java not working

[Xen]

C de-Avillez schreef op 18-03-2017 3:45:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 14:50:05 +0100
> Xen <list at xenhideout.nl> wrote:
> 
>> And I also do not want to make a topic out of this, but the recent
>> announcement that PowerPC architecture would be dropped
> 
> You are talking about PowerPC 32bits big-endian. This is the one to
> have support dropped.
> 
> PPC 64 bits little-endian (PPC64el) is still there.

Yes you are correct. However the owner of the Ubuntu PowerPC team was 
not consulted before making the decision. A person that works for a 
company that builds PowerPC hardware, _both_ 32 and 64 bit, and who 
invests a huge amount of time in making both ports viable, wasn't 
consulted even though the decision makers said they had tried to reach 
out to basically everyone in search of someone (or people) who would be 
willing to keep this port viable. Now granted, the decision was mostly 
made on behalf of upstream (Debian) dropping support of that 
architecture also, but it was clear, also from his response, that this 
person was willing to work hard to keep the port viable, yet wasn't 
consulted for that decision to begin with. So, in other words, it turns 
out he was royally ... sexual expletive with regards to woodworking... 
over.

So the one who does the work wasn't consulted. Odd, I thought this was a 
doocracy. But in any case, even if this was done by mistake.

To me it was just an example of how decisions can be not purely 
technical or based on human resources even. Because it is clear the 
human resources were actually there, or would have been there. If people 
had wanted them to.

Ralph's statement was that "there needs to be someone who does the dirty 
work". Well, in this case there was. There was someone willing to do the 
dirty work and already doing the dirty work, and he wasn't consulted.

So any statements, made in general, as to the unvailability of labour, 
that is then pushed towards me, the complainer, saying "Why don't you do 
the work instead?" might not even be factually accurate.

It is insincere to begin with because it is clear that an ordinary user 
of any kind could never do the work required only for his or her own 
purpose of getting a small piece of software to run, while having to 
invest countless scores of hours into that to no avail; we also do not 
develop nuclear bombs because we have a wall to blow up. If blowing up 
the wall is too hard we will use other means to take it down. In the 
case of java, we would probably forego the use of whatever software we 
were using, rather than trying extremely hard to keep it running, as a 
single man, that is not worth the effort.

Still, that doesn't mean we cannot be not just disappointed but also 
offended, and basically just furious as well, and moreoever, grieving, 
when something is discontinued not for proper reasons but rather for a 
long-standing argument that the software is too insecure to be used by 
the _user_ and the user should be prevented from using it him or 
herself.

There was no question that in recent years java (for the browser) was 
still operational and yet throughout all of these years it became harder 
and harder to use it as is also shown from the original post in this 
thread, NOT because of lacking security or the unavailability of the 
software, directly, but rather because of _active_ choices being made by 
coders that required _coding_ to _shut it down_.

I mean to say that it took effort to deny this functionality to users.