6 ms·

Did any of that money go to Mozilla or any other organization seeking to advance and secure the internet for the vast majority of people who did not waste money

Did any of that money go to Mozilla or any other organization seeking to advance and secure the internet for the vast majority of people who did not waste money on overpriced products from a company that doesn't want to take responsibility for its poor judgement and inflexibility?

Silhouette 13y ago
Please take your obvious trolling somewhere else. Not all software that runs in web browsers was written in the last year or two, after HTML5 and CSS3 and all the related new technologies became viable options for doing heavily interactive graphics on web sites. For many years before that, tools like Flash and Java applets were the only games in town, and a lot of production software with many years of development behind it that is still widely useful was built using those tools.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  > your obvious trolling You're not helping your case at all. Accept responsibility for supporting your customers, and stop lashing out at others for not doing it for you.
  - Silhouette 13y ago
    We are supporting our users. The point is that in this case we shouldn't have to. The problem is an entirely artificial one of Mozilla's creation, and no support from anyone should ever have been necessary.
    - nknighthb 13y ago
      The problem is entirely of Oracle's and your own creation. Oracle is not adequately supporting their software, and you have failed to notice the signs over the past several years that browsers were headed in exactly this direction and adapt accordingly. Mozilla is taking the only responsible course to protect the vast majority of their users. It's been a long time coming, and absolutely no one should be surprised that it finally arrived. If anything, I'm surprised it took this for the first major browser to do it. More will follow. Adapt or die.
      - Silhouette 13y ago
        Adapt or die. An unfortunate comment, because some of the devices I had in mind when writing those last few posts are in fact medical equipment. If Java-based UIs are no longer readily available to clinical staff the way they were last week, then effectively their instruments just got broken. Delays and increased suffering for patients are all but certain consequences until the IT staff have chance to fix things again. Fortunately, the software running on equipment that could actually cause death as a direct result of failure is written to much higher standards and shouldn't depend on this kind of technology in the first place.
        nknighthb 13y ago
        The sorry state of medical IT and medical device vendors is not Mozilla's fault. It is especially not Mozilla's fault if medical organizations and their vendors are rolling out updates they haven't tested themselves. You're probably aware that in many, if not almost all commercial EULAs, you'll find an all-caps passage like this one I just pulled out of Apple's OS X license document: > E. YOU FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE APPLE SOFTWARE AND SERVICES ARE NOT INTENDED OR SUITABLE FOR USE IN SITUATIONS OR ENVIRONMENTS WHERE THE FAILURE OR TIME DELAYS OF, OR ERRORS OR INACCURACIES IN THE CONTENT, DATA OR INFORMATION PROVIDED BY, THE APPLE SOFTWARE OR SERVICES COULD LEAD TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, LIFE SUPPORT OR WEAPONS SYSTEMS. It's stated clearly and at length because absolutely no one writing general-purpose software wants to bear this responsibility. FOSS no less than commercial, but FOSS is generally a less-attractive lawsuit target. Trying to foist this responsibility onto Mozilla is just evil. They didn't ask for it. They didn't offer their software as a solution to medical IT's woes. But you want to blame them for obvious misuse of their software causing harm to patients. If I were to die of an aneurysm tomorrow, would it be your fault for not being a competent neurosurgeon and healing me? No. Nor should it be Mozilla's fault that it does not produce a medical device, but a piece of software someone has decided to misuse as one.
        pyre 13y ago
        > If Java-based UIs are no longer readily available to clinical staff the way they were last week, then effectively their instruments just got broken. Would that be a failure of Firefox (or other browser vendors) or a failure of hospital IT staff to manage the medical devices / desktops / network effectively?

Silhouette 13y ago

Please take your obvious trolling somewhere else. Not all software that runs in web browsers was written in the last year or two, after HTML5 and CSS3 and all the related new technologies became viable options for doing heavily interactive graphics on web sites. For many years before that, tools like Flash and Java applets were the only games in town, and a lot of production software with many years of development behind it that is still widely useful was built using those tools.

nknighthb 13y ago
> your obvious trolling You're not helping your case at all. Accept responsibility for supporting your customers, and stop lashing out at others for not doing it for you.
- Silhouette 13y ago
  We are supporting our users. The point is that in this case we shouldn't have to. The problem is an entirely artificial one of Mozilla's creation, and no support from anyone should ever have been necessary.
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    The problem is entirely of Oracle's and your own creation. Oracle is not adequately supporting their software, and you have failed to notice the signs over the past several years that browsers were headed in exactly this direction and adapt accordingly. Mozilla is taking the only responsible course to protect the vast majority of their users. It's been a long time coming, and absolutely no one should be surprised that it finally arrived. If anything, I'm surprised it took this for the first major browser to do it. More will follow. Adapt or die.
    - Silhouette 13y ago
      Adapt or die. An unfortunate comment, because some of the devices I had in mind when writing those last few posts are in fact medical equipment. If Java-based UIs are no longer readily available to clinical staff the way they were last week, then effectively their instruments just got broken. Delays and increased suffering for patients are all but certain consequences until the IT staff have chance to fix things again. Fortunately, the software running on equipment that could actually cause death as a direct result of failure is written to much higher standards and shouldn't depend on this kind of technology in the first place.
      - nknighthb 13y ago
        The sorry state of medical IT and medical device vendors is not Mozilla's fault. It is especially not Mozilla's fault if medical organizations and their vendors are rolling out updates they haven't tested themselves. You're probably aware that in many, if not almost all commercial EULAs, you'll find an all-caps passage like this one I just pulled out of Apple's OS X license document: > E. YOU FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE APPLE SOFTWARE AND SERVICES ARE NOT INTENDED OR SUITABLE FOR USE IN SITUATIONS OR ENVIRONMENTS WHERE THE FAILURE OR TIME DELAYS OF, OR ERRORS OR INACCURACIES IN THE CONTENT, DATA OR INFORMATION PROVIDED BY, THE APPLE SOFTWARE OR SERVICES COULD LEAD TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, LIFE SUPPORT OR WEAPONS SYSTEMS. It's stated clearly and at length because absolutely no one writing general-purpose software wants to bear this responsibility. FOSS no less than commercial, but FOSS is generally a less-attractive lawsuit target. Trying to foist this responsibility onto Mozilla is just evil. They didn't ask for it. They didn't offer their software as a solution to medical IT's woes. But you want to blame them for obvious misuse of their software causing harm to patients. If I were to die of an aneurysm tomorrow, would it be your fault for not being a competent neurosurgeon and healing me? No. Nor should it be Mozilla's fault that it does not produce a medical device, but a piece of software someone has decided to misuse as one.
      - pyre 13y ago
        > If Java-based UIs are no longer readily available to clinical staff the way they were last week, then effectively their instruments just got broken. Would that be a failure of Firefox (or other browser vendors) or a failure of hospital IT staff to manage the medical devices / desktops / network effectively?