Quantcast

java not working

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
20 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

java not working

Scott Blair

I am running Ubuntu 16.10 and have Java installed:
scott@main:~⟫ Java -version
openjdk version "9-Ubuntu"
OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 9-Ubuntu+0-9b134-2Ubuntu1)
OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 9-Ubuntu+0-9b134-2Ubuntu1, mixed mode)
scott@main:~⟫

Here is the problem. When running from my computer it works. But on the
Internet, it doesn't. I use the following browsers: Vivaldi 1.7.735.46
(64 bit), Google Chrome 57.0.2987.98 (64 bit), Chromium 56.0.2924.76 (64
bit), Firefox 52.0 (64 bit) and Thunderbird 45.7.0 for email.

In emails I get a Java error and none of the Java videos work. I turned
off the firewall to test and it still doesn't work. Firewall is showing
that Java is coming through the firewall.

Others have gone to the web site I am working on
(test.norulesofengagement.us) and the Java back to the top button works,
but not on my system in any of the browsers from the Internet. I have
checked all the browsers to make sure they are not blocking Java, but if
I load it from my hard drive, it works fine.
It is probably some mundane thing I am missing, any ideas?



Thanks,

Scott Blair

USMC Defending your freedoms since 10 November 1775

Save on backup time "BackupDevice=Null"

If you don't stand behind our troops,
feel free to stand in front of them.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: java not working

Jim Byrnes-4
On 03/16/2017 01:07 PM, Scott Blair wrote:

>
> I am running Ubuntu 16.10 and have Java installed:
> scott@main:~⟫ Java -version
> openjdk version "9-Ubuntu"
> OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 9-Ubuntu+0-9b134-2Ubuntu1)
> OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 9-Ubuntu+0-9b134-2Ubuntu1, mixed mode)
> scott@main:~⟫
>
> Here is the problem. When running from my computer it works. But on the
> Internet, it doesn't. I use the following browsers: Vivaldi 1.7.735.46
> (64 bit), Google Chrome 57.0.2987.98 (64 bit), Chromium 56.0.2924.76 (64
> bit), Firefox 52.0 (64 bit) and Thunderbird 45.7.0 for email.
>
> In emails I get a Java error and none of the Java videos work. I turned
> off the firewall to test and it still doesn't work. Firewall is showing
> that Java is coming through the firewall.
>
> Others have gone to the web site I am working on
> (test.norulesofengagement.us) and the Java back to the top button works,
> but not on my system in any of the browsers from the Internet. I have
> checked all the browsers to make sure they are not blocking Java, but if
> I load it from my hard drive, it works fine.
> It is probably some mundane thing I am missing, any ideas?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Scott Blair

I don't know about the other browsers, but Firefox 52.0 has removed the
java plugin so it will no longer work with java. I think there is a
version of Firefox called ESR that will still allow the java pluigin.


As a side note Firefox 52.0 has implemented something they call
Multiprocess Windows. It can stop some extensions from running. In my
case iMacros stopped working. The work around is to go into about:config
and find some entries "browser.tabs.remote.autostart" and change it from
true to false.

Regards,  Jim


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: java not working

Liam Proven
On 16 March 2017 at 19:49, Jim <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I don't know about the other browsers, but Firefox 52.0 has removed the java
> plugin so it will no longer work with java. I think there is a version of
> Firefox called ESR that will still allow the java pluigin.


That's almost  right. :-)

Firefox (and Chrome AFAIK) have removed support for external plugins.
All plugins, except Flash in Firefox. (Chrome has its own internal
Flash player.)

https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2015/10/08/npapi-plugins-in-firefox/

http://www.ghacks.net/2017/01/29/google-removes-plugin-controls-from-chrome/

It's going away & there is nothing you can do to alter that. Move away
from any content that requires plugins. They are insecure and cause
browser crashes. It's time to let go.



--
Liam Proven • Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: [hidden email] • Google Mail/Talk/Plus: [hidden email]
Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven • Skype/LinkedIn/AIM/Yahoo: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 • ČR/WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal: +420 702 829 053

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: java not working

Ralf Mardorf-2
On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 12:34:45 +0100, Liam Proven wrote:
>It's time to let go.

since many years overdue



--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Xen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: java not working

Xen
In reply to this post by Liam Proven
Liam Proven schreef op 17-03-2017 12:34:

> On 16 March 2017 at 19:49, Jim <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I don't know about the other browsers, but Firefox 52.0 has removed
>> the java
>> plugin so it will no longer work with java. I think there is a version
>> of
>> Firefox called ESR that will still allow the java pluigin.
>
>
> That's almost  right. :-)
>
> Firefox (and Chrome AFAIK) have removed support for external plugins.
> All plugins, except Flash in Firefox. (Chrome has its own internal
> Flash player.)
>
> https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2015/10/08/npapi-plugins-in-firefox/
>
> http://www.ghacks.net/2017/01/29/google-removes-plugin-controls-from-chrome/
>
> It's going away & there is nothing you can do to alter that. Move away
> from any content that requires plugins. They are insecure and cause
> browser crashes. It's time to let go.

Personally I just want to say that I consider this dictatorship.

Chrome does the same with the checking of certificates.

Because of the very strict checking these days loads of people get in
trouble with the checking of these certicates that may just be using a
slightly older codec or whatnot.

Meanwhile I have *never* encountered a potential man in the middle
attack in my life. Maybe you say that's because the checking is so
strict so they don't even try. I doubt it.

People are just mal-educated as well. This connection is not secure.
Wait a minute. Just because the endpoint is not verified, by some random
authoritarian authority, I might add, but the connection is still
encrypted, doesn't directly make it "insecure". You are being lied to,
or ordinary people are, that cannot see the difference.

So now encrypted but unverified connections are "insecure", but regular
http:// connections are not.

Great world we live in.

The only false positives I've ever had was when the computer date was
wrong.

I have never been bothered by the idea of insecure browsers, I just
didn't use Microsoft Internet Explorer, that cleared 90% of the risk
back in the day,

and Linux shouldn't be particularly prone to such things anyway as of
today, but that is of course not something Firefox (or Mozilla) can
really design about, or for, but still.

I just think there is a long chain of tradition now in taking freedom
away from users for their own good. Microsoft does it a LOT and
compulsory updates are now mandatory everywhere to the point of
disaster.

I feel like a tool often instead of the computer being my tool, anymore.

A video editor like YouTube's can't be done without Flash, I'm sure.

Why should security trump usability in every case? I don't care about
security in that sense, I have never been hacked, never had a virus
since the days of MS-DOS I believe, the only thing I've ever wanted is
to sandbox things properly, and they have never given us that.

And I feel that on Linux the ability to clean up after (ie. by veryfying
checksums of all files, etc.) would be a bigger boon than preventing
individual leaks from occuring.

I just mean to say that management capability of a user should be a
higher concern than paranoia about browser leaks that, in our case, do
not even target our systems most of the time, yet, but which does render
use cases impossible for several users out here, including myself
perhaps, but I just haven't run into it yet myself, because I use Java
so scarcely etc., but I was greatly offended by the inability to run it,
even on Windows, myself, becoming more strict and more strict every
passing year.

In the end my own Wiki that I used, TiddlyWiki, I couldn't operate,
anymore.





And for what? Security that I never needed and never got bitten by (in
reverse).

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: java not working

Ralf Mardorf-2
On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 12:53:15 +0100, Xen wrote:
>Personally I just want to say that I consider this dictatorship.
>[snip]
>Security that I never needed and never got bitten by (in reverse).

That is how my Arch Linux does look like right now [1].
For example, you still could compile Claws-Mail with the fancy plugin
[2], but since webkit is critical and nobody will fix it, Arch a rolling
release distro, already dropped it. You should expect that Ubuntu will
do the same.

If you never was affected, then because upstream developers as
well as security teams [3], take care for you [4] and fix issues, by
either providing security upgrades or by dropping stuff nobody is
willing to continue maintaining.

Firefox isn't webkit based, but it suffers from vulnerabilities,
too. Somebody needs to maintain firefox to get rid of vulnerabilities.
If some mechanisms make this maintenance more or less impossible, it's
wise to remove those mechanisms.

FWIW ALSA support for firefox 52.0 already is disabled by upstream and
AFAIK it will be completely dropped soon. At the moment it's still
possible to build 52.0 with "--enable-alsa". It's not removed for
security reasons, just because the developers aren't willing to do the
work and continue supporting ALSA, even without any security issues
involved. I dislike this step, but I don't consider this as
dictatorship.

You could fork open source software and maintain it on your own, if you
guess it's not much work.

Some developers try to reach world domination, the once who don't care
about other, everybody actually knows two names ;), but most developers
don't drop things because they want to dominate, they simply need to
decide for what work they will spend their time.

Regards,
Ralf

[1]
[root@archlinux ~]# arch-audit

Package audiofile is affected by

["CVE-2017-6839", "CVE-2017-6838", "CVE-2017-6837", "CVE-2017-6836", "CVE-2017-6835", "CVE-2017-6834", "CVE-2017-6833", "CVE-2017-6832", "CVE-2017-6831", "CVE-2017-6830", "CVE-2017-6829", "CVE-2017-6828", "CVE-2017-6827"].

High risk!

Package jasper is affected by

["CVE-2017-6852", "CVE-2017-6850", "CVE-2017-5505", "CVE-2017-5504", "CVE-2017-5503"].

High risk!

Package lib32-curl is affected by

["CVE-2017-2629"].

Low risk! Update to 7.53.0-1!

Package lib32-libtiff is affected by

["CVE-2016-10095", "CVE-2015-7554"].

Critical risk!

Package lib32-libxslt is affected by

["CVE-2017-5029"].

Critical risk!

Package libevent is affected by

["CVE-2016-10197"].

Low risk!

Package libplist is affected by

["CVE-2017-6440", "CVE-2017-6439", "CVE-2017-6438", "CVE-2017-6437", "CVE-2017-6436", "CVE-2017-6435"].

High risk!

Package libtiff is affected by

["CVE-2016-10095", "CVE-2015-7554"].

Critical risk!

Package libusbmuxd is affected by

["CVE-2016-5104"].

Medium risk!

Package openjpeg2 is affected by

["CVE-2016-9118", "CVE-2016-9117", "CVE-2016-9116", "CVE-2016-9115", "CVE-2016-9114", "CVE-2016-9113"].

High risk!

Package webkitgtk is affected by

["CVE-2017-2373", "CVE-2017-2371", "CVE-2017-2369", "CVE-2017-2366", "CVE-2017-2365", "CVE-2017-2364", "CVE-2017-2363", "CVE-2017-2362", "CVE-2017-2356", "CVE-2017-2355", "CVE-2017-2354", "CVE-2017-2350"].

Critical risk!

Package webkitgtk2 is affected by

["CVE-2017-2373", "CVE-2017-2371", "CVE-2017-2369", "CVE-2017-2366", "CVE-2017-2365", "CVE-2017-2364", "CVE-2017-2363", "CVE-2017-2362", "CVE-2017-2356", "CVE-2017-2355", "CVE-2017-2354", "CVE-2017-2350"].

Critical risk!

Package zziplib is affected by

["CVE-2017-5981", "CVE-2017-5980", "CVE-2017-5979", "CVE-2017-5978", "CVE-2017-5977", "CVE-2017-5976", "CVE-2017-5975", "CVE-2017-5974"].

High risk!

[2]
http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/xenial/man1/claws-mail-fancy-plugin.1.html

[3]
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam
[4]
https://www.ubuntu.com/usn/


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Xen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: java not working

Xen
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.

> For example, you still could compile Claws-Mail with the fancy plugin
> [2], but since webkit is critical and nobody will fix it, Arch a
> rolling
> release distro, already dropped it. You should expect that Ubuntu will
> do the same.

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.

In other words, you might as well argue that browsers should drop HTML
because it is too vulerable. There is a point where functionality is
important enough to warrant the work. And of course the work has to be
done by someone, that is not the point. All of the things you *DO* agree
with also have to be done by someone. That is no different here.

Webkit, I do not know how webkit is being developed, Obviously both
Opera and Chrome and also Safari make use of it. I would suspect there
would be enough developer potential there. No, I do not want to argue my
point here completely, I just wanted to give my opinion.

But I just feel these decisions are not made for technical reasons, but
rather moral reasons, in the sense of _deciding for other people_, not
for the developers themselves or their time. I could even say that many
of the failures in the modern world result from people _deciding for
other people_ but let's not get into that.

And I also do not want to make a topic out of this, but the recent
announcement that PowerPC architecture would be dropped was met some
time ago by a message on ubuntu-discuss by basically the most important
PowerPC maintainer _who was not consulted_ for this decision at all.

His name was Ben Collins and the message was on 22 december of 2016.

He wrote:

"I’m completely surprised that the TB did not reach out to an Ubuntu
Core
Dev who is also the owner of the Ubuntu PowerPC architecture team, (...)
before making this decision. (...) I’m a bit disappointed by this
decision,
especially when you did not, in any way, reach out to one of the most
prominent
participants in the Ubuntu PowerPC community. (...)".

So no, I absolutely do not believe such decisions or decisions like them
are based purely on technical grounds as you say. I do not wish to
instigate trouble here, but it is just an example, nothing more, of how
decisions that can appear to be based on technical difficulties or human
resources problems are, in fact, often just political of whatever kind.

In the case of security, this political motivation is telling other
people how to behave and how to live.

Thank you.



> If you never was affected, then because upstream developers as
> well as security teams [3], take care for you [4] and fix issues, by
> either providing security upgrades or by dropping stuff nobody is
> willing to continue maintaining.

That's the same reason I was able to use the software in the first
place. Someone did the work. Now security is part of that, if we want no
security issues at all, we should stop making software. Making software
involves dealing with problems. You cannot argue in full that every
feature that causes trouble needs to be dropped.

> Firefox isn't webkit based, but it suffers from vulnerabilities,
> too. Somebody needs to maintain firefox to get rid of vulnerabilities.
> If some mechanisms make this maintenance more or less impossible, it's
> wise to remove those mechanisms.

Only if those vulnerabilities are actually a threat. I have used for
many years software that had these vulnerabilities and yet I was never
infected. I do not install malware at least not on purpose or while
knowing I run a risk (hence the sandboxing desire or requirement for me)
and if I do run that risk I knowingly do so, and I never encountered a
website that I know of that was able to infect or infiltrate my systems
to my conscious knowing.

Typically when Java is fired up for instance, you see a little icon
appear in the lower right corner. This tells me that the number of
websites I have encountered that surreptitiously activated Java is
simply zero. It has never happened to me.

I am saying that many security vulnerabilities result from misuse, or,
of course, extremely vulnerable software such as Microsoft products
(Office, IE, etc.) that allow for scripting, true.

A recent acquiantance here uses a website scanning engine to stay safe.
I do not know if she uses Ubuntu while doing that but to my personal
understanding, and I don't mean to insult anyone here, least of all you,
girl, I just could not infect my system if I did it on purpose.

I have just been long annoyed by the misleading language that the
browser designers use for security threats. People that do not know are
panicking from every single message the browser sends them of every
security threat, and they are 99% of the time false positives, which
leads to the well known "desensitisation". "Your connection is not
protected". I'm sorry, but a regular connection isn't either, and just
because some encryption scheme fails to verify completely, doesn't mean
that now suddenly my systems are increasingly at risk because some AD
fails to load through an encrypted channel that is also verified.

Everything uses https these days, almost everything, so even the
smallest image not loading successfully over SSL/TLS will give you a
security warning.

This is too much nervousness for my feeling, it makes people unnerved
and doesn't really inform them, so they cannot really assess the
security risks themselves without knowing more, it is bad education and
I just feel it is doing them a disservice. Botnets, sure, they are
dangerous, and keyloggers even more so. Ubuntu allows keyloggers to be
installed on a user's account and run to capture a user's keys, so there
is reason to be concerned even about non-root programs, sure. Because a
keylogger on a regular account can quickly give access to root as well.
For real, this is true, I have tested it as well with a real keylogger
in that sense, it is possible to do so quite easily and to install one
of these things without as much as a worry as to how to do it.

So sure, we need to protect software and browsers and AppArmor I believe
does a great job already.

But reducing people's options not because it should be impossible to
support them but because you feel they _shouldn't_ be supported (and
used) is a different thing to being concerned about security. It is
impeding on people's rights and if people want to be vulnerable, they
should be allowed to, I could say.

I mean to say really that e.g. Microsoft bugs you with updates so much
and they are all compulsory and it even installs 4GB upgrades without
asking you, replacing the entire core Windows system without telling you
(and moving the old stuff to C:\Windows.old, sorry to say so here).

That I think is what you don't want.

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.





>
> FWIW ALSA support for firefox 52.0 already is disabled by upstream and
> AFAIK it will be completely dropped soon. At the moment it's still
> possible to build 52.0 with "--enable-alsa". It's not removed for
> security reasons, just because the developers aren't willing to do the
> work and continue supporting ALSA, even without any security issues
> involved. I dislike this step, but I don't consider this as
> dictatorship.

Well that could be convenient if Alsa is not really required in any
sense, right? I can't have an opinion about it without knowing more, and
I don't really need to. Of course I guess there can be choices that
developers make on their own behalf. And that is right.

> You could fork open source software and maintain it on your own, if you
> guess it's not much work.

I just think that is insincere. In the debate about the security guy
developing extensions for the Linux kernel, it was offered that if he
didn't like the treatment he got from some of the kernel community as
regards to his extensions, he could write his own kernel from scratch
instead.

I am not concerned with developers making choices on their behalf. I am
okay with that. If you don't want to do the work, you don't want to do
the work.

But don't make these choices on my behalf please, because you feel I
shouldn't be using these options. That's all. Care about your time
please, but don't care about mine, or my risks involved, I can assess
these myself, thank you very much. And if you, as developers, that are
busy developing these things, or writing the messages for them (I'm
pointing to Chrome, for instance) would be more honest in informing
users, then other users could *also* properly assess the risks on their
own, likely, given even the most modicum amount of information and
education.

My problem is not just with developers making decisions for other people
(and not for themselves), but also for using misleading language in
frightening people more than they should.

Even my father is afraid of viruses, and he doesn't even use a computer.


> Some developers try to reach world domination, the once who don't care
> about other, everybody actually knows two names ;), but most developers
> don't drop things because they want to dominate, they simply need to
> decide for what work they will spend their time.

I wish that was true, but the fact is that Linux is an ego-infested
culture as well, sorry to say so here, but... power over other people
feels great, doesn't it ;-).

I mean that you shouldn't discount normal human tendencies from having a
role in conduct here or everywhere, and to say that open source
developers are free from all wordly concerns is not true.

Western society and ... eastern ... society alike, pretty much plays the
game of world domination everywhere, and pushing your norms onto other
people is more often done than not.

We are not free from that, it is everywhere, that doesn't make open
source developers worse than other people, but it does make them
people... like all the rest ;-).

And we can be allowed to be people, sure, of course. But we are not gods
just because we do open source, and it is not like human fallabilities
suddenly escape us because we have a superior sentiment of what software
should be, that's all.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: java not working

Ralf Mardorf-2
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.

>> 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.

>In other words, you might as well argue that browsers should drop HTML
>because it is too vulerable. There is a point where functionality is
>important enough to warrant the work. And of course the work has to be
>done by someone, that is not the point. All of the things you *DO*
>agree with also have to be done by someone. That is no different here.

HTML is required for a browser, but not to view even HTML formatted
emails.

>Webkit, I do not know how webkit is being developed, Obviously both
>Opera and Chrome and also Safari make use of it. I would suspect there
>would be enough developer potential there. No, I do not want to argue
>my point here completely, I just wanted to give my opinion.

Webkit isn't = webkit, as GTK is not = GTK and Qt isn't = Qt. Therer
are releases, e.g. Qt3, Qt4, GTK2 and GTK3 and for webkit it's the
same, AFAIK not all webkits are continued by upstream.

>But I just feel these decisions are not made for technical reasons,
>but rather moral reasons, in the sense of _deciding for other people_,
>not for the developers themselves or their time. I could even say that
>many of the failures in the modern world result from people _deciding
>for other people_ but let's not get into that.
>
>And I also do not want to make a topic out of this, but the recent
>announcement that PowerPC architecture would be dropped was met some
>time ago by a message on ubuntu-discuss by basically the most
>important PowerPC maintainer _who was not consulted_ for this decision
>at all.
>
>His name was Ben Collins and the message was on 22 december of 2016.
>
>He wrote:
>
>"I’m completely surprised that the TB did not reach out to an Ubuntu
>Core Dev who is also the owner of the Ubuntu PowerPC architecture team,
>(...) before making this decision. (...) I’m a bit disappointed by
>this decision, especially when you did not, in any way, reach out to
>one of the most prominent participants in the Ubuntu PowerPC
>community. (...)".

A lot of distros will drop even the more used i686, IOW 32 bit PC
architecture. Not many people are still using PPC.

>That's the same reason I was able to use the software in the first
>place. Someone did the work. Now security is part of that, if we want
>no security issues at all, we should stop making software. Making
>software involves dealing with problems. You cannot argue in full that
>every feature that causes trouble needs to be dropped.

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.

>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.

Human kind has got another issue with digitization. All our
newer documents, many new books, most new music etc. is archived on
digital media only. 1. A lot of those media aren't long-lasting. 2.
Even if those media should last long enough, often the gear to read
those media gets lost.

We are losing some freedom, by the short lifespan of our cultural
achievement, not because old software concepts for daily use get
replaced by more secure software.

Regards,
Ralf


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: java not working

C de-Avillez-2
In reply to this post by Xen
On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 14:50:05 +0100
Xen <[hidden email]> 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.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

attachment0 (817 bytes) Download Attachment
Xen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: java not working

Xen
C de-Avillez schreef op 18-03-2017 3:45:

> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 14:50:05 +0100
> Xen <[hidden email]> 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.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Xen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: java not working

Xen
In reply to this post by Scott Blair
Scott Blair schreef op 16-03-2017 19:07:

> Others have gone to the web site I am working on
> (test.norulesofengagement.us) and the Java back to the top button
> works, but not on my system in any of the browsers from the Internet.
> I have checked all the browsers to make sure they are not blocking
> Java, but if I load it from my hard drive, it works fine.
> It is probably some mundane thing I am missing, any ideas?

Before responding to Ralph again I just want to point you to these
resources:

- this page documents the "Exception Site List" for Java browsers, which
you may need to get something running on a website:

https://www.java.com/en/download/faq/exception_sitelist.xml

- this is some documentation for Linux. You can start the Java Control
Panel by executing the "ControlPanel" command from an alt-f2 run box, or
the shell.

"This new version of Java (version 1.7.0_51) leads to security
permission error for many sites. So, you need to add exceptions to these
sites. It can be done by accessing the Java Control Panel. Press ALT+F2
and type "ControlPanel" to access Oracle java 7 Plugin Control Panel. Go
to the Security tab and Click on " Edit Site List" under "Exception Site
List" section. Here you add the site which is giving error regarding
security permissions.  Add the sites and click OK and close the panel."
[1]

In other words, you may be able to add your site to the "Exception Site
List" which may cause it to run.

Regards.

[1]
http://insane-on-linux.blogspot.nl/2014/01/java-webex-firefox-ubuntu-1204-64-bit.html

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Xen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: java not working

Xen
In reply to this post by Ralf Mardorf-2
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.

>>> 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.

> HTML is required for a browser, but not to view even HTML formatted
> emails.

Apparently we were speaking about a plugin to a mail client, but anyway.

> Webkit isn't = webkit, as GTK is not = GTK and Qt isn't = Qt. Therer
> are releases, e.g. Qt3, Qt4, GTK2 and GTK3 and for webkit it's the
> same, AFAIK not all webkits are continued by upstream.

I don't really see the point of that, but the topic was vulnerabilities
and whether or not enough manpower would be available for that. I cannot
argue, or discern, whether what you say, about lacking manpower, would
be true or not.

>
> 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.

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

People _are_ willing to do the work, well I cannot argue completely
about Java,

but since we have been harassed for years by people making coding paths
that turn Java off in thet most variety of circumstances, rendering it
almost impossible to use it, not because it isn't there, but because
/PEOPLE HAVE SAID IT COULDN'T BE USED/ through *code*.

And that if you had been able to patch this code, to hack this code, to
change even a single "jump" in this code, ie. in the compiled code and
the paths it used, hey, presto, the code is available again! Java is
available again!

So now of course they are dropping it completely, as you say, in
Firefox, at least the ability to run any plugins for real (and not just
extensions, I might assume), but this follows a long chain of harassment
of users that absolutely were not mandated by any security concerns that
were real, but by any security concerns that they thought had to be
real, so they turned it off for the user, the assholes, that don't care
about what you want, but only about what they want, and what you
shouldn't use according to them, and that's my point, they don't care
about YOU, they only care about your "security" that you don't care
about, but _they know better_ and they will decide *for* you because
they know better as to what you want and don't want and that's the
disease in this world, according to me at least and I think I should
speak for a lot of people that usually don't have a say, and pardon
these words here, but I cannot make it more clear or more nice even than
this.

Disabling java in the browser unless 20 security checks were passed and
exceptions added to some file and so on and so on were active measures
that were not mandated by what the user wants, but just to make it
harder to use the damn thing.

I will post a response to Scott Blair in another message.



> 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?

This is a moral issue and it is in terms of opinions, not hard truths.

Some people feel security must be forced on the user, others don't. I
don't.

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 has been working brilliant for everyone.

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

If it had, I would have been effected too. See, it is not so easy to
target a corrupted flash thing at someone, you first have to get someone
to open a specific website. Never happened for me, just didn't.

So maybe my situation is different, but my choice is to use flash, and
they are taking that choice away from me, on purpose. Security issues
are not in the browser. They are in the flash plugin itself. You don't
have to code or do anything on the Flash plugin, that is the job of its
author.

There are no huge issues on browser developers for that. But just to be
sure I checked some links. Browsers have had issues with crashing, yes.

But in any case, this is what Mozilla writes:

"Browser plugins, especially Flash, have enabled some of our favorite
experiences on the Web, including videos and interactive content. But
plugins often introduce stability, performance, and security issues for
browsers. This is not a trade-off users should have to accept." [1]

That's opinion, not fact, and I never experienced a trade-off myself.
They are making a choice FOR ME.

They are only looking at it from THEIR perspective, NOT from the user's
perspective, while pretending to care about the user. The user doesn't
care. The user was happy with Flash.

This is what a game developer writes:

"When technologies fall out of favor it's usually because other better
technologies were created, and the market reacted (...). That's not what
is going on with Flash. We don't have a better technology for games."
[2]

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.

It is pretty evident that you cannot develop games in HTML5 and that if
you did, you would have to wring yourself in turns and corners to get
the same functionality.

The same page writes this:

"Google is likewise taking a gradual approach. It announced in May that
its Chrome browser would start blocking Flash files by default for most
sites starting in the fourth quarter of this year. But it would allow
Flash to run unimpeded on the top 10 sites."

So we are now being discriminated against. Because some piece of
software on your computer thinks it knows better than you.

How you can not see this as control being taken away from the user, is
beyond me.

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

But the software controls your computer, and you don't. It's as simple
as that.

There is no user configuration available for this. These are hard-coded
choices so it is not about the user at all.

These choices are dictated to us.

If this was about FREE SOFTWARE this wouldn't happen.

I am just incredulous that you (you people) who are ADVOCATES of FREE
SOFTWARE cannot see what is happening.

I mean, pardon my language in this message.

But I am not being served here as a user.

This is not directly to do with Ubuntu or Firefox. But browser games are
going away, completely.

Various simulations and scientific experiments (or programs enabling or
simulating them) on the web, are going away completely.

Or almost completely in any case, there won't be much left.

We will be left with a poorer web that can only play *video* (files) and
nothing else.

With "programs" that need to be encoded in HTML and CSS and Javascript.

Java was never a great thing (in the browser) because of its footprint
for things such as menus, of course, but no one used that after a while,
they used flash for that, if they did that.

Still, choice is being taken away from us and this is pretty clear, and
the users are not doing that, the developers are. The users are not
asking for that, but the developers are doing that anyway. They are
giving us THEIR choice, but not OUR choice. They are dictating how
people should live and what they can use. It's not you making that
decision. They are.

Users have no choice in this, we don't have a say, our opinion was never
asked.

They are dictating how we should live and what choices we can make.

This is a prime reason for the open source movement to exist, and you
fall for it completely.

[1]
https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2016/07/20/reducing-adobe-flash-usage-in-firefox/
[2] https://phys.org/news/2016-08-dont-delete-player.html

http://tech.blorge.com/2016/02/07/the-future-of-adobe-flash-player/155419

https://arstechnica.co.uk/information-technology/2015/08/google-chrome-will-block-auto-playing-flash-ads-from-september-1/

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/07/firefox-will-start-blocking-flash-content-in-august-fully-click-to-play-in-2017/



>> 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.

And this is not evolution, this is directed development by certain
actors. These are people that DECIDE what people should use, it is not
an evolution at all, it is an evolution in how much control these people
want over our lives, at best.

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.


> Human kind has got another issue with digitization. All our
> newer documents, many new books, most new music etc. is archived on
> digital media only. 1. A lot of those media aren't long-lasting. 2.
> Even if those media should last long enough, often the gear to read
> those media gets lost.

I really don't think this is more of a concern to most people than the
current issue is, or should be., In that sense of people recognising
that it could effect them, and will effect them, and they will see many
games suddenly cease to exist, for instance.

This also has nothing to do with freedom. It has more to do with analog
media of old than newer media to begin with, so it has nothing to do
with digitization. It is VHS tapes and cassettes and grammaphone records
that become unusable most quickly, and not at all the digital media we
have today. So I don't know how often the "gear to read those media"
gets lost, but it is nonsense. 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. Yes, older harddisks, maybe. But there are still
plenty of IDE readers so this is not an issue. The molex plug also
hasn't changed on PSUs and there are billions of external IDE readers
out there. This is not an issue at all. Yes, theoretically the decay of
DVD/CD and harddisks can become an issue, but it is not now, certainly
not for digital media (but rather for analog media of the past), not
barring of course, the use of textiles to produce books ;-).

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


> We are losing some freedom, by the short lifespan of our cultural
> achievement, not because old software concepts for daily use get
> replaced by more secure software.

No, only access to tapes and VHS tapes is getting limited. Nothing else
yet.
Floppy disks, sure, that's the only thing.

A thing few care about.

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

THAT should be the real concern. And this is not happening through
natural evolution (as would have been the case with e.g. VHS or
floppies, where new technology takes over) but rather through
dictatorship.

There is no new technology that can replace Flash and Java. It is
bollocks. This is a directed choice through the limiting of people and
what software they can use.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: java not working

Peter Silva
In reply to this post by Xen
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 6:48 AM, Xen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Scott Blair schreef op 16-03-2017 19:07:

Others have gone to the web site I am working on
(test.norulesofengagement.us) and the Java back to the top button
works, but not on my system in any of the browsers from the Internet.
I have checked all the browsers to make sure they are not blocking
Java, but if I load it from my hard drive, it works fine.
It is probably some mundane thing I am missing, any ideas?

Before responding to Ralph again I just want to point you to these resources:

- this page documents the "Exception Site List" for Java browsers, which you may need to get something running on a website:

https://www.java.com/en/download/faq/exception_sitelist.xml

- this is some documentation for Linux. You can start the Java Control Panel by executing the "ControlPanel" command from an alt-f2 run box, or the shell.

"This new version of Java (version 1.7.0_51) leads to security permission error for many sites. So, you need to add exceptions to these sites. It can be done by accessing the Java Control Panel. Press ALT+F2 and type "ControlPanel" to access Oracle java 7 Plugin Control Panel. Go to the Security tab and Click on " Edit Site List" under "Exception Site List" section. Here you add the site which is giving error regarding security permissions.  Add the sites and click OK and close the panel." [1]

In other words, you may be able to add your site to the "Exception Site List" which may cause it to run.

Regards.

[1] http://insane-on-linux.blogspot.nl/2014/01/java-webex-firefox-ubuntu-1204-64-bit.html



None of the exception list stuff matters, because the browsers no longer invoke java.  Firefox was the last one that worked, and with version 52 it stopped working as a concious developer choice.  There is nothing that can be done at the Java level.   Webex specifically doesn't work any more.  Neither does Entrust in a browser, and likely countless enterprise things that use Java.



--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: java not working

Scott Blair
In reply to this post by Xen
On 03/18/2017 06:48 AM, Xen wrote:

> Scott Blair schreef op 16-03-2017 19:07:
>
>> Others have gone to the web site I am working on
>> (test.norulesofengagement.us) and the Java back to the top button
>> works, but not on my system in any of the browsers from the Internet.
>> I have checked all the browsers to make sure they are not blocking
>> Java, but if I load it from my hard drive, it works fine.
>> It is probably some mundane thing I am missing, any ideas?
>
> Before responding to Ralph again I just want to point you to these
> resources:
>
> - this page documents the "Exception Site List" for Java browsers, which
> you may need to get something running on a website:
>
> https://www.java.com/en/download/faq/exception_sitelist.xml
>
> - this is some documentation for Linux. You can start the Java Control
> Panel by executing the "ControlPanel" command from an alt-f2 run box, or
> the shell.
>
> "This new version of Java (version 1.7.0_51) leads to security
> permission error for many sites. So, you need to add exceptions to these
> sites. It can be done by accessing the Java Control Panel. Press ALT+F2
> and type "ControlPanel" to access Oracle java 7 Plugin Control Panel. Go
> to the Security tab and Click on " Edit Site List" under "Exception Site
> List" section. Here you add the site which is giving error regarding
> security permissions.  Add the sites and click OK and close the panel." [1]
>
> In other words, you may be able to add your site to the "Exception Site
> List" which may cause it to run.
>
> Regards.
>
> [1]
> http://insane-on-linux.blogspot.nl/2014/01/java-webex-firefox-ubuntu-1204-64-bit.html
>
>



Nothing comes up when I use ATL+F2 ControlPanel or controlpanel. When I
run incognito in all browsers it works. I added Opera 473.0.2442.114 (64
bit) and it works fine on that. Up until Opera, I was beginning to think
a system problem, but not sure now.





Thanks,

Scott Blair

USMC Defending your freedoms since 10 November 1775

Save on backup time "BackupDevice=Null"

If you don't stand behind our troops,
feel free to stand in front of them.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Xen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: java not working

Xen
Scott Blair schreef op 18-03-2017 14:04:

> Nothing comes up when I use ATL+F2 ControlPanel or controlpanel.

That is only for the Oracle JVM that is not distributed by default on
Linux, I think.

You are probably using openjdk which might not have it, I cannot check
now.

> When
> I run incognito in all browsers it works.

That might indicate a cookie issue instead?

> I added Opera 473.0.2442.114
> (64 bit) and it works fine on that. Up until Opera, I was beginning to
> think a system problem, but not sure now.

I am sure you mean 43.0. That's great.

Though I may have made a fool of myself here in case I now wonder if you
don't mean JavaScript instead.

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.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Xen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: java not working

Xen
In reply to this post by Peter Silva
Peter Silva schreef op 18-03-2017 13:51:

> None of the exception list stuff matters, because the browsers no
> longer invoke java.  Firefox was the last one that worked, and with
> version 52 it stopped working as a concious developer choice.  There
> is nothing that can be done at the Java level.   Webex specifically
> doesn't work any more.  Neither does Entrust in a browser, and likely
> countless enterprise things that use Java.

I guess we were wrong about this being about Java, sorry.

(Also my own only remaining use case from the past apparently has an
alternative in that there is a javascript engine called Node.js that can
run TiddlyWiki and also save without requiring Java anymore).

(Which is the preferred way to use TiddlyWiki anyway I guess, its own
window).

Regardless at this point for me and for many people obviously, Java is
not the biggest problem. It's Flash. But I guess that's a different
topic then. But they are also going to phase out Flash, without real
warranty, or real need. It still works today, there is not a real
replacement for Flash, and soon many things will stop working.

I guess we'll need some sort of alternative browser, one that is
actually free?

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: java not working

Ralf Mardorf-2
In reply to this post by Xen
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



--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: java not working

Ralf Mardorf-2
In reply to this post by Xen
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


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: java not working

Ralf Mardorf-2
In reply to this post by Xen
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: [hidden email]
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: [hidden email]
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


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Xen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: java not working

Xen
In reply to this post by Ralf Mardorf-2
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.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Loading...