Updates from Roberto Galoppini Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Roberto Galoppini 8:44 am on September 11, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Open Source ECM: Nuxeo expands commercial staff 

    A Few days ago Nuxeo, a UK-based provider of Open Source Enterprise Content Management solutions based in Paris, announced the appointment of Steve Raby as their UK Country Manager.

    Nuxeo, is a European Open Source firm basically selling subscriptions and services to aid customers and partners to operate their projects on top of the Nuxeo platform.

    Nuxeo, that might be named a “pure player” – if such characterization still makes some sense – don’t reserve advanced features to proprietary versions – what we call Split OSS/Commercial product – providing also support on the “community” version.

    Stefane Fermigier, Nuxeo’s CEO, told me:

    We don’t make this kind of distinction between “community” and “professional” versions, there is only one Nuxeo version, which has all the features we can put into at a given time, and for which customers can buy support if they need.

    Steve Raby Steve Raby

    Nuxeo hiring Steve Raby – bringing his 25 years of sales experience, 17 years of which at Sun selling high-end solutions to Enterprise customers and dealing with partners, and 3 years at JBoss building up the UK/Northern Europe sales organization from scratch – made a step typical of “traditional” IT vendors. Stefane commented:

    Steve is the right guy for us at this stage of our development. For instance, during our first conversation with him, we was convinced after less that 15 minutes that he had a deep understanding of the open source business, that he could articulate very clearly the benefits for this approach for the customers.

    Open Source or not, it is still the business that pays!

    Technorati Tags: Open Source ECM, Open Source Strategy, ECM, StefaneFermigier, SteveRaby

     

  • Roberto Galoppini 5:18 pm on September 7, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    OSI Approval: Open Source Initiatives approves GPLv3! 

    Today the GPL v3 and LGPL v3 were unanimously approved by the OSI board, as reported by Michael Tiemann, President of the Open Source Initiative.

    Tiemann blessed the GPLv3 few months ago, and the OSI board this time was really fast to close the GPLv3 approval process, showing a very different attitude compared with an other recent approval.

    I really wish to congratulate with you all!

    tiemannMichael Tiemann by pdcawley

    Tiemann commenting on the OSI blog said he liked to personally acknowledge few people, among them all of us:

    The broader communities of both the free software camp and the open source camps, who both challenged and supported the license drafting process. These communities made the drafts stronger as a result.

    Now it is great time to take into consideration more difficult tasks, and I hope you are definitely not going to follow Eric Raymond line of thinking.

    Despite my previous determination, I find I’m almost ready to recommend that OSI tell Microsoft to ram its licenses up one of its own orifices, even if they are technically OSD compliant. Because what good is it to conform to the letter of OSD if you’re raping its spirit?

    A license is a license, it is definitely not matter of spirit!

    Technorati Tags: GPL, GPLv3, OSI, FSF, MichaelTiemann, EricRaymond, Microsoft

     

    • Martin Peacock 11:58 am on September 8, 2007 Permalink

      You’re right, Roberto, a license is a license. But the objective behind the license is not only to prevent abuse of the spirit, but to defend itself from abuse. If the community at large feels that the OSD is being abused, then it can only be the OSD that is at fault.

    • Roberto Galoppini 5:34 pm on September 8, 2007 Permalink

      Martin,

      I’ll tell you why Eric Raymond opinion is dangerous to the open source ecosystem at large: there are thousands Microsoft’s partners out there, if OSI will allow them to produce (also) open source software is an opportunity, may be even a huge one. If not?

      Besides that, judging licenses’ spirit is a stallmanian attitude, stated by the FSF website, and I really hope to not see things like that happening by the OSI headquarter as well.. Again, licenses are really just licenses, therefore an opportunity not a thread, a medium toward a goal: distributing open source software. If the idea is to keep Microsoft out of the “open source thing”, that is likely what Eric wants, I don’t see the deal.

      Do you?

    • Roberto Galoppini 4:53 pm on September 10, 2007 Permalink

      Stefano,

      a license “technically free” is a free license, and as a matter of fact Microsoft’s channel is the biggest in the IT world. What if only a tiny fraction of them is going to deliver software distributed under a microsoft-approved-free-license?

      About the patent issue, as far as I understand, either if OSI will eventually approve their licenses or not, we have to cope with it anyway.

      Show me the deal we’ll get, if any, if those licenses won’t be approved _because_ submitted by Microsoft.

  • Roberto Galoppini 11:26 am on September 6, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    FSF Europe: the beta version of the SELF Education Platform goes live 

    Yesterday SELF – a community-driven platform for the production and distribution of educational materials sponsored by the EU IST programme  – has been officially launched by the Free Software Foundation Europe in the Netherlands during a conference on Free Software in Education.

    The SELF platform aims to bring together educational institutes, training centres, software companies, publishing houses, government bodies and Free Software communities to centralise, create and disseminate educational and training materials on Free Software and Open Standards.

    From linuxelectrons:

    The SELF Platform has been developed by a global team of non-profit organisations, universities and volunteers engaged in the SELF Project, an initiative for the collaborative sharing and creation of free educational and training materials on Free Software and Open Standards. Users, primarily learners and teachers, are enabled to assemble selections of learning contents and create custom-made learning material for lessons in their language. The Platform is launched in beta stage to involve the growing community in optimising the tool.

    All SELF materials are available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), materials from third parties are licenses under various similar licenses.

    Let’s see now if  students and teachers will join the effort..

    Technorati Tags: Free Software Education, FSFE, IST, SELF

     

  • Roberto Galoppini 3:55 pm on September 4, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Open Source VoIP: “Open source Sustainability from the business perspective” conference at VON Europe 

    VON Europe Autumn will be held in Rome on the 26th and 27th of September, industry leaders from all over the world will talk about where IP communications is going in Europe. SIP, IMS, IPTV and Voice are all being covered at this event, along Open Source Telephony issues and perspectives.

    As chairman of the “Open Source Sustainability from the business perspective” conference I will be pleased to introduce Jon Hall ‘Maddog’ who will open the conference talking of “Open Source Telephony: the winning application in the Open Source world?”.

    Jon Hall MaddogJon Hall Maddog by Pizel y Dixel

    Next to him professor Alfonso Fuggetta will give a speech about “New Business Models and Open Source”, a topic he is looking into from a while now.

    Greg Vance – Digium Sales Manager – will bring us in the domain of Open Source PBX, talking about “Asterisk: an OS project that has become mainstream. What’s new”.

    Bogdan-Andrei Iancu – CEO of VOICE SYSTEM and co-founder of the OpenSER project – who on Wednesday 26 will held also a course on OpenSER Administration, will talk about “The OpenSer: from Universities to industrial applications”, an Open Source SIP server.Last but not least, Diego Gosmar, Giuseppe Innamorato, Stefano Osler, authors of the book “Asterisk e dintorni” will talk About Asterisk and beyond.

    Technorati Tags: Commercial Open Source, Open Source SIP, Open Source PBX, Asterisk, OpenSer , JonHallMaddog, AlfonsoFuggetta, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu

     

  • Roberto Galoppini 4:39 pm on September 3, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    EU Lobbying: ‘Worst EU Lobbying’ Awards 2007 

    Entering their third edition, the ‘Worst EU Lobbying’ Awards 2007 are now open for nominations. In 2005 the prize went to the bogus Campaign for Creativity, a front group used by large IT companies to lobby for software patents and intellectual property rights.

    This year you can nominate for two categories:

    1. The ‘Worst EU Lobbying’ Award for the lobbyist, company or lobby group that in 2007 has employed the most deceptive, misleading, or otherwise problematic lobbying tactics in their attempts to influence EU decision-making.
    2. The special ‘Worst EU Greenwash’ Award for the company whose advertising, PR and lobbying lingo is most at odds with the real environmental impacts of their core business activities.

    It’s up to you who will be eligible for these two awards! Until 15 September 2007 you can submit your nominations, see also some examples.

    For more information and the nomination form see the worstlobby website.

    About the Awards.

    The ‘Worst EU Lobbying’ Award is to be given to the lobbyist, company or lobby group that in 2007 has employed the most deceptive, misleading, or otherwise problematic lobbying tactics in their attempts to influence EU decision-making. This year’s event also includes a special ‘Worst EU Greenwash’ Award for the company whose advertising, PR and lobbying lingo is most at odds with the real environmental impacts of their core business activities.

    Technorati Tags: worst EU lobbying, software patents, EU

     

  • Roberto Galoppini 10:47 pm on August 31, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Internet Governance Forum: “Dialogue Forum on Internet Rights”, Rome 27-09-2007 

    The Italian Government in the framework of the Internet Governance Forum process, and in cooperation with the UN and the IGF Secretariat, Italy will organize a “Dialogue Forum on Internet Rights”, to be held in Rome on 27 September 2007.

    The conference will be open to any interested stakeholder. Registration form as draft agenda are available on-line.

    The organizers would like to encourage the submission of short written contributions that will then be summarized and introduced to the audience during the conference. Such contributions should focus on the two issues raised by the IGF Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of Rights as working items for this year, and specifically:

    • Which are the appropriate forms and instruments to implement and better define human rights and duties in the Internet environment?
    • What areas and types of rights and duties, relevant to the Information Society, should be part of this work and of its results?

    Contributions should be submitted by September 20 through the conference web site. The contributions, as well as the results of the conference, will also be used as preparatory material for the workshop that the Dynamic Coalition will hold at the second IGF in Rio de Janeiro.

    Contacts.

    The Government of Brazil will host in Rio de Janeiro on 12 – 15 November 2007 the second Internet Governance Forum meeting. The IGF website – run by the IGF Secretariat – supports the United Nations Secretary-General in carrying out the mandate from the World Summit on the Information Society with regard to convening a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue – namely the Internet Governance Forum.

    Technorati Tags: Internet Governance Forum, Italy, Rome, Open Consultation

     

  • Roberto Galoppini 12:05 pm on August 30, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Open Source Business Models: What is an Open Source Business Model? 

    Despite many articles talk about Open Source business models, and some papers describe also possible taxonomies of open source business models, none of them is analyzing in depth all components which describe the business logic of a specific firm.

    FLOSSMETRICS has assessed a list of 120 companies – resulting in the biggest empirical analysis of the business models adopted by OS firms done so far – while QualiPSo has analyzed 7 firms’ case studies. None of them has focused yet its attention on how pieces of the business fit together, eventually describing the company’s strategy, or how a specific firm differentiates itself and deals with the competition, either proprietary or FLOSS.

    not equalNot all lemons are created equal by Nan’s Pic’s

    Adopting Alex Osterwalder’s definition of business model, I tried to process the information about the “Distributing copies of an OSS product for a fee” business model“, i.e. just selling free software copies, not bundling any services such as technical support, consulting, systems integration and so on.

    The Value Proposition would be shrink-wrap open source products.

    The Customer Segment would target business customers, likely SMEs and professionals, having low bandwidth (a missprint?) and poor knowledge of OS existence.

    The Distribution Channel would definitely be a web site, too little margin for retail or worse to hire a sales team. In order to sell shrink-wrap OS products personalization it is a must, to exploit the long tail Community of Interest could play a great role.

    Chesbrough and Rosenbloom suggest to consider “Position in value network” and “Competitive Strategy”, and as matter of fact the competitors are all forges and repositories, Linux Magazines and so on.

    About the Competitive Strategy, Michael Porter identifies two types of advantages, the cost advantage and the differentiation advantage. Being difficult if not impossible to be cheaper than the competition, the only available option is serve customers’ idiosyncratic needs, I would say.

    Once identified an appropriate Differentiation Strategy, big marketing investments are needed to reach customers who don’t know open source products. Consider that if the business would ever work, competitors could easily imitate you, without spending time and effort doing software selection.

    At the end of the day, describing the business model and analyzing it helps to determine if it makes some sense, eventually ending to agree with Dana saying:

    The attempts by some to shrink-wrap open source products and sell them at the cost of packaging have, on the whole, been failures.

    Comparing business models could also be interesting. Reading “Do Some Business Models Perform better than Others? – A Study of the 1000 Largest US Firms” created a 16 different typologies of how firms differ in terms of two dimensions:

    what a company does and how they make money from doing it.

    It is worth to notice that some business models perform better than others, in particular selling the right to use assets is more profitable than selling ownership of assets.

    I am looking forward to apply these considerations within the joint research I am conducting with the FLOSSMETRICS project, may be adding a dimension or two to the “main revenue generation” and “licensing model” already included in the actual taxonomy.

    Technorati Tags: Open Source Strategies, business models, QualiPSo, FLOSSMETRICS

     

    • jheuristic 2:41 pm on August 31, 2007 Permalink

      Hi —

      Good post.

      “Chesbrough and Rosenbloom suggest to consider “Position in value network” —

      Have a look at Open Value Networks.

      http://www.value-networks.com/

      Cordially,

      -j

    • Roberto Galoppini 9:49 pm on August 31, 2007 Permalink

      Hi J,

      thanks for joining the conversation. I had a look at the Open Value Networks, and I read about GenIsis Value Network tool. I tried to download it, but apparently on SourceForge version 1.0 is not available.

      Did you use the tool by any chance? I see you mentioned it over kmblog, could you tell me what do you mean by this?

      Today, major social transformations like Web 2.0 and Cisco System’s The Human Network, are building new layers onto the OSI model.

    • David Meggitt 3:30 pm on October 9, 2007 Permalink

      Hi,

      An open source value network approach (refer again to http://www.value-networks.com ) to viewing a business model using Chesbrough and Rosenbloom that you cite can be seen at http://tinyurl.com/2whq3h

      Note the inclusion of “Standards” which has no mandated contractual relationship with the other participants in the network. Nevertheless, their inclusion is key and one way in which value networks such as that containing say Cisco is made resilient.

      Regards

      David Meggitt

    • Roberto Galoppini 10:40 am on October 11, 2007 Permalink

      David,

      thank you to join the conversation. As supporter and sponsor of these initiatives could you please sort out if the GenIsis Value Network tool is or not Open Source? As I wrote before I tried to download it, but on SourceForge version 1.0 is not available at the present stage.

    • David Meggitt 10:34 pm on October 12, 2007 Permalink

      Roberto…I have just had a look and the files are accessible to me, without any special log in.
      You can also see the number of downloads to date.
      I will check it out with the designer, however, if you are still having problems.

      David Meggitt

    • Roberto Galoppini 9:54 am on October 13, 2007 Permalink

      David you’re almost right..unfortunately the composer is no longer available and it became proprietary, so apparently you can download just plugins and documentation, but not the application itself. If this is the case, I could hardly call it open source. As a matter o fact Split/OSS Commercial products work just the other way around: the application is open, plugin are proprietary.

      Am I missing something David?

    • David Meggitt 9:52 am on November 30, 2007 Permalink

      Roberto,

      You are most likely correct. The software support to engaging with value network analysis (VNA) is being IP’d, with many more features, and likely to be launched next year.

      However, the real value is not the software but the recognition that VNA offers a new perspective or “lens” with which to visualise more realistically how organisations work. The material for that is all open source, as to method. There is also an information object model published for consultation.

      A recent large scale application with some 100 personnel enabled Boeing to increase productivity by a factor of six in redesigning a new organisation – the flight test “center” for the new Dreamliner aircraft. “Composer” was not needed for that.

      Hope that helps.

      David

    • Roberto Galoppini 2:14 pm on November 30, 2007 Permalink

      Hi David,

      for IP’d do you mean closed sourced? If this is the case I don’t see the point to pretend it to be open source.

      I am a firm believer that transparency pays, and I would see as appropriate a clear statement in the download page saying it all.

    • Marcin Jakubowski 2:41 pm on July 1, 2009 Permalink

      We are developing open business models from the grassroots perspective. However, we are well on our way to demonstrating that high quality, open source hardware (not only software) – can be produced cost-effectively according to this model. Please read our overview:

      http://openfarmtech.org/weblog/?p=510

    • Giovani Spagnolo 4:13 pm on September 21, 2009 Permalink

      Ciao Roberto,

      Very nice blog posts about Open Source business models. If could be of interest, I have my (2003-2005) master/MBA thesis on “FLOSS as a business model” published on http://www.scribd.com/doc/11515318/20032005-O-Software-Livre-como-Modelo-de-Negocios-Monografia-de-Conclusao-MBA-Executivo-em-Gestao-Empresarial-Estrategica-EDUCONNAIPPE-USP

      cheers,
      giovani

    • Roberto Galoppini 9:45 am on September 22, 2009 Permalink

      Ciao Giovanni,

      unfortunately I’m not so fluent in Spanish, but I had a look at it and it seems interesting, let me know if you write an English version.

      By the way, say Hi to Alfonso, I met him years ago in Brussels but after that our roads didn’t cross anymore.

  • Roberto Galoppini 6:40 am on August 27, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    European Open Source Projects: Qualipso deliverables on business models (part II) 

    QualiPSo – the ever largest Open Source initiative funded by the European Commission – is making public its first results, and I just started to analyze them.

    The goal of the project is “to define and implement technologies, procedures and policies to leverage the Open Source Software development current practices to sound and well recognised and established industrial operations”.

    QualiPSo includes 7 research and development domains (QualiPSo Competence Centres, business models, next generation forge, trustworthy results and process, information management, interoperability, legal issues), articulated in 10 work areas.

    Today I read the deliverable “State of the art concerning business models for systems comprising open source software“, apparently the most promising result within the “business models” research area.

    autoreferentialityCalypso Cabaret by Sackerman519

    Looking at the document as a whole, basically it is an essay of pretty known and old articles, like the Seven open source business strategies for competitive advantage, by John Koenig, and the mentioned many times “Economics of Open Source” of my buddy Carlo Daffara, plus some minor citations. Not a single new business model, they just mentioned Open Source (?) Franchising, not exploiting it any further.

    I must admit I learned about Sunil Joshi citations, but I honestly expected to find something more than things grasped around the net, sometimes even without double check. For example they happened to cite the Orixo consortium, so I guess they didn’t take a chance to talk with a representative, neither to read Gianugo advising on using consortia nor looking at the Orixo’s events section. On the contrary I didn’t read a mention of ZEA or Open Source Consortium, just to name two of them. I would warmly recommend them to add these, at least.

    I found it auto-referential just as the already mentioned deliverable D2.1.2 , since chapter 3 “BIG INDUSTRY OSS BUSINESS MODELS CASE STUDIES” is only about 4 QualiPSo’s members.

    Last but not least, chapter 4 “SME OSS BUSINESS MODELS CASE STUDIES” results to be a list of cases collected by the official sites of those firms, mostly cut&pasting public information available, not a deep research I would say.

    QualipSO seems following a Ferengi’s rule: Sell the sizzle, not the steak, I hope they will come out with something interesting soon..

    Technorati Tags: commercial open source, research, public funded, QualiPSo, IST

     

    • Josef Assad 8:20 am on August 27, 2007 Permalink

      No surprises, Roberto.

      At a very high level, I think the involvement of the EU in open source needs to be more enabling and less leading. I don’t think free culture is rocket science, and I agree with you that regurgitation of what is known is a waste of funds, but it is also a natural consequence.

      Rather than create the environment for open source adoption, it is my opinion that EU funds would be better directed at creating the conditions through which a free culture environment will organically develop. I’ve emphasised the operative words.

      I don’t think free culture lends itself very willingly to massive orchestrated initiatives, but that doesn’t mean that dep pockets can’t make significant impact.

    • Roberto Galoppini 12:49 am on August 28, 2007 Permalink

      Hi Josef,

      to the create the conditions you talk about, the dissemination should have a prominent role in projects like this, but as Hemingway wrote:

      Before we take to sea we walk on land, Before we create we must understand.

      The research phase should investigate, analyze and organize known facts in depth, if its ambition is:

      to make Open source a formidable lever to strengthen Europe’s competitiveness, accelerate ICT growth, and implement the i2010 policy for growth and jobs.

      What I am saying here, is that at the present stage deliverables like this can’t be an appropriate tool to help IT firms to include Open Source Software in their actual business strategy.

      About deep pockets, I must tell you that as European citizen I am concerned about how public money is spent.

    • GNUliano 2:43 pm on August 31, 2007 Permalink

      Thank you very much Roberto for your post… I found it very useful and informative!

  • Roberto Galoppini 7:40 am on August 22, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    European Open Source Projects: Qualipso deliverables (part I) 

    QualiPSo – the ever largest Open Source initiative funded by the European Commission – is making public its first results.

    Waiting to eventually join the first QualiPSo conference, that will focus on the challenges that the Open Source model introduces while being integrated in industry strategies, I had a first look at deliverables within the “business models” research area, namely the deliverable State of the art concerning strategies for industry towards Open Source communities and vice versa (PDF).

    autoreferentialityThe gesture of “me” by timtak

    Too little is said about Open Source Consortium Model (paragraph 6.6), where across Europe there are quite a few indeed, and I am available to help QualiPSO researchers if they are willing to further investigate the matter.

    Could you believe that the chapter ATTITUDES AND STRATEGIES OF INDUSTRY TOWARDS OPEN SOURCE COMMUNITIES describes only examples where a QualiPSO member is involved?

    Apparently QualiPSo didn’t take yet into consideration my suggestion to make public their description of work as many others did already, stripping from only confidential information. This way everybody could find all possible details about the project, including the project management and exploitation/dissemination plan and the detailed Workplan. This way we might even get a rough idea of the cost of individual deliveries, while the average cost is already a known information, though.

    I am still convinced that transparency pays..

    Technorati Tags: commercial open source, research, public funded, QualiPSo, IST

     

  • Roberto Galoppini 5:30 pm on August 20, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Open Source Antivirus: ClamAV project sold to Sourcefire 

    The ClamAV project – the known open source anti-virus toolkit – last friday announced that all project’s Intellectual assets had been sold from the five key developers to Sourcefire, the firm maker of intrusion detection products based on Snort.

    Sold!Sold! by Pommykiwi

    Sourcefire, who recently launched its public offer, is likely to maintain ClamAV much in the same way as it has done with Snort. Martin Roesch, Sourcefire’s CTO, stated:

    The success of the ClamAV project is a direct reflection of the talent and dedication of the founding team and the project community. Sourcefire will continue to invest in the ClamAV technology, much as we have with Snort and Snort.org.

    As reported by Ohloh, over ClamAV history 13 contributors have submitted code, and only 6 have done it in the last year. As a matter of fact Sourcefire now is hiring the whole core group, and they are in the position to double-licensing it.

    Differently from StillSecure, or worse Tenable Security, Sourcefire seems willing to balance open source and business through an hybrid production model, making money possibly with the Twin licensing business model.

    I agree with the ClamAV team, saying that the acquisition by Sourcefire is a testament to the hard work of the entire ClamAV community, and I wonder: will they be able to retain external contributions (mainly virus signatures) from now on?

    Dana asks if open source users, are going to get caught in the trips-and-dramas of corporate finance, just as if they were using proprietary software. While I know that it might be so, I think that there are chance that Sourcefire will balance its business interests with the community’s ones, eventually finding a way to keep ClamAV’s OEM’s interest in the project.

    I disagree with Alan Shimel, who whishes that:

    anytime a commercial entity makes a licensing move like this, other companies that are using that open source tool band together with others in the community and fork the project as is their right.

    It is not efficient and likely not effective, above all unrealistic. On the contrary I would like to see other firms using ClamAV be part of the game. It is just up to Sourcefire find a way, if it makes some sense to them to work to build a ClamAV technological club.

    Best wishes to all ClamAV guys, congratulations!

    Technorati Tags: Commercial Open Source, Open Source Strategy, Sourcefire, ClamAV

     

    • mike 4:05 pm on June 16, 2008 Permalink

      Hi Roberto,

      Interesting trend: Another open source security project sold.

      OSSEC HIDS project acquired:
      http://www.ossec.net/main/ossec-project-acquired

      What do you think?

      -m

    • tom 11:22 am on July 11, 2008 Permalink

      Interesting! I have been using Win Clam for sometime and just happened to find this piece of news by chance.

      Which are other open source projects sold out in this manner?

    • Roberto Galoppini 4:57 pm on July 14, 2008 Permalink

      Not many really. community open source projects tend to stay that way for life, even if they become hybrid projects. Acquia, providing value-added services for Drupal is an example of what happens “usually”. Instead “buying” a community project is not an easy goal, since copyright assignments should be signed by each author. And, even if feasible, “buying” a community is risky bet, definitely a decision to be handled with care.

← Older posts

Newer posts →

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel