4 ms·

...and it's still a security nightmare... I think some developers took "write once, run anywhere" as a challenge, which is why I still have to keep virtual mac

...and it's still a security nightmare... I think some developers took "write once, run anywhere" as a challenge, which is why I still have to keep virtual machines with ancient Java versions around to configure and use certain remote IP-based KVMs, certain IPMI functions, certain older fibre channel switches, certain poorly thought out IP cameras, and so on.

nix23 4y ago
Just wait until GO has so many years on the back, java is not a "security nightmare" developers/businesses with zero responsibility are.
charcircuit 4y ago
Java has been very good at backwards compatibility for me except when they removed some unsupported internal classes from the 1.9 JDK, but there existed a workaround for still using it. I don't worry about security problems in the JDK or major libraries any more than anything else. I'm not sure where your security concerns are coming from.
vips7L 4y ago
Why is that Java’s fault? Isn’t that the fault of the developers of your applications from not upgrading?
- nailer 4y ago
  I might be wrong but I think they stopped working on major new versions for a decade. There seems to be Java 6 or 1.6 or whatever for a really long time. Like Netscape's version 4.
  - kaba0 4y ago
    Who stopped what? Java 19 is the upcoming release.
    - nix23 4y ago
      Maybe Java 2 SE v1.4.2? It was like the JDK8 from the old days.
    - Cwizard 4y ago
      using the parent comments naming scheme it is actually 1.19, I don’t know why they stopped developing major releases however.
      - kaba0 4y ago
        1.6 and 1.8 and the like were major releases. While LTS doesn’t have a well-defined meaning for OpenJDK, in general 11+6*n are the versions that are considered LTS (due to other vendors providing paid support for those). Let’s not read more into arbitrary version numbers.
        msgilligan 4y ago
        It is now 11 and 17+4n
      - babypuncher 4y ago
        The real nightmare is Java's versioning scheme
        kasperni 4y ago
        The version number increments by 1 every 6 months. What is so nightmarish about that?
        babypuncher 4y ago
        To someone who has not written Java since High School in the '00s, I find the ecosystem a little confusing. My recent experience was this: I have a Windows box in my basement that hosts a Spigot Minecraft server for some friends and their kids. This box also hosts my UniFi controller software. The UniFi controller software requires Java 8, which is what Oracle offers for download on their website. Spigot usually requires the latest version, at the time I ran into this problem it was 17. You have to go out of your way and actually download the whole JDK for any Java version newer than 8. So I download and install JDK 17, which replaces the JRE 8 I already had running UniFi. Spigot works, and the UniFi controller appears to start up and function. However I quickly notice that the UniFi app is behaving erratically, and after some troubleshooting and googling, I learn that Java 17 is in fact not backwards compatible with Java 8, so both of them need to be installed. Of course, Java doesn't make installing multiple versions side by side easy. It's doable, but even then they built no mechanism for a jar file to specify which runtime it needs and automatically run with it. So I had to write my own startup scripts for these apps calling the specific runtime they required. None of this was particularly onerous to figure out and deal with, but your average user is going to get stuck and feel frustrated. And it left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth because .NET has done a pretty good job of avoiding exactly these kinds of problems.

nix23 4y ago

Just wait until GO has so many years on the back, java is not a "security nightmare" developers/businesses with zero responsibility are.

charcircuit 4y ago

Java has been very good at backwards compatibility for me except when they removed some unsupported internal classes from the 1.9 JDK, but there existed a workaround for still using it. I don't worry about security problems in the JDK or major libraries any more than anything else. I'm not sure where your security concerns are coming from.

vips7L 4y ago

Why is that Java’s fault? Isn’t that the fault of the developers of your applications from not upgrading?

nailer 4y ago
I might be wrong but I think they stopped working on major new versions for a decade. There seems to be Java 6 or 1.6 or whatever for a really long time. Like Netscape's version 4.
- kaba0 4y ago
  Who stopped what? Java 19 is the upcoming release.
  - nix23 4y ago
    Maybe Java 2 SE v1.4.2? It was like the JDK8 from the old days.
  - Cwizard 4y ago
    using the parent comments naming scheme it is actually 1.19, I don’t know why they stopped developing major releases however.
    - kaba0 4y ago
      1.6 and 1.8 and the like were major releases. While LTS doesn’t have a well-defined meaning for OpenJDK, in general 11+6*n are the versions that are considered LTS (due to other vendors providing paid support for those). Let’s not read more into arbitrary version numbers.
      - msgilligan 4y ago
        It is now 11 and 17+4n
    - babypuncher 4y ago
      The real nightmare is Java's versioning scheme
      - kasperni 4y ago
        The version number increments by 1 every 6 months. What is so nightmarish about that?
        babypuncher 4y ago
        To someone who has not written Java since High School in the '00s, I find the ecosystem a little confusing. My recent experience was this: I have a Windows box in my basement that hosts a Spigot Minecraft server for some friends and their kids. This box also hosts my UniFi controller software. The UniFi controller software requires Java 8, which is what Oracle offers for download on their website. Spigot usually requires the latest version, at the time I ran into this problem it was 17. You have to go out of your way and actually download the whole JDK for any Java version newer than 8. So I download and install JDK 17, which replaces the JRE 8 I already had running UniFi. Spigot works, and the UniFi controller appears to start up and function. However I quickly notice that the UniFi app is behaving erratically, and after some troubleshooting and googling, I learn that Java 17 is in fact not backwards compatible with Java 8, so both of them need to be installed. Of course, Java doesn't make installing multiple versions side by side easy. It's doable, but even then they built no mechanism for a jar file to specify which runtime it needs and automatically run with it. So I had to write my own startup scripts for these apps calling the specific runtime they required. None of this was particularly onerous to figure out and deal with, but your average user is going to get stuck and feel frustrated. And it left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth because .NET has done a pretty good job of avoiding exactly these kinds of problems.