5 ms·

> 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

> 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
        That's a fair question. However, I don't think some people posting in this discussion would like the equally fair answer. Logically, if Firefox is not going to support long term stability and compatibility -- and clearly it doesn't in the case we're discussing -- then the only possible conclusion is that Firefox can't be part of an effectively managed IT infrastructure for these kinds of organisations. That means the correct course of action for those responsible for that infrastructure is to plan to remove any dependencies on Firefox as quickly as possible and to replace it with something more stable, which presumably means IE in this context.

> 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
      That's a fair question. However, I don't think some people posting in this discussion would like the equally fair answer. Logically, if Firefox is not going to support long term stability and compatibility -- and clearly it doesn't in the case we're discussing -- then the only possible conclusion is that Firefox can't be part of an effectively managed IT infrastructure for these kinds of organisations. That means the correct course of action for those responsible for that infrastructure is to plan to remove any dependencies on Firefox as quickly as possible and to replace it with something more stable, which presumably means IE in this context.