java not working

[Xen]

Ralf Mardorf schreef op 18-03-2017 16:34:

> 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..

Right. I still don't know why it should be terribly important.

>> 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.

Sure, but I have an inkling of an intuition that those alternative ways 
of displaying HTML emails are not very user friendly at all, sorry to 
say so, which would basically prove my point, that functionality is 
dropped for very poor reasons.

> 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!

If you complain about the problems, don't be in the business.

> No, see above, I prove you wrong!

That's no proof at all. That is just stipulations of hypotheticals no 
one will really put to the test, or quantize. I said it back then, I 
think, that the decision makers rarely give actual numbers where they 
base their decisions on, so it's all just guesswork.

That the most important or one of the most important maintainers was not 
even consulted, should be detrimental enough, or important enough in its 
own right.

That can NEVER be excused by saying "Yeah yeah, but there also needs to 
be testing, and so on".

So you basically say "Okay, there are enough people to maintain it, but 
not enough to test it".

Or you say "Well, it still required computing resources to compile all 
of that software". Well, fair enough, but come on. These are centralized 
things done once for all people (of that platform) so the computing 
resources should be allowed for that.

Either that, or skip updating things as much as you do. The big routine 
of constant constant updates is not a must. Nor a given.

Now not all packages update as much of course, but there are so many and 
so many get updates that it starts to be an endless chore -- that is 
just my experience. This endless chore could be stopped as well by other 
choices.

It's priorities!


>>> 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.

No. So not being able to use Java or Flash is LESS annoying than a 
browser crash now and then?

And besides, now other people have to decide for ME what my annoyances 
are?

That's what I have the problem with, you know. I am not given choice 
here.

>> 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.

They will drop it. But supporting Java doesn't require additional code 
over supporting Flash, I'm sure. They just have a kill switch in there.


>> 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.

I'm talking about Windows. Flash has been an issue on Linux because of 
its support by Adobe, and Linux has more issues about everything anyway.

> 
>> 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?

It's not Hitler lol.

>> 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?

It's not Erdogan either.

>> 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?

It's the actual developers that get to decide, that are certainly not 
"free people" in that sense.

> 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.

Billions of users (almost) that might use stuff that you don't use.

Look you don't even use HTML mail.

Millions do. Should we take that away from them because your way of life 
is better, supposedly?

>> 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. ;).

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little 
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

>> 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.

Well okay, that just doesn't affect me directly :p.

>> 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"!

No, you are just sidetracking the issue to claim something else is 
freedom (when it's not about choice, but availability, and not mandated 
in-availability) whereas THIS subject is about actual mandated 
inavailability.

That has NO real good reason for it except for some people's hate 
(developer's hate, I guess) towards the subject.

People are NOT regarded in these choices and if these DAT recorders were 
actually still used they would still be produced.

We are discontinuing stuff that is STILL USED TODAY.

They are being PROACTIVELY DISCONTINUED when there is still a MARKET 
DEMAND TODAY.

That's different. That reeks of dictatorship ;-).

And of course dictation is dictation, it has nothing to do with actual 
complete and utter big countries in which this would take place, 
dictation is dictation everywhere in whatever field you are.

Dictator is merely someone who dictates.

It is about the dictating that I have a problem with.

I like to be free, not dictated to or about.

>> 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.

We should save everything, but just because there are more important 
things, doesn't mean you can go full out on dumping everything else 
whenever you want, and especially not whenever someone else wants, that 
is not you, and doesn't have a say about the entire culture.

How many developers are there actually that decide this? I would think 
not more than 20 in the end.

Call for a referendum then, you know. Call for a vote. See what happens 
then.

If you think this is about "freedom".

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

Yes, the moment something becomes relevant or important, you opt out.

This is why this "Godwin" thing was invented in the first place, to 
avoid important discussions.

Because the moment it DOES become important, it starts to be likened to 
those things!!!

Well I'm sorry for making that big analogy in any case, but the fact is 
that this is no natural evolution, this is an evolution towards ever 
increasing control of people and you should be worried about it.

Microsoft does the same thing with mandated updates and you should be 
worried about it (if you care about that thing at all).

The ever increasing signing of binaries, and the inability to run 
anything produced by an independent developer, should worry you.

The fact that technologies are discontinued not because the owners of 
those technologies want them to, or the public wants them to, but the 
gatekeepers want them to, should worry you.

Do you honestly think Oracle wants this to happen?
Do you honestly think Adobe wants this to happen?
Do you honestly think the public wants this to happen?

No, only a very small number of people that are in control want this to 
happen.

And yes that reeks of dictatorship, But then Google dictates a lot of 
things in the world already.

How about people that cannot make money on YouTube because there 
material is not politically correct?

Here is a great video that is not allowed to make money on YouTube ads 
supposedly because it is a cover of sorts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwYd5cRlROE

But actually it is because it says something politically incorrect.

That should worry you. It should worry you that people are being 
silenced for having opinions.

It should worry you that a small club of browser developers can take 
away an entire platform or feature for everyone in the world, and no one 
can do a thing about it, except fork the product in that sense.

Which would never effect or reach everyone, because how many people 
would be able to use an unkown port?

Most people are just hostages of this event.

They decide, and we don't, and that should worry you. That's all I can 
say.