<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_31_0141208</id>
	<title>Solaris No Longer Free As In Beer</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1270058760000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>rubycodez writes <i>"Oracle, having acquired Sun Microsystems, including its Unix, <a href="http://www.katonda.com/news/solaries-no-more-free-open-solaris-may-die/936/2010">will no longer give away free Solaris licenses</a>.  Oracle also states that some features of its Oracle Solaris will not appear in OpenSolaris, which means OpenSolaris may start to die."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>rubycodez writes " Oracle , having acquired Sun Microsystems , including its Unix , will no longer give away free Solaris licenses .
Oracle also states that some features of its Oracle Solaris will not appear in OpenSolaris , which means OpenSolaris may start to die .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rubycodez writes "Oracle, having acquired Sun Microsystems, including its Unix, will no longer give away free Solaris licenses.
Oracle also states that some features of its Oracle Solaris will not appear in OpenSolaris, which means OpenSolaris may start to die.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684036</id>
	<title>They scare me.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270067700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We still have choices of free OS to choose from.</p></div><p>We still have choices of free OS...a choice for a free OS...to choose a choice....free choices...from choices of free...AT H0</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We still have choices of free OS to choose from.We still have choices of free OS...a choice for a free OS...to choose a choice....free choices...from choices of free...AT H0</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We still have choices of free OS to choose from.We still have choices of free OS...a choice for a free OS...to choose a choice....free choices...from choices of free...AT H0
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685220</id>
	<title>Re:May?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270035900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can confirm they charge extra per core.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can confirm they charge extra per core .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can confirm they charge extra per core.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686238</id>
	<title>Solaris has been dead for weeks anyway</title>
	<author>Aged Cynic</author>
	<datestamp>1270044000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They killed it when they decided you could no longer download patches without a support contract.</p><p>It's theirs to do with as they please, certainly... but not having immediate access to the support contract number shouldn't force a choice between taking a server off line or running it unprotected against newly discovered vulnerabilities.</p><p>Gracious, even Microsoft doesn't require that.</p><p>Besides, the nostalgia is gone -- CDE is deprecated, bash is installed by default, by the time you look at what they're doing with it, the look and feel is nearly Linux anyway (not that that's all that bad, but hey...).</p><p>It did have the edge under heavy stress, usually. Given the standard current approach of massively redundant clusters, even that isn't terribly relevant given proper engineering.</p><p>The bottom line is, even Windows  can now serve in what used to be the exclusive domain of genuine AT&amp;T-derived code.  We may decry the loss of flavor, or even the loss of elegance... but by and large things are working better.</p><p>While I find the discussion interesting, from an implementation perspective... it just doesn't matter that much any more. This makes me wonder what Ellison &amp; co. were thinking, but I frequently wonder that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They killed it when they decided you could no longer download patches without a support contract.It 's theirs to do with as they please , certainly... but not having immediate access to the support contract number should n't force a choice between taking a server off line or running it unprotected against newly discovered vulnerabilities.Gracious , even Microsoft does n't require that.Besides , the nostalgia is gone -- CDE is deprecated , bash is installed by default , by the time you look at what they 're doing with it , the look and feel is nearly Linux anyway ( not that that 's all that bad , but hey... ) .It did have the edge under heavy stress , usually .
Given the standard current approach of massively redundant clusters , even that is n't terribly relevant given proper engineering.The bottom line is , even Windows can now serve in what used to be the exclusive domain of genuine AT&amp;T-derived code .
We may decry the loss of flavor , or even the loss of elegance... but by and large things are working better.While I find the discussion interesting , from an implementation perspective... it just does n't matter that much any more .
This makes me wonder what Ellison &amp; co. were thinking , but I frequently wonder that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They killed it when they decided you could no longer download patches without a support contract.It's theirs to do with as they please, certainly... but not having immediate access to the support contract number shouldn't force a choice between taking a server off line or running it unprotected against newly discovered vulnerabilities.Gracious, even Microsoft doesn't require that.Besides, the nostalgia is gone -- CDE is deprecated, bash is installed by default, by the time you look at what they're doing with it, the look and feel is nearly Linux anyway (not that that's all that bad, but hey...).It did have the edge under heavy stress, usually.
Given the standard current approach of massively redundant clusters, even that isn't terribly relevant given proper engineering.The bottom line is, even Windows  can now serve in what used to be the exclusive domain of genuine AT&amp;T-derived code.
We may decry the loss of flavor, or even the loss of elegance... but by and large things are working better.While I find the discussion interesting, from an implementation perspective... it just doesn't matter that much any more.
This makes me wonder what Ellison &amp; co. were thinking, but I frequently wonder that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31687392</id>
	<title>Enjoy the sunset</title>
	<author>xactuary</author>
	<datestamp>1270049400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stick a fork in it and enjoy the sunset.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stick a fork in it and enjoy the sunset .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stick a fork in it and enjoy the sunset.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684634</id>
	<title>Re:Well then</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270029960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I second this, I have no choice for my E250's, it's too old for open solaris and non of the linux distros support it activly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I second this , I have no choice for my E250 's , it 's too old for open solaris and non of the linux distros support it activly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I second this, I have no choice for my E250's, it's too old for open solaris and non of the linux distros support it activly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31690616</id>
	<title>Re:I gotta ask...</title>
	<author>swordgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1270062480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most major oil companies and several major ISPs live and breathe Solaris (mostly on SPARC, but that's changing).</p><p>Probably the most prevalent OS in large data centres out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most major oil companies and several major ISPs live and breathe Solaris ( mostly on SPARC , but that 's changing ) .Probably the most prevalent OS in large data centres out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most major oil companies and several major ISPs live and breathe Solaris (mostly on SPARC, but that's changing).Probably the most prevalent OS in large data centres out there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31687468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31687640</id>
	<title>Another particular entry</title>
	<author>ak3ldama</author>
	<datestamp>1270050240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ben Rockwood also <a href="http://www.cuddletech.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=1120" title="cuddletech.com" rel="nofollow">blogged about this.</a> [cuddletech.com] The open source nature of Open Solaris shall henceforth be called to action...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The end of the month is here and OpenSolaris 2010.03 is no where in site and those I've asked on the inside are unable to say. <br>This might be a good time to catch up on non-Sun/Oracle distros such as Nexenta, Schillix, and Belenix.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ben Rockwood also blogged about this .
[ cuddletech.com ] The open source nature of Open Solaris shall henceforth be called to action...The end of the month is here and OpenSolaris 2010.03 is no where in site and those I 've asked on the inside are unable to say .
This might be a good time to catch up on non-Sun/Oracle distros such as Nexenta , Schillix , and Belenix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ben Rockwood also blogged about this.
[cuddletech.com] The open source nature of Open Solaris shall henceforth be called to action...The end of the month is here and OpenSolaris 2010.03 is no where in site and those I've asked on the inside are unable to say.
This might be a good time to catch up on non-Sun/Oracle distros such as Nexenta, Schillix, and Belenix.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683902</id>
	<title>Re:May?</title>
	<author>lena\_10326</author>
	<datestamp>1270066140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nothing is hard set with Oracle. If your company is big enough, Oracle can be bargained down quite a bit. My last employer wound up with an unlimited license deal, but I presume it cost millions for multi-year support contracts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing is hard set with Oracle .
If your company is big enough , Oracle can be bargained down quite a bit .
My last employer wound up with an unlimited license deal , but I presume it cost millions for multi-year support contracts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing is hard set with Oracle.
If your company is big enough, Oracle can be bargained down quite a bit.
My last employer wound up with an unlimited license deal, but I presume it cost millions for multi-year support contracts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31698770</id>
	<title>OpenSolaris?</title>
	<author>hallux.sinister</author>
	<datestamp>1270119900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sorry, um... what is this OpenSolaris thing of which you speak?  Oh... one of the ex-Unixes that for some mysterious reason is still breathing despite the plethora of alternatives which aren't liable to be yanked away from unsuspecting users and sysadmins.  In retrospect, that whole AT&amp;T versus everyone suit was probably the best thing that could have happened, painful as it was, to the Unix using community.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , um... what is this OpenSolaris thing of which you speak ?
Oh... one of the ex-Unixes that for some mysterious reason is still breathing despite the plethora of alternatives which are n't liable to be yanked away from unsuspecting users and sysadmins .
In retrospect , that whole AT&amp;T versus everyone suit was probably the best thing that could have happened , painful as it was , to the Unix using community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, um... what is this OpenSolaris thing of which you speak?
Oh... one of the ex-Unixes that for some mysterious reason is still breathing despite the plethora of alternatives which aren't liable to be yanked away from unsuspecting users and sysadmins.
In retrospect, that whole AT&amp;T versus everyone suit was probably the best thing that could have happened, painful as it was, to the Unix using community.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685822</id>
	<title>Re:May?</title>
	<author>rhsanborn</author>
	<datestamp>1270041360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps their licensing model is too granular, but the idea of charging per core is not unfounded. It does, indeed, change their development costs. Oracle has created a nice product that scales very well. Making that software utilize all the resources available to it does cost money. Making it a performance monster does cost money. It sounds more like they are baiting lower volume customers into a cheap toke to get their app out there. The first hit is free, but it's going to be a nightmare to move off them when your applications grow and you need to start paying for a larger system to support it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps their licensing model is too granular , but the idea of charging per core is not unfounded .
It does , indeed , change their development costs .
Oracle has created a nice product that scales very well .
Making that software utilize all the resources available to it does cost money .
Making it a performance monster does cost money .
It sounds more like they are baiting lower volume customers into a cheap toke to get their app out there .
The first hit is free , but it 's going to be a nightmare to move off them when your applications grow and you need to start paying for a larger system to support it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps their licensing model is too granular, but the idea of charging per core is not unfounded.
It does, indeed, change their development costs.
Oracle has created a nice product that scales very well.
Making that software utilize all the resources available to it does cost money.
Making it a performance monster does cost money.
It sounds more like they are baiting lower volume customers into a cheap toke to get their app out there.
The first hit is free, but it's going to be a nightmare to move off them when your applications grow and you need to start paying for a larger system to support it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683768</id>
	<title>No surprise - Larry Ellison, remember?</title>
	<author>ibsteve2u</author>
	<datestamp>1269978540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In war you don't give away anything.  Just most people don't know that Larry Ellison is at war; his weapon, technology; his battleground, the reachable universe; his goal, ruthless conquest and absolute domination.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In war you do n't give away anything .
Just most people do n't know that Larry Ellison is at war ; his weapon , technology ; his battleground , the reachable universe ; his goal , ruthless conquest and absolute domination .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In war you don't give away anything.
Just most people don't know that Larry Ellison is at war; his weapon, technology; his battleground, the reachable universe; his goal, ruthless conquest and absolute domination.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684902</id>
	<title>Re:May?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270032540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It depends on Oracle licensing - with the Oracle Standard Editions they're licensed per processor socket, not per core. And thats if you go with processor licensing - you also have the option of Named User licensing, which licenses per user. The Standard Editions are not too expensive either, but yes, as soon as you want more enterprise-like stuff such as failover then you are into serious money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends on Oracle licensing - with the Oracle Standard Editions they 're licensed per processor socket , not per core .
And thats if you go with processor licensing - you also have the option of Named User licensing , which licenses per user .
The Standard Editions are not too expensive either , but yes , as soon as you want more enterprise-like stuff such as failover then you are into serious money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends on Oracle licensing - with the Oracle Standard Editions they're licensed per processor socket, not per core.
And thats if you go with processor licensing - you also have the option of Named User licensing, which licenses per user.
The Standard Editions are not too expensive either, but yes, as soon as you want more enterprise-like stuff such as failover then you are into serious money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684788</id>
	<title>Re:I feel sorry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270031340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's 2 of us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's 2 of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's 2 of us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31691382</id>
	<title>Re:I feel sorry</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1270065480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a former RIT student I suggest you stop trying to force emacs on kids. For god's sake VI is already installed on those boxes.</p><p>Oh and TRY needs to die, that POS is worthless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a former RIT student I suggest you stop trying to force emacs on kids .
For god 's sake VI is already installed on those boxes.Oh and TRY needs to die , that POS is worthless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a former RIT student I suggest you stop trying to force emacs on kids.
For god's sake VI is already installed on those boxes.Oh and TRY needs to die, that POS is worthless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684142</id>
	<title>You can still download it so....?</title>
	<author>BestNicksRTaken</author>
	<datestamp>1270068660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can still download the DVD ISO's of Solaris 10u8, so it still works, so is it just patch cluster access (as reported last week) that's no longer free (hasn't been for years has it?) or are they saying that the next version of Solaris (11 I guess, based on OpenSolaris) will have some type of 90 day timeout upon which we get WGA-esque warning popups?</p><p>Not really sure I understand this move, with hoards of people moving to x86\_64 from SPARC, the obvious move would be to use that x86\_64 hardware to run Linux instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can still download the DVD ISO 's of Solaris 10u8 , so it still works , so is it just patch cluster access ( as reported last week ) that 's no longer free ( has n't been for years has it ?
) or are they saying that the next version of Solaris ( 11 I guess , based on OpenSolaris ) will have some type of 90 day timeout upon which we get WGA-esque warning popups ? Not really sure I understand this move , with hoards of people moving to x86 \ _64 from SPARC , the obvious move would be to use that x86 \ _64 hardware to run Linux instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can still download the DVD ISO's of Solaris 10u8, so it still works, so is it just patch cluster access (as reported last week) that's no longer free (hasn't been for years has it?
) or are they saying that the next version of Solaris (11 I guess, based on OpenSolaris) will have some type of 90 day timeout upon which we get WGA-esque warning popups?Not really sure I understand this move, with hoards of people moving to x86\_64 from SPARC, the obvious move would be to use that x86\_64 hardware to run Linux instead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31691154</id>
	<title>Re:That's fine</title>
	<author>tinker\_taylor</author>
	<datestamp>1270064580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe this is not such a bad thing afterall. The Linux kernel seemed to do well without any corporate tinkering. Why can't OpenSolaris simply carry on into whichever direction things take it, independent of Oracle.</p><p>Projects like Crossbow, NPIV etc are integral parts of OpenSolaris, stuff that is missing from stock Solaris afaik, so what is to prevent the community from building on this solid base and reaching new heights?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe this is not such a bad thing afterall .
The Linux kernel seemed to do well without any corporate tinkering .
Why ca n't OpenSolaris simply carry on into whichever direction things take it , independent of Oracle.Projects like Crossbow , NPIV etc are integral parts of OpenSolaris , stuff that is missing from stock Solaris afaik , so what is to prevent the community from building on this solid base and reaching new heights ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe this is not such a bad thing afterall.
The Linux kernel seemed to do well without any corporate tinkering.
Why can't OpenSolaris simply carry on into whichever direction things take it, independent of Oracle.Projects like Crossbow, NPIV etc are integral parts of OpenSolaris, stuff that is missing from stock Solaris afaik, so what is to prevent the community from building on this solid base and reaching new heights?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31687060</id>
	<title>Re:End of New Solaris Customers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270047960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Windows is doing well in corporate environments, of-course it is mostly desktop systems</p></div><p>Do you spend much time in real large corporate environments?  Where I work, one of the world's largest banks, Windows servers outnumber all Unix/Linux servers combined.  I've not seen this to be significantly different at any of the other large environments I've been in over the last decade or so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows is doing well in corporate environments , of-course it is mostly desktop systemsDo you spend much time in real large corporate environments ?
Where I work , one of the world 's largest banks , Windows servers outnumber all Unix/Linux servers combined .
I 've not seen this to be significantly different at any of the other large environments I 've been in over the last decade or so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows is doing well in corporate environments, of-course it is mostly desktop systemsDo you spend much time in real large corporate environments?
Where I work, one of the world's largest banks, Windows servers outnumber all Unix/Linux servers combined.
I've not seen this to be significantly different at any of the other large environments I've been in over the last decade or so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685678</id>
	<title>Re:End of New Solaris Customers</title>
	<author>sproketboy</author>
	<datestamp>1270040040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PowerBuilder? LOL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PowerBuilder ?
LOL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PowerBuilder?
LOL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686052</id>
	<title>Re:ZFS</title>
	<author>SIGBUS</author>
	<datestamp>1270042860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "OpenSolaris is dying" talk is FUD, plain and simple. Besides, if you really feel like you have to give up on OpenSolaris, ZFS has made it into FreeBSD as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " OpenSolaris is dying " talk is FUD , plain and simple .
Besides , if you really feel like you have to give up on OpenSolaris , ZFS has made it into FreeBSD as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "OpenSolaris is dying" talk is FUD, plain and simple.
Besides, if you really feel like you have to give up on OpenSolaris, ZFS has made it into FreeBSD as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685048</id>
	<title>Re:That's fine</title>
	<author>sourcerror</author>
	<datestamp>1270033980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's true for BSD licensed works as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's true for BSD licensed works as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's true for BSD licensed works as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683668</id>
	<title>start to die?</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1269977640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>that thing has been dead for years. Which is a huge pity because solaris and sun's hardware was some sweet gear.</htmltext>
<tokenext>that thing has been dead for years .
Which is a huge pity because solaris and sun 's hardware was some sweet gear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that thing has been dead for years.
Which is a huge pity because solaris and sun's hardware was some sweet gear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684452</id>
	<title>Re:That's fine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270028280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course this is precisely the reason for licenses like the GPL that explicitly prohibit this kind of bait and switch tactic for "open source" software development.  Trusting and relying upon the goodwill of a for-profit company that can have management changes or get taken over by a different company as is this case will always happen.</p><p>Score one more for Richard Stallman being proven correct.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course this is precisely the reason for licenses like the GPL that explicitly prohibit this kind of bait and switch tactic for " open source " software development .
Trusting and relying upon the goodwill of a for-profit company that can have management changes or get taken over by a different company as is this case will always happen.Score one more for Richard Stallman being proven correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course this is precisely the reason for licenses like the GPL that explicitly prohibit this kind of bait and switch tactic for "open source" software development.
Trusting and relying upon the goodwill of a for-profit company that can have management changes or get taken over by a different company as is this case will always happen.Score one more for Richard Stallman being proven correct.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685024</id>
	<title>Unbreakable solaris</title>
	<author>JohnConnor</author>
	<datestamp>1270033680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not surprising at all that Oracle would shut down a free competing product to its unbreakable Linux. In fact it would be crazy for them to allow internal competition between two OSes to happen. What I am really disappointed about is the fact that *open*solaris was not really open and that now it will die. That's what sucks about the various half-assed open-source licenses and practices of former Sun. Had openSolaris been a complete open-source prject, not dependent on binary blobs, the closing of solaris itself would not be such a problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not surprising at all that Oracle would shut down a free competing product to its unbreakable Linux .
In fact it would be crazy for them to allow internal competition between two OSes to happen .
What I am really disappointed about is the fact that * open * solaris was not really open and that now it will die .
That 's what sucks about the various half-assed open-source licenses and practices of former Sun .
Had openSolaris been a complete open-source prject , not dependent on binary blobs , the closing of solaris itself would not be such a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not surprising at all that Oracle would shut down a free competing product to its unbreakable Linux.
In fact it would be crazy for them to allow internal competition between two OSes to happen.
What I am really disappointed about is the fact that *open*solaris was not really open and that now it will die.
That's what sucks about the various half-assed open-source licenses and practices of former Sun.
Had openSolaris been a complete open-source prject, not dependent on binary blobs, the closing of solaris itself would not be such a problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683622</id>
	<title>Re:May?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269977340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because of this, I'm seeing Oracle installations be replaced by Microsoft SQL server installs.  Technically it sucks, but there are a lot of things the Microsoft rep can tell the PHB to sway them to phase out the Oracle/Solaris stack:</p><p>1:  Decent license deals with Windows/Exchange/SQL Server/etc.  Catch 'em all and save.<br>2:  MS experience is a lot easier to come by than Solaris admins.  Same with an Oracle DBA versus a MS SQL DBA.  Supply and demand.<br>3:  Almost all hardware is tested with Windows Server.  Not that much is tested with Solaris x86 except Sun's.<br>4:  Easy control of servers -- stick them all on AD.</p><p>Oracle won't see the results of this footshooting now, but as Oracle installations hit the bitbucket when companies upgrade, they will start to feel the hurt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because of this , I 'm seeing Oracle installations be replaced by Microsoft SQL server installs .
Technically it sucks , but there are a lot of things the Microsoft rep can tell the PHB to sway them to phase out the Oracle/Solaris stack : 1 : Decent license deals with Windows/Exchange/SQL Server/etc .
Catch 'em all and save.2 : MS experience is a lot easier to come by than Solaris admins .
Same with an Oracle DBA versus a MS SQL DBA .
Supply and demand.3 : Almost all hardware is tested with Windows Server .
Not that much is tested with Solaris x86 except Sun 's.4 : Easy control of servers -- stick them all on AD.Oracle wo n't see the results of this footshooting now , but as Oracle installations hit the bitbucket when companies upgrade , they will start to feel the hurt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because of this, I'm seeing Oracle installations be replaced by Microsoft SQL server installs.
Technically it sucks, but there are a lot of things the Microsoft rep can tell the PHB to sway them to phase out the Oracle/Solaris stack:1:  Decent license deals with Windows/Exchange/SQL Server/etc.
Catch 'em all and save.2:  MS experience is a lot easier to come by than Solaris admins.
Same with an Oracle DBA versus a MS SQL DBA.
Supply and demand.3:  Almost all hardware is tested with Windows Server.
Not that much is tested with Solaris x86 except Sun's.4:  Easy control of servers -- stick them all on AD.Oracle won't see the results of this footshooting now, but as Oracle installations hit the bitbucket when companies upgrade, they will start to feel the hurt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684608</id>
	<title>Solaris/Open Solaris/SPARC are dead...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270029780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are the walking dead...   Solaris needed less restrictions and more support to stay alive.   Not more restrictions.</p><p>Solaris was a standard in our company but two years ago we made the switch.  IBM, Linux, virtualization: there are too many easy, cost effective ways to wean off of Solaris.  In two years we went from a fairly predictable expenditure of over $60 million annually to Sun down to less than $1 million.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....and that is never coming back.   Vendors that only supported Solaris are now offering Linux and AIX support.</p><p>Bye bye.  We had fun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are the walking dead... Solaris needed less restrictions and more support to stay alive .
Not more restrictions.Solaris was a standard in our company but two years ago we made the switch .
IBM , Linux , virtualization : there are too many easy , cost effective ways to wean off of Solaris .
In two years we went from a fairly predictable expenditure of over $ 60 million annually to Sun down to less than $ 1 million .
....and that is never coming back .
Vendors that only supported Solaris are now offering Linux and AIX support.Bye bye .
We had fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are the walking dead...   Solaris needed less restrictions and more support to stay alive.
Not more restrictions.Solaris was a standard in our company but two years ago we made the switch.
IBM, Linux, virtualization: there are too many easy, cost effective ways to wean off of Solaris.
In two years we went from a fairly predictable expenditure of over $60 million annually to Sun down to less than $1 million.
....and that is never coming back.
Vendors that only supported Solaris are now offering Linux and AIX support.Bye bye.
We had fun.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683500</id>
	<title>Oh no!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269976140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh no!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh no !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh no!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683690</id>
	<title>Re:May?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269977880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Does it cost them more to produce a database that works on more than 4 cores?</p></div> </blockquote><p>

Well, judging by Mysql's lack of scaling beyond this limit. I'd say they have a decent argument on this one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it cost them more to produce a database that works on more than 4 cores ?
Well , judging by Mysql 's lack of scaling beyond this limit .
I 'd say they have a decent argument on this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Does it cost them more to produce a database that works on more than 4 cores?
Well, judging by Mysql's lack of scaling beyond this limit.
I'd say they have a decent argument on this one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683490</id>
	<title>That's fine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269976140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We still have choices of free OS to choose from.</p><p>They don't scare me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We still have choices of free OS to choose from.They do n't scare me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We still have choices of free OS to choose from.They don't scare me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31687468</id>
	<title>I gotta ask...</title>
	<author>PalmKiller</author>
	<datestamp>1270049640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did anyone actually use free solaris for anything critical?  I mean except those that like to put their trust in a company that was flirting with bankruptcy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did anyone actually use free solaris for anything critical ?
I mean except those that like to put their trust in a company that was flirting with bankruptcy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did anyone actually use free solaris for anything critical?
I mean except those that like to put their trust in a company that was flirting with bankruptcy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684442</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>Youngbull</author>
	<datestamp>1270028160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>what kind of business move is this? OpenSolaris doesn't really have a lot of users! They might get a couple of bucks from someone acquiring a non gratis license. But is really a good Idea to squeeze out what's left of it, and ruin the brand name?</htmltext>
<tokenext>what kind of business move is this ?
OpenSolaris does n't really have a lot of users !
They might get a couple of bucks from someone acquiring a non gratis license .
But is really a good Idea to squeeze out what 's left of it , and ruin the brand name ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what kind of business move is this?
OpenSolaris doesn't really have a lot of users!
They might get a couple of bucks from someone acquiring a non gratis license.
But is really a good Idea to squeeze out what's left of it, and ruin the brand name?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683910</id>
	<title>Old News</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270066260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait... I thought it was already dead?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait... I thought it was already dead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait... I thought it was already dead?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683658</id>
	<title>LOLz - Oracle can't afford to give away free stuff</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269977520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the thing people should realize is that Oracle must try very hard to make a profit out of Sun, and the only way to do that quickly, albeit very annoyingly, is to CHARGE FOR STUFF.</p><p>I love that Sun gives away so much, but if they can't seem to turn a reasonable enough profit from doing support, sales, agreements etc... then they must adapt. Oracle is smart enough to realize that CHARGING for SERVICES accross the board will give them either the excuse to wind things down at Sun because they are not making enough profit, or they might actually turn a profit eventually.</p><p>Oracle cannot lose in the short or the long run by getting Sun to charge for more stuff than it ever has.</p><p>i wouldn't be surprised to see more of this kind of behaviour from Oracle.</p><p>then again, a positive spin off might be that since Java is a pretty good idea, Oracle might be able to invest enough money in it so that it actually continues to grow nicely in terms of ability and applications.</p><p>i just sure as heck hope that Oracle will not start charging developer fees for people to develop in Java etc...</p><p>My point is that Sun WILL weigh Oracle down, if Oracle doesn't controlably wind Sun down, or if Oracle does not make a profit from CHARGING FOR MORE SERVICES Sun always liked to give away for free.</p><p>Sun is probably going to start disappearing over the next 1-6 years if Oracle can't make a decent profit from it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the thing people should realize is that Oracle must try very hard to make a profit out of Sun , and the only way to do that quickly , albeit very annoyingly , is to CHARGE FOR STUFF.I love that Sun gives away so much , but if they ca n't seem to turn a reasonable enough profit from doing support , sales , agreements etc... then they must adapt .
Oracle is smart enough to realize that CHARGING for SERVICES accross the board will give them either the excuse to wind things down at Sun because they are not making enough profit , or they might actually turn a profit eventually.Oracle can not lose in the short or the long run by getting Sun to charge for more stuff than it ever has.i would n't be surprised to see more of this kind of behaviour from Oracle.then again , a positive spin off might be that since Java is a pretty good idea , Oracle might be able to invest enough money in it so that it actually continues to grow nicely in terms of ability and applications.i just sure as heck hope that Oracle will not start charging developer fees for people to develop in Java etc...My point is that Sun WILL weigh Oracle down , if Oracle does n't controlably wind Sun down , or if Oracle does not make a profit from CHARGING FOR MORE SERVICES Sun always liked to give away for free.Sun is probably going to start disappearing over the next 1-6 years if Oracle ca n't make a decent profit from it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the thing people should realize is that Oracle must try very hard to make a profit out of Sun, and the only way to do that quickly, albeit very annoyingly, is to CHARGE FOR STUFF.I love that Sun gives away so much, but if they can't seem to turn a reasonable enough profit from doing support, sales, agreements etc... then they must adapt.
Oracle is smart enough to realize that CHARGING for SERVICES accross the board will give them either the excuse to wind things down at Sun because they are not making enough profit, or they might actually turn a profit eventually.Oracle cannot lose in the short or the long run by getting Sun to charge for more stuff than it ever has.i wouldn't be surprised to see more of this kind of behaviour from Oracle.then again, a positive spin off might be that since Java is a pretty good idea, Oracle might be able to invest enough money in it so that it actually continues to grow nicely in terms of ability and applications.i just sure as heck hope that Oracle will not start charging developer fees for people to develop in Java etc...My point is that Sun WILL weigh Oracle down, if Oracle doesn't controlably wind Sun down, or if Oracle does not make a profit from CHARGING FOR MORE SERVICES Sun always liked to give away for free.Sun is probably going to start disappearing over the next 1-6 years if Oracle can't make a decent profit from it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684632</id>
	<title>Awesome, I'm all for it.</title>
	<author>shaitand</author>
	<datestamp>1270029960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I support oracle entirely in this. I just think they should re-license Open Solaris under the GPLv3 so the code that was previously opened can be used somewhere useful instead of being locked in an ever more stagnant academic experiment for bored geeks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I support oracle entirely in this .
I just think they should re-license Open Solaris under the GPLv3 so the code that was previously opened can be used somewhere useful instead of being locked in an ever more stagnant academic experiment for bored geeks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I support oracle entirely in this.
I just think they should re-license Open Solaris under the GPLv3 so the code that was previously opened can be used somewhere useful instead of being locked in an ever more stagnant academic experiment for bored geeks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684582</id>
	<title>Re:Oracle's short term memory</title>
	<author>MacGyver2210</author>
	<datestamp>1270029540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Include the cost of Solaris with the cost of whatever software runs on top of it."

I think a big point of this article is that Oracle won't be 'including' anything for free. They're some money grubbers.

I really liked Sun Microsystems. I thought they were very non-evil and supportive of the software community as a whole. They came up with some great tech, and they did well with Java.

Oracle has always been an evil corporation to me. Every time I've encountered anyone from their company it was a hassle. On the phone, on-site, email, always a hassle. Ordering, service, updates, maintenance, always a bunch of hoops. They sure don't strike me as the people who will keep Sun's product lines in the public favor, and I sure won't deal with them - even for a Sun product.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Include the cost of Solaris with the cost of whatever software runs on top of it .
" I think a big point of this article is that Oracle wo n't be 'including ' anything for free .
They 're some money grubbers .
I really liked Sun Microsystems .
I thought they were very non-evil and supportive of the software community as a whole .
They came up with some great tech , and they did well with Java .
Oracle has always been an evil corporation to me .
Every time I 've encountered anyone from their company it was a hassle .
On the phone , on-site , email , always a hassle .
Ordering , service , updates , maintenance , always a bunch of hoops .
They sure do n't strike me as the people who will keep Sun 's product lines in the public favor , and I sure wo n't deal with them - even for a Sun product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Include the cost of Solaris with the cost of whatever software runs on top of it.
"

I think a big point of this article is that Oracle won't be 'including' anything for free.
They're some money grubbers.
I really liked Sun Microsystems.
I thought they were very non-evil and supportive of the software community as a whole.
They came up with some great tech, and they did well with Java.
Oracle has always been an evil corporation to me.
Every time I've encountered anyone from their company it was a hassle.
On the phone, on-site, email, always a hassle.
Ordering, service, updates, maintenance, always a bunch of hoops.
They sure don't strike me as the people who will keep Sun's product lines in the public favor, and I sure won't deal with them - even for a Sun product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685388</id>
	<title>Re:I feel sorry</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1270037580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The entire Solaris user-base was quoted saying "Wow, this sucks."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The entire Solaris user-base was quoted saying " Wow , this sucks .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The entire Solaris user-base was quoted saying "Wow, this sucks.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31687956</id>
	<title>Re:That's fine</title>
	<author>dfghjk</author>
	<datestamp>1270051320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you are saying that code owners should be forced to release all future code as open source because they have released some as open source in the past?  That may be Stallman's wet dream but the GPL does not and cannot do that.  Property remains property; GPL fanatics love to preach that when it suits them.  It cuts both ways.</p><p>It would seem that the goodwill of a for-profit company remains goodwill even if their future contributions aren't so good.  There is no "bait and switch".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you are saying that code owners should be forced to release all future code as open source because they have released some as open source in the past ?
That may be Stallman 's wet dream but the GPL does not and can not do that .
Property remains property ; GPL fanatics love to preach that when it suits them .
It cuts both ways.It would seem that the goodwill of a for-profit company remains goodwill even if their future contributions are n't so good .
There is no " bait and switch " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you are saying that code owners should be forced to release all future code as open source because they have released some as open source in the past?
That may be Stallman's wet dream but the GPL does not and cannot do that.
Property remains property; GPL fanatics love to preach that when it suits them.
It cuts both ways.It would seem that the goodwill of a for-profit company remains goodwill even if their future contributions aren't so good.
There is no "bait and switch".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683766</id>
	<title>next up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269978540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MySQL...watch</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MySQL...watch</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MySQL...watch</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686794</id>
	<title>Nexenta?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270046760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guess the Nexenta project either stops getting core updates, or they start charging?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess the Nexenta project either stops getting core updates , or they start charging ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess the Nexenta project either stops getting core updates, or they start charging?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686342</id>
	<title>Re:start to die?</title>
	<author>Inda</author>
	<datestamp>1270044540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Solaris was the first "proper" OS I used. The rest of the company was using Win3.1 but I felt honoured to use Solaris on a Spark box in the CAD department. It was light years ahead of anything I'd seen before.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Solaris was the first " proper " OS I used .
The rest of the company was using Win3.1 but I felt honoured to use Solaris on a Spark box in the CAD department .
It was light years ahead of anything I 'd seen before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Solaris was the first "proper" OS I used.
The rest of the company was using Win3.1 but I felt honoured to use Solaris on a Spark box in the CAD department.
It was light years ahead of anything I'd seen before.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686332</id>
	<title>Re:I feel sorry</title>
	<author>drfireman</author>
	<datestamp>1270044480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>zfs</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>zfs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>zfs</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684972</id>
	<title>i hate to say this</title>
	<author>hellraizer</author>
	<datestamp>1270033200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>but i told you so<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</htmltext>
<tokenext>but i told you so .... : D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but i told you so .... :D</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685228</id>
	<title>Re:May?</title>
	<author>epine</author>
	<datestamp>1270036020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Since you don't know what this amount is you have to use a proxy. Oracle uses features, the number of cores and ram as their proxy.</p></div><p>This is a valid recitation of economic orthodoxy which unfortunately leaves off right at the moment where thinking begins.  Ships are lost on this basis.</p><p>The problem is that the choice of proxy has downstream consequence which can destroy a lot of value, or in the worst case, almost the entire value of the sales proposition.</p><p>In the case of licensing by core, it introduces a huge non-linear term in right-sizing infrastructure.  I can't stand this stuff myself, but some of my closest friends have made an excellent living showing up to solve the Oracle license fee non-linear optimization problem, which contains large elements of uncertainty and non-determinism because the outcome depends on unknown future events.</p><p>Anyone with the least insight into systems theory knows that non-linearities are like a sexual disease.  They have a noted tendency to give on giving.  Properly understood, the effort involved in damping out these non-linearities can easily exceed the value proposition of adopting Oracle solutions in the first place.</p><p>Fortunately for Oracle, there's a huge real world shortfall in the quantity "properly understood".  Microsoft, among others, makes a mint from truncated TCO studies.  The assumption underlying every TCO study I've ever seen is that the higher order non-linearities can be safely neglected.  If that were true, why is anyone relying on a vendor-funded TCO?  In the case where the higher order terms can be safely neglected, it's usually easy enough for the customer to work their own TCO on the back of napkin, and get an immediate answer everyone immediately believes.</p><p>The cases where this breaks down are the sales propositions absolutely freighted with non-linearities, to the point where no one trusts their own numbers, surprise, surprise.</p><p>The first rats off a sinking ship are the best swimmers.  The first wave of people to abandon Oracle are those outfits with a larger than average insight into "properly understood".</p><p>From [http://www.riskglossary.com/link/barings\_debacle.htm Barings Debacle]</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In November 1993, BSL was merged into BB&amp;Co. in anticipation of a subsequent initiative to form a Barings Investment Bank (BIB). The merger was not easy because the two firms had markedly different cultures. It was a distraction right in the middle of Leeson's tenure at BSL. <br>...<br>Barings was just starting to form a risk management function. Risk controllers were appointed in London, Tokyo and Hong Kong during 1994, but not in Singapore.<br>...<br>As part of the 1993 reorganization, Barings had adopted a "matrix" approach to management of its offices.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Employees complained that lines of reporting were not always clear.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Another issue was that Leeson was an accomplished liar.</p></div><p>Every aspect of this is situation normal at most medium or large companies.  You best executive attention is devoted to various political fires.  Many organizations are just too busy with other pressing demands to step back and engage in the kind of clear thinking it takes to put out the Oracle fire.  So what if the Oracle pricing model induces non-linearities?  We're planning to auction block that division anyway.</p><p>However, in the companies where choosing the right database and the right database architecture is the dominant fire, non-linearities associated with proxy pricing models can escalate into a serious business concern.  Some of those people will go talk to Oracle and try to cut a special deal.  Many of them won't.  An attrition sets in.</p><p>Look what happened to Microsoft when Google became the hot job opportunity.  That sucking sound is your technical clout packing family photos into their briefcases.</p><p>A major coming of age event in commoditization of a technology is crossing the threshold where the price proxy shifts from being a business asset to a business liability.  Wherever commoditization occurs, this shift almost always goes in that direction.</p><p>Just because you have to do it doesn't mean it won't eventually blow up in your face.  For Sun, that day came sooner rather than later.  Nothing I'm aware of assures me that Oracle isn't next in line.</p><p>I suspect by many criteria Sun was the better culture and the better company.  They were completely correct in saying that the network is the computer.  But then the pendulum shifted again.  These days, the data is the network.  It was Oracle's good fortune that their business model was closer to the data than Sun's business model.</p><p>These days, Google has what?  One million TB disk drives under collective administration?  If the commoditization of the network kept Sun up late at night, Oracle might as well roll up their futons and burn them.  On this scale, commoditization is a force of nature.</p><p>I think sometimes the entrenched market leader reaches maximal profitability at exactly the moment that the commoditization curve reaches maximum velocity, show as t=0 on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic\_function" title="wikipedia.org">Logistic function</a> [wikipedia.org].  Once cosmic inflation begins to slow down, people begin to look over their shoulders to see how many dollars they left on the table during the mad scramble.</p><p>I'd love to hear Oracle's *real* plan to cope with this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since you do n't know what this amount is you have to use a proxy .
Oracle uses features , the number of cores and ram as their proxy.This is a valid recitation of economic orthodoxy which unfortunately leaves off right at the moment where thinking begins .
Ships are lost on this basis.The problem is that the choice of proxy has downstream consequence which can destroy a lot of value , or in the worst case , almost the entire value of the sales proposition.In the case of licensing by core , it introduces a huge non-linear term in right-sizing infrastructure .
I ca n't stand this stuff myself , but some of my closest friends have made an excellent living showing up to solve the Oracle license fee non-linear optimization problem , which contains large elements of uncertainty and non-determinism because the outcome depends on unknown future events.Anyone with the least insight into systems theory knows that non-linearities are like a sexual disease .
They have a noted tendency to give on giving .
Properly understood , the effort involved in damping out these non-linearities can easily exceed the value proposition of adopting Oracle solutions in the first place.Fortunately for Oracle , there 's a huge real world shortfall in the quantity " properly understood " .
Microsoft , among others , makes a mint from truncated TCO studies .
The assumption underlying every TCO study I 've ever seen is that the higher order non-linearities can be safely neglected .
If that were true , why is anyone relying on a vendor-funded TCO ?
In the case where the higher order terms can be safely neglected , it 's usually easy enough for the customer to work their own TCO on the back of napkin , and get an immediate answer everyone immediately believes.The cases where this breaks down are the sales propositions absolutely freighted with non-linearities , to the point where no one trusts their own numbers , surprise , surprise.The first rats off a sinking ship are the best swimmers .
The first wave of people to abandon Oracle are those outfits with a larger than average insight into " properly understood " .From [ http : //www.riskglossary.com/link/barings \ _debacle.htm Barings Debacle ] In November 1993 , BSL was merged into BB&amp;Co .
in anticipation of a subsequent initiative to form a Barings Investment Bank ( BIB ) .
The merger was not easy because the two firms had markedly different cultures .
It was a distraction right in the middle of Leeson 's tenure at BSL .
...Barings was just starting to form a risk management function .
Risk controllers were appointed in London , Tokyo and Hong Kong during 1994 , but not in Singapore....As part of the 1993 reorganization , Barings had adopted a " matrix " approach to management of its offices .
... Employees complained that lines of reporting were not always clear .
... Another issue was that Leeson was an accomplished liar.Every aspect of this is situation normal at most medium or large companies .
You best executive attention is devoted to various political fires .
Many organizations are just too busy with other pressing demands to step back and engage in the kind of clear thinking it takes to put out the Oracle fire .
So what if the Oracle pricing model induces non-linearities ?
We 're planning to auction block that division anyway.However , in the companies where choosing the right database and the right database architecture is the dominant fire , non-linearities associated with proxy pricing models can escalate into a serious business concern .
Some of those people will go talk to Oracle and try to cut a special deal .
Many of them wo n't .
An attrition sets in.Look what happened to Microsoft when Google became the hot job opportunity .
That sucking sound is your technical clout packing family photos into their briefcases.A major coming of age event in commoditization of a technology is crossing the threshold where the price proxy shifts from being a business asset to a business liability .
Wherever commoditization occurs , this shift almost always goes in that direction.Just because you have to do it does n't mean it wo n't eventually blow up in your face .
For Sun , that day came sooner rather than later .
Nothing I 'm aware of assures me that Oracle is n't next in line.I suspect by many criteria Sun was the better culture and the better company .
They were completely correct in saying that the network is the computer .
But then the pendulum shifted again .
These days , the data is the network .
It was Oracle 's good fortune that their business model was closer to the data than Sun 's business model.These days , Google has what ?
One million TB disk drives under collective administration ?
If the commoditization of the network kept Sun up late at night , Oracle might as well roll up their futons and burn them .
On this scale , commoditization is a force of nature.I think sometimes the entrenched market leader reaches maximal profitability at exactly the moment that the commoditization curve reaches maximum velocity , show as t = 0 on the Logistic function [ wikipedia.org ] .
Once cosmic inflation begins to slow down , people begin to look over their shoulders to see how many dollars they left on the table during the mad scramble.I 'd love to hear Oracle 's * real * plan to cope with this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since you don't know what this amount is you have to use a proxy.
Oracle uses features, the number of cores and ram as their proxy.This is a valid recitation of economic orthodoxy which unfortunately leaves off right at the moment where thinking begins.
Ships are lost on this basis.The problem is that the choice of proxy has downstream consequence which can destroy a lot of value, or in the worst case, almost the entire value of the sales proposition.In the case of licensing by core, it introduces a huge non-linear term in right-sizing infrastructure.
I can't stand this stuff myself, but some of my closest friends have made an excellent living showing up to solve the Oracle license fee non-linear optimization problem, which contains large elements of uncertainty and non-determinism because the outcome depends on unknown future events.Anyone with the least insight into systems theory knows that non-linearities are like a sexual disease.
They have a noted tendency to give on giving.
Properly understood, the effort involved in damping out these non-linearities can easily exceed the value proposition of adopting Oracle solutions in the first place.Fortunately for Oracle, there's a huge real world shortfall in the quantity "properly understood".
Microsoft, among others, makes a mint from truncated TCO studies.
The assumption underlying every TCO study I've ever seen is that the higher order non-linearities can be safely neglected.
If that were true, why is anyone relying on a vendor-funded TCO?
In the case where the higher order terms can be safely neglected, it's usually easy enough for the customer to work their own TCO on the back of napkin, and get an immediate answer everyone immediately believes.The cases where this breaks down are the sales propositions absolutely freighted with non-linearities, to the point where no one trusts their own numbers, surprise, surprise.The first rats off a sinking ship are the best swimmers.
The first wave of people to abandon Oracle are those outfits with a larger than average insight into "properly understood".From [http://www.riskglossary.com/link/barings\_debacle.htm Barings Debacle]In November 1993, BSL was merged into BB&amp;Co.
in anticipation of a subsequent initiative to form a Barings Investment Bank (BIB).
The merger was not easy because the two firms had markedly different cultures.
It was a distraction right in the middle of Leeson's tenure at BSL.
...Barings was just starting to form a risk management function.
Risk controllers were appointed in London, Tokyo and Hong Kong during 1994, but not in Singapore....As part of the 1993 reorganization, Barings had adopted a "matrix" approach to management of its offices.
... Employees complained that lines of reporting were not always clear.
... Another issue was that Leeson was an accomplished liar.Every aspect of this is situation normal at most medium or large companies.
You best executive attention is devoted to various political fires.
Many organizations are just too busy with other pressing demands to step back and engage in the kind of clear thinking it takes to put out the Oracle fire.
So what if the Oracle pricing model induces non-linearities?
We're planning to auction block that division anyway.However, in the companies where choosing the right database and the right database architecture is the dominant fire, non-linearities associated with proxy pricing models can escalate into a serious business concern.
Some of those people will go talk to Oracle and try to cut a special deal.
Many of them won't.
An attrition sets in.Look what happened to Microsoft when Google became the hot job opportunity.
That sucking sound is your technical clout packing family photos into their briefcases.A major coming of age event in commoditization of a technology is crossing the threshold where the price proxy shifts from being a business asset to a business liability.
Wherever commoditization occurs, this shift almost always goes in that direction.Just because you have to do it doesn't mean it won't eventually blow up in your face.
For Sun, that day came sooner rather than later.
Nothing I'm aware of assures me that Oracle isn't next in line.I suspect by many criteria Sun was the better culture and the better company.
They were completely correct in saying that the network is the computer.
But then the pendulum shifted again.
These days, the data is the network.
It was Oracle's good fortune that their business model was closer to the data than Sun's business model.These days, Google has what?
One million TB disk drives under collective administration?
If the commoditization of the network kept Sun up late at night, Oracle might as well roll up their futons and burn them.
On this scale, commoditization is a force of nature.I think sometimes the entrenched market leader reaches maximal profitability at exactly the moment that the commoditization curve reaches maximum velocity, show as t=0 on the Logistic function [wikipedia.org].
Once cosmic inflation begins to slow down, people begin to look over their shoulders to see how many dollars they left on the table during the mad scramble.I'd love to hear Oracle's *real* plan to cope with this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683848</id>
	<title>mod 3own</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269979140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>impleme8ta7ion to simple solution</htmltext>
<tokenext>impleme8ta7ion to simple solution</tokentext>
<sentencetext>impleme8ta7ion to simple solution</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683708</id>
	<title>Re:May?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269978000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not absurd at all, perfectly valid economics. That you're incapable of understanding the economics involved is your failure not Oracles.</p><p>Essentially different people are willing and able to pay different amounts for the same product. As a result if you could charge people individual amounts you could not only meet the needs of more consumers (ie: sell more software) but also make more money in the process. That is, if you couldn't price differentiate than you'd need to (ie: while maximizing profit) charge everyone an amount that certain customers just couldn't afford. If you could somehow charge just those customers less than everyone would be better of. Since you don't know what this amount is you have to use a proxy. Oracle uses features, the number of cores and ram as their proxy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not absurd at all , perfectly valid economics .
That you 're incapable of understanding the economics involved is your failure not Oracles.Essentially different people are willing and able to pay different amounts for the same product .
As a result if you could charge people individual amounts you could not only meet the needs of more consumers ( ie : sell more software ) but also make more money in the process .
That is , if you could n't price differentiate than you 'd need to ( ie : while maximizing profit ) charge everyone an amount that certain customers just could n't afford .
If you could somehow charge just those customers less than everyone would be better of .
Since you do n't know what this amount is you have to use a proxy .
Oracle uses features , the number of cores and ram as their proxy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not absurd at all, perfectly valid economics.
That you're incapable of understanding the economics involved is your failure not Oracles.Essentially different people are willing and able to pay different amounts for the same product.
As a result if you could charge people individual amounts you could not only meet the needs of more consumers (ie: sell more software) but also make more money in the process.
That is, if you couldn't price differentiate than you'd need to (ie: while maximizing profit) charge everyone an amount that certain customers just couldn't afford.
If you could somehow charge just those customers less than everyone would be better of.
Since you don't know what this amount is you have to use a proxy.
Oracle uses features, the number of cores and ram as their proxy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684916</id>
	<title>Re:Oracle's short term memory</title>
	<author>master\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1270032660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's the point of free Unixoid OSes having separate codebases? Is Solaris so much better than Linux that Sun couldn't merge it with Linux? this is what happens when people refuse to co-operate due to pride or corporate blindness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the point of free Unixoid OSes having separate codebases ?
Is Solaris so much better than Linux that Sun could n't merge it with Linux ?
this is what happens when people refuse to co-operate due to pride or corporate blindness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the point of free Unixoid OSes having separate codebases?
Is Solaris so much better than Linux that Sun couldn't merge it with Linux?
this is what happens when people refuse to co-operate due to pride or corporate blindness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31689320</id>
	<title>Re:May?</title>
	<author>iggymanz</author>
	<datestamp>1270057020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Oracle licensing processor-core-factor table has different factors depending on processor GHz for some architectures.</p><p>Maybe his company upgraded some Express Edition (1GB limitation) to Standard Edition (unlimited memory but  2 CPU limit)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Oracle licensing processor-core-factor table has different factors depending on processor GHz for some architectures.Maybe his company upgraded some Express Edition ( 1GB limitation ) to Standard Edition ( unlimited memory but 2 CPU limit ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Oracle licensing processor-core-factor table has different factors depending on processor GHz for some architectures.Maybe his company upgraded some Express Edition (1GB limitation) to Standard Edition (unlimited memory but  2 CPU limit)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685022</id>
	<title>Where does it mention ANYTHING about OpenSolaris?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270033680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Errr where is OpenSolaris mentioned anywhere in the actual link provided. It's not mentioned.

We're speculating people!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Errr where is OpenSolaris mentioned anywhere in the actual link provided .
It 's not mentioned .
We 're speculating people !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Errr where is OpenSolaris mentioned anywhere in the actual link provided.
It's not mentioned.
We're speculating people!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684188</id>
	<title>Solaris?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270069140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31689456</id>
	<title>Re:Oracle's short term memory</title>
	<author>iggymanz</author>
	<datestamp>1270057680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>absolutely false, there are differences in the code - parts of Solaris can *not* be open sourced ever because they are third party licensed.  Other bits you only get the binary for, not the source code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>absolutely false , there are differences in the code - parts of Solaris can * not * be open sourced ever because they are third party licensed .
Other bits you only get the binary for , not the source code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>absolutely false, there are differences in the code - parts of Solaris can *not* be open sourced ever because they are third party licensed.
Other bits you only get the binary for, not the source code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31693596</id>
	<title>Re:That's fine</title>
	<author>BitterOak</author>
	<datestamp>1270030740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nothing is being "switched" all the OpenSolaris stuff is still there, Oracle just won't be adding new features it develops to it. All the code that was there is still open even without the magical GPL and can be developed further. From TFA<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:</p></div><p>Quite true, and even more to the point, precisely the same thing could happen even if OpenSolaris <i>were</i> GPL.  As the copyright holder, Oracle could still fork OpenSolaris and relicense it however they want.  GPL doesn't take any rights away from the copyright holder to license their own further developments as they see fit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing is being " switched " all the OpenSolaris stuff is still there , Oracle just wo n't be adding new features it develops to it .
All the code that was there is still open even without the magical GPL and can be developed further .
From TFA : Quite true , and even more to the point , precisely the same thing could happen even if OpenSolaris were GPL .
As the copyright holder , Oracle could still fork OpenSolaris and relicense it however they want .
GPL does n't take any rights away from the copyright holder to license their own further developments as they see fit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing is being "switched" all the OpenSolaris stuff is still there, Oracle just won't be adding new features it develops to it.
All the code that was there is still open even without the magical GPL and can be developed further.
From TFA :Quite true, and even more to the point, precisely the same thing could happen even if OpenSolaris were GPL.
As the copyright holder, Oracle could still fork OpenSolaris and relicense it however they want.
GPL doesn't take any rights away from the copyright holder to license their own further developments as they see fit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31698506</id>
	<title>Re:May?</title>
	<author>Finite9</author>
	<datestamp>1270115820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>say what you will about Oracles licensing.  Yeah it cuts out small businesses due to overly steep pricing, but it's simply best of breed in the DB market for non-web services/social net. sites (where it's more likely that mysql or equiv. will be more appropriate).  When you have the best DB going, you can sort of dictate your prices.  Only thing that will change this is if another DB can match them on features and performance.  I dont mean DB2/MSSQL: they want a slice of the pie as well and are not going to go rock bottom to try to steal business from Oracle.  It will take an OSS project to try to meet them on technical merit, and that is very very unlikely to ever happen, but I wish it would, for the sake of competition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>say what you will about Oracles licensing .
Yeah it cuts out small businesses due to overly steep pricing , but it 's simply best of breed in the DB market for non-web services/social net .
sites ( where it 's more likely that mysql or equiv .
will be more appropriate ) .
When you have the best DB going , you can sort of dictate your prices .
Only thing that will change this is if another DB can match them on features and performance .
I dont mean DB2/MSSQL : they want a slice of the pie as well and are not going to go rock bottom to try to steal business from Oracle .
It will take an OSS project to try to meet them on technical merit , and that is very very unlikely to ever happen , but I wish it would , for the sake of competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>say what you will about Oracles licensing.
Yeah it cuts out small businesses due to overly steep pricing, but it's simply best of breed in the DB market for non-web services/social net.
sites (where it's more likely that mysql or equiv.
will be more appropriate).
When you have the best DB going, you can sort of dictate your prices.
Only thing that will change this is if another DB can match them on features and performance.
I dont mean DB2/MSSQL: they want a slice of the pie as well and are not going to go rock bottom to try to steal business from Oracle.
It will take an OSS project to try to meet them on technical merit, and that is very very unlikely to ever happen, but I wish it would, for the sake of competition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683520</id>
	<title>May?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269976380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will.  Oracle is not in the business of giving stuff away for free.
</p><p>Have you heard?  They license their database software not by the servers it runs on, nor by the processor, but by the <i>core</i>.  How absurd is that?  Does it cost them more to produce a database that works on more than 4 cores, or to support it?  Believe it or not, they also charge extra for <i>installed memory</i>, as if that had anything to do with their production or support costs.  Failover?  Now you're into serious money.  And don't you dare run it on stuff that's not on the secret list, or your support contract is invalid.
</p><p>If Cisco's motto is "that feature is enabled through the purchase of an optional license", Oracle's is more so.
</p><p>I guess Oracle doesn't get that we have options, and the pace of hardware technology will quickly erase any software advantage they think they have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will .
Oracle is not in the business of giving stuff away for free .
Have you heard ?
They license their database software not by the servers it runs on , nor by the processor , but by the core .
How absurd is that ?
Does it cost them more to produce a database that works on more than 4 cores , or to support it ?
Believe it or not , they also charge extra for installed memory , as if that had anything to do with their production or support costs .
Failover ? Now you 're into serious money .
And do n't you dare run it on stuff that 's not on the secret list , or your support contract is invalid .
If Cisco 's motto is " that feature is enabled through the purchase of an optional license " , Oracle 's is more so .
I guess Oracle does n't get that we have options , and the pace of hardware technology will quickly erase any software advantage they think they have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will.
Oracle is not in the business of giving stuff away for free.
Have you heard?
They license their database software not by the servers it runs on, nor by the processor, but by the core.
How absurd is that?
Does it cost them more to produce a database that works on more than 4 cores, or to support it?
Believe it or not, they also charge extra for installed memory, as if that had anything to do with their production or support costs.
Failover?  Now you're into serious money.
And don't you dare run it on stuff that's not on the secret list, or your support contract is invalid.
If Cisco's motto is "that feature is enabled through the purchase of an optional license", Oracle's is more so.
I guess Oracle doesn't get that we have options, and the pace of hardware technology will quickly erase any software advantage they think they have.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684946</id>
	<title>Damn!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270033020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now I have to go back in time at least 5 years, to when I still cared about that product.</p><p>Solaris, the new Irix.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I have to go back in time at least 5 years , to when I still cared about that product.Solaris , the new Irix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I have to go back in time at least 5 years, to when I still cared about that product.Solaris, the new Irix.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31691318</id>
	<title>Incase you hadn't actually noticed ...</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1270065240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OpenSolaris was dead years ago, its a pile of buggy crap.</p><p>I used to love Solaris<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... about 8-10 years ago, then I was out of the admin world for a while, decided to play with OpenSolaris and realized that the only hardware you'd want to run it on is Sun hardware<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... which is going to have a license for the proper version and not the OSS crap.</p><p>I really wish people would realize that OSS is not the end all be all solution to everything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OpenSolaris was dead years ago , its a pile of buggy crap.I used to love Solaris ... about 8-10 years ago , then I was out of the admin world for a while , decided to play with OpenSolaris and realized that the only hardware you 'd want to run it on is Sun hardware ... which is going to have a license for the proper version and not the OSS crap.I really wish people would realize that OSS is not the end all be all solution to everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OpenSolaris was dead years ago, its a pile of buggy crap.I used to love Solaris ... about 8-10 years ago, then I was out of the admin world for a while, decided to play with OpenSolaris and realized that the only hardware you'd want to run it on is Sun hardware ... which is going to have a license for the proper version and not the OSS crap.I really wish people would realize that OSS is not the end all be all solution to everything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685536</id>
	<title>Re:That's fine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270038960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup.  Oracle won't make friends with this.  It'll probably be the death knell of Solaris imho.</p><p>Dave</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup .
Oracle wo n't make friends with this .
It 'll probably be the death knell of Solaris imho.Dave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup.
Oracle won't make friends with this.
It'll probably be the death knell of Solaris imho.Dave</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31687506</id>
	<title>Re:And Java?...</title>
	<author>hotfireball</author>
	<datestamp>1270049820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Java is open. Stop FUD and bullshit. And stay with your Python, masturbating with GIL.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Java is open .
Stop FUD and bullshit .
And stay with your Python , masturbating with GIL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Java is open.
Stop FUD and bullshit.
And stay with your Python, masturbating with GIL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686522</id>
	<title>Re:LOLz - Oracle can't afford to give away free st</title>
	<author>guruevi</author>
	<datestamp>1270045560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sun died, not because it gave away stuff but because it overpriced stuff and made some really bad decisions. A Thumper costs about 50-100k and all it is, is an AMD Opteron-based machine with some SATA controllers that fits lots of disks. I can get the same hardware for 10-20k elsewhere. Same goes for their 1U servers - I believe it's 10k for an entry-level model. They have some really nice CPU's though (Niagara now) but they never marketed it right, never priced it right and management killed some really nice projects.</p><p>The same with ZFS. They never marketed it as a company but the developers did market it to other developers and the open source community which made it very popular. ZFS is simply awesome and if upper management would've seen what this project does, they could've easily been taking over NetApp (where their buyers don't seem to mind spending 20k/TB) and other high-end proprietary storage vendors while staying safe from a hostile takeover.</p><p>I am building a dual-parity, redundant 30TB storage array with 320GB read cache and 64GB write cache (POSIX-correct) for under 30k with ZFS. Sun could have easily charge 300k for something like this and most customers would be grateful not to pay NetApp or EMC for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sun died , not because it gave away stuff but because it overpriced stuff and made some really bad decisions .
A Thumper costs about 50-100k and all it is , is an AMD Opteron-based machine with some SATA controllers that fits lots of disks .
I can get the same hardware for 10-20k elsewhere .
Same goes for their 1U servers - I believe it 's 10k for an entry-level model .
They have some really nice CPU 's though ( Niagara now ) but they never marketed it right , never priced it right and management killed some really nice projects.The same with ZFS .
They never marketed it as a company but the developers did market it to other developers and the open source community which made it very popular .
ZFS is simply awesome and if upper management would 've seen what this project does , they could 've easily been taking over NetApp ( where their buyers do n't seem to mind spending 20k/TB ) and other high-end proprietary storage vendors while staying safe from a hostile takeover.I am building a dual-parity , redundant 30TB storage array with 320GB read cache and 64GB write cache ( POSIX-correct ) for under 30k with ZFS .
Sun could have easily charge 300k for something like this and most customers would be grateful not to pay NetApp or EMC for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sun died, not because it gave away stuff but because it overpriced stuff and made some really bad decisions.
A Thumper costs about 50-100k and all it is, is an AMD Opteron-based machine with some SATA controllers that fits lots of disks.
I can get the same hardware for 10-20k elsewhere.
Same goes for their 1U servers - I believe it's 10k for an entry-level model.
They have some really nice CPU's though (Niagara now) but they never marketed it right, never priced it right and management killed some really nice projects.The same with ZFS.
They never marketed it as a company but the developers did market it to other developers and the open source community which made it very popular.
ZFS is simply awesome and if upper management would've seen what this project does, they could've easily been taking over NetApp (where their buyers don't seem to mind spending 20k/TB) and other high-end proprietary storage vendors while staying safe from a hostile takeover.I am building a dual-parity, redundant 30TB storage array with 320GB read cache and 64GB write cache (POSIX-correct) for under 30k with ZFS.
Sun could have easily charge 300k for something like this and most customers would be grateful not to pay NetApp or EMC for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683772</id>
	<title>Re:That Article's Title Should Be...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269978600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>isn't that the reason they purchased Sun?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is n't that the reason they purchased Sun ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>isn't that the reason they purchased Sun?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684784</id>
	<title>Re:May?</title>
	<author>jimmyharris</author>
	<datestamp>1270031280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's right and he's wrong at the same time.</p><p>Oracle calculates its licensing cost based on cores but then discounts that number depending on its calculation of the 'power' of the processor architecture.  In the case of x86/x86\_64, the discount is 50\% meaning that two cores counts as one processor for licensing purposes.  This of course means that a license for a quad-core CPU will cost you just as much as two dual-core CPUs.</p><p>As for charging you according to the amount of RAM in a server, that's just rubbish.  We've just upgraded to 256GB per server in our main RAC and the licensing cost is no different than when we first rolled it out with 32GB in each node.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's right and he 's wrong at the same time.Oracle calculates its licensing cost based on cores but then discounts that number depending on its calculation of the 'power ' of the processor architecture .
In the case of x86/x86 \ _64 , the discount is 50 \ % meaning that two cores counts as one processor for licensing purposes .
This of course means that a license for a quad-core CPU will cost you just as much as two dual-core CPUs.As for charging you according to the amount of RAM in a server , that 's just rubbish .
We 've just upgraded to 256GB per server in our main RAC and the licensing cost is no different than when we first rolled it out with 32GB in each node .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's right and he's wrong at the same time.Oracle calculates its licensing cost based on cores but then discounts that number depending on its calculation of the 'power' of the processor architecture.
In the case of x86/x86\_64, the discount is 50\% meaning that two cores counts as one processor for licensing purposes.
This of course means that a license for a quad-core CPU will cost you just as much as two dual-core CPUs.As for charging you according to the amount of RAM in a server, that's just rubbish.
We've just upgraded to 256GB per server in our main RAC and the licensing cost is no different than when we first rolled it out with 32GB in each node.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686882</id>
	<title>Re:Oracle's short term memory</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1270047180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At one time, Solaris was Oracles preferred OS for their DB.  They started to shift away from Sun when they rebranded RHEL.  They figured, "ooh, we can give it away on our own hardware and make more money instead of having to invite a sun sales guy on the conference call.".  Now that Oracle owns Solaris and a hardware business, I think we'll see the death of Oracle Linux and seem them move back to Solaris being their preferred OS again.</p><p>I'm not ashamed to say that Sun was my preferred Enterprise Unix.  Over all I've had extremely good luck with their stuff.  It was expensive, but most days you could come into work and not have to worry about it.</p><p>I was enthused about OpenSolaris and tried it out, but frankly when FreeBSD ported over DTrace and ZFS, it became my Free OS of choice.  We're running FreeBSD and had plans to jump to Sun when the time came.  But while I liked Solaris &amp; Sun, I can't stand Oracle.  They have a good OLTP database, probably the best, but given the choice between dealing with Oracle and IBM, I'll take IBM.  DB/400 (or whatever the series is called today) may not be as flashy a Database platform, but it's been fast enough, rock solid, and reliable anytime I've used it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At one time , Solaris was Oracles preferred OS for their DB .
They started to shift away from Sun when they rebranded RHEL .
They figured , " ooh , we can give it away on our own hardware and make more money instead of having to invite a sun sales guy on the conference call. " .
Now that Oracle owns Solaris and a hardware business , I think we 'll see the death of Oracle Linux and seem them move back to Solaris being their preferred OS again.I 'm not ashamed to say that Sun was my preferred Enterprise Unix .
Over all I 've had extremely good luck with their stuff .
It was expensive , but most days you could come into work and not have to worry about it.I was enthused about OpenSolaris and tried it out , but frankly when FreeBSD ported over DTrace and ZFS , it became my Free OS of choice .
We 're running FreeBSD and had plans to jump to Sun when the time came .
But while I liked Solaris &amp; Sun , I ca n't stand Oracle .
They have a good OLTP database , probably the best , but given the choice between dealing with Oracle and IBM , I 'll take IBM .
DB/400 ( or whatever the series is called today ) may not be as flashy a Database platform , but it 's been fast enough , rock solid , and reliable anytime I 've used it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At one time, Solaris was Oracles preferred OS for their DB.
They started to shift away from Sun when they rebranded RHEL.
They figured, "ooh, we can give it away on our own hardware and make more money instead of having to invite a sun sales guy on the conference call.".
Now that Oracle owns Solaris and a hardware business, I think we'll see the death of Oracle Linux and seem them move back to Solaris being their preferred OS again.I'm not ashamed to say that Sun was my preferred Enterprise Unix.
Over all I've had extremely good luck with their stuff.
It was expensive, but most days you could come into work and not have to worry about it.I was enthused about OpenSolaris and tried it out, but frankly when FreeBSD ported over DTrace and ZFS, it became my Free OS of choice.
We're running FreeBSD and had plans to jump to Sun when the time came.
But while I liked Solaris &amp; Sun, I can't stand Oracle.
They have a good OLTP database, probably the best, but given the choice between dealing with Oracle and IBM, I'll take IBM.
DB/400 (or whatever the series is called today) may not be as flashy a Database platform, but it's been fast enough, rock solid, and reliable anytime I've used it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31687122</id>
	<title>Re:May?</title>
	<author>colinrichardday</author>
	<datestamp>1270048260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do I really want to deal with a company that wants to screw me out of consumer surplus that badly?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do I really want to deal with a company that wants to screw me out of consumer surplus that badly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do I really want to deal with a company that wants to screw me out of consumer surplus that badly?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683786</id>
	<title>End of New Solaris Customers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269978720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I were the head of any IT/company/initiative trying to decide on a platform for a new system.. Nobody in their right mind would now invest in a Solaris system anymore than they would start developing PowerBuilder or SQLWindows applications.<p> It's been a fun ride Solaris.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I were the head of any IT/company/initiative trying to decide on a platform for a new system.. Nobody in their right mind would now invest in a Solaris system anymore than they would start developing PowerBuilder or SQLWindows applications .
It 's been a fun ride Solaris .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I were the head of any IT/company/initiative trying to decide on a platform for a new system.. Nobody in their right mind would now invest in a Solaris system anymore than they would start developing PowerBuilder or SQLWindows applications.
It's been a fun ride Solaris.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31703048</id>
	<title>This sucks</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1270117140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've not been impressed with some of Oracle's moves. I'd actually have been happy if they fucked with MySQL. I'd like to see Postgres over take MySQL and oracle could have helped but instead they seem keen to shit on everything else. It will be interesting to see what they do with Java.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've not been impressed with some of Oracle 's moves .
I 'd actually have been happy if they fucked with MySQL .
I 'd like to see Postgres over take MySQL and oracle could have helped but instead they seem keen to shit on everything else .
It will be interesting to see what they do with Java .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've not been impressed with some of Oracle's moves.
I'd actually have been happy if they fucked with MySQL.
I'd like to see Postgres over take MySQL and oracle could have helped but instead they seem keen to shit on everything else.
It will be interesting to see what they do with Java.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685278</id>
	<title>The book</title>
	<author>Carra</author>
	<datestamp>1270036440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For a minute there I thought I wasted seven euros on Lems book or Tarkovsky's movie. Luckily it's only a free Solaris license.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For a minute there I thought I wasted seven euros on Lems book or Tarkovsky 's movie .
Luckily it 's only a free Solaris license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a minute there I thought I wasted seven euros on Lems book or Tarkovsky's movie.
Luckily it's only a free Solaris license.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31736412</id>
	<title>Re:That's fine</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1270492380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Of course this is precisely the reason for licenses like the GPL that explicitly prohibit this kind of bait and switch tactic for "open source" software development.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Had OpenSolaris been GPL rather than Sun's own open license (CDDL, I think, but that doesn't really matter), it would have had no effect on their ability to:<br>(1) also sell a closed-licensed version, which also had free-as-in-beer licenses,<br>(2) stop giving new free-as-in-beer licenses for the closed version,<br>(3) stop including new features made for the closed version in the open version,<br>(4) stop, ultimately, releasing new versions of the open version at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course this is precisely the reason for licenses like the GPL that explicitly prohibit this kind of bait and switch tactic for " open source " software development .
Had OpenSolaris been GPL rather than Sun 's own open license ( CDDL , I think , but that does n't really matter ) , it would have had no effect on their ability to : ( 1 ) also sell a closed-licensed version , which also had free-as-in-beer licenses , ( 2 ) stop giving new free-as-in-beer licenses for the closed version , ( 3 ) stop including new features made for the closed version in the open version , ( 4 ) stop , ultimately , releasing new versions of the open version at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course this is precisely the reason for licenses like the GPL that explicitly prohibit this kind of bait and switch tactic for "open source" software development.
Had OpenSolaris been GPL rather than Sun's own open license (CDDL, I think, but that doesn't really matter), it would have had no effect on their ability to:(1) also sell a closed-licensed version, which also had free-as-in-beer licenses,(2) stop giving new free-as-in-beer licenses for the closed version,(3) stop including new features made for the closed version in the open version,(4) stop, ultimately, releasing new versions of the open version at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686812</id>
	<title>If you use Solaris as a corporation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270046820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do what I did, speak with your wallet, tell them in no uncertain terms that if they continue to do away with free licenses (for personal/educational/testing use) then they are stabbing themselves in the foot, in that you will have to look elsewhere for a product you can do that with.   The marketing person tried to say "Well OpenSolaris is there."  Towhich I replied "OpenSolaris isn't Solaris, no matter how you slice it.".  There are things you want to test, try, work out that you cannot do on OpenSolaris just because of the fact that it is different than Solaris.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do what I did , speak with your wallet , tell them in no uncertain terms that if they continue to do away with free licenses ( for personal/educational/testing use ) then they are stabbing themselves in the foot , in that you will have to look elsewhere for a product you can do that with .
The marketing person tried to say " Well OpenSolaris is there .
" Towhich I replied " OpenSolaris is n't Solaris , no matter how you slice it. " .
There are things you want to test , try , work out that you can not do on OpenSolaris just because of the fact that it is different than Solaris .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do what I did, speak with your wallet, tell them in no uncertain terms that if they continue to do away with free licenses (for personal/educational/testing use) then they are stabbing themselves in the foot, in that you will have to look elsewhere for a product you can do that with.
The marketing person tried to say "Well OpenSolaris is there.
"  Towhich I replied "OpenSolaris isn't Solaris, no matter how you slice it.".
There are things you want to test, try, work out that you cannot do on OpenSolaris just because of the fact that it is different than Solaris.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685008</id>
	<title>Re:May?</title>
	<author>Builder</author>
	<datestamp>1270033560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You really think that's how it works right now? Awwww cute!</p><p>For a lot of deployments, Oracle databases are deployed because a vendor of a product you want requires oracle. These vendors are often niche providers so you can't just choose someone else who doesn't have an oracle dependency. So you buy oracle.</p><p>Here's a fun game for you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Phone Oracle and ask for a price to run Oracle 11i on 2 servers, one with 8 cores (2 x 4 way CPUs) and the other with 16 cores. Also, ask if there is a price difference if Hyperthreading is enabled. Tell me how long it takes to get that quote. And how many different people you have to speak to.</p><p>About halfway through the above little game, you'll realise I left out a load of key information that you need to get it. How many people will be accessing these databases? Will they be accessing as named users, or through a web portal? Oh, and don't forget about maintenance.</p><p>Oracle is a joke that stays around for now because they provide some things that no-one else does. No-one I work with (other than Oracle DBAs) seems to like using them, and we're always on the lookout for something else.</p><p>Any chance we get, we use something else.... Sybase ASE, MSSQL under Polyserve, PostgreSQL where it fits.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You really think that 's how it works right now ?
Awwww cute ! For a lot of deployments , Oracle databases are deployed because a vendor of a product you want requires oracle .
These vendors are often niche providers so you ca n't just choose someone else who does n't have an oracle dependency .
So you buy oracle.Here 's a fun game for you ... Phone Oracle and ask for a price to run Oracle 11i on 2 servers , one with 8 cores ( 2 x 4 way CPUs ) and the other with 16 cores .
Also , ask if there is a price difference if Hyperthreading is enabled .
Tell me how long it takes to get that quote .
And how many different people you have to speak to.About halfway through the above little game , you 'll realise I left out a load of key information that you need to get it .
How many people will be accessing these databases ?
Will they be accessing as named users , or through a web portal ?
Oh , and do n't forget about maintenance.Oracle is a joke that stays around for now because they provide some things that no-one else does .
No-one I work with ( other than Oracle DBAs ) seems to like using them , and we 're always on the lookout for something else.Any chance we get , we use something else.... Sybase ASE , MSSQL under Polyserve , PostgreSQL where it fits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You really think that's how it works right now?
Awwww cute!For a lot of deployments, Oracle databases are deployed because a vendor of a product you want requires oracle.
These vendors are often niche providers so you can't just choose someone else who doesn't have an oracle dependency.
So you buy oracle.Here's a fun game for you ... Phone Oracle and ask for a price to run Oracle 11i on 2 servers, one with 8 cores (2 x 4 way CPUs) and the other with 16 cores.
Also, ask if there is a price difference if Hyperthreading is enabled.
Tell me how long it takes to get that quote.
And how many different people you have to speak to.About halfway through the above little game, you'll realise I left out a load of key information that you need to get it.
How many people will be accessing these databases?
Will they be accessing as named users, or through a web portal?
Oh, and don't forget about maintenance.Oracle is a joke that stays around for now because they provide some things that no-one else does.
No-one I work with (other than Oracle DBAs) seems to like using them, and we're always on the lookout for something else.Any chance we get, we use something else.... Sybase ASE, MSSQL under Polyserve, PostgreSQL where it fits.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684250</id>
	<title>MySQL</title>
	<author>achten</author>
	<datestamp>1270026600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OK. When do we see a similar statement on MySQL?</htmltext>
<tokenext>OK. When do we see a similar statement on MySQL ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK. When do we see a similar statement on MySQL?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31687892</id>
	<title>Dumb move, Oracle.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270051080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use OpenSolaris all the time to hunt down bugs that effect our software.</p><p>I have answered customers why their crypto-card does not work, cause I had access to OpenSolaris.<br>(It was a combo between how Solaris worked and how the Sun JVM worked, that one I also got source for, so far).</p><p>When they close it down, I can no longer help customers in this way.</p><p>Our product has nothing to do with Oracle or Solaris or even Sun JVM (can run on other JVM, but it do depend on Java).</p><p>I hope Oracle understands what happens when they remove this option to help customers.</p><p>The problem becomes that we can not help our customers run our software, that the customer is running on: Oracle Hardware, Oracle Operating System and Oracle database.</p><p>Maybe we could tell our customers to switch to Dell, and other Database, cheaper, faster and much nicer OS anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use OpenSolaris all the time to hunt down bugs that effect our software.I have answered customers why their crypto-card does not work , cause I had access to OpenSolaris .
( It was a combo between how Solaris worked and how the Sun JVM worked , that one I also got source for , so far ) .When they close it down , I can no longer help customers in this way.Our product has nothing to do with Oracle or Solaris or even Sun JVM ( can run on other JVM , but it do depend on Java ) .I hope Oracle understands what happens when they remove this option to help customers.The problem becomes that we can not help our customers run our software , that the customer is running on : Oracle Hardware , Oracle Operating System and Oracle database.Maybe we could tell our customers to switch to Dell , and other Database , cheaper , faster and much nicer OS anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use OpenSolaris all the time to hunt down bugs that effect our software.I have answered customers why their crypto-card does not work, cause I had access to OpenSolaris.
(It was a combo between how Solaris worked and how the Sun JVM worked, that one I also got source for, so far).When they close it down, I can no longer help customers in this way.Our product has nothing to do with Oracle or Solaris or even Sun JVM (can run on other JVM, but it do depend on Java).I hope Oracle understands what happens when they remove this option to help customers.The problem becomes that we can not help our customers run our software, that the customer is running on: Oracle Hardware, Oracle Operating System and Oracle database.Maybe we could tell our customers to switch to Dell, and other Database, cheaper, faster and much nicer OS anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683688</id>
	<title>Re:May?</title>
	<author>Fractal Dice</author>
	<datestamp>1269977880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps their advantage is not technical, but in the skill of social engineering in large organizations (governments and corporations) to create cycles of dependency where it becomes too risky to the careers of senior or middle management to attempt a switch to an alternative product?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps their advantage is not technical , but in the skill of social engineering in large organizations ( governments and corporations ) to create cycles of dependency where it becomes too risky to the careers of senior or middle management to attempt a switch to an alternative product ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps their advantage is not technical, but in the skill of social engineering in large organizations (governments and corporations) to create cycles of dependency where it becomes too risky to the careers of senior or middle management to attempt a switch to an alternative product?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685044</id>
	<title>Re:That Article's Title Should Be...</title>
	<author>JohnConnor</author>
	<datestamp>1270033920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oracle did not kill OpenSolaris, Sun did. OpenSolaris will die because Sun did not make it truly open source. Had all the code of OpenSolaris been open, Oracle could not shut it down, it could happily fork and continue living.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oracle did not kill OpenSolaris , Sun did .
OpenSolaris will die because Sun did not make it truly open source .
Had all the code of OpenSolaris been open , Oracle could not shut it down , it could happily fork and continue living .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oracle did not kill OpenSolaris, Sun did.
OpenSolaris will die because Sun did not make it truly open source.
Had all the code of OpenSolaris been open, Oracle could not shut it down, it could happily fork and continue living.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31693802</id>
	<title>Re:That's fine</title>
	<author>spitzak</author>
	<datestamp>1270031940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The original poster is mistaken just as you noticed, but I would not be so quick to think he is a "GPL fanatic". In fact I suspect he is somebody who has swallowed the anti-GPL FUD that it is a "virus" that somehow is attached to the code and makes it permanently released somehow.</p><p>The poster may even have ulterior motives to try to promote this misconception.</p><p>Also, lots of projects that release GPL code want copyrights assigned to them for submitted patches. The FSF itself does this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The original poster is mistaken just as you noticed , but I would not be so quick to think he is a " GPL fanatic " .
In fact I suspect he is somebody who has swallowed the anti-GPL FUD that it is a " virus " that somehow is attached to the code and makes it permanently released somehow.The poster may even have ulterior motives to try to promote this misconception.Also , lots of projects that release GPL code want copyrights assigned to them for submitted patches .
The FSF itself does this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The original poster is mistaken just as you noticed, but I would not be so quick to think he is a "GPL fanatic".
In fact I suspect he is somebody who has swallowed the anti-GPL FUD that it is a "virus" that somehow is attached to the code and makes it permanently released somehow.The poster may even have ulterior motives to try to promote this misconception.Also, lots of projects that release GPL code want copyrights assigned to them for submitted patches.
The FSF itself does this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31687188</id>
	<title>Re:That's fine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270048620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much development on OpenSolaris was being done by Sun, and how much was from "the community" (excluding Sun)?  Every one I ever interacted with on that project was a Sun employee.  The most vocal supporters were either Sun employees or non-contributors.</p><p>From what I can tell there is no OpenSolaris development without direct support from Oracle.  It will just stagnate and die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much development on OpenSolaris was being done by Sun , and how much was from " the community " ( excluding Sun ) ?
Every one I ever interacted with on that project was a Sun employee .
The most vocal supporters were either Sun employees or non-contributors.From what I can tell there is no OpenSolaris development without direct support from Oracle .
It will just stagnate and die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much development on OpenSolaris was being done by Sun, and how much was from "the community" (excluding Sun)?
Every one I ever interacted with on that project was a Sun employee.
The most vocal supporters were either Sun employees or non-contributors.From what I can tell there is no OpenSolaris development without direct support from Oracle.
It will just stagnate and die.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685058</id>
	<title>Re:That's fine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270034100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course this is precisely the reason for licenses like the GPL that explicitly prohibit this kind of bait and switch tactic for "open source" software development.  Trusting and relying upon the goodwill of a for-profit company that can have management changes or get taken over by a different company as is this case will always happen.</p><p>Score one more for Richard Stallman being proven correct.</p></div><p>Nothing is being "switched" all the OpenSolaris stuff is still there, Oracle just won't be adding new features it develops to it. All the code that was there is still open even without the magical GPL and can be developed further. From TFA :</p><p>"The good news is that those of us who have worked so hard to bring this project to life still wholeheartedly believe in it. A core group of the Wonderland team intends to keep the project going. We will be pursuing both for-profit and not-for-profit options that will allow us to become a self-sustaining organization. "</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course this is precisely the reason for licenses like the GPL that explicitly prohibit this kind of bait and switch tactic for " open source " software development .
Trusting and relying upon the goodwill of a for-profit company that can have management changes or get taken over by a different company as is this case will always happen.Score one more for Richard Stallman being proven correct.Nothing is being " switched " all the OpenSolaris stuff is still there , Oracle just wo n't be adding new features it develops to it .
All the code that was there is still open even without the magical GPL and can be developed further .
From TFA : " The good news is that those of us who have worked so hard to bring this project to life still wholeheartedly believe in it .
A core group of the Wonderland team intends to keep the project going .
We will be pursuing both for-profit and not-for-profit options that will allow us to become a self-sustaining organization .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course this is precisely the reason for licenses like the GPL that explicitly prohibit this kind of bait and switch tactic for "open source" software development.
Trusting and relying upon the goodwill of a for-profit company that can have management changes or get taken over by a different company as is this case will always happen.Score one more for Richard Stallman being proven correct.Nothing is being "switched" all the OpenSolaris stuff is still there, Oracle just won't be adding new features it develops to it.
All the code that was there is still open even without the magical GPL and can be developed further.
From TFA :"The good news is that those of us who have worked so hard to bring this project to life still wholeheartedly believe in it.
A core group of the Wonderland team intends to keep the project going.
We will be pursuing both for-profit and not-for-profit options that will allow us to become a self-sustaining organization.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684518</id>
	<title>Re:That Article's Title Should Be...</title>
	<author>wisty</author>
	<datestamp>1270029060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MySQL? They might have something more insidious in mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MySQL ?
They might have something more insidious in mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MySQL?
They might have something more insidious in mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684872</id>
	<title>Re:That's fine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270032180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They don't scare me.</p></div><p>How about the Grue?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't scare me.How about the Grue ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't scare me.How about the Grue?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683930</id>
	<title>Re:May?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270066380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here is an idea. Wouldn't it be nice if the companies looked at Oracle's product and only bought it if it happens to give them a good value for money compared to the competitors products? That way, if the price is too high, nobody will buy it and Oracle will either have to lower the prices or go out of business. Oh wait, that's how it works already.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is an idea .
Would n't it be nice if the companies looked at Oracle 's product and only bought it if it happens to give them a good value for money compared to the competitors products ?
That way , if the price is too high , nobody will buy it and Oracle will either have to lower the prices or go out of business .
Oh wait , that 's how it works already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is an idea.
Wouldn't it be nice if the companies looked at Oracle's product and only bought it if it happens to give them a good value for money compared to the competitors products?
That way, if the price is too high, nobody will buy it and Oracle will either have to lower the prices or go out of business.
Oh wait, that's how it works already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31694372</id>
	<title>no free Solaris beer == no iPlanet for me</title>
	<author>carton</author>
	<datestamp>1270034880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OpenSolaris is better than the non-IPS-based Solaris/SXCE builds IMHO so I'm not heartbroken to be forced off the Solaris 10 platform in general, HOWEVER other big fragile brittle Sun programs require Solaris 10 to work well, and won't work well or at all on a moving target like OpenSolaris.  The one I know of is iPlanet, their MS Lookout killer email/calendar/... app.  It's quite good, and it's also free-as-in-beer.  I think there are other big, valuable non-Solaris userspace projects going on inside Sun, too.</p><p>Until this change, the s10brand looked like a good way to run these on OpenSolaris hardware inside a ``zone'' which is like a FreeBSD jail, which would be a ``branded zone'' meaning it can be solaris10 inside even though the outer kernel is newer OpenSolaris, so the brittle apps would be isolated from churn of the bare-metal OpenSolaris kernel. The branded zone is a way of really enforcing the kernel/userland boundary so the two can be upgraded independently, but in a rigorous and realistic way: for example packaging&amp;patching, grub, zfs tools, ifconfig all get upgraded along with OpenSolaris without touching the Solaris10 inside the zone hosting iPlanet.  It's a smart architecture, and I'd already changed from SXCE to OpenSolaris, gotten familiar with IPS 'pkg', installed s10brand and Solaris 10 in a zone, and started reading iPlanet install documents.</p><p>there is actually a LX brand for running Linux instead of solaris10, but it does not work well: it's Linux 2.4 / CentOS 3.8 only, and is not complete enough to run Apache.  In contrast s10brand already works very well (no surprise there!), and it was this fact that originally swayed me to iPlanet rather than Zimbra, because Zimbra doesn't come packaged/supported to run smoothly on Solaris.  Sun's work on s10brand had convinced me to use iPlanet rather than Zimbra, so eventually I might have paid for iPlanet support.  (iPlanet is quite hard to maintain.)  Good on them!  Design a smart overall platform, and slowly, people will come.  I was happy for both of us.</p><p>Because of this change I will probably either use Zimbra, or else use iPlanet on CentOS instead of Solaris, since both have committed licenses.</p><p>I'm interested in paying Sun for support, but I'm not interested in letting them rope me in with a bunch of monstrous interlinked packages I cannot separate from one another, then re-jigger the deal on one of the packages so I have to pay up or else redo months of work. I'm disappointed by how untransparent the change was: apparently it happened months ago, and took media and blogosphere (Ben Rockwood) sleuthing to uncover it.  That's nothing new for Sun, though.</p><p>It's funny how free-as-in-beer seems good enough at first, but after about a decade, no matter how mercenary and narrowly-interested you THINK you are, you end up needing free-as-in-freedom.</p><p>And it doesn't matter if they recant, either, because now that they've changed their minds once, everyone knows they can change it again.  From now on Solaris10 can talk-to-the-hand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OpenSolaris is better than the non-IPS-based Solaris/SXCE builds IMHO so I 'm not heartbroken to be forced off the Solaris 10 platform in general , HOWEVER other big fragile brittle Sun programs require Solaris 10 to work well , and wo n't work well or at all on a moving target like OpenSolaris .
The one I know of is iPlanet , their MS Lookout killer email/calendar/... app. It 's quite good , and it 's also free-as-in-beer .
I think there are other big , valuable non-Solaris userspace projects going on inside Sun , too.Until this change , the s10brand looked like a good way to run these on OpenSolaris hardware inside a ` ` zone' ' which is like a FreeBSD jail , which would be a ` ` branded zone' ' meaning it can be solaris10 inside even though the outer kernel is newer OpenSolaris , so the brittle apps would be isolated from churn of the bare-metal OpenSolaris kernel .
The branded zone is a way of really enforcing the kernel/userland boundary so the two can be upgraded independently , but in a rigorous and realistic way : for example packaging&amp;patching , grub , zfs tools , ifconfig all get upgraded along with OpenSolaris without touching the Solaris10 inside the zone hosting iPlanet .
It 's a smart architecture , and I 'd already changed from SXCE to OpenSolaris , gotten familiar with IPS 'pkg ' , installed s10brand and Solaris 10 in a zone , and started reading iPlanet install documents.there is actually a LX brand for running Linux instead of solaris10 , but it does not work well : it 's Linux 2.4 / CentOS 3.8 only , and is not complete enough to run Apache .
In contrast s10brand already works very well ( no surprise there !
) , and it was this fact that originally swayed me to iPlanet rather than Zimbra , because Zimbra does n't come packaged/supported to run smoothly on Solaris .
Sun 's work on s10brand had convinced me to use iPlanet rather than Zimbra , so eventually I might have paid for iPlanet support .
( iPlanet is quite hard to maintain .
) Good on them !
Design a smart overall platform , and slowly , people will come .
I was happy for both of us.Because of this change I will probably either use Zimbra , or else use iPlanet on CentOS instead of Solaris , since both have committed licenses.I 'm interested in paying Sun for support , but I 'm not interested in letting them rope me in with a bunch of monstrous interlinked packages I can not separate from one another , then re-jigger the deal on one of the packages so I have to pay up or else redo months of work .
I 'm disappointed by how untransparent the change was : apparently it happened months ago , and took media and blogosphere ( Ben Rockwood ) sleuthing to uncover it .
That 's nothing new for Sun , though.It 's funny how free-as-in-beer seems good enough at first , but after about a decade , no matter how mercenary and narrowly-interested you THINK you are , you end up needing free-as-in-freedom.And it does n't matter if they recant , either , because now that they 've changed their minds once , everyone knows they can change it again .
From now on Solaris10 can talk-to-the-hand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OpenSolaris is better than the non-IPS-based Solaris/SXCE builds IMHO so I'm not heartbroken to be forced off the Solaris 10 platform in general, HOWEVER other big fragile brittle Sun programs require Solaris 10 to work well, and won't work well or at all on a moving target like OpenSolaris.
The one I know of is iPlanet, their MS Lookout killer email/calendar/... app.  It's quite good, and it's also free-as-in-beer.
I think there are other big, valuable non-Solaris userspace projects going on inside Sun, too.Until this change, the s10brand looked like a good way to run these on OpenSolaris hardware inside a ``zone'' which is like a FreeBSD jail, which would be a ``branded zone'' meaning it can be solaris10 inside even though the outer kernel is newer OpenSolaris, so the brittle apps would be isolated from churn of the bare-metal OpenSolaris kernel.
The branded zone is a way of really enforcing the kernel/userland boundary so the two can be upgraded independently, but in a rigorous and realistic way: for example packaging&amp;patching, grub, zfs tools, ifconfig all get upgraded along with OpenSolaris without touching the Solaris10 inside the zone hosting iPlanet.
It's a smart architecture, and I'd already changed from SXCE to OpenSolaris, gotten familiar with IPS 'pkg', installed s10brand and Solaris 10 in a zone, and started reading iPlanet install documents.there is actually a LX brand for running Linux instead of solaris10, but it does not work well: it's Linux 2.4 / CentOS 3.8 only, and is not complete enough to run Apache.
In contrast s10brand already works very well (no surprise there!
), and it was this fact that originally swayed me to iPlanet rather than Zimbra, because Zimbra doesn't come packaged/supported to run smoothly on Solaris.
Sun's work on s10brand had convinced me to use iPlanet rather than Zimbra, so eventually I might have paid for iPlanet support.
(iPlanet is quite hard to maintain.
)  Good on them!
Design a smart overall platform, and slowly, people will come.
I was happy for both of us.Because of this change I will probably either use Zimbra, or else use iPlanet on CentOS instead of Solaris, since both have committed licenses.I'm interested in paying Sun for support, but I'm not interested in letting them rope me in with a bunch of monstrous interlinked packages I cannot separate from one another, then re-jigger the deal on one of the packages so I have to pay up or else redo months of work.
I'm disappointed by how untransparent the change was: apparently it happened months ago, and took media and blogosphere (Ben Rockwood) sleuthing to uncover it.
That's nothing new for Sun, though.It's funny how free-as-in-beer seems good enough at first, but after about a decade, no matter how mercenary and narrowly-interested you THINK you are, you end up needing free-as-in-freedom.And it doesn't matter if they recant, either, because now that they've changed their minds once, everyone knows they can change it again.
From now on Solaris10 can talk-to-the-hand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685544</id>
	<title>Re:That's fine</title>
	<author>Paul Jakma</author>
	<datestamp>1270039020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is this insightful?</p><p>However short-sighted it would be for Oracle to strangle OpenSolaris development, the OpenSolaris code that's out there is forever licensed under the CDDL - which is a cleaned up version of the Mozilla Public Licence don't forget.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this insightful ? However short-sighted it would be for Oracle to strangle OpenSolaris development , the OpenSolaris code that 's out there is forever licensed under the CDDL - which is a cleaned up version of the Mozilla Public Licence do n't forget .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this insightful?However short-sighted it would be for Oracle to strangle OpenSolaris development, the OpenSolaris code that's out there is forever licensed under the CDDL - which is a cleaned up version of the Mozilla Public Licence don't forget.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31688212</id>
	<title>GlassFish</title>
	<author>Slashdot Parent</author>
	<datestamp>1270052280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For the person that this affects.</p></div><p>I'd say the folks who should really take note are GlassFish users.</p><p>It was always a gamble whether or not Oracle was going to let GlassFish compete with Weblogic.  I think the Solaris announcement makes it pretty clear that the writing is on the wall for GlassFish.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the person that this affects.I 'd say the folks who should really take note are GlassFish users.It was always a gamble whether or not Oracle was going to let GlassFish compete with Weblogic .
I think the Solaris announcement makes it pretty clear that the writing is on the wall for GlassFish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the person that this affects.I'd say the folks who should really take note are GlassFish users.It was always a gamble whether or not Oracle was going to let GlassFish compete with Weblogic.
I think the Solaris announcement makes it pretty clear that the writing is on the wall for GlassFish.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31699442</id>
	<title>Bye Bye Sun</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270129080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's very simple.  BYE BYE Oracle/Sun.  Heading back to HP or Linux on commodity hardware.  It was only a matter of time before Oracle made the move to put an end to Sun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's very simple .
BYE BYE Oracle/Sun .
Heading back to HP or Linux on commodity hardware .
It was only a matter of time before Oracle made the move to put an end to Sun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's very simple.
BYE BYE Oracle/Sun.
Heading back to HP or Linux on commodity hardware.
It was only a matter of time before Oracle made the move to put an end to Sun.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686922</id>
	<title>Re:LOLz - Oracle can't afford to give away free st</title>
	<author>rbanffy</author>
	<datestamp>1270047360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"CHARGE FOR STUFF."</p><p>Sun didn't give away servers. Sun is a hardware company.</p><p>An appallingly poorly managed hardware company, with conflicting product lines (x86 servers \_and\_ SPARC-based ones), stupid projects (Looking Glass?!), but with some top-notch software (OpenSolaris, Glassfish and Java).</p><p>Oracle could just straighten up the product line and Sun would, probably, make more money than they spend. If they tweaked the Solaris licensing and support contracts a little, I bet they could grab a lot business out of IBM, HP and Dell's hands.</p><p>After all, it's easier to support Oracle software on Oracle (I can't believe I am saying it) hardware.</p><p>Now. if you excuse me, I'll wash my hands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" CHARGE FOR STUFF .
" Sun did n't give away servers .
Sun is a hardware company.An appallingly poorly managed hardware company , with conflicting product lines ( x86 servers \ _and \ _ SPARC-based ones ) , stupid projects ( Looking Glass ? !
) , but with some top-notch software ( OpenSolaris , Glassfish and Java ) .Oracle could just straighten up the product line and Sun would , probably , make more money than they spend .
If they tweaked the Solaris licensing and support contracts a little , I bet they could grab a lot business out of IBM , HP and Dell 's hands.After all , it 's easier to support Oracle software on Oracle ( I ca n't believe I am saying it ) hardware.Now .
if you excuse me , I 'll wash my hands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"CHARGE FOR STUFF.
"Sun didn't give away servers.
Sun is a hardware company.An appallingly poorly managed hardware company, with conflicting product lines (x86 servers \_and\_ SPARC-based ones), stupid projects (Looking Glass?!
), but with some top-notch software (OpenSolaris, Glassfish and Java).Oracle could just straighten up the product line and Sun would, probably, make more money than they spend.
If they tweaked the Solaris licensing and support contracts a little, I bet they could grab a lot business out of IBM, HP and Dell's hands.After all, it's easier to support Oracle software on Oracle (I can't believe I am saying it) hardware.Now.
if you excuse me, I'll wash my hands.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31691000</id>
	<title>I for instance don't care much about Solaris ...</title>
	<author>boorack</author>
	<datestamp>1270063920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... as I care about JDK. Seeing how Larry axes one thing after another, I suppose they'll do the same with JDK somewhere down the road. And for me JDK is the most valuable thing of all their (Sun's) good stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... as I care about JDK .
Seeing how Larry axes one thing after another , I suppose they 'll do the same with JDK somewhere down the road .
And for me JDK is the most valuable thing of all their ( Sun 's ) good stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... as I care about JDK.
Seeing how Larry axes one thing after another, I suppose they'll do the same with JDK somewhere down the road.
And for me JDK is the most valuable thing of all their (Sun's) good stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683738</id>
	<title>Well then</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269978240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To quote Johnny Ringo form Tombstone "Well... Bye."</p><p>Seriously, if Oracle thinks they've got a money maker with Solaris, they are in for some sore disappointment. We use Solaris quite a bit at work, since we have a long UNIX legacy and still run SPARC systems. The thing is a bitch. All kinds of reasons not to like it. We only use it on our SPARC systems, and then only because that is pretty much what you have to use. Our x86 stuff is all Windows or Linux.</p><p>So I don't see what they think they are going to gain here. If they think they'll start making big in roads to the x86 market, good luck. They had enough trouble when it was free, charging isn't going to do them any favors. If they are charging on SPARC hardware, well that seems kinda dumb. SPARC is expensive as hell and generally only purchased these days by companies that either need high end systems (mainframes and the like) or by those with legacy SPARC apps they don't want to port.</p><p>I just can't see how they figure this will work. If they want to push their hardware, the software needs to be free since the hardware is already expensive and they are fighting an uphill battle against x86, which I might note is gaining more high end capabilities each generation. If they want to instead because a software firm, fine, but first Solaris has got to get a whole hell of a lot better. It can't compete with Windows as it doesn't have the app base, nor good desktop support so it has to compete with Linux. Well if you are going up against a free OS, you've got to find something (probably more than one thing) you do better than they do. With Solaris, I don't see it at least on normal x86 servers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To quote Johnny Ringo form Tombstone " Well.. .
Bye. " Seriously , if Oracle thinks they 've got a money maker with Solaris , they are in for some sore disappointment .
We use Solaris quite a bit at work , since we have a long UNIX legacy and still run SPARC systems .
The thing is a bitch .
All kinds of reasons not to like it .
We only use it on our SPARC systems , and then only because that is pretty much what you have to use .
Our x86 stuff is all Windows or Linux.So I do n't see what they think they are going to gain here .
If they think they 'll start making big in roads to the x86 market , good luck .
They had enough trouble when it was free , charging is n't going to do them any favors .
If they are charging on SPARC hardware , well that seems kinda dumb .
SPARC is expensive as hell and generally only purchased these days by companies that either need high end systems ( mainframes and the like ) or by those with legacy SPARC apps they do n't want to port.I just ca n't see how they figure this will work .
If they want to push their hardware , the software needs to be free since the hardware is already expensive and they are fighting an uphill battle against x86 , which I might note is gaining more high end capabilities each generation .
If they want to instead because a software firm , fine , but first Solaris has got to get a whole hell of a lot better .
It ca n't compete with Windows as it does n't have the app base , nor good desktop support so it has to compete with Linux .
Well if you are going up against a free OS , you 've got to find something ( probably more than one thing ) you do better than they do .
With Solaris , I do n't see it at least on normal x86 servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To quote Johnny Ringo form Tombstone "Well...
Bye."Seriously, if Oracle thinks they've got a money maker with Solaris, they are in for some sore disappointment.
We use Solaris quite a bit at work, since we have a long UNIX legacy and still run SPARC systems.
The thing is a bitch.
All kinds of reasons not to like it.
We only use it on our SPARC systems, and then only because that is pretty much what you have to use.
Our x86 stuff is all Windows or Linux.So I don't see what they think they are going to gain here.
If they think they'll start making big in roads to the x86 market, good luck.
They had enough trouble when it was free, charging isn't going to do them any favors.
If they are charging on SPARC hardware, well that seems kinda dumb.
SPARC is expensive as hell and generally only purchased these days by companies that either need high end systems (mainframes and the like) or by those with legacy SPARC apps they don't want to port.I just can't see how they figure this will work.
If they want to push their hardware, the software needs to be free since the hardware is already expensive and they are fighting an uphill battle against x86, which I might note is gaining more high end capabilities each generation.
If they want to instead because a software firm, fine, but first Solaris has got to get a whole hell of a lot better.
It can't compete with Windows as it doesn't have the app base, nor good desktop support so it has to compete with Linux.
Well if you are going up against a free OS, you've got to find something (probably more than one thing) you do better than they do.
With Solaris, I don't see it at least on normal x86 servers.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683770</id>
	<title>The future...</title>
	<author>Redon</author>
	<datestamp>1269978600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...of MySQL.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...of MySQL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...of MySQL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31690796</id>
	<title>This is just about price increases</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270063200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Posting anonymously because I'm an employee, but in the short-term, this is simply a way of extracting more money from existing customers who will be forced to pay the "Oracle tax". Oracle raised prices in <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/d/developer-world/oracle-raises-prices-significantly-some-products-562" title="infoworld.com" rel="nofollow">2008</a> [infoworld.com] and <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2009/07/desparate-measures-oracle-prices-shoot-up.php" title="readwriteweb.com" rel="nofollow">2009</a> [readwriteweb.com], but this year we were told "you have to increase revenues, but can't just keep raising the product prices". The solution? Sell more of existing product or sell new products. The trouble is, any new products (either developed or acquired) need some time to get traction. What better way to boost revenue than to find critical Oracle-owned components that we aren't charging for and beginning to charge? Sure, customers have a choice technically, but in reality any company heavily invested in Solaris will find it too costly to switch in the short term.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Posting anonymously because I 'm an employee , but in the short-term , this is simply a way of extracting more money from existing customers who will be forced to pay the " Oracle tax " .
Oracle raised prices in 2008 [ infoworld.com ] and 2009 [ readwriteweb.com ] , but this year we were told " you have to increase revenues , but ca n't just keep raising the product prices " .
The solution ?
Sell more of existing product or sell new products .
The trouble is , any new products ( either developed or acquired ) need some time to get traction .
What better way to boost revenue than to find critical Oracle-owned components that we are n't charging for and beginning to charge ?
Sure , customers have a choice technically , but in reality any company heavily invested in Solaris will find it too costly to switch in the short term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Posting anonymously because I'm an employee, but in the short-term, this is simply a way of extracting more money from existing customers who will be forced to pay the "Oracle tax".
Oracle raised prices in 2008 [infoworld.com] and 2009 [readwriteweb.com], but this year we were told "you have to increase revenues, but can't just keep raising the product prices".
The solution?
Sell more of existing product or sell new products.
The trouble is, any new products (either developed or acquired) need some time to get traction.
What better way to boost revenue than to find critical Oracle-owned components that we aren't charging for and beginning to charge?
Sure, customers have a choice technically, but in reality any company heavily invested in Solaris will find it too costly to switch in the short term.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685780</id>
	<title>No, this is impossible</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1270040940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I gripped that I did not trust solaris because it was given away once already. I said that Sun could do this same stunt AGAIN. <br> <br>
 I was put down by MANY of the solaris supporters saying that it was IMPOSSIBLE for it to be brought back in.<br> <br>
More importantly, some of my friends that work in the brromfield operation ASSURED me that it would not happen again.<br> <br>
So, this is really not happening. And yes, MS will not use their patents to go after OSS if we develop mono all because some ppl said so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I gripped that I did not trust solaris because it was given away once already .
I said that Sun could do this same stunt AGAIN .
I was put down by MANY of the solaris supporters saying that it was IMPOSSIBLE for it to be brought back in .
More importantly , some of my friends that work in the brromfield operation ASSURED me that it would not happen again .
So , this is really not happening .
And yes , MS will not use their patents to go after OSS if we develop mono all because some ppl said so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I gripped that I did not trust solaris because it was given away once already.
I said that Sun could do this same stunt AGAIN.
I was put down by MANY of the solaris supporters saying that it was IMPOSSIBLE for it to be brought back in.
More importantly, some of my friends that work in the brromfield operation ASSURED me that it would not happen again.
So, this is really not happening.
And yes, MS will not use their patents to go after OSS if we develop mono all because some ppl said so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685140</id>
	<title>I hope the sell it for real</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270035120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope Oracle at least makes it technically possible to actually purchase a Solaris license.</p><p>Last time around I tried it, it was so darn difficult for a private person. I don't want to set up a business just to be able to purchase an OS for my own use. Hence, it is just so much easier to use the free alternatives.</p><p>I just need the OS and access to patches. I don't need SLA's or any of that stuff. Just the basics.</p><p>Whatever they call it, a Solaris subscription<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... maybe this could be different elsewhere in the world. But around here, I failed to give them my money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope Oracle at least makes it technically possible to actually purchase a Solaris license.Last time around I tried it , it was so darn difficult for a private person .
I do n't want to set up a business just to be able to purchase an OS for my own use .
Hence , it is just so much easier to use the free alternatives.I just need the OS and access to patches .
I do n't need SLA 's or any of that stuff .
Just the basics.Whatever they call it , a Solaris subscription ... maybe this could be different elsewhere in the world .
But around here , I failed to give them my money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope Oracle at least makes it technically possible to actually purchase a Solaris license.Last time around I tried it, it was so darn difficult for a private person.
I don't want to set up a business just to be able to purchase an OS for my own use.
Hence, it is just so much easier to use the free alternatives.I just need the OS and access to patches.
I don't need SLA's or any of that stuff.
Just the basics.Whatever they call it, a Solaris subscription ... maybe this could be different elsewhere in the world.
But around here, I failed to give them my money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684054</id>
	<title>And Java?...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270067940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>from TFA : "OpenSolaris wasn't even mentioned.If you look carefully, it's on a slide, but that's about it." So was Java...</p><p>I'm glad I moved to Python...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>from TFA : " OpenSolaris was n't even mentioned.If you look carefully , it 's on a slide , but that 's about it .
" So was Java...I 'm glad I moved to Python.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from TFA : "OpenSolaris wasn't even mentioned.If you look carefully, it's on a slide, but that's about it.
" So was Java...I'm glad I moved to Python...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31691648</id>
	<title>Re:That's fine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270066500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>But because Solaris is closed source I can't fix things/improve it now that oracle has pulled out the rug (yes, I know about OpenSolaris). OTOH let's say Red Hat did something like this, you'd still have the source RPMs and the ability to fix things/improve things going forwards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But because Solaris is closed source I ca n't fix things/improve it now that oracle has pulled out the rug ( yes , I know about OpenSolaris ) .
OTOH let 's say Red Hat did something like this , you 'd still have the source RPMs and the ability to fix things/improve things going forwards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But because Solaris is closed source I can't fix things/improve it now that oracle has pulled out the rug (yes, I know about OpenSolaris).
OTOH let's say Red Hat did something like this, you'd still have the source RPMs and the ability to fix things/improve things going forwards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683496</id>
	<title>I feel sorry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269976140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>For the person that this affects.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the person that this affects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the person that this affects.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686682</id>
	<title>Sad solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270046280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>opensolaris#<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/sbin/shutdown -i 5 -g 0 -y<br>Shutdown started.    Tue Mar 30 15:14:00 EDT 2010<br>Broadcast Message from Oracle (MotherShip) on opensolaris Tue Mar 30 15:14:00<br>The system will be shut down NOW<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>opensolaris # /usr/sbin/shutdown -i 5 -g 0 -yShutdown started .
Tue Mar 30 15 : 14 : 00 EDT 2010Broadcast Message from Oracle ( MotherShip ) on opensolaris Tue Mar 30 15 : 14 : 00The system will be shut down NOW                                         .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>opensolaris# /usr/sbin/shutdown -i 5 -g 0 -yShutdown started.
Tue Mar 30 15:14:00 EDT 2010Broadcast Message from Oracle (MotherShip) on opensolaris Tue Mar 30 15:14:00The system will be shut down NOW
                                        .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686636</id>
	<title>Re:That's fine</title>
	<author>diegocg</author>
	<datestamp>1270046100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The license don't matter in this case. Even if Opensolaris was 100\% GPL, Oracle still would release Solaris with propietary addons. They can do that because they own the copyright (if you want to get a patch into the opensolaris repositories, you need to give first your copyrights with Sun/Oracle). The license doesn't matter to them. Sun/Oracle can release propietary versions of Solaris, but nobody else can - that's the sad truth behind Sun's "open source".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The license do n't matter in this case .
Even if Opensolaris was 100 \ % GPL , Oracle still would release Solaris with propietary addons .
They can do that because they own the copyright ( if you want to get a patch into the opensolaris repositories , you need to give first your copyrights with Sun/Oracle ) .
The license does n't matter to them .
Sun/Oracle can release propietary versions of Solaris , but nobody else can - that 's the sad truth behind Sun 's " open source " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The license don't matter in this case.
Even if Opensolaris was 100\% GPL, Oracle still would release Solaris with propietary addons.
They can do that because they own the copyright (if you want to get a patch into the opensolaris repositories, you need to give first your copyrights with Sun/Oracle).
The license doesn't matter to them.
Sun/Oracle can release propietary versions of Solaris, but nobody else can - that's the sad truth behind Sun's "open source".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685552</id>
	<title>Look at the proposed date of the release</title>
	<author>dragmar</author>
	<datestamp>1270039080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Look at the proposed date of the release:

The next system software update for the PlayStation 3 (PS3) system will be released on April 1, 2010 .  This time of year you have to be leery of every post/blog/news release</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at the proposed date of the release : The next system software update for the PlayStation 3 ( PS3 ) system will be released on April 1 , 2010 .
This time of year you have to be leery of every post/blog/news release</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at the proposed date of the release:

The next system software update for the PlayStation 3 (PS3) system will be released on April 1, 2010 .
This time of year you have to be leery of every post/blog/news release</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684848</id>
	<title>OpenSolaris</title>
	<author>Bugamn</author>
	<datestamp>1270031940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the article, Open Solaris won't be closed, but it won't receive updates to keep with Oracles Solaris.</p><p>Does that means that there will still be a free Solaris option for those who don't want to pay Oracle?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the article , Open Solaris wo n't be closed , but it wo n't receive updates to keep with Oracles Solaris.Does that means that there will still be a free Solaris option for those who do n't want to pay Oracle ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the article, Open Solaris won't be closed, but it won't receive updates to keep with Oracles Solaris.Does that means that there will still be a free Solaris option for those who don't want to pay Oracle?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31694502</id>
	<title>Solaris 10 is not CDDL</title>
	<author>carton</author>
	<datestamp>1270035600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OpenSolaris is a combination of redistributable binary blobs and CDDL open source parts, and is redundantly hosted on genunix.org so that if opensolaris.org disappeared tomorrow we could continue.  In addition, I can legally copy my OpenSolaris LiveCD, and mirror (parts of?  or all of?) the package depot.</p><p>Solaris 10 is nothing like that.  You can download it legally only from Sun.  so, if you had a commercial RTU before they changed their click-thru, AIUI anyway, you can still keep using it commercially for $0.  However you can't get any more copies under those terms.</p><p>In the end, I think the binary blobs, CDDL's intentional incompatibility with GPLv2 and v3, the semi-dependence of OpenSolaris on the Sun Studio compiler, and their failure to win over a significant outside-Sun developer community will kill OpenSolaris if Oracle doesn't keep funding free development of the core OS.</p><p>The problem with the CDDL is mostly that it isn't the GPL, nor GPL-like enough: it doesn't have the same marketing power, and it isn't compatible with the GPL.  And the other problem with OpenSolaris is that huge chunks of it are still binary.</p><p>You are semi-right that factors other than license will determine OpenSolaris's future, but for Solaris 10 license is absolutely the issue.  There are two pieces to the announcement:</p><p>
&nbsp; * Solaris 10 no longer $0</p><p>
&nbsp; * OpenSolaris might be defunded.</p><p>The first is certain, and the second is very speculative AFAICT.  The first is license-related, and the second is more complicated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OpenSolaris is a combination of redistributable binary blobs and CDDL open source parts , and is redundantly hosted on genunix.org so that if opensolaris.org disappeared tomorrow we could continue .
In addition , I can legally copy my OpenSolaris LiveCD , and mirror ( parts of ?
or all of ?
) the package depot.Solaris 10 is nothing like that .
You can download it legally only from Sun .
so , if you had a commercial RTU before they changed their click-thru , AIUI anyway , you can still keep using it commercially for $ 0 .
However you ca n't get any more copies under those terms.In the end , I think the binary blobs , CDDL 's intentional incompatibility with GPLv2 and v3 , the semi-dependence of OpenSolaris on the Sun Studio compiler , and their failure to win over a significant outside-Sun developer community will kill OpenSolaris if Oracle does n't keep funding free development of the core OS.The problem with the CDDL is mostly that it is n't the GPL , nor GPL-like enough : it does n't have the same marketing power , and it is n't compatible with the GPL .
And the other problem with OpenSolaris is that huge chunks of it are still binary.You are semi-right that factors other than license will determine OpenSolaris 's future , but for Solaris 10 license is absolutely the issue .
There are two pieces to the announcement :   * Solaris 10 no longer $ 0   * OpenSolaris might be defunded.The first is certain , and the second is very speculative AFAICT .
The first is license-related , and the second is more complicated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OpenSolaris is a combination of redistributable binary blobs and CDDL open source parts, and is redundantly hosted on genunix.org so that if opensolaris.org disappeared tomorrow we could continue.
In addition, I can legally copy my OpenSolaris LiveCD, and mirror (parts of?
or all of?
) the package depot.Solaris 10 is nothing like that.
You can download it legally only from Sun.
so, if you had a commercial RTU before they changed their click-thru, AIUI anyway, you can still keep using it commercially for $0.
However you can't get any more copies under those terms.In the end, I think the binary blobs, CDDL's intentional incompatibility with GPLv2 and v3, the semi-dependence of OpenSolaris on the Sun Studio compiler, and their failure to win over a significant outside-Sun developer community will kill OpenSolaris if Oracle doesn't keep funding free development of the core OS.The problem with the CDDL is mostly that it isn't the GPL, nor GPL-like enough: it doesn't have the same marketing power, and it isn't compatible with the GPL.
And the other problem with OpenSolaris is that huge chunks of it are still binary.You are semi-right that factors other than license will determine OpenSolaris's future, but for Solaris 10 license is absolutely the issue.
There are two pieces to the announcement:
  * Solaris 10 no longer $0
  * OpenSolaris might be defunded.The first is certain, and the second is very speculative AFAICT.
The first is license-related, and the second is more complicated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31688478</id>
	<title>Why would they try to make money</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1270053300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>off a formally free product made by a broke company?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>off a formally free product made by a broke company ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>off a formally free product made by a broke company?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684042</id>
	<title>Re:I feel sorry</title>
	<author>mzs</author>
	<datestamp>1270067820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>mdb, the solaris modular debugger, that's what I will miss the most, it's not a product (comes with solaris) but there just is no open source equivalent. People that tell you otherwise have never run into a problem that was too much for truss or dtrace but one where gdb simply did not work or got in the way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>mdb , the solaris modular debugger , that 's what I will miss the most , it 's not a product ( comes with solaris ) but there just is no open source equivalent .
People that tell you otherwise have never run into a problem that was too much for truss or dtrace but one where gdb simply did not work or got in the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mdb, the solaris modular debugger, that's what I will miss the most, it's not a product (comes with solaris) but there just is no open source equivalent.
People that tell you otherwise have never run into a problem that was too much for truss or dtrace but one where gdb simply did not work or got in the way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684540</id>
	<title>Re:I feel sorry</title>
	<author>religious freak</author>
	<datestamp>1270029240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I work for a major company and we're a Solaris shop, we run close to one hundred large Solaris boxes production and test.  Hmm, I wonder how we're going to deal with it... oh well, guess that's why I'm not an admin<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for a major company and we 're a Solaris shop , we run close to one hundred large Solaris boxes production and test .
Hmm , I wonder how we 're going to deal with it... oh well , guess that 's why I 'm not an admin : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for a major company and we're a Solaris shop, we run close to one hundred large Solaris boxes production and test.
Hmm, I wonder how we're going to deal with it... oh well, guess that's why I'm not an admin :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684590</id>
	<title>Re:Oracle's short term memory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270029600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Solaris is still open - through OpenSolaris.</p><p>FUD much?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Solaris is still open - through OpenSolaris.FUD much ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Solaris is still open - through OpenSolaris.FUD much?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684544</id>
	<title>Exactly same business model as RedHat</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1270029300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And clearly, it didn't hurt RedHat. You can't blame Oracle for the attempt, it does make some sense.</p><p>To note: RHEL<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:: Oracle Solaris   -    OpenSolaris<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:: Fedora</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And clearly , it did n't hurt RedHat .
You ca n't blame Oracle for the attempt , it does make some sense.To note : RHEL : : Oracle Solaris - OpenSolaris : : Fedora</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And clearly, it didn't hurt RedHat.
You can't blame Oracle for the attempt, it does make some sense.To note: RHEL :: Oracle Solaris   -    OpenSolaris :: Fedora</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685298</id>
	<title>Re:May?</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1270036620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hell even MSFT as far as I know doesn't charge per core but per socket.</p></div><p>Nah, Microsoft sells stuff that works per-core. You can't use HT with uniprocessor NT, for example.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hell even MSFT as far as I know does n't charge per core but per socket.Nah , Microsoft sells stuff that works per-core .
You ca n't use HT with uniprocessor NT , for example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hell even MSFT as far as I know doesn't charge per core but per socket.Nah, Microsoft sells stuff that works per-core.
You can't use HT with uniprocessor NT, for example.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684270</id>
	<title>Re:End of New Solaris Customers</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1270026720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really?  Solaris was forever a closed source OS until it became Open, but look at other proprietary OS software.  Windows is doing well in corporate environments, of-course it is mostly desktop systems, but they are a closed source OS that is not being really replaced by anything much.</p><p>Solaris, if bundled with Oracle DB, will sell just as well as Oracle DB all by itself, would it not?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
Solaris was forever a closed source OS until it became Open , but look at other proprietary OS software .
Windows is doing well in corporate environments , of-course it is mostly desktop systems , but they are a closed source OS that is not being really replaced by anything much.Solaris , if bundled with Oracle DB , will sell just as well as Oracle DB all by itself , would it not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
Solaris was forever a closed source OS until it became Open, but look at other proprietary OS software.
Windows is doing well in corporate environments, of-course it is mostly desktop systems, but they are a closed source OS that is not being really replaced by anything much.Solaris, if bundled with Oracle DB, will sell just as well as Oracle DB all by itself, would it not?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686486</id>
	<title>Re:That's fine</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1270045380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, shut up.  What is it with GPL fanatics always feeling the need to claim the GPL will save the world?</p><p>
The GPL would have absolutely no impact on this.  Oracle owns the Solaris copyrights.  It would make absolutely no difference if Sun had chosen the GPL instead of the CDDL for OpenSolaris.  They would still have the right to release future versions as proprietary software and not release their changes (although no one else would have, which would have killed things like NexentaStor).  The exact same can happen with MySQL now; Oracle could simply decide not to release any future improvements under the GPL and keep shipping the proprietary version.  You'd have exactly the same choice; either use the proprietary version, use something else, or fork.  </p><p>
With OpenSolaris, there are already a couple of active forks, so the code remains open, it just doesn't necessarily get enhancements from Oracle.  The FSF owns the copyright on all GNU software; they unilaterally relicensed most of it as [L]GPLv3 when the new license came out, meaning that you couldn't link it with any GPLv2-only code (e.g. Poppler, which is currently the only decent PDF rendering library for *NIX).  Is this safer according to your FSF-approved definition of freedom?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , shut up .
What is it with GPL fanatics always feeling the need to claim the GPL will save the world ?
The GPL would have absolutely no impact on this .
Oracle owns the Solaris copyrights .
It would make absolutely no difference if Sun had chosen the GPL instead of the CDDL for OpenSolaris .
They would still have the right to release future versions as proprietary software and not release their changes ( although no one else would have , which would have killed things like NexentaStor ) .
The exact same can happen with MySQL now ; Oracle could simply decide not to release any future improvements under the GPL and keep shipping the proprietary version .
You 'd have exactly the same choice ; either use the proprietary version , use something else , or fork .
With OpenSolaris , there are already a couple of active forks , so the code remains open , it just does n't necessarily get enhancements from Oracle .
The FSF owns the copyright on all GNU software ; they unilaterally relicensed most of it as [ L ] GPLv3 when the new license came out , meaning that you could n't link it with any GPLv2-only code ( e.g .
Poppler , which is currently the only decent PDF rendering library for * NIX ) .
Is this safer according to your FSF-approved definition of freedom ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, shut up.
What is it with GPL fanatics always feeling the need to claim the GPL will save the world?
The GPL would have absolutely no impact on this.
Oracle owns the Solaris copyrights.
It would make absolutely no difference if Sun had chosen the GPL instead of the CDDL for OpenSolaris.
They would still have the right to release future versions as proprietary software and not release their changes (although no one else would have, which would have killed things like NexentaStor).
The exact same can happen with MySQL now; Oracle could simply decide not to release any future improvements under the GPL and keep shipping the proprietary version.
You'd have exactly the same choice; either use the proprietary version, use something else, or fork.
With OpenSolaris, there are already a couple of active forks, so the code remains open, it just doesn't necessarily get enhancements from Oracle.
The FSF owns the copyright on all GNU software; they unilaterally relicensed most of it as [L]GPLv3 when the new license came out, meaning that you couldn't link it with any GPLv2-only code (e.g.
Poppler, which is currently the only decent PDF rendering library for *NIX).
Is this safer according to your FSF-approved definition of freedom?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683648</id>
	<title>That Article's Title Should Be...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269977520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Oracle kills OpenSolaris" - what next? MySQL?
<br>
DSL</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Oracle kills OpenSolaris " - what next ?
MySQL ? DSL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Oracle kills OpenSolaris" - what next?
MySQL?

DSL</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684284</id>
	<title>Re:That Article's Title Should Be...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270026780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My bet is on Netbeans, now that they removed UML and SOA support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My bet is on Netbeans , now that they removed UML and SOA support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My bet is on Netbeans, now that they removed UML and SOA support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31700012</id>
	<title>Many enter. Few survive.</title>
	<author>CyberdogOSX</author>
	<datestamp>1270133940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>In any market, many players enter, but few survive. In the OSS OS market, Linux has risen to the top. BSD has assumed the smaller feisty competitve roll. Like MS &amp; Apple. Now the others are being gradually taken apart and rendered irrelevant. They will disappear, like BeOS.

Linux has killed big Unix. And good riddance. Anything worth keeping will be merged into Linux &amp; OSX. There will be a few true believers that will keep the losers alive, limping along for years(Amiga), but nothing will ever really come of it.

I do believe that true innovation can only come from small companies though. So I'd look for the next big thing in OSS OSes to come from BSD. As for commercial OSes, Apple of course.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In any market , many players enter , but few survive .
In the OSS OS market , Linux has risen to the top .
BSD has assumed the smaller feisty competitve roll .
Like MS &amp; Apple .
Now the others are being gradually taken apart and rendered irrelevant .
They will disappear , like BeOS .
Linux has killed big Unix .
And good riddance .
Anything worth keeping will be merged into Linux &amp; OSX .
There will be a few true believers that will keep the losers alive , limping along for years ( Amiga ) , but nothing will ever really come of it .
I do believe that true innovation can only come from small companies though .
So I 'd look for the next big thing in OSS OSes to come from BSD .
As for commercial OSes , Apple of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In any market, many players enter, but few survive.
In the OSS OS market, Linux has risen to the top.
BSD has assumed the smaller feisty competitve roll.
Like MS &amp; Apple.
Now the others are being gradually taken apart and rendered irrelevant.
They will disappear, like BeOS.
Linux has killed big Unix.
And good riddance.
Anything worth keeping will be merged into Linux &amp; OSX.
There will be a few true believers that will keep the losers alive, limping along for years(Amiga), but nothing will ever really come of it.
I do believe that true innovation can only come from small companies though.
So I'd look for the next big thing in OSS OSes to come from BSD.
As for commercial OSes, Apple of course.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684490</id>
	<title>Re:May?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270028700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They license their database software not by the servers it runs on, nor by the processor, but by the core... Believe it or not, they also charge extra for installed memory</i></p><p>I've not spoken to Oracle sales, but <a href="https://shop.oracle.com/pls/ostore/f?p=ostore:product:3857856984916138::::P3\_PPI,P3\_LPI,P3\_METRIC,P3\_TERM:2111016471896552298,4509382199341805719938,Named\%20User\%20Plus,\_Perpetual" title="oracle.com">this page</a> [oracle.com] disagrees with your assertion. The only pricing options I see are per named user, and per processor. Nothing about cores or installed RAM. Furthermore while I'm not a DBA my company works with Oracle's DB a lot, and this is the first I've heard of such an insane pricing scheme. Do you have anything to back your claims up? (I'm more than happy to be proved wrong)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They license their database software not by the servers it runs on , nor by the processor , but by the core... Believe it or not , they also charge extra for installed memoryI 've not spoken to Oracle sales , but this page [ oracle.com ] disagrees with your assertion .
The only pricing options I see are per named user , and per processor .
Nothing about cores or installed RAM .
Furthermore while I 'm not a DBA my company works with Oracle 's DB a lot , and this is the first I 've heard of such an insane pricing scheme .
Do you have anything to back your claims up ?
( I 'm more than happy to be proved wrong )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They license their database software not by the servers it runs on, nor by the processor, but by the core... Believe it or not, they also charge extra for installed memoryI've not spoken to Oracle sales, but this page [oracle.com] disagrees with your assertion.
The only pricing options I see are per named user, and per processor.
Nothing about cores or installed RAM.
Furthermore while I'm not a DBA my company works with Oracle's DB a lot, and this is the first I've heard of such an insane pricing scheme.
Do you have anything to back your claims up?
(I'm more than happy to be proved wrong)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31689746</id>
	<title>Re:That Article's Title Should Be...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270058880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Idiots. MySQL is garbage. Did you check their bugtracker? They've got CRITICAL data corruption bugs... open since 2003!</p><p>If you must drool like total and complete morons, then at least drool over a decent FOSS database: PostgreSQL.</p><p>Don't be such morons: PostgreSQL isn't anything harder to get up and running than that  no-good MySQL garbage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Idiots .
MySQL is garbage .
Did you check their bugtracker ?
They 've got CRITICAL data corruption bugs... open since 2003 ! If you must drool like total and complete morons , then at least drool over a decent FOSS database : PostgreSQL.Do n't be such morons : PostgreSQL is n't anything harder to get up and running than that no-good MySQL garbage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Idiots.
MySQL is garbage.
Did you check their bugtracker?
They've got CRITICAL data corruption bugs... open since 2003!If you must drool like total and complete morons, then at least drool over a decent FOSS database: PostgreSQL.Don't be such morons: PostgreSQL isn't anything harder to get up and running than that  no-good MySQL garbage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685686</id>
	<title>Not really absurd.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270040100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I delved into the murky depths of Oracle licensing I had a similar reaction to their model.  But upon reflection it actually makes sense.  Charging per CPU, or per core, allows them to differentiate their customers so that each pays for what they need.  The small business who only needs a small server setup will pay considerably less than a multi-national which needs to run a RDMS across whole server farms.  There's a term for this tactic, but I can't think of it right now.</p><p>And the point about pricing the software based on how much it cost to produce is irrelevant. No company sells a product to recover the costs they incurred in making it, they intend to make a profit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I delved into the murky depths of Oracle licensing I had a similar reaction to their model .
But upon reflection it actually makes sense .
Charging per CPU , or per core , allows them to differentiate their customers so that each pays for what they need .
The small business who only needs a small server setup will pay considerably less than a multi-national which needs to run a RDMS across whole server farms .
There 's a term for this tactic , but I ca n't think of it right now.And the point about pricing the software based on how much it cost to produce is irrelevant .
No company sells a product to recover the costs they incurred in making it , they intend to make a profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I delved into the murky depths of Oracle licensing I had a similar reaction to their model.
But upon reflection it actually makes sense.
Charging per CPU, or per core, allows them to differentiate their customers so that each pays for what they need.
The small business who only needs a small server setup will pay considerably less than a multi-national which needs to run a RDMS across whole server farms.
There's a term for this tactic, but I can't think of it right now.And the point about pricing the software based on how much it cost to produce is irrelevant.
No company sells a product to recover the costs they incurred in making it, they intend to make a profit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684636</id>
	<title>Re:Solaris?</title>
	<author>frinkacheese</author>
	<datestamp>1270030020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The OS that just took 5 hours to install on a new box and then needed to grab a LOAD of patches to fix stuff, but it seems that patches are no longer available so I'll be selling a few V480s on Ebay in the next week or so and buying some more DELLs.</p><p>Though it was quite handy to be able to break into my old SS10 with the 'telnet -l "-fbin"' exploit when I forgot the passwords..</p><p>Sheesh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The OS that just took 5 hours to install on a new box and then needed to grab a LOAD of patches to fix stuff , but it seems that patches are no longer available so I 'll be selling a few V480s on Ebay in the next week or so and buying some more DELLs.Though it was quite handy to be able to break into my old SS10 with the 'telnet -l " -fbin " ' exploit when I forgot the passwords..Sheesh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The OS that just took 5 hours to install on a new box and then needed to grab a LOAD of patches to fix stuff, but it seems that patches are no longer available so I'll be selling a few V480s on Ebay in the next week or so and buying some more DELLs.Though it was quite handy to be able to break into my old SS10 with the 'telnet -l "-fbin"' exploit when I forgot the passwords..Sheesh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684436</id>
	<title>Re:May?</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1270028100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhhhh...you DO realize you just described exactly why there are multiple versions of Windows, which most geeks here at Slashdot have a royal shitfit about, right? While I don't have a problem with different SKUs charging per core and per RAM amount is getting a little anal about it. Hell even MSFT as far as I know doesn't charge per core but per socket.</p><p>

As for Solaris my guess is old Larry is gonna be cracking the whip on the developers to make it THE platform for Oracle DB, which means he can pretty much charge whatever he wants as those addicted to Oracle DB will buy whatever platform Oracle tells them to. So I wouldn't be surprised if old Larry is doing this so the next version of Oracle/Solaris will be a tightly integrated unit that will kick ass on SPARC and give him a top to bottom solution he can make big piles 'o cash from, followed by him killing unbreakable Linux which he can't control like he can Solaris. Remember old Larry didn't get all that money by being a dumbass, I'm sure he has a plan to make some serious cash out of it one way or another.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhhhh...you DO realize you just described exactly why there are multiple versions of Windows , which most geeks here at Slashdot have a royal shitfit about , right ?
While I do n't have a problem with different SKUs charging per core and per RAM amount is getting a little anal about it .
Hell even MSFT as far as I know does n't charge per core but per socket .
As for Solaris my guess is old Larry is gon na be cracking the whip on the developers to make it THE platform for Oracle DB , which means he can pretty much charge whatever he wants as those addicted to Oracle DB will buy whatever platform Oracle tells them to .
So I would n't be surprised if old Larry is doing this so the next version of Oracle/Solaris will be a tightly integrated unit that will kick ass on SPARC and give him a top to bottom solution he can make big piles 'o cash from , followed by him killing unbreakable Linux which he ca n't control like he can Solaris .
Remember old Larry did n't get all that money by being a dumbass , I 'm sure he has a plan to make some serious cash out of it one way or another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhhhh...you DO realize you just described exactly why there are multiple versions of Windows, which most geeks here at Slashdot have a royal shitfit about, right?
While I don't have a problem with different SKUs charging per core and per RAM amount is getting a little anal about it.
Hell even MSFT as far as I know doesn't charge per core but per socket.
As for Solaris my guess is old Larry is gonna be cracking the whip on the developers to make it THE platform for Oracle DB, which means he can pretty much charge whatever he wants as those addicted to Oracle DB will buy whatever platform Oracle tells them to.
So I wouldn't be surprised if old Larry is doing this so the next version of Oracle/Solaris will be a tightly integrated unit that will kick ass on SPARC and give him a top to bottom solution he can make big piles 'o cash from, followed by him killing unbreakable Linux which he can't control like he can Solaris.
Remember old Larry didn't get all that money by being a dumbass, I'm sure he has a plan to make some serious cash out of it one way or another.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684586</id>
	<title>Sad</title>
	<author>vikingpower</author>
	<datestamp>1270029540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having been an enthusiastic user of Solaris-on-Intel from the very beginnings on, this is sad news to me and many of my colleagues. Now get off my lawn, darn corporate capitalists and patent-wielding punks !</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having been an enthusiastic user of Solaris-on-Intel from the very beginnings on , this is sad news to me and many of my colleagues .
Now get off my lawn , darn corporate capitalists and patent-wielding punks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having been an enthusiastic user of Solaris-on-Intel from the very beginnings on, this is sad news to me and many of my colleagues.
Now get off my lawn, darn corporate capitalists and patent-wielding punks !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31688672</id>
	<title>No longer free as in beer...</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1270054200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...about to become dead as in dead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...about to become dead as in dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...about to become dead as in dead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686564</id>
	<title>Re:That's fine</title>
	<author>rbanffy</author>
	<datestamp>1270045800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I still like ZFS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I still like ZFS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still like ZFS</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683916</id>
	<title>not worth the extra effort any more</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270066260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm afraid it's time to say goodbye to Solaris. I was putting extra effort trying to get Open Solaris working with my 3G USB modem, but now the struggle to get something to work on Open Solaris just doesn't seem worthwhile any more.</p><p>With the cloud of uncertainty surrounding Solaris and Open Solaris it has become time to say good bye to Solaris and Open Solaris. Rest in peace. Nothing is and will never be like it was before. Solaris is and was an advanced operating system, but it's time to let go.</p><p>Bye, bye.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm afraid it 's time to say goodbye to Solaris .
I was putting extra effort trying to get Open Solaris working with my 3G USB modem , but now the struggle to get something to work on Open Solaris just does n't seem worthwhile any more.With the cloud of uncertainty surrounding Solaris and Open Solaris it has become time to say good bye to Solaris and Open Solaris .
Rest in peace .
Nothing is and will never be like it was before .
Solaris is and was an advanced operating system , but it 's time to let go.Bye , bye .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm afraid it's time to say goodbye to Solaris.
I was putting extra effort trying to get Open Solaris working with my 3G USB modem, but now the struggle to get something to work on Open Solaris just doesn't seem worthwhile any more.With the cloud of uncertainty surrounding Solaris and Open Solaris it has become time to say good bye to Solaris and Open Solaris.
Rest in peace.
Nothing is and will never be like it was before.
Solaris is and was an advanced operating system, but it's time to let go.Bye, bye.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31687482</id>
	<title>Re:May?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270049700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The part about Oracle having the top-to-bottom solution was the whole idea of him getting his credit card out in the first place. And it was public knowledge. Sun have the software, hardware and a history with Oracle. And now Oracle can charge for even more bizarre set up's for eg CMT's threads on a core on a CPU on a plug-in board in a blade in a blade-rack in a server-rack in a pod in a datacentre. All while downing a cup of java in his Solaris spaceship interconnected with his Magnum fabric. Top to bottom Oracle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The part about Oracle having the top-to-bottom solution was the whole idea of him getting his credit card out in the first place .
And it was public knowledge .
Sun have the software , hardware and a history with Oracle .
And now Oracle can charge for even more bizarre set up 's for eg CMT 's threads on a core on a CPU on a plug-in board in a blade in a blade-rack in a server-rack in a pod in a datacentre .
All while downing a cup of java in his Solaris spaceship interconnected with his Magnum fabric .
Top to bottom Oracle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The part about Oracle having the top-to-bottom solution was the whole idea of him getting his credit card out in the first place.
And it was public knowledge.
Sun have the software, hardware and a history with Oracle.
And now Oracle can charge for even more bizarre set up's for eg CMT's threads on a core on a CPU on a plug-in board in a blade in a blade-rack in a server-rack in a pod in a datacentre.
All while downing a cup of java in his Solaris spaceship interconnected with his Magnum fabric.
Top to bottom Oracle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685814</id>
	<title>Re:May?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270041300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is actually more complicated than this; read the fine print for definition of "processor".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is actually more complicated than this ; read the fine print for definition of " processor " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is actually more complicated than this; read the fine print for definition of "processor".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683722</id>
	<title>Re:That Article's Title Should Be...</title>
	<author>Issarlk</author>
	<datestamp>1269978060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh god ; yes please!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh god ; yes please !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh god ; yes please!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684542</id>
	<title>Re:I feel sorry</title>
	<author>Celarnor</author>
	<datestamp>1270029240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That would be RIT's Computer Science system administrator.  All our non-Windows, non-mac labs run Solaris, on Solaris workstations.<br> <br>And we learn database concepts on Oracle.<br> <br>Is this awesome? (y/n)</htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be RIT 's Computer Science system administrator .
All our non-Windows , non-mac labs run Solaris , on Solaris workstations .
And we learn database concepts on Oracle .
Is this awesome ?
( y/n )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be RIT's Computer Science system administrator.
All our non-Windows, non-mac labs run Solaris, on Solaris workstations.
And we learn database concepts on Oracle.
Is this awesome?
(y/n)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31687472</id>
	<title>Bullshit article as well as 99\% of BS comments</title>
	<author>hotfireball</author>
	<datestamp>1270049700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OMG, folks... Some idiot troll made braindead posting and all the slashdot started buzz. FUCKING LEARN TO READ IN ENGLISH.</p><p>

<a href="http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/popup.jsp?info=17" title="sun.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/popup.jsp?info=17</a> [sun.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p> The registration process to receive an Entitlement Document is part of the Solaris download process, with the Entitlement Document being returned to you via e-mail. For this reason, YOU MUST PROVIDE A WORKING E-MAIL ADDRESS AS PART OF YOUR SUN DOWNLOAD CENTER ACCOUNT. If you fail to do so, you will not receive an Entitlement Document and will only have the right to evaluate Solaris for 90 days</p></div><p>Oracle only asks for valid email address. Once valid email passed and Entitlement accepted, 90 day restriction <b>does not apply</b>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>OMG , folks... Some idiot troll made braindead posting and all the slashdot started buzz .
FUCKING LEARN TO READ IN ENGLISH .
http : //www.sun.com/software/solaris/popup.jsp ? info = 17 [ sun.com ] The registration process to receive an Entitlement Document is part of the Solaris download process , with the Entitlement Document being returned to you via e-mail .
For this reason , YOU MUST PROVIDE A WORKING E-MAIL ADDRESS AS PART OF YOUR SUN DOWNLOAD CENTER ACCOUNT .
If you fail to do so , you will not receive an Entitlement Document and will only have the right to evaluate Solaris for 90 daysOracle only asks for valid email address .
Once valid email passed and Entitlement accepted , 90 day restriction does not apply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OMG, folks... Some idiot troll made braindead posting and all the slashdot started buzz.
FUCKING LEARN TO READ IN ENGLISH.
http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/popup.jsp?info=17 [sun.com]  The registration process to receive an Entitlement Document is part of the Solaris download process, with the Entitlement Document being returned to you via e-mail.
For this reason, YOU MUST PROVIDE A WORKING E-MAIL ADDRESS AS PART OF YOUR SUN DOWNLOAD CENTER ACCOUNT.
If you fail to do so, you will not receive an Entitlement Document and will only have the right to evaluate Solaris for 90 daysOracle only asks for valid email address.
Once valid email passed and Entitlement accepted, 90 day restriction does not apply.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31688538</id>
	<title>article based on old info</title>
	<author>chillywillycd</author>
	<datestamp>1270053480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a) Yankelovich's quote about dropping support for Project Wonderland was on 1/31.<br>b) the wonderland project immediately became a community supported project called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open\_Wonderland" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Open Wonderland</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>c) it's misleading for the author to talk about Project Wonderland like it's part of Solaris.  it's a java project developing an extensible 3D virtual environment.<br>d) the comment from Peter Tribble was made 2/14, approx 2 weeks after Oracle's acquisition of Sun.<br>e) on 2/26 after the OpenSolaris annual meeting Tribble gives a number of quotes about Oracle <a href="http://bit.ly/9iqP8S" title="bit.ly" rel="nofollow">commiting themselves to support</a> [bit.ly] the project<br>sad spreading of out of date misinformation</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a ) Yankelovich 's quote about dropping support for Project Wonderland was on 1/31.b ) the wonderland project immediately became a community supported project called Open Wonderland [ wikipedia.org ] c ) it 's misleading for the author to talk about Project Wonderland like it 's part of Solaris .
it 's a java project developing an extensible 3D virtual environment.d ) the comment from Peter Tribble was made 2/14 , approx 2 weeks after Oracle 's acquisition of Sun.e ) on 2/26 after the OpenSolaris annual meeting Tribble gives a number of quotes about Oracle commiting themselves to support [ bit.ly ] the projectsad spreading of out of date misinformation</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a) Yankelovich's quote about dropping support for Project Wonderland was on 1/31.b) the wonderland project immediately became a community supported project called Open Wonderland [wikipedia.org]c) it's misleading for the author to talk about Project Wonderland like it's part of Solaris.
it's a java project developing an extensible 3D virtual environment.d) the comment from Peter Tribble was made 2/14, approx 2 weeks after Oracle's acquisition of Sun.e) on 2/26 after the OpenSolaris annual meeting Tribble gives a number of quotes about Oracle commiting themselves to support [bit.ly] the projectsad spreading of out of date misinformation
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31687216</id>
	<title>They are digging their own grave</title>
	<author>mediis</author>
	<datestamp>1270048680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given my current Oracle "Support" ticket (for their database) will go a weeks without them touching it, looking at it, or working it, I see no reason why I should buy Oracle hardware. We buy Dells for Windows servers. We might as well buy Dell for Linux servers. Closing out Solaris, is just another reason-- in a long line of reasons --to switch.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given my current Oracle " Support " ticket ( for their database ) will go a weeks without them touching it , looking at it , or working it , I see no reason why I should buy Oracle hardware .
We buy Dells for Windows servers .
We might as well buy Dell for Linux servers .
Closing out Solaris , is just another reason-- in a long line of reasons --to switch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given my current Oracle "Support" ticket (for their database) will go a weeks without them touching it, looking at it, or working it, I see no reason why I should buy Oracle hardware.
We buy Dells for Windows servers.
We might as well buy Dell for Linux servers.
Closing out Solaris, is just another reason-- in a long line of reasons --to switch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683780</id>
	<title>Re:I feel sorry</title>
	<author>masshuu</author>
	<datestamp>1269978660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i might feel stupid, but what runs on Solaris that won't run on any other posix based OS.<br>When i look around at software, eveything with a Solaris build/source also usually has a windows/linux/bsd/etc build/source</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i might feel stupid , but what runs on Solaris that wo n't run on any other posix based OS.When i look around at software , eveything with a Solaris build/source also usually has a windows/linux/bsd/etc build/source</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i might feel stupid, but what runs on Solaris that won't run on any other posix based OS.When i look around at software, eveything with a Solaris build/source also usually has a windows/linux/bsd/etc build/source</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31688096</id>
	<title>Re:I feel sorry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270051800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a word: ZFS. Also, there's dtrace. I see no significant tools other than ZFS, but ZFS is significant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a word : ZFS .
Also , there 's dtrace .
I see no significant tools other than ZFS , but ZFS is significant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a word: ZFS.
Also, there's dtrace.
I see no significant tools other than ZFS, but ZFS is significant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683624</id>
	<title>Oracle's short term memory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269977400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The whole reason Sun opened up Solaris in the first place was to try and get it a wider audience and more of a community around it. Linux was encroaching on Solaris as much as it was on any other Unix, if not faster.</p><p>Oracle will probably find that the only way they can sell Solaris is to bundle it as a database appliance OS or something stupid like that. Include the cost of Solaris with the cost of whatever software runs on top of it.</p><p>Solaris wasn't the healthiest until the OpenSolaris project gave it a significantly greater audience that allowed anyone to use it and get familiar with it. OpenSolaris sold Sun hardware and the proprietary Solaris. It is what kept Solaris from dead ending and stagnating.</p><p>Oracle will either realise this soon, or wait till its too late. This is essentially the first nail in the Solaris coffin after Sun managed to get it off life support.</p><p>Fare thee well, old friend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole reason Sun opened up Solaris in the first place was to try and get it a wider audience and more of a community around it .
Linux was encroaching on Solaris as much as it was on any other Unix , if not faster.Oracle will probably find that the only way they can sell Solaris is to bundle it as a database appliance OS or something stupid like that .
Include the cost of Solaris with the cost of whatever software runs on top of it.Solaris was n't the healthiest until the OpenSolaris project gave it a significantly greater audience that allowed anyone to use it and get familiar with it .
OpenSolaris sold Sun hardware and the proprietary Solaris .
It is what kept Solaris from dead ending and stagnating.Oracle will either realise this soon , or wait till its too late .
This is essentially the first nail in the Solaris coffin after Sun managed to get it off life support.Fare thee well , old friend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole reason Sun opened up Solaris in the first place was to try and get it a wider audience and more of a community around it.
Linux was encroaching on Solaris as much as it was on any other Unix, if not faster.Oracle will probably find that the only way they can sell Solaris is to bundle it as a database appliance OS or something stupid like that.
Include the cost of Solaris with the cost of whatever software runs on top of it.Solaris wasn't the healthiest until the OpenSolaris project gave it a significantly greater audience that allowed anyone to use it and get familiar with it.
OpenSolaris sold Sun hardware and the proprietary Solaris.
It is what kept Solaris from dead ending and stagnating.Oracle will either realise this soon, or wait till its too late.
This is essentially the first nail in the Solaris coffin after Sun managed to get it off life support.Fare thee well, old friend.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685026</id>
	<title>Oracle Solaris</title>
	<author>mix77</author>
	<datestamp>1270033740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like a bad horror movie!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a bad horror movie !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a bad horror movie!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684532</id>
	<title>ZFS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270029120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I literally just finished an unexpectedly painful migration of my home ZFS file server from a Linux/FUSE solution to OpenSolaris. I was hoping for greater stability and better support.</p><p>FUCK.</p><p>I've tried really hard to be a ZFS fan, I really have. This pisses me off even more than Apple's ZFS bullshit behavior. Fuck it. I give up. Goodbye, ZFS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I literally just finished an unexpectedly painful migration of my home ZFS file server from a Linux/FUSE solution to OpenSolaris .
I was hoping for greater stability and better support.FUCK.I 've tried really hard to be a ZFS fan , I really have .
This pisses me off even more than Apple 's ZFS bullshit behavior .
Fuck it .
I give up .
Goodbye , ZFS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I literally just finished an unexpectedly painful migration of my home ZFS file server from a Linux/FUSE solution to OpenSolaris.
I was hoping for greater stability and better support.FUCK.I've tried really hard to be a ZFS fan, I really have.
This pisses me off even more than Apple's ZFS bullshit behavior.
Fuck it.
I give up.
Goodbye, ZFS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684732</id>
	<title>Oracle is the pebble in my shoe - ever so annoying</title>
	<author>Der PC</author>
	<datestamp>1270030860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A decade ago I abandoned Oracle for PostgreSQL mostly because of their inherently stupid pricing policy and horrible scare-tactics. It seems that Oracle is going to keep crapping all over my thang. Only have I recently decided to give OpenSolaris a fighting chance in our company, patiently waiting for 2010.03, when Oracle takes a dump on all my ideas once again.</p><p>Gotta love it. They are getting there. As my "Nemesis".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A decade ago I abandoned Oracle for PostgreSQL mostly because of their inherently stupid pricing policy and horrible scare-tactics .
It seems that Oracle is going to keep crapping all over my thang .
Only have I recently decided to give OpenSolaris a fighting chance in our company , patiently waiting for 2010.03 , when Oracle takes a dump on all my ideas once again.Got ta love it .
They are getting there .
As my " Nemesis " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A decade ago I abandoned Oracle for PostgreSQL mostly because of their inherently stupid pricing policy and horrible scare-tactics.
It seems that Oracle is going to keep crapping all over my thang.
Only have I recently decided to give OpenSolaris a fighting chance in our company, patiently waiting for 2010.03, when Oracle takes a dump on all my ideas once again.Gotta love it.
They are getting there.
As my "Nemesis".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31698506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31687060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31736412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31687188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31687468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31690616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31691154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31694502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31687956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31689320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31691648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31687482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31693596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31687122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31691382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31689456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31688212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31687506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31691000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31688096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31689746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31693802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0141208_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0141208.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31687506
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0141208.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684452
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31736412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685544
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31687188
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685058
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31691000
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31693596
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31691648
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685048
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31687956
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686636
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686486
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31694502
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31691154
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31693802
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0141208.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686922
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0141208.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683722
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31689746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0141208.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686342
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0141208.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0141208.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0141208.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684544
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0141208.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0141208.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31687472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0141208.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0141208.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685552
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0141208.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683708
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684436
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685298
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31687482
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31687122
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684490
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684784
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31689320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31698506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683930
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0141208.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684632
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0141208.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31687468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31690616
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0141208.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684270
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31687060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0141208.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31685388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31688212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683780
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684042
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31688096
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684542
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31691382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686052
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0141208.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31683624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31686882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31689456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0141208.31684582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
