java not working

Ralf Mardorf silver.bullet at zoho.com
Sat Mar 18 16:07:39 UTC 2017


Those didn't came through the list
( https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/2017-March/date.html ):

Begin forwarded message:

Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 16:40:54 +0100
From: Ralf
To: ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
Subject: Re: java not working


On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 14:26:10 +0100, Xen wrote:
>Java and JavaScript are not the same and a browser "top" button would 
>usually use JavaScript, not some actual applet, that I and others 
>thought you meant.  

That's very important! I fear that a lot of annoyances of websites of
energy providers, ISPs, administrative bodies etc. are still possible
by jaca script :D. And much more, they still require non-free
JavaScript. At least I needed to uncheck IceCat's "Block execution of
non-free JavaScript" feature.

Regards,
Ralf



Begin forwarded message:

Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 16:34:52 +0100
From: Ralf
To: ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
Subject: Re: java not working


On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 13:50:26 +0100, Xen wrote:
>Ralf Mardorf schreef op 17-03-2017 21:27:  
>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 14:50:05 +0100, Xen wrote:    
>>> Ralf Mardorf schreef op 17-03-2017 13:43:
>>>     
>>>> That is how my Arch Linux does look like right now [1].    
>>> 
>>> I cannot interpret that.    
>> 
>> It shows all packages I installed from official repositories, that
>> suffer from known vulnerabilities.    
>
>Sure, but I cannot see if these vulnerabilities have already been
>fixed, whether these were old vulnerablities or not, how old they are,
>and whether it is significant as to the entire scheme of things, I
>mean the total volume of packages and all.  

It displays all vulnerabilities that are currently affect installed
packages from repositories, for a rolling release it means that those
packages are the current official releases from upstream. How important
they are is mentioned by the comments "Low risk!", "Medium risk!" etc..

>>>> For example, you still could compile Claws-Mail with the fancy
>>>> plugin    
>>     
>>> You cannot seriously argue that, if this is some important email
>>> client, that the security issues surrounding the viewing of HTML
>>> emails dwarfs the usability concerns with regards to _being able to
>>> read them_ in the first place.    
>> 
>> I'm a claws user and never displayed HTML. There are other ways to
>> display HTML, the fancy plugin not necessarily is needed to do
>> this.    
>
>Sure, I will take your word for that, but unless you show me what
>those other ways would be, and if that would be in any way user
>friendly or user convenient, I obviously cannot judge the subject, now
>can you :p.  

Yes, since I follow
http://lists.claws-mail.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users , but for
this discussion the details are off-topic.

>> A lot of distros will drop even the more used i686, IOW 32 bit PC
>> architecture. Not many people are still using PPC.    
>
>And even that seems to be not a decision based on actual manpower 
>required in relation to the benefits that it brings to have these 
>architectures (ie. for older hardware, or also other use cases or 
>platforms (ie. low memory footprint)) but that is not something we can 
>discuss here right. It was already discussed, I don't agree with it 
>either, but I was just meaning to show you that in THIS CASE the 
>decision was made WITHOUT fully or considerately considering the 
>manpower ACTUALLY AVAILABLE.  

Wrong! I followed the 32 bit Ubuntu discussions. It's not only about
the manpower to maintain a port, such as PPC. You e.g. need take into
account, if Ubuntu should provide install media for the Ubuntu releases
and how many users are there to test them, bevor the official release
date. Or e.g. does upstream of software provide all architectures? You
might have noticed all the dead links by http://packages.ubuntu.com/ ,
since some packages were only available for 64 bit architecture. The
more architectures, the more discussions about features, e.g. should 32
bit packages compiled with SSE or SSE2 etc.? It's a string of
consequences!

>Your argument is predicated on the amount of manpower not being 
>available, well, tough luck, evidence shows that you are wrong.  

No, see above, I prove you wrong!

>> I didn't mention it. What's dropped in this case is something that
>> does cause serious issues, while at the same time other stuff is
>> improved, e.g. HTML5.    
>
>It never caused serious issues for me. I have been using Java for
>years, it was never more insecure than it is now, but now suddenly it
>has to be dropped?
>
>Java in the browser has existed since the 90s and it has always been 
>equally insecure and now suddenly it needs to be dropped? And only 
>because HTML5 exists, that cannot be used to code any real thing?  

You never needed to run "killall -9 firefox"? It#s not only about
security, but also about all the annoyances.

>I give preference to flash, not Java really, but flash is in my mind 
>definitely a better solution overall than HTML5. I don't *like* HTML5.
>I did like Flash.  

Flash is mentioned as an exception, it should be dropped, but they
don't drop it. Flash would be the thing I would drop at first! I don't
use it since years.

>There have never been any real issues with flash, apart from the 
>occasional security leak, that didn't really impact anyone.  

That's ridiculous it caused tons of requests to all mailing lists, the
pepper thingy helped to get rid of issues, but it doesn't exist that
long.

>So maybe my situation is different, but my choice is to use flash, and 
>they are taking that choice away from me, on purpose.  

Who does?

>So we are not experiencing market reaction, we are experiencing forced 
>choice. We are experiencing dictatorship, where the browser developers 
>dictate what people should and can't be allowed to use.  

You are close to Godwin's law, aren't you?

>This is terror and this is tyranny. You absolutely have no control
>over this software and they do what they want.  

And now you are a step closer to Godwin's law, aren't you?

Btw. for which users apart from yourself are you speaking, if you
mention "the users"? I'm not a browser developer and I appreciate much
if developers enforce annoying websites of energy providers, ISPs,
administrative bodies etc., IOW websites we are forced to use, to get
rid of stuff that is a PITA.

>>> The whole premise of Linux (or Ubuntu) is that you are in control of
>>> your own system and you should keep that high, I feel, and that is
>>> all I can say about it.    
>> 
>> We don't lose this freedom, if the Internet goes through an
>> evolution, to improve security.    
>
>Of course we lose freedom. Just because you think it's for security, 
>doesn't mean we don't loose freedom to do what we want. We won't be
>able to play games or do various other things, and we never chose
>that.  

I don't care about gamers, I care more about adults who need to use the
Internet, by using websites of energy providers, ISPs,
administrative bodies etc. ;).

>I could also say that this is the same kind of 'evolution' as a
>certain premier first changing the constitution of a certain country
>to allow the president of that country to be elected, then elects
>himself as president, and then basically abolishes the premier-ship
>causing the president to wield supreme power.  

That nearly fits to Godwin's law, just a name is missing ;)!

>The only digital media we've had to date were CDs and ZIP drives and
>floppy disks, ZIP drives and floppy disks were never used for
>archiving anything permanent, CDs are still readable, and everything
>else is USB and SD card so I don't know what you are on about.  

I'm not just thinking in this dimension, but ok, even in this smaller
dimension you are mistaken. For example, since I'm from this domain, lot
of professional audio stuff, radio and music is archived on DAT. Try to
get a DAT recorder. Let alone digital consumer formats.

>Yes, theoretically the decay of DVD/CD and harddisks can
>become an issue  

In this case the lifespan is an issue, but fortunately professional
archives, usually didn't use CD or DVD.

>In any case this is not a concern for most people and also has nothing 
>to do with "freedom".  

Archiving a culture is important for "freedom"!

>But in any case, millions of Flash games are destined to become 
>unplayable in a few years, maybe even next year already.  

So now you agree, when you care about the most weakest, most idiotic
cultural absurdity. I guess there are more important cultural
achievements we should save.

However, for my taste this "discussion" smells like Godwin, so I opt
out.

Regards,
Ralf





More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list