for a simple operation and came out with an arm for a leg and a leg for an arm?  Boy! was he surprised.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've never heard of the man who went in for a simple operation and came out with an arm for a leg and a leg for an arm ?
Boy ! was he surprised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've never heard of the man who went in for a simple operation and came out with an arm for a leg and a leg for an arm?
Boy! was he surprised.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572068</id>
	<title>THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269283440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That argument doesn't make sense.  It's not a touch-screen.  It doesn't matter where the physical location of your mouse is.  That doesn't map to the pointer location.  If I move my mouse to the left side of the keyboard, nothing changes.  If I use my left hand instead of my right, the pointer doesn't automatically jump to the left side.</p><p>Also, considering that I can move my mouse all the way from one side of the screen to the other by simply bending my wrist, while my arm remains stationary, I don't see how it's adding any more work.  My muscles didn't exactly start getting sore after the switch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That argument does n't make sense .
It 's not a touch-screen .
It does n't matter where the physical location of your mouse is .
That does n't map to the pointer location .
If I move my mouse to the left side of the keyboard , nothing changes .
If I use my left hand instead of my right , the pointer does n't automatically jump to the left side.Also , considering that I can move my mouse all the way from one side of the screen to the other by simply bending my wrist , while my arm remains stationary , I do n't see how it 's adding any more work .
My muscles did n't exactly start getting sore after the switch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That argument doesn't make sense.
It's not a touch-screen.
It doesn't matter where the physical location of your mouse is.
That doesn't map to the pointer location.
If I move my mouse to the left side of the keyboard, nothing changes.
If I use my left hand instead of my right, the pointer doesn't automatically jump to the left side.Also, considering that I can move my mouse all the way from one side of the screen to the other by simply bending my wrist, while my arm remains stationary, I don't see how it's adding any more work.
My muscles didn't exactly start getting sore after the switch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31574574</id>
	<title>Then what is the AUR?</title>
	<author>DeadRat4life</author>
	<datestamp>1269249180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>to say that ubuntu is not a democracy is not to say that the entirety of open source is not. Though i think tdg described it best saying open source is anarchism and not democracy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>to say that ubuntu is not a democracy is not to say that the entirety of open source is not .
Though i think tdg described it best saying open source is anarchism and not democracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to say that ubuntu is not a democracy is not to say that the entirety of open source is not.
Though i think tdg described it best saying open source is anarchism and not democracy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571588</id>
	<title>Bah.</title>
	<author>bmo</author>
	<datestamp>1269282180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This fight over window controls would not exist if Gnome had an easy way to rearrange the buttons.  But no, Gnome hides it in a dark corner. KDE allows you to arrange the buttons any way you like by simply clicking and dragging.</p><p>Oh yeah and to "troll" further, there is only one way to lay out the window control buttons that makes any sense: Close on left, minimize and maximize on right.</p><p>--<br>BMO</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This fight over window controls would not exist if Gnome had an easy way to rearrange the buttons .
But no , Gnome hides it in a dark corner .
KDE allows you to arrange the buttons any way you like by simply clicking and dragging.Oh yeah and to " troll " further , there is only one way to lay out the window control buttons that makes any sense : Close on left , minimize and maximize on right.--BMO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This fight over window controls would not exist if Gnome had an easy way to rearrange the buttons.
But no, Gnome hides it in a dark corner.
KDE allows you to arrange the buttons any way you like by simply clicking and dragging.Oh yeah and to "troll" further, there is only one way to lay out the window control buttons that makes any sense: Close on left, minimize and maximize on right.--BMO</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572384</id>
	<title>Open Source is not any kind of "cracy"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269284460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And it isn't an "archy" either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it is n't an " archy " either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it isn't an "archy" either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572052</id>
	<title>Ubuntu != Open Source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269283380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We already have to put up with demented idiots who think that Ubuntu equals Linux, and now we get a Slashdot headline saying that Ubuntu equals Open Source. Fuck you. Open Source isn't even a democracy, it's an anarchy. You don't have to vote on anything. Just start your own distribution using whatever kernel and packages you want, and if it's good it'll prosper. In the meantime, quit being so reductionist and stop spreading this fucktarded FUD around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We already have to put up with demented idiots who think that Ubuntu equals Linux , and now we get a Slashdot headline saying that Ubuntu equals Open Source .
Fuck you .
Open Source is n't even a democracy , it 's an anarchy .
You do n't have to vote on anything .
Just start your own distribution using whatever kernel and packages you want , and if it 's good it 'll prosper .
In the meantime , quit being so reductionist and stop spreading this fucktarded FUD around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We already have to put up with demented idiots who think that Ubuntu equals Linux, and now we get a Slashdot headline saying that Ubuntu equals Open Source.
Fuck you.
Open Source isn't even a democracy, it's an anarchy.
You don't have to vote on anything.
Just start your own distribution using whatever kernel and packages you want, and if it's good it'll prosper.
In the meantime, quit being so reductionist and stop spreading this fucktarded FUD around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572156</id>
	<title>Just use KDE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269283680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if you require choice. KDE has had the ability to reorder window buttons for ages, right there on the settings manager (it's even drag-and-drop). If you use Ubuntu and GNOME, don't expect to be able to tweak nontrivial stuff without using regedit^Wgconf-editor (at best) or recompiling (at worst).</p><p>I don't get the GNOME people's excuses to remove user choice. If you think choice is too confusing for users, then just hide the "confusing" options behind "Advanced settings" buttons. It looks to me like they just can't be arsed to make things configurable (or write UIs for their gconf properties).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if you require choice .
KDE has had the ability to reorder window buttons for ages , right there on the settings manager ( it 's even drag-and-drop ) .
If you use Ubuntu and GNOME , do n't expect to be able to tweak nontrivial stuff without using regedit ^ Wgconf-editor ( at best ) or recompiling ( at worst ) .I do n't get the GNOME people 's excuses to remove user choice .
If you think choice is too confusing for users , then just hide the " confusing " options behind " Advanced settings " buttons .
It looks to me like they just ca n't be arsed to make things configurable ( or write UIs for their gconf properties ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you require choice.
KDE has had the ability to reorder window buttons for ages, right there on the settings manager (it's even drag-and-drop).
If you use Ubuntu and GNOME, don't expect to be able to tweak nontrivial stuff without using regedit^Wgconf-editor (at best) or recompiling (at worst).I don't get the GNOME people's excuses to remove user choice.
If you think choice is too confusing for users, then just hide the "confusing" options behind "Advanced settings" buttons.
It looks to me like they just can't be arsed to make things configurable (or write UIs for their gconf properties).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571594</id>
	<title>Re:Why left?</title>
	<author>DdJ</author>
	<datestamp>1269282180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I certainly agree that "because Mac does it" is not a good reason.  But that doesn't mean there <em>isn't</em> a good reason -- you've made a straw man argument, IMO.</p><p>And there's no reason a design expert should be forced to explain those reasons to a layman.  That's asking too much.</p><p>But I can think of some reasons that <em>might</em> apply: "as windows resize, the top left corner is the anchor from which all resizing is done, therefore putting elements there minimizes gratuitous movement of those elements" could easily be a factor in a reasonable decision along these lines.  Or "as left-to-right/top-to-bottom readers, our eyes are naturally drawn to the top left, so putting critical controls there makes sense".</p><p>If you don't agree with the conclusion, prove to the design team that you're enough of a design expert that they should pay attention to you, and have the discussion with them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I certainly agree that " because Mac does it " is not a good reason .
But that does n't mean there is n't a good reason -- you 've made a straw man argument , IMO.And there 's no reason a design expert should be forced to explain those reasons to a layman .
That 's asking too much.But I can think of some reasons that might apply : " as windows resize , the top left corner is the anchor from which all resizing is done , therefore putting elements there minimizes gratuitous movement of those elements " could easily be a factor in a reasonable decision along these lines .
Or " as left-to-right/top-to-bottom readers , our eyes are naturally drawn to the top left , so putting critical controls there makes sense " .If you do n't agree with the conclusion , prove to the design team that you 're enough of a design expert that they should pay attention to you , and have the discussion with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I certainly agree that "because Mac does it" is not a good reason.
But that doesn't mean there isn't a good reason -- you've made a straw man argument, IMO.And there's no reason a design expert should be forced to explain those reasons to a layman.
That's asking too much.But I can think of some reasons that might apply: "as windows resize, the top left corner is the anchor from which all resizing is done, therefore putting elements there minimizes gratuitous movement of those elements" could easily be a factor in a reasonable decision along these lines.
Or "as left-to-right/top-to-bottom readers, our eyes are naturally drawn to the top left, so putting critical controls there makes sense".If you don't agree with the conclusion, prove to the design team that you're enough of a design expert that they should pay attention to you, and have the discussion with them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573162</id>
	<title>Re:Open Source is not Ubuntu</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1269287160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Most open source projects are democracies, although not all votes are equal.</p></div><p>Ultimately the question is, who controls checking code in for the official release?  Whoever has the power to do that is running things.  They may choose to honor the votes of the community (or some subset of the community), but you could argue that it's still not a democracy.  If a king decides to go along with a popular vote for a particular decision, is that a democracy?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most open source projects are democracies , although not all votes are equal.Ultimately the question is , who controls checking code in for the official release ?
Whoever has the power to do that is running things .
They may choose to honor the votes of the community ( or some subset of the community ) , but you could argue that it 's still not a democracy .
If a king decides to go along with a popular vote for a particular decision , is that a democracy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most open source projects are democracies, although not all votes are equal.Ultimately the question is, who controls checking code in for the official release?
Whoever has the power to do that is running things.
They may choose to honor the votes of the community (or some subset of the community), but you could argue that it's still not a democracy.
If a king decides to go along with a popular vote for a particular decision, is that a democracy?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572018</id>
	<title>OS/2 was a democracy. Just look what happened to i</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269283320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was a reason Microsoft withdrawed from OS/2. IBM let everybody in the company come with their ideas and meaning. In the end the load time ended loading so much stuff that Microsoft just shook their head and withdrawed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a reason Microsoft withdrawed from OS/2 .
IBM let everybody in the company come with their ideas and meaning .
In the end the load time ended loading so much stuff that Microsoft just shook their head and withdrawed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a reason Microsoft withdrawed from OS/2.
IBM let everybody in the company come with their ideas and meaning.
In the end the load time ended loading so much stuff that Microsoft just shook their head and withdrawed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31576146</id>
	<title>Re:Users do vote...</title>
	<author>Myopic</author>
	<datestamp>1269255600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think "vote" means what you imply that it means. I don't "vote" for President by moving to Australia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think " vote " means what you imply that it means .
I do n't " vote " for President by moving to Australia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think "vote" means what you imply that it means.
I don't "vote" for President by moving to Australia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573206</id>
	<title>Iain Bank's Culture</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269287280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we are trying to make analogies to political systems, I posit that Open Source is more akin to The Culture, which is a post-scarcity, anarchist, socialist, and utopian society. Any part of The Culture can "fork off" at any time to form their own Culture and can also merge back in at any time. The Culture is nominally democratic but, in practice, controlled by super intelligent Minds. That's sounds pretty close to me.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we are trying to make analogies to political systems , I posit that Open Source is more akin to The Culture , which is a post-scarcity , anarchist , socialist , and utopian society .
Any part of The Culture can " fork off " at any time to form their own Culture and can also merge back in at any time .
The Culture is nominally democratic but , in practice , controlled by super intelligent Minds .
That 's sounds pretty close to me .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we are trying to make analogies to political systems, I posit that Open Source is more akin to The Culture, which is a post-scarcity, anarchist, socialist, and utopian society.
Any part of The Culture can "fork off" at any time to form their own Culture and can also merge back in at any time.
The Culture is nominally democratic but, in practice, controlled by super intelligent Minds.
That's sounds pretty close to me.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572980</id>
	<title>Thanks for the slashvert</title>
	<author>Bearhouse</author>
	<datestamp>1269286560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Select some uninteresting Ubuntu-related stuff 'news'<br>2. Sensationalize<br>3. Get Taco to put on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.<br>4. Watch your admoney roll in<br>5. Proffitt!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Select some uninteresting Ubuntu-related stuff 'news'2 .
Sensationalize3. Get Taco to put on /.4 .
Watch your admoney roll in5 .
Proffitt ! ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Select some uninteresting Ubuntu-related stuff 'news'2.
Sensationalize3. Get Taco to put on /.4.
Watch your admoney roll in5.
Proffitt!!!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571692</id>
	<title>Democracy vs. Choose Your Own Adventure</title>
	<author>sanche</author>
	<datestamp>1269282420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most developers know that you have to make independent decisions to keep a project moving forward.  That takes the "democracy feel" out a little, especially when it's publicized like this.</p><p>However, the nature of open source gives any of us the ability to choose a different path.  Don't want to use their button placement?  You have the option to modify it on your own time, choose a different theme, or choose a completely different window manager.</p><p>It's not really accurate to say open source as a whole is non-democratic when we're talking about a single theme.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most developers know that you have to make independent decisions to keep a project moving forward .
That takes the " democracy feel " out a little , especially when it 's publicized like this.However , the nature of open source gives any of us the ability to choose a different path .
Do n't want to use their button placement ?
You have the option to modify it on your own time , choose a different theme , or choose a completely different window manager.It 's not really accurate to say open source as a whole is non-democratic when we 're talking about a single theme .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most developers know that you have to make independent decisions to keep a project moving forward.
That takes the "democracy feel" out a little, especially when it's publicized like this.However, the nature of open source gives any of us the ability to choose a different path.
Don't want to use their button placement?
You have the option to modify it on your own time, choose a different theme, or choose a completely different window manager.It's not really accurate to say open source as a whole is non-democratic when we're talking about a single theme.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572186</id>
	<title>It's so simple</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1269283800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This is not a democracy. Good feedback, good data, are welcome. But we are not voting on design decisions.'"</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; This is where you fork. End of story. kthxbai</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not a democracy .
Good feedback , good data , are welcome .
But we are not voting on design decisions .
' "       This is where you fork .
End of story .
kthxbai</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not a democracy.
Good feedback, good data, are welcome.
But we are not voting on design decisions.
'"
      This is where you fork.
End of story.
kthxbai</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572410</id>
	<title>New button layout is stupid</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1269284520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I want to close a window, I expect the close button to be in a predictable position. The new 10.04 beta doesn't do this because the minimize / maximize buttons are to the left of it. Some windows don't show minimize &amp; maximize so the close button could be the first button, the second or the third meaning the user must consciously hunt for it. Additionally in Windows and in OS X, the close button is coloured (typically red) as another visual clue.
<p>
I don't know what motivated the change, whether it was a desire to ape OS X or what, but the current implementation is pretty stupid. If Ubuntu absolutely must move the buttons to the left, at least make sure the close button is the leftmost one in all circumstances.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I want to close a window , I expect the close button to be in a predictable position .
The new 10.04 beta does n't do this because the minimize / maximize buttons are to the left of it .
Some windows do n't show minimize &amp; maximize so the close button could be the first button , the second or the third meaning the user must consciously hunt for it .
Additionally in Windows and in OS X , the close button is coloured ( typically red ) as another visual clue .
I do n't know what motivated the change , whether it was a desire to ape OS X or what , but the current implementation is pretty stupid .
If Ubuntu absolutely must move the buttons to the left , at least make sure the close button is the leftmost one in all circumstances .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I want to close a window, I expect the close button to be in a predictable position.
The new 10.04 beta doesn't do this because the minimize / maximize buttons are to the left of it.
Some windows don't show minimize &amp; maximize so the close button could be the first button, the second or the third meaning the user must consciously hunt for it.
Additionally in Windows and in OS X, the close button is coloured (typically red) as another visual clue.
I don't know what motivated the change, whether it was a desire to ape OS X or what, but the current implementation is pretty stupid.
If Ubuntu absolutely must move the buttons to the left, at least make sure the close button is the leftmost one in all circumstances.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573708</id>
	<title>Move along, nothing to see here</title>
	<author>puddles</author>
	<datestamp>1269289200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. It's a theme.  If you don't like it, use a different theme, or edit it to do what you want it to do.</p><p>2. I agree with Shuttleworth.  If everybody is allowed input into the process, the result will be like this one,</p><p>"What if a corporation created the STOP sign", linked to at various places, like this one</p><p><a href="http://www.directcreative.com/blog/stop-sign" title="directcreative.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.directcreative.com/blog/stop-sign</a> [directcreative.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
It 's a theme .
If you do n't like it , use a different theme , or edit it to do what you want it to do.2 .
I agree with Shuttleworth .
If everybody is allowed input into the process , the result will be like this one , " What if a corporation created the STOP sign " , linked to at various places , like this onehttp : //www.directcreative.com/blog/stop-sign [ directcreative.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
It's a theme.
If you don't like it, use a different theme, or edit it to do what you want it to do.2.
I agree with Shuttleworth.
If everybody is allowed input into the process, the result will be like this one,"What if a corporation created the STOP sign", linked to at various places, like this onehttp://www.directcreative.com/blog/stop-sign [directcreative.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31575888</id>
	<title>Re:Why left?</title>
	<author>Myopic</author>
	<datestamp>1269254520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's an interesting argument for putting the buttons on the right -- one I've never heard.</p><p>Do you also think that the taskbar should be on the right side of the screen? or that the Start button in Windows is difficult for users to move the cursor to? (Seriously, I'm curious what else you might think is placed poorly.)</p><p>The only reason I can think of that the right is better than the left is that it's the place that people expect it to be for historical reasons. If I were to try to pick the most rational place, I would choose the left because the top left is where my culture starts things -- so, the buttons are where the window "starts", in the upper left. But I don't give a hoot, and in fact I've never even had a problem going between Win and Mac on a daily basis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's an interesting argument for putting the buttons on the right -- one I 've never heard.Do you also think that the taskbar should be on the right side of the screen ?
or that the Start button in Windows is difficult for users to move the cursor to ?
( Seriously , I 'm curious what else you might think is placed poorly .
) The only reason I can think of that the right is better than the left is that it 's the place that people expect it to be for historical reasons .
If I were to try to pick the most rational place , I would choose the left because the top left is where my culture starts things -- so , the buttons are where the window " starts " , in the upper left .
But I do n't give a hoot , and in fact I 've never even had a problem going between Win and Mac on a daily basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's an interesting argument for putting the buttons on the right -- one I've never heard.Do you also think that the taskbar should be on the right side of the screen?
or that the Start button in Windows is difficult for users to move the cursor to?
(Seriously, I'm curious what else you might think is placed poorly.
)The only reason I can think of that the right is better than the left is that it's the place that people expect it to be for historical reasons.
If I were to try to pick the most rational place, I would choose the left because the top left is where my culture starts things -- so, the buttons are where the window "starts", in the upper left.
But I don't give a hoot, and in fact I've never even had a problem going between Win and Mac on a daily basis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571870</id>
	<title>Re:Why left?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1269282900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You make a lot of assumptions.</p><p>"The vast majority of users are right handed, and mouse right handed. Thus, the scrollbar is on the right side,"</p><p>Why do you assume mouse side on the right determines that putting scroll bars on the right is the most effecient thing to do?</p><p>And no 'It's obvious' doesn't cut it. Data only.</p><p>Why do you assume if the scroll bar is on the right , then windows on the right is more efficient?</p><p>"Putting it on the left for no good reason* just makes you have to mouse farther to accomplish the same task."<br>First, you are simple stating 'no good reason' without any backing. Strawman.<br>Second, what do you base where the mouse is most likely to be at any moment?</p><p>"* And no, "because Mac does it" is not a good reason."<br>No, but why Mac does it may be a good reason.</p><p>~~~ About your sig ~~~~~</p><p>heh, I love stuff like that. While they may have a good reason for doing it that way, claiming it's green for marketing reason crack me up.</p><p>After they give you your coffee, you should pout it from your mug into a paper cup. To make a point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You make a lot of assumptions .
" The vast majority of users are right handed , and mouse right handed .
Thus , the scrollbar is on the right side , " Why do you assume mouse side on the right determines that putting scroll bars on the right is the most effecient thing to do ? And no 'It 's obvious ' does n't cut it .
Data only.Why do you assume if the scroll bar is on the right , then windows on the right is more efficient ?
" Putting it on the left for no good reason * just makes you have to mouse farther to accomplish the same task .
" First , you are simple stating 'no good reason ' without any backing .
Strawman.Second , what do you base where the mouse is most likely to be at any moment ?
" * And no , " because Mac does it " is not a good reason .
" No , but why Mac does it may be a good reason. ~ ~ ~ About your sig ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ heh , I love stuff like that .
While they may have a good reason for doing it that way , claiming it 's green for marketing reason crack me up.After they give you your coffee , you should pout it from your mug into a paper cup .
To make a point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You make a lot of assumptions.
"The vast majority of users are right handed, and mouse right handed.
Thus, the scrollbar is on the right side,"Why do you assume mouse side on the right determines that putting scroll bars on the right is the most effecient thing to do?And no 'It's obvious' doesn't cut it.
Data only.Why do you assume if the scroll bar is on the right , then windows on the right is more efficient?
"Putting it on the left for no good reason* just makes you have to mouse farther to accomplish the same task.
"First, you are simple stating 'no good reason' without any backing.
Strawman.Second, what do you base where the mouse is most likely to be at any moment?
"* And no, "because Mac does it" is not a good reason.
"No, but why Mac does it may be a good reason.~~~ About your sig ~~~~~heh, I love stuff like that.
While they may have a good reason for doing it that way, claiming it's green for marketing reason crack me up.After they give you your coffee, you should pout it from your mug into a paper cup.
To make a point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571608</id>
	<title>News for nerds?</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1269282240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everyone knows that Linus is a benevolent dictator.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows that Linus is a benevolent dictator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows that Linus is a benevolent dictator.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571986</id>
	<title>No, its Anarchism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269283200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually it's rather close to Anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually it 's rather close to Anarchism ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually it's rather close to Anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571412</id>
	<title>Reminds me of gaim/pidgin...</title>
	<author>Improv</author>
	<datestamp>1269281700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some time back, gaim had a UI redesign where they replaced protocol-specific icons with generic ones, in the decision that hiding the protocol is the right thing to do. A lot of us thought that was boneheaded, and some people forked GAIM, others wrote plugins to undo the change, and a lot of us offered harsh criticism of the developers responsible. If it were a democracy, we probably would've voted it undone. Right decision? Wrong decision? We didn't like it, but most of us decided not to walk away from it (either to the forks or further away).</p><p>Opensource provides new possibilities for governance - the ability to fork is something we don't really have in nations (splitting into bits really isn't the same), and with the exception of protocol decisions we generally can reshape our environment as we like (local patches, greasemonkey, etc). By having so much local variance possible, we no longer have our elbows so close to our neighbours and so there's less hazard for technocratic or autocratic decision styles (provided they use licenses that sustain this type of environment - some developers like Tuomo Valkonen prove to be batshit insane and play license games to compound their boneheaded technical decisions).</p><p>With licensing messes out of the way and the ability to fork, the most precious thing for us is mostly time/attention. If we want to fork a project, we're balancing our time and attention versus how much we care over the relevant issue. It's the easiest thing in the world to follow a path paved by the actual developer, while maintaining patches of any size (or starting a parallel community for a true fork) is an ongoing burden. If it's for an important enough reason, we'll do it. If that reason turns out to be not important enough to be worth the bother, all we can do is complain and hope to convince whomever is already doing that work to pave our path.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some time back , gaim had a UI redesign where they replaced protocol-specific icons with generic ones , in the decision that hiding the protocol is the right thing to do .
A lot of us thought that was boneheaded , and some people forked GAIM , others wrote plugins to undo the change , and a lot of us offered harsh criticism of the developers responsible .
If it were a democracy , we probably would 've voted it undone .
Right decision ?
Wrong decision ?
We did n't like it , but most of us decided not to walk away from it ( either to the forks or further away ) .Opensource provides new possibilities for governance - the ability to fork is something we do n't really have in nations ( splitting into bits really is n't the same ) , and with the exception of protocol decisions we generally can reshape our environment as we like ( local patches , greasemonkey , etc ) .
By having so much local variance possible , we no longer have our elbows so close to our neighbours and so there 's less hazard for technocratic or autocratic decision styles ( provided they use licenses that sustain this type of environment - some developers like Tuomo Valkonen prove to be batshit insane and play license games to compound their boneheaded technical decisions ) .With licensing messes out of the way and the ability to fork , the most precious thing for us is mostly time/attention .
If we want to fork a project , we 're balancing our time and attention versus how much we care over the relevant issue .
It 's the easiest thing in the world to follow a path paved by the actual developer , while maintaining patches of any size ( or starting a parallel community for a true fork ) is an ongoing burden .
If it 's for an important enough reason , we 'll do it .
If that reason turns out to be not important enough to be worth the bother , all we can do is complain and hope to convince whomever is already doing that work to pave our path .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some time back, gaim had a UI redesign where they replaced protocol-specific icons with generic ones, in the decision that hiding the protocol is the right thing to do.
A lot of us thought that was boneheaded, and some people forked GAIM, others wrote plugins to undo the change, and a lot of us offered harsh criticism of the developers responsible.
If it were a democracy, we probably would've voted it undone.
Right decision?
Wrong decision?
We didn't like it, but most of us decided not to walk away from it (either to the forks or further away).Opensource provides new possibilities for governance - the ability to fork is something we don't really have in nations (splitting into bits really isn't the same), and with the exception of protocol decisions we generally can reshape our environment as we like (local patches, greasemonkey, etc).
By having so much local variance possible, we no longer have our elbows so close to our neighbours and so there's less hazard for technocratic or autocratic decision styles (provided they use licenses that sustain this type of environment - some developers like Tuomo Valkonen prove to be batshit insane and play license games to compound their boneheaded technical decisions).With licensing messes out of the way and the ability to fork, the most precious thing for us is mostly time/attention.
If we want to fork a project, we're balancing our time and attention versus how much we care over the relevant issue.
It's the easiest thing in the world to follow a path paved by the actual developer, while maintaining patches of any size (or starting a parallel community for a true fork) is an ongoing burden.
If it's for an important enough reason, we'll do it.
If that reason turns out to be not important enough to be worth the bother, all we can do is complain and hope to convince whomever is already doing that work to pave our path.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571880</id>
	<title>Vote with your source code.</title>
	<author>Tei</author>
	<datestamp>1269282900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe all these FOSS projects are a democracy, but one where to vote, you need to use a keyboard and write code.<br>You want to create a fork? you need people that know how to write code, or you need yourself to do that.<br>You want feature X to be implemented? implement it yourself and send the patch. If the owners of the project don't like the patch, but you still need X, make a fork.  forks are fun, forks are horrible, forks are lotsa work, but forks is freedom to do anything you want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe all these FOSS projects are a democracy , but one where to vote , you need to use a keyboard and write code.You want to create a fork ?
you need people that know how to write code , or you need yourself to do that.You want feature X to be implemented ?
implement it yourself and send the patch .
If the owners of the project do n't like the patch , but you still need X , make a fork .
forks are fun , forks are horrible , forks are lotsa work , but forks is freedom to do anything you want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe all these FOSS projects are a democracy, but one where to vote, you need to use a keyboard and write code.You want to create a fork?
you need people that know how to write code, or you need yourself to do that.You want feature X to be implemented?
implement it yourself and send the patch.
If the owners of the project don't like the patch, but you still need X, make a fork.
forks are fun, forks are horrible, forks are lotsa work, but forks is freedom to do anything you want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572918</id>
	<title>What is democracy in software?</title>
	<author>kandresen</author>
	<datestamp>1269286260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First. In a democracy, do you think that the winning party be it republican or democrats AFTER being elected will ask the people what the majority think before doing what they believe in?<br>Ubuntu in this case represent an elected distribution just like democrats or republicans, you are free to choose a different party if you don't believe in the decisions made by the one you currently use, and this works much better in this case as you have close to endless alternatives to choose from.<br>And this is only about the  layout. I would be surprised if no windows like theme(s) were included as alternative in the base system - choose it if you want.</p><p>And then - who votes in a democracy? As far as for most countries, it is not the people but their representatives - thus if people already voted Ubuntu to be the leading party, they are in power to vote on your behalf until you change party - is that not so? I for one cannot say I see many places where any true democracy exists, only the quasi forms created where representatives votes on our behalf.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First .
In a democracy , do you think that the winning party be it republican or democrats AFTER being elected will ask the people what the majority think before doing what they believe in ? Ubuntu in this case represent an elected distribution just like democrats or republicans , you are free to choose a different party if you do n't believe in the decisions made by the one you currently use , and this works much better in this case as you have close to endless alternatives to choose from.And this is only about the layout .
I would be surprised if no windows like theme ( s ) were included as alternative in the base system - choose it if you want.And then - who votes in a democracy ?
As far as for most countries , it is not the people but their representatives - thus if people already voted Ubuntu to be the leading party , they are in power to vote on your behalf until you change party - is that not so ?
I for one can not say I see many places where any true democracy exists , only the quasi forms created where representatives votes on our behalf .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First.
In a democracy, do you think that the winning party be it republican or democrats AFTER being elected will ask the people what the majority think before doing what they believe in?Ubuntu in this case represent an elected distribution just like democrats or republicans, you are free to choose a different party if you don't believe in the decisions made by the one you currently use, and this works much better in this case as you have close to endless alternatives to choose from.And this is only about the  layout.
I would be surprised if no windows like theme(s) were included as alternative in the base system - choose it if you want.And then - who votes in a democracy?
As far as for most countries, it is not the people but their representatives - thus if people already voted Ubuntu to be the leading party, they are in power to vote on your behalf until you change party - is that not so?
I for one cannot say I see many places where any true democracy exists, only the quasi forms created where representatives votes on our behalf.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31578190</id>
	<title>Three easy solutions:</title>
	<author>QuaveringGrape</author>
	<datestamp>1269267000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1)
Enter command in terminal:
gconftool-2 --set &ldquo;/apps/metacity/general/button\_layout&rdquo; --type string &ldquo;:minimize,maximize,close&rdquo;
<br>
Buttons are now how they have been as long as I can remember, as far back as Ubuntu 7.04. (Incidentally, they also match the Windows layout.)
<br> <br>
2)
Use <a href="http://blog.ubuntu-tweak.com/2010/03/14/ubuntu-tweak-0-5-3-released.html#more-597" title="ubuntu-tweak.com" rel="nofollow">Ubuntu tweak</a> [ubuntu-tweak.com] to customise to your heart's content.<br> <br>
3)
Show the Ubuntu devs that you've had enough of their authoritarian tendencies and switch distributions.
<br> <br>
I've been a loyal Ubuntu user for almost three years now, but this type of attitude is slowly disillusioning me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Enter command in terminal : gconftool-2 --set    /apps/metacity/general/button \ _layout    --type string    : minimize,maximize,close    Buttons are now how they have been as long as I can remember , as far back as Ubuntu 7.04 .
( Incidentally , they also match the Windows layout .
) 2 ) Use Ubuntu tweak [ ubuntu-tweak.com ] to customise to your heart 's content .
3 ) Show the Ubuntu devs that you 've had enough of their authoritarian tendencies and switch distributions .
I 've been a loyal Ubuntu user for almost three years now , but this type of attitude is slowly disillusioning me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1)
Enter command in terminal:
gconftool-2 --set “/apps/metacity/general/button\_layout” --type string “:minimize,maximize,close”

Buttons are now how they have been as long as I can remember, as far back as Ubuntu 7.04.
(Incidentally, they also match the Windows layout.
)
 
2)
Use Ubuntu tweak [ubuntu-tweak.com] to customise to your heart's content.
3)
Show the Ubuntu devs that you've had enough of their authoritarian tendencies and switch distributions.
I've been a loyal Ubuntu user for almost three years now, but this type of attitude is slowly disillusioning me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573418</id>
	<title>It's just a deal!</title>
	<author>MarkvW</author>
	<datestamp>1269288120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Open source is NOT a democracy.  It is a form of contract that people can choose to agree to or decline.  It's a DEAL.  If you don't like the terms, it's a friendly deal.  You can walk away without penalty, you can retain your right to use and modify the code, and you can even sell the code to others (pursuant to a liberal license)!</p><p>But it's not a political system; it's just a deal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open source is NOT a democracy .
It is a form of contract that people can choose to agree to or decline .
It 's a DEAL .
If you do n't like the terms , it 's a friendly deal .
You can walk away without penalty , you can retain your right to use and modify the code , and you can even sell the code to others ( pursuant to a liberal license ) ! But it 's not a political system ; it 's just a deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open source is NOT a democracy.
It is a form of contract that people can choose to agree to or decline.
It's a DEAL.
If you don't like the terms, it's a friendly deal.
You can walk away without penalty, you can retain your right to use and modify the code, and you can even sell the code to others (pursuant to a liberal license)!But it's not a political system; it's just a deal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571582</id>
	<title>Yet launchpad is plagued by incompetent triagers</title>
	<author>arose</author>
	<datestamp>1269282180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems that just about anyone with enough free time can elect themselves to close bugs, request more irrelevant information, request you to re-reproduce the bug every time anything changes, no matter how unrelated and generally make reporting bugs against Ubuntu a pointless activity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems that just about anyone with enough free time can elect themselves to close bugs , request more irrelevant information , request you to re-reproduce the bug every time anything changes , no matter how unrelated and generally make reporting bugs against Ubuntu a pointless activity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems that just about anyone with enough free time can elect themselves to close bugs, request more irrelevant information, request you to re-reproduce the bug every time anything changes, no matter how unrelated and generally make reporting bugs against Ubuntu a pointless activity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573074</id>
	<title>Frodo is no better than Wormtongue</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1269286920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>From <a href="http://interviews.slashdot.org/story/10/03/02/186206/Matt-Asay-Answers-Your-Questions-About-Ubuntu-and-Canonical?from=rss" title="slashdot.org">http://interviews.slashdot.org/story/10/03/02/186206/Matt-Asay-Answers-Your-Questions-About-Ubuntu-and-Canonical?from=rss</a> [slashdot.org] <br> <br>
<b>Adoption stories and influences</b> <br>
by eldavojohn (898314)"Every so often I see an adoption story about so-and-so taking up some open source solution and sometimes I think 'Wow, French government? Now it's really going to take off. This is it. It's time.' And then I wait. And wait. Are these stories at all positive for the project? I mean, you would think with states and governments using Ubuntu or Red Hat that it would catch on like wildfire if the savings are there so why isn't that happening? I know Microsoft sends out a lot of Wormtongues to stick in the ears of important people. Do you plan on targeting governments in a similar manner? Does/will Canonical work on making a presence in things like the EU Commissions where we've seen corporations collecting members in their pockets?"<br>
<b>Matt:</b> No, we have no plans to turn Wormtongue. We do, however, have aspirations to play Frodo.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) <br> <br>
In the end, Frodo proved just as corruptible as Gollum, Wormtongue, the Ringwraiths, etc.  I would rather have Canonical have aspirations to play Samwise.  In today's story, Shuttleworth seems to be closer to Ilsildur.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From http : //interviews.slashdot.org/story/10/03/02/186206/Matt-Asay-Answers-Your-Questions-About-Ubuntu-and-Canonical ? from = rss [ slashdot.org ] Adoption stories and influences by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) " Every so often I see an adoption story about so-and-so taking up some open source solution and sometimes I think 'Wow , French government ?
Now it 's really going to take off .
This is it .
It 's time .
' And then I wait .
And wait .
Are these stories at all positive for the project ?
I mean , you would think with states and governments using Ubuntu or Red Hat that it would catch on like wildfire if the savings are there so why is n't that happening ?
I know Microsoft sends out a lot of Wormtongues to stick in the ears of important people .
Do you plan on targeting governments in a similar manner ?
Does/will Canonical work on making a presence in things like the EU Commissions where we 've seen corporations collecting members in their pockets ?
" Matt : No , we have no plans to turn Wormtongue .
We do , however , have aspirations to play Frodo .
: - ) In the end , Frodo proved just as corruptible as Gollum , Wormtongue , the Ringwraiths , etc .
I would rather have Canonical have aspirations to play Samwise .
In today 's story , Shuttleworth seems to be closer to Ilsildur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From http://interviews.slashdot.org/story/10/03/02/186206/Matt-Asay-Answers-Your-Questions-About-Ubuntu-and-Canonical?from=rss [slashdot.org]  
Adoption stories and influences 
by eldavojohn (898314)"Every so often I see an adoption story about so-and-so taking up some open source solution and sometimes I think 'Wow, French government?
Now it's really going to take off.
This is it.
It's time.
' And then I wait.
And wait.
Are these stories at all positive for the project?
I mean, you would think with states and governments using Ubuntu or Red Hat that it would catch on like wildfire if the savings are there so why isn't that happening?
I know Microsoft sends out a lot of Wormtongues to stick in the ears of important people.
Do you plan on targeting governments in a similar manner?
Does/will Canonical work on making a presence in things like the EU Commissions where we've seen corporations collecting members in their pockets?
"
Matt: No, we have no plans to turn Wormtongue.
We do, however, have aspirations to play Frodo.
:-)  
In the end, Frodo proved just as corruptible as Gollum, Wormtongue, the Ringwraiths, etc.
I would rather have Canonical have aspirations to play Samwise.
In today's story, Shuttleworth seems to be closer to Ilsildur.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31574662</id>
	<title>A Failure of Understanding</title>
	<author>tbannist</author>
	<datestamp>1269249480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a failure of understanding demonstrated by the post.</p><p>Open Source is a democracy, everyone can vote by choosing which project to use and anyone can create a new project based on an older one or a new idea.</p><p>However, not every open source project is a democracy.  Many of the projects themselves may be run as despotisms or constitutional monarchies, or even democracies.</p><p>It is important to understand that any particular open source project is not "Open Source".  No single project encapsulates the entire philosophy and community of Open Source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a failure of understanding demonstrated by the post.Open Source is a democracy , everyone can vote by choosing which project to use and anyone can create a new project based on an older one or a new idea.However , not every open source project is a democracy .
Many of the projects themselves may be run as despotisms or constitutional monarchies , or even democracies.It is important to understand that any particular open source project is not " Open Source " .
No single project encapsulates the entire philosophy and community of Open Source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a failure of understanding demonstrated by the post.Open Source is a democracy, everyone can vote by choosing which project to use and anyone can create a new project based on an older one or a new idea.However, not every open source project is a democracy.
Many of the projects themselves may be run as despotisms or constitutional monarchies, or even democracies.It is important to understand that any particular open source project is not "Open Source".
No single project encapsulates the entire philosophy and community of Open Source.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31588504</id>
	<title>as a Linux user &amp; community contributor</title>
	<author>recharged95</author>
	<datestamp>1269334800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have never voted for anything in the Linux community (decisions are made for me I guess).
<br>
I have been given what is available (ffmpeg for instance), suck it up for the worst, and no choice in sight but making up ones for myself.
<br>
I have built my own utilities out of need.
<br>
I have <b>never</b> been told what <b>and</b> what not to do.
<br>
And at the company I work for that uses Linux/F/OSS, we pay for support occasionally.
<br>
<br>

Doesn't sound like democracy or communism, sounds more like capitalism.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have never voted for anything in the Linux community ( decisions are made for me I guess ) .
I have been given what is available ( ffmpeg for instance ) , suck it up for the worst , and no choice in sight but making up ones for myself .
I have built my own utilities out of need .
I have never been told what and what not to do .
And at the company I work for that uses Linux/F/OSS , we pay for support occasionally .
Does n't sound like democracy or communism , sounds more like capitalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have never voted for anything in the Linux community (decisions are made for me I guess).
I have been given what is available (ffmpeg for instance), suck it up for the worst, and no choice in sight but making up ones for myself.
I have built my own utilities out of need.
I have never been told what and what not to do.
And at the company I work for that uses Linux/F/OSS, we pay for support occasionally.
Doesn't sound like democracy or communism, sounds more like capitalism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572756</id>
	<title>System, Preferences, Appearance</title>
	<author>cfriedt</author>
	<datestamp>1269285660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is utterly ridiculous... do people really find it that difficult to change the theme if they don't like it?</p><p>I promise, that it will not be torturous, nor will it inflict physical or psychological pain on anyone to simply go to System, Preferences, and Appearance to change the theme to what they've grown accustomed to.</p><p>It <b>is</b> Shuttleworth's distribution, and he can do with it what he wants. If he believes that these slight aesthetic changes will make him more money, then he has the freedom to make those changes.</p><p>Similarly, anyone else has the freedom to modify the default installation ISO to use the classic theme, if they prefer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is utterly ridiculous... do people really find it that difficult to change the theme if they do n't like it ? I promise , that it will not be torturous , nor will it inflict physical or psychological pain on anyone to simply go to System , Preferences , and Appearance to change the theme to what they 've grown accustomed to.It is Shuttleworth 's distribution , and he can do with it what he wants .
If he believes that these slight aesthetic changes will make him more money , then he has the freedom to make those changes.Similarly , anyone else has the freedom to modify the default installation ISO to use the classic theme , if they prefer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is utterly ridiculous... do people really find it that difficult to change the theme if they don't like it?I promise, that it will not be torturous, nor will it inflict physical or psychological pain on anyone to simply go to System, Preferences, and Appearance to change the theme to what they've grown accustomed to.It is Shuttleworth's distribution, and he can do with it what he wants.
If he believes that these slight aesthetic changes will make him more money, then he has the freedom to make those changes.Similarly, anyone else has the freedom to modify the default installation ISO to use the classic theme, if they prefer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31578008</id>
	<title>FORK it</title>
	<author>kentsin</author>
	<datestamp>1269265560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fork it when it is needed.</p><p>More choice is always better</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fork it when it is needed.More choice is always better</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fork it when it is needed.More choice is always better</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573570</id>
	<title>Re:Users do vote...</title>
	<author>Shimbo</author>
	<datestamp>1269288720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Every time a user chooses what distro to use, they vote.</p></div><p>I think emigration is a better metaphor for that though; if your government sucks sufficiently, you can go find another one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time a user chooses what distro to use , they vote.I think emigration is a better metaphor for that though ; if your government sucks sufficiently , you can go find another one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time a user chooses what distro to use, they vote.I think emigration is a better metaphor for that though; if your government sucks sufficiently, you can go find another one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571704</id>
	<title>It *is* like a democracy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269282480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's like the democracy my dad always described in my family.  I got one vote, my sibling got one vote, my mom got 2 votes, and he got 5.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like the democracy my dad always described in my family .
I got one vote , my sibling got one vote , my mom got 2 votes , and he got 5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like the democracy my dad always described in my family.
I got one vote, my sibling got one vote, my mom got 2 votes, and he got 5.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573250</id>
	<title>This is total BS</title>
	<author>LS</author>
	<datestamp>1269287460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Asking "is open source a democracy" is like asking "is music a dictatorship".  It's a flawed question.  Democracy refers to a system of management and control. Open source refers to software with available source code.  Anyone can take the source code and manage it anyway they want.  It makes more sense to say "Are groups that release instances of open source projects democracies?"</p><p>LS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Asking " is open source a democracy " is like asking " is music a dictatorship " .
It 's a flawed question .
Democracy refers to a system of management and control .
Open source refers to software with available source code .
Anyone can take the source code and manage it anyway they want .
It makes more sense to say " Are groups that release instances of open source projects democracies ?
" LS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Asking "is open source a democracy" is like asking "is music a dictatorship".
It's a flawed question.
Democracy refers to a system of management and control.
Open source refers to software with available source code.
Anyone can take the source code and manage it anyway they want.
It makes more sense to say "Are groups that release instances of open source projects democracies?
"LS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572574</id>
	<title>Re:Full quote</title>
	<author>hansamurai</author>
	<datestamp>1269285000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What does he mean by this?</p><blockquote><div><p>We have a security team. They get to make<br>decisions about security. You don't get to see a lot of what they see<br>unless you're on that team.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What does he mean by this ? We have a security team .
They get to makedecisions about security .
You do n't get to see a lot of what they seeunless you 're on that team .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does he mean by this?We have a security team.
They get to makedecisions about security.
You don't get to see a lot of what they seeunless you're on that team.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572072</id>
	<title>Logically</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269283440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(Open) Source code is printed on paper.<br>Paper is made of wood.<br>Wood floats<br>Ducks also float.<br>A witch weighs the same as a duck.</p><p>Therefore Open Source is a witch<br>BURN IT!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( Open ) Source code is printed on paper.Paper is made of wood.Wood floatsDucks also float.A witch weighs the same as a duck.Therefore Open Source is a witchBURN IT ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Open) Source code is printed on paper.Paper is made of wood.Wood floatsDucks also float.A witch weighs the same as a duck.Therefore Open Source is a witchBURN IT!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571094</id>
	<title>-1 Troll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269280860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Open source is utterly a democracy.</p><p>Each of us may have our own source tree. If we can convince others to come join us in it, isn't that fun. Those who come and join you are always there voluntarily, either because they feel like it, or you are payiong them to be there. And maybe no one feels like it. And maybe you don't feel like paying anyone. Maybe you are alone there. Maybe you didn't bother to make your tree at all. But you have that right to, at any moment. <b>And this is utterly democratic, and it is at the heart of why open source exists. <i>In fact, this is why it works so much better.</i> </b></p><p>Shuttleworth has a very big, popular tree. He pays many participants and many others join him for free. He gets to make the decisions in his own tree, because it's his. He can't tell anyone else what to do in theirs.</p><p>Now if it's a Bill Gates product, and you do not like where those buttons got moved to, or i.e. you have a critical bug derailing years of your work, or whatever your issue may be, you will be ignored, or if you are very lucky, someone may even explicitly take a moment to personally tell you, "fuck off, peon." Your only real option is not to be so foolish as to use a Bill Gates product again in the future.</p><p>But in open source, if you so choose, you, or anyone, from the youngest child to Bill Gates himself, can fork Shuttleworth's tree, right then and there. Then you can have it your way. And if you are right, and people care, then people will join you and leave Shuttleworth out in the cold. It's happened many times before. And if not, then maybe your idea just wasn't that great, or that important, after all. Happens all the time. But the result, as with any democracy, is that leadership is largely consensual and generally merit-driven.</p><p>(All those who have never lived under a monarch, dictator, or cabal, please identify yourselves now with cynical comments about your democratic government.)</p><p>So I reiterate, as stories go, this is pure -1 Troll. IT World and Proffitt look like an 8 year old trying to say something "controvertial" about global warming by noting that it's snowing outside. I'm a bit sad that Taco rewarded them by sending them some traffic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open source is utterly a democracy.Each of us may have our own source tree .
If we can convince others to come join us in it , is n't that fun .
Those who come and join you are always there voluntarily , either because they feel like it , or you are payiong them to be there .
And maybe no one feels like it .
And maybe you do n't feel like paying anyone .
Maybe you are alone there .
Maybe you did n't bother to make your tree at all .
But you have that right to , at any moment .
And this is utterly democratic , and it is at the heart of why open source exists .
In fact , this is why it works so much better .
Shuttleworth has a very big , popular tree .
He pays many participants and many others join him for free .
He gets to make the decisions in his own tree , because it 's his .
He ca n't tell anyone else what to do in theirs.Now if it 's a Bill Gates product , and you do not like where those buttons got moved to , or i.e .
you have a critical bug derailing years of your work , or whatever your issue may be , you will be ignored , or if you are very lucky , someone may even explicitly take a moment to personally tell you , " fuck off , peon .
" Your only real option is not to be so foolish as to use a Bill Gates product again in the future.But in open source , if you so choose , you , or anyone , from the youngest child to Bill Gates himself , can fork Shuttleworth 's tree , right then and there .
Then you can have it your way .
And if you are right , and people care , then people will join you and leave Shuttleworth out in the cold .
It 's happened many times before .
And if not , then maybe your idea just was n't that great , or that important , after all .
Happens all the time .
But the result , as with any democracy , is that leadership is largely consensual and generally merit-driven .
( All those who have never lived under a monarch , dictator , or cabal , please identify yourselves now with cynical comments about your democratic government .
) So I reiterate , as stories go , this is pure -1 Troll .
IT World and Proffitt look like an 8 year old trying to say something " controvertial " about global warming by noting that it 's snowing outside .
I 'm a bit sad that Taco rewarded them by sending them some traffic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open source is utterly a democracy.Each of us may have our own source tree.
If we can convince others to come join us in it, isn't that fun.
Those who come and join you are always there voluntarily, either because they feel like it, or you are payiong them to be there.
And maybe no one feels like it.
And maybe you don't feel like paying anyone.
Maybe you are alone there.
Maybe you didn't bother to make your tree at all.
But you have that right to, at any moment.
And this is utterly democratic, and it is at the heart of why open source exists.
In fact, this is why it works so much better.
Shuttleworth has a very big, popular tree.
He pays many participants and many others join him for free.
He gets to make the decisions in his own tree, because it's his.
He can't tell anyone else what to do in theirs.Now if it's a Bill Gates product, and you do not like where those buttons got moved to, or i.e.
you have a critical bug derailing years of your work, or whatever your issue may be, you will be ignored, or if you are very lucky, someone may even explicitly take a moment to personally tell you, "fuck off, peon.
" Your only real option is not to be so foolish as to use a Bill Gates product again in the future.But in open source, if you so choose, you, or anyone, from the youngest child to Bill Gates himself, can fork Shuttleworth's tree, right then and there.
Then you can have it your way.
And if you are right, and people care, then people will join you and leave Shuttleworth out in the cold.
It's happened many times before.
And if not, then maybe your idea just wasn't that great, or that important, after all.
Happens all the time.
But the result, as with any democracy, is that leadership is largely consensual and generally merit-driven.
(All those who have never lived under a monarch, dictator, or cabal, please identify yourselves now with cynical comments about your democratic government.
)So I reiterate, as stories go, this is pure -1 Troll.
IT World and Proffitt look like an 8 year old trying to say something "controvertial" about global warming by noting that it's snowing outside.
I'm a bit sad that Taco rewarded them by sending them some traffic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572664</id>
	<title>Re:But.... it's open....</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1269285300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Just move the damn buttons yourself! I actually agree with camp that wants the buttons back in the old way, but I can't stop thinking... I have the source... I might just do that myself and place the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.diff online. Problem solved. Unfortunately for all Ubuntu users, I use Debian so I'm fine.</i>
<p>
The ability to move the buttons doesn't excuse a stupid default layout. By moving the buttons to the left edge they've screwed up the predictability of finding the close button. The order of the close button changes depending on the window / dialog being resizable. If they're going to insist on using the left hand side at least make the button order predictable. It's a basic usability issue and I'm surprised its gotten so far without being corrected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just move the damn buttons yourself !
I actually agree with camp that wants the buttons back in the old way , but I ca n't stop thinking... I have the source... I might just do that myself and place the .diff online .
Problem solved .
Unfortunately for all Ubuntu users , I use Debian so I 'm fine .
The ability to move the buttons does n't excuse a stupid default layout .
By moving the buttons to the left edge they 've screwed up the predictability of finding the close button .
The order of the close button changes depending on the window / dialog being resizable .
If they 're going to insist on using the left hand side at least make the button order predictable .
It 's a basic usability issue and I 'm surprised its gotten so far without being corrected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just move the damn buttons yourself!
I actually agree with camp that wants the buttons back in the old way, but I can't stop thinking... I have the source... I might just do that myself and place the .diff online.
Problem solved.
Unfortunately for all Ubuntu users, I use Debian so I'm fine.
The ability to move the buttons doesn't excuse a stupid default layout.
By moving the buttons to the left edge they've screwed up the predictability of finding the close button.
The order of the close button changes depending on the window / dialog being resizable.
If they're going to insist on using the left hand side at least make the button order predictable.
It's a basic usability issue and I'm surprised its gotten so far without being corrected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571388</id>
	<title>FORK THE MOFO, FORK I SAY !!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269281640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then after you fork shuttleworth, fork the world !!</p><p>Cry babies !!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then after you fork shuttleworth , fork the world !
! Cry babies !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then after you fork shuttleworth, fork the world !
!Cry babies !
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31576678</id>
	<title>If (!Democracy)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269257760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If open source is not a democracy, Mr. Shuttleworth, Then I vote for Debian!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If open source is not a democracy , Mr. Shuttleworth , Then I vote for Debian !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If open source is not a democracy, Mr. Shuttleworth, Then I vote for Debian!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572584</id>
	<title>Re:Why left?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269285000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But I can think of some reasons that might apply: "as windows resize, the top left corner is the anchor from which all resizing is done, therefore putting elements there minimizes gratuitous movement of those elements" could easily be a factor in a reasonable decision along these lines. Or "as left-to-right/top-to-bottom readers, our eyes are naturally drawn to the top left, so putting critical controls there makes sense".</p></div></blockquote><p>And, of course, there are counter-arguments:<br>""as left-to-right/top-to-bottom readers, our eyes are naturally drawn to the top left.  Closing and resizing are the least common tasks to do to a window, therefore they should not be in the top left corner."<br>additionally, for non-OSX users:<br>"close/resize should be far away from menus to minimize the chance of accidentally closing a window when clicking on the menu."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I can think of some reasons that might apply : " as windows resize , the top left corner is the anchor from which all resizing is done , therefore putting elements there minimizes gratuitous movement of those elements " could easily be a factor in a reasonable decision along these lines .
Or " as left-to-right/top-to-bottom readers , our eyes are naturally drawn to the top left , so putting critical controls there makes sense " .And , of course , there are counter-arguments : " " as left-to-right/top-to-bottom readers , our eyes are naturally drawn to the top left .
Closing and resizing are the least common tasks to do to a window , therefore they should not be in the top left corner .
" additionally , for non-OSX users : " close/resize should be far away from menus to minimize the chance of accidentally closing a window when clicking on the menu .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I can think of some reasons that might apply: "as windows resize, the top left corner is the anchor from which all resizing is done, therefore putting elements there minimizes gratuitous movement of those elements" could easily be a factor in a reasonable decision along these lines.
Or "as left-to-right/top-to-bottom readers, our eyes are naturally drawn to the top left, so putting critical controls there makes sense".And, of course, there are counter-arguments:""as left-to-right/top-to-bottom readers, our eyes are naturally drawn to the top left.
Closing and resizing are the least common tasks to do to a window, therefore they should not be in the top left corner.
"additionally, for non-OSX users:"close/resize should be far away from menus to minimize the chance of accidentally closing a window when clicking on the menu.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573340</id>
	<title>Re:Open Source is not Ubuntu</title>
	<author>DominicFalcon</author>
	<datestamp>1269287760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...  Their constituents are people who who contribute something to the project, and the greater the contribution the more say they have in the direction of the project.  Contributions come in the form of code, documentation, artwork, bug reports, and money.  If you've never contributed any of these things to a project, then you don't get a vote.  </p></div><p>OK, I can kind of understand that. However, I firmly believe that you have to add users to that list of contributors. Users are the whole reason a project the size of Ubuntu exists, and without their support the project might as well not exist. Not letting your users vote because you can't measure their contributions is not a good idea; they are the ones who are ultimately responsible for Ubuntu's success (or failure), not Shuttlewood.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... Their constituents are people who who contribute something to the project , and the greater the contribution the more say they have in the direction of the project .
Contributions come in the form of code , documentation , artwork , bug reports , and money .
If you 've never contributed any of these things to a project , then you do n't get a vote .
OK , I can kind of understand that .
However , I firmly believe that you have to add users to that list of contributors .
Users are the whole reason a project the size of Ubuntu exists , and without their support the project might as well not exist .
Not letting your users vote because you ca n't measure their contributions is not a good idea ; they are the ones who are ultimately responsible for Ubuntu 's success ( or failure ) , not Shuttlewood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...  Their constituents are people who who contribute something to the project, and the greater the contribution the more say they have in the direction of the project.
Contributions come in the form of code, documentation, artwork, bug reports, and money.
If you've never contributed any of these things to a project, then you don't get a vote.
OK, I can kind of understand that.
However, I firmly believe that you have to add users to that list of contributors.
Users are the whole reason a project the size of Ubuntu exists, and without their support the project might as well not exist.
Not letting your users vote because you can't measure their contributions is not a good idea; they are the ones who are ultimately responsible for Ubuntu's success (or failure), not Shuttlewood.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573670</id>
	<title>Re:It's so simple</title>
	<author>Shimbo</author>
	<datestamp>1269289080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is where you fork. End of story. kthxbai</p></div><p>The probability that someone from the peanut gallery who gets upset about some bikeshed GUI problem will actually do anything constructive: vanishingly small.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is where you fork .
End of story .
kthxbaiThe probability that someone from the peanut gallery who gets upset about some bikeshed GUI problem will actually do anything constructive : vanishingly small .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is where you fork.
End of story.
kthxbaiThe probability that someone from the peanut gallery who gets upset about some bikeshed GUI problem will actually do anything constructive: vanishingly small.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31574922</id>
	<title>Re:Why left?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269250500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The vast majority of users are right handed, and mouse right handed.</p> </div><p>They also read left to right.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>and an idle mouse cursor is on the right side.</p> </div><p>Center.</p><p>Give me your mod points.  Thanks, please play again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The vast majority of users are right handed , and mouse right handed .
They also read left to right.and an idle mouse cursor is on the right side .
Center.Give me your mod points .
Thanks , please play again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The vast majority of users are right handed, and mouse right handed.
They also read left to right.and an idle mouse cursor is on the right side.
Center.Give me your mod points.
Thanks, please play again.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572200</id>
	<title>Open Source, not Open Design</title>
	<author>Anomalyx</author>
	<datestamp>1269283860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He's correct.  Open source is not a democracy.  No software is a democracy. There are really only 2 things open source says: 1) here's how we did it, and 2) if you want it designed differently, go right ahead and make your own, here's the code. You don't dictate the design of a product someone else built.  If they want to put it to a vote, that's fine, but if they don't then that's fine too.<br>
<br>In the end, there are 3 options: 1) just deal with it, 2) put some custom code in there to make it to your liking, 3) go find another software solution, or just buy something.  There's not much you have a right to complain about when it's free...</htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's correct .
Open source is not a democracy .
No software is a democracy .
There are really only 2 things open source says : 1 ) here 's how we did it , and 2 ) if you want it designed differently , go right ahead and make your own , here 's the code .
You do n't dictate the design of a product someone else built .
If they want to put it to a vote , that 's fine , but if they do n't then that 's fine too .
In the end , there are 3 options : 1 ) just deal with it , 2 ) put some custom code in there to make it to your liking , 3 ) go find another software solution , or just buy something .
There 's not much you have a right to complain about when it 's free.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's correct.
Open source is not a democracy.
No software is a democracy.
There are really only 2 things open source says: 1) here's how we did it, and 2) if you want it designed differently, go right ahead and make your own, here's the code.
You don't dictate the design of a product someone else built.
If they want to put it to a vote, that's fine, but if they don't then that's fine too.
In the end, there are 3 options: 1) just deal with it, 2) put some custom code in there to make it to your liking, 3) go find another software solution, or just buy something.
There's not much you have a right to complain about when it's free...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572590</id>
	<title>Open Source is a Meritocracy</title>
	<author>Sortova</author>
	<datestamp>1269285060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and open source is definitely not a democracy. Democracies have the potential to devolve into rule by the mob. In the open source projects I am involved with, influence is based on merit. Those people who do the most work get to, ultimately, make the most decisions.
</p><p>
This doesn't mean that the casual user should have no input. But eventually someone has to make a decision: left vs. right, red vs. blue, etc. The beauty of open source is that if you don't like it, you can change it.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been thinking about this a lot lately , and open source is definitely not a democracy .
Democracies have the potential to devolve into rule by the mob .
In the open source projects I am involved with , influence is based on merit .
Those people who do the most work get to , ultimately , make the most decisions .
This does n't mean that the casual user should have no input .
But eventually someone has to make a decision : left vs. right , red vs. blue , etc .
The beauty of open source is that if you do n't like it , you can change it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and open source is definitely not a democracy.
Democracies have the potential to devolve into rule by the mob.
In the open source projects I am involved with, influence is based on merit.
Those people who do the most work get to, ultimately, make the most decisions.
This doesn't mean that the casual user should have no input.
But eventually someone has to make a decision: left vs. right, red vs. blue, etc.
The beauty of open source is that if you don't like it, you can change it.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571562</id>
	<title>the unix way...</title>
	<author>gandhi\_2</author>
	<datestamp>1269282120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rule of Least Surprise: In interface design, always do the least surprising thing.</p><p>See Also: Transparency, expressiveness, and configurability.</p><p>As per part 3 of above, why not have the button locations configurable?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rule of Least Surprise : In interface design , always do the least surprising thing.See Also : Transparency , expressiveness , and configurability.As per part 3 of above , why not have the button locations configurable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rule of Least Surprise: In interface design, always do the least surprising thing.See Also: Transparency, expressiveness, and configurability.As per part 3 of above, why not have the button locations configurable?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31574178</id>
	<title>Re:Why left?</title>
	<author>Xyrus</author>
	<datestamp>1269291060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They open their eggs from the little end....</p><p>~X~</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They open their eggs from the little end.... ~ X ~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They open their eggs from the little end....~X~</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31574256</id>
	<title>Re:Why left?</title>
	<author>R3d M3rcury</author>
	<datestamp>1269291360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I agree that "Because the Mac does it that way" is not a good reason, Apple spent about $50 million in research (<a href="http://www.asktog.com/TOI/toi06KeyboardVMouse1.html" title="asktog.com">according to Bruce Tognazzini</a> [asktog.com]) to study some of these sorts of things.  So one can probably assume that Apple actually might have a good reason.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Why do you assume mouse side on the right determines that putting scroll bars on the right is the most effecient thing to do?</p></div><p>There's a little thing called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts's\_law" title="wikipedia.org">Fitts' Law</a> [wikipedia.org] which has two elements:</p><ol> <li>Things that are closer to the mouse are quicker to access than things far away from the mouse</li><li>Bigger things are quicker to access than smaller things</li></ol><p>From this, assuming that the mouse is on the right hand side of the screen, accessing a same-sized scrollbar would be quicker if it is on the right than if it were on the left.  A scrollbar could be placed on the left, but it would have to be larger in order to be as efficient as one on the right which would mean less space for data.</p><p>It is also good for scrollbars to be in a consistent place (either left or right) for motor-memory and that fact that if you have multiple scrollbars, it will be confusing as to which controls what.</p><p>That said, since most mice sold nowadays have a scroll-wheel, perhaps it's time to rethink the need for scrollbars in the first place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree that " Because the Mac does it that way " is not a good reason , Apple spent about $ 50 million in research ( according to Bruce Tognazzini [ asktog.com ] ) to study some of these sorts of things .
So one can probably assume that Apple actually might have a good reason.Why do you assume mouse side on the right determines that putting scroll bars on the right is the most effecient thing to do ? There 's a little thing called Fitts ' Law [ wikipedia.org ] which has two elements : Things that are closer to the mouse are quicker to access than things far away from the mouseBigger things are quicker to access than smaller thingsFrom this , assuming that the mouse is on the right hand side of the screen , accessing a same-sized scrollbar would be quicker if it is on the right than if it were on the left .
A scrollbar could be placed on the left , but it would have to be larger in order to be as efficient as one on the right which would mean less space for data.It is also good for scrollbars to be in a consistent place ( either left or right ) for motor-memory and that fact that if you have multiple scrollbars , it will be confusing as to which controls what.That said , since most mice sold nowadays have a scroll-wheel , perhaps it 's time to rethink the need for scrollbars in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree that "Because the Mac does it that way" is not a good reason, Apple spent about $50 million in research (according to Bruce Tognazzini [asktog.com]) to study some of these sorts of things.
So one can probably assume that Apple actually might have a good reason.Why do you assume mouse side on the right determines that putting scroll bars on the right is the most effecient thing to do?There's a little thing called Fitts' Law [wikipedia.org] which has two elements: Things that are closer to the mouse are quicker to access than things far away from the mouseBigger things are quicker to access than smaller thingsFrom this, assuming that the mouse is on the right hand side of the screen, accessing a same-sized scrollbar would be quicker if it is on the right than if it were on the left.
A scrollbar could be placed on the left, but it would have to be larger in order to be as efficient as one on the right which would mean less space for data.It is also good for scrollbars to be in a consistent place (either left or right) for motor-memory and that fact that if you have multiple scrollbars, it will be confusing as to which controls what.That said, since most mice sold nowadays have a scroll-wheel, perhaps it's time to rethink the need for scrollbars in the first place.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31600386</id>
	<title>Re:Why left?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269455880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if the mouse is on the dead center (area wise) of the screen, the pixel that does all the action is on the top left. </p><p>Scroll bars should indicate that there is more, which is only really necessary if you reached the end of the line. Distance wise, the end of the line is on the right for Latin &amp; Greek influenced languages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if the mouse is on the dead center ( area wise ) of the screen , the pixel that does all the action is on the top left .
Scroll bars should indicate that there is more , which is only really necessary if you reached the end of the line .
Distance wise , the end of the line is on the right for Latin &amp; Greek influenced languages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if the mouse is on the dead center (area wise) of the screen, the pixel that does all the action is on the top left.
Scroll bars should indicate that there is more, which is only really necessary if you reached the end of the line.
Distance wise, the end of the line is on the right for Latin &amp; Greek influenced languages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31574256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31576878</id>
	<title>Re:Why is this **** hardcoded?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269258840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1591162&amp;cid=31571616" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">It is in a config file</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is in a config file [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is in a config file [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31575466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573704</id>
	<title>Re:Why left?</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1269289200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just to throw in my two cents, I think that if you are concerned about where the mouse cursor is supposed to be, the scroll bars and the most often used buttons should go on the \_left\_.</p><p>The reason for that is that most of the content that will be in the windows is going to be on the left, including most things you are going to want to interact with.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nextstep" title="wikipedia.org">NeXTSTEP</a> [wikipedia.org] had scrollbars on the left and icons on the edges of the screen, and they decided to do it that way after quite a lot of research and thinking about it.</p><p>In practice, of course, people are going to expect things like scroll bars and close buttons to be on the right, so they will balk if you don't put them there. But that doesn't say anything about what would have been the best place to put them if people didn't have preconceived expectations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just to throw in my two cents , I think that if you are concerned about where the mouse cursor is supposed to be , the scroll bars and the most often used buttons should go on the \ _left \ _.The reason for that is that most of the content that will be in the windows is going to be on the left , including most things you are going to want to interact with.NeXTSTEP [ wikipedia.org ] had scrollbars on the left and icons on the edges of the screen , and they decided to do it that way after quite a lot of research and thinking about it.In practice , of course , people are going to expect things like scroll bars and close buttons to be on the right , so they will balk if you do n't put them there .
But that does n't say anything about what would have been the best place to put them if people did n't have preconceived expectations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just to throw in my two cents, I think that if you are concerned about where the mouse cursor is supposed to be, the scroll bars and the most often used buttons should go on the \_left\_.The reason for that is that most of the content that will be in the windows is going to be on the left, including most things you are going to want to interact with.NeXTSTEP [wikipedia.org] had scrollbars on the left and icons on the edges of the screen, and they decided to do it that way after quite a lot of research and thinking about it.In practice, of course, people are going to expect things like scroll bars and close buttons to be on the right, so they will balk if you don't put them there.
But that doesn't say anything about what would have been the best place to put them if people didn't have preconceived expectations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572464</id>
	<title>The difference (vs closed code) is you can change</title>
	<author>BBird</author>
	<datestamp>1269284700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you don't like it -- change it yourself --<br>if you have the skills to do it.</p><p>This is something you can not do with closed source<br>and is the big difference btw the two.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't like it -- change it yourself --if you have the skills to do it.This is something you can not do with closed sourceand is the big difference btw the two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't like it -- change it yourself --if you have the skills to do it.This is something you can not do with closed sourceand is the big difference btw the two.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31574470</id>
	<title>Re:Why left?</title>
	<author>FreudianNightmare</author>
	<datestamp>1269248820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The vast majority of users are right handed, and mouse right handed. Thus, the scrollbar is on the right side, and an idle mouse cursor is on the right side.</p></div><p>This doesn't actually follow like this you know.  Think about it.  The scroll bar needn't be on the right just because your mouse is because the control device and the display are divorced.  Your statement would make more sense for a touch screen, maybe... but I think the 'scroll bar right' convention came about long before these were generally available.

Just saying 'thus' doesn't automatically make something true.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The vast majority of users are right handed , and mouse right handed .
Thus , the scrollbar is on the right side , and an idle mouse cursor is on the right side.This does n't actually follow like this you know .
Think about it .
The scroll bar need n't be on the right just because your mouse is because the control device and the display are divorced .
Your statement would make more sense for a touch screen , maybe... but I think the 'scroll bar right ' convention came about long before these were generally available .
Just saying 'thus ' does n't automatically make something true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The vast majority of users are right handed, and mouse right handed.
Thus, the scrollbar is on the right side, and an idle mouse cursor is on the right side.This doesn't actually follow like this you know.
Think about it.
The scroll bar needn't be on the right just because your mouse is because the control device and the display are divorced.
Your statement would make more sense for a touch screen, maybe... but I think the 'scroll bar right' convention came about long before these were generally available.
Just saying 'thus' doesn't automatically make something true.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572054</id>
	<title>Not really</title>
	<author>Vahokif</author>
	<datestamp>1269283380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Open source isn't a democracy any more than Planet Earth is. Different countries have different methods of administration. The only difference is that in the world of open source you can fork a country and run it any way you like, the worst case scenario being that no one moves there. Open source is more like a regulated anarchy in that sense, like the Internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Open source is n't a democracy any more than Planet Earth is .
Different countries have different methods of administration .
The only difference is that in the world of open source you can fork a country and run it any way you like , the worst case scenario being that no one moves there .
Open source is more like a regulated anarchy in that sense , like the Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open source isn't a democracy any more than Planet Earth is.
Different countries have different methods of administration.
The only difference is that in the world of open source you can fork a country and run it any way you like, the worst case scenario being that no one moves there.
Open source is more like a regulated anarchy in that sense, like the Internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571742</id>
	<title>Re:Why left?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269282540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being right-handed has nothing to do with it. There is no handedness in a mouse-driven GUI; you operate everything with your <i>only</i> hand, the mouse pointer. Regardless of whether you're right- or left-handed. Your mouse pointer does not stay on the right side of the screen, nor is it easier to leave it there.</p><p>It has more to do with reading: Western languages are right-to-left. Menus and toolbars are right-justified for this reason. You could view the window controls as just another toolbar.</p><p>The best arrangement is probably the one used on Classic Mac, Windows 3.1, and CDE, among others. The "close" option was on one end, and the zoom/tile options were on the other. That way, you never accidentally closed a window when you missed the zoom or iconify control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being right-handed has nothing to do with it .
There is no handedness in a mouse-driven GUI ; you operate everything with your only hand , the mouse pointer .
Regardless of whether you 're right- or left-handed .
Your mouse pointer does not stay on the right side of the screen , nor is it easier to leave it there.It has more to do with reading : Western languages are right-to-left .
Menus and toolbars are right-justified for this reason .
You could view the window controls as just another toolbar.The best arrangement is probably the one used on Classic Mac , Windows 3.1 , and CDE , among others .
The " close " option was on one end , and the zoom/tile options were on the other .
That way , you never accidentally closed a window when you missed the zoom or iconify control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being right-handed has nothing to do with it.
There is no handedness in a mouse-driven GUI; you operate everything with your only hand, the mouse pointer.
Regardless of whether you're right- or left-handed.
Your mouse pointer does not stay on the right side of the screen, nor is it easier to leave it there.It has more to do with reading: Western languages are right-to-left.
Menus and toolbars are right-justified for this reason.
You could view the window controls as just another toolbar.The best arrangement is probably the one used on Classic Mac, Windows 3.1, and CDE, among others.
The "close" option was on one end, and the zoom/tile options were on the other.
That way, you never accidentally closed a window when you missed the zoom or iconify control.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571596</id>
	<title>Re:Why left?</title>
	<author>Shadow Wrought</author>
	<datestamp>1269282240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>True. If it weren't a stupid decision it wouldn't be an issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>True .
If it were n't a stupid decision it would n't be an issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True.
If it weren't a stupid decision it wouldn't be an issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571820</id>
	<title>Ok ... But Who Cares?</title>
	<author>DakotaSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1269282720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... who cares?</p><p>I'm writing this on <a href="http://www.ubuntu.com/testing/lucid/beta1" title="ubuntu.com" rel="nofollow">Lucid beta1</a> [ubuntu.com], and my window controls are in the upper right where I want them.  As usual, my first download post-install was <a href="http://ubuntu-tweak.com/" title="ubuntu-tweak.com" rel="nofollow">Ubuntu-Tweak</a> [ubuntu-tweak.com], which has a handy configuration section that lets you order  and position the window controls to your liking.</p><p>Open Source isn't a democracy, it's Open Source.  That's kind of the point.  With the source, you can write an app like <a href="http://ubuntu-tweak.com/" title="ubuntu-tweak.com" rel="nofollow">Ubuntu-Tweak</a> [ubuntu-tweak.com] to overcome anything that you think is a deficit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um ... who cares ? I 'm writing this on Lucid beta1 [ ubuntu.com ] , and my window controls are in the upper right where I want them .
As usual , my first download post-install was Ubuntu-Tweak [ ubuntu-tweak.com ] , which has a handy configuration section that lets you order and position the window controls to your liking.Open Source is n't a democracy , it 's Open Source .
That 's kind of the point .
With the source , you can write an app like Ubuntu-Tweak [ ubuntu-tweak.com ] to overcome anything that you think is a deficit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um ... who cares?I'm writing this on Lucid beta1 [ubuntu.com], and my window controls are in the upper right where I want them.
As usual, my first download post-install was Ubuntu-Tweak [ubuntu-tweak.com], which has a handy configuration section that lets you order  and position the window controls to your liking.Open Source isn't a democracy, it's Open Source.
That's kind of the point.
With the source, you can write an app like Ubuntu-Tweak [ubuntu-tweak.com] to overcome anything that you think is a deficit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572566</id>
	<title>Fuxed</title>
	<author>rshol</author>
	<datestamp>1269284940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ATL-f2 gconf-editor<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/apps/metacity/general/button\_layout
edit text to put : in front of string should read<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:minimize,maximize,close

One more thing to add to the list of things I fix every time I Install Ubuntu</htmltext>
<tokenext>ATL-f2 gconf-editor /apps/metacity/general/button \ _layout edit text to put : in front of string should read : minimize,maximize,close One more thing to add to the list of things I fix every time I Install Ubuntu</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ATL-f2 gconf-editor /apps/metacity/general/button\_layout
edit text to put : in front of string should read :minimize,maximize,close

One more thing to add to the list of things I fix every time I Install Ubuntu</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572398</id>
	<title>it isn't a democracy, it's better</title>
	<author>greencpu</author>
	<datestamp>1269284460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>in a democracy, the majority rules, and the rest have to live with it.<br><br>in open source, if a group makes a decision and you don't like it, you can take all of their work, fork it, and do what you want.  even make your own democracy.<br><br>And to respond to some of the comments here, no you would not need to be a programmer.  You could for example start a blog, and recruit programmers who feel like you to do the work.<br><br>however, just because you disagree with the direction of one open source project don't expect sympathy from me if you don't get your way and start casting dispersions on the model.  it is the best one going...</htmltext>
<tokenext>in a democracy , the majority rules , and the rest have to live with it.in open source , if a group makes a decision and you do n't like it , you can take all of their work , fork it , and do what you want .
even make your own democracy.And to respond to some of the comments here , no you would not need to be a programmer .
You could for example start a blog , and recruit programmers who feel like you to do the work.however , just because you disagree with the direction of one open source project do n't expect sympathy from me if you do n't get your way and start casting dispersions on the model .
it is the best one going.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in a democracy, the majority rules, and the rest have to live with it.in open source, if a group makes a decision and you don't like it, you can take all of their work, fork it, and do what you want.
even make your own democracy.And to respond to some of the comments here, no you would not need to be a programmer.
You could for example start a blog, and recruit programmers who feel like you to do the work.however, just because you disagree with the direction of one open source project don't expect sympathy from me if you don't get your way and start casting dispersions on the model.
it is the best one going...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31576146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31574256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31600386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31584560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31574178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31575466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31576878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31575196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31574470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31577194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31574964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31575888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31574256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31576038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31574256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31584774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31578016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31592234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31576054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31575948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31576270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31574922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31575922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1635205_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31575148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1635205.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572048
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1635205.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1635205.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1635205.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1635205.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572200
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1635205.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31576054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31575948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573340
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1635205.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571898
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1635205.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1635205.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31578190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1635205.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31584560
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1635205.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572990
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1635205.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31574088
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1635205.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31575888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31574922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31574178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31574470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571870
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31574256
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31584774
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31600386
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31576038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571594
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31575196
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31592234
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31576270
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572584
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1635205.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31576146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31574964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573762
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1635205.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31575922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1635205.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31575148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1635205.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31577194
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1635205.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572042
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1635205.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1635205.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1635205.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1635205.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31575466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31576878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1635205.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1635205.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31578016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1635205.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571776
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1635205.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1635205.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31571682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1635205.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31573792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1635205.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1635205.31572342
</commentlist>
</conversation>
