Why doesn't Oracle just abandon their web plugin? The real strength of the platform is on the server side, and the client side is just giving it a bad name.
It would be a quick fix but Applets have some advanced functionality like multi-threading and it's clear to see the benefits when you can run Battlefield 3 right in your browser:
It also powers the most popular MMORPG, Runescape. This functionality can be provided as an app but we still don't have the same appification on the desktop that we do on mobile yet.
Some people still like the idea of apps being delivered completely by the browser and you'd have to question if Runescape wasn't delivered via the browser but by an app, would it be the most popular MMORPG?
On the other hand, the amount of cases where Applets are used to their potential are so few, nobody is adopting it for the vast majority of web deployment and the security risk is always going to be present. A better solution might be to have a whitelist for execution. So the applet functionality is disabled but when you visit a site that needs Java, you manually add its URL to the whitelist (no automated way of enabling via popup) and Java will only execute for the sites you decide. The same would be good for all plugins.
I think it's a good idea to draw a line between high-privileged secured code and low-privileged easily accessible code. The best place to draw the line will be debated by every company pushing their own solutions. It seems that the iOS platform has done it the best way except for the fact that Apple reserves the right to block apps beyond just security threats.
The report did indicate the problem was with Safari but Java 7. If that is the case, an alternative browser is not going to solve the problem.
I believe the suggestion is to have Java permanently disabled in your favorite browser of choice for everyday use - and when you run across a site which requires Java for content that you want to access - instead of changing the setting, accessing the content, then changing the setting back, either or both of which might require a browser restart, that instead you have an alternate browser installed with Java not disable by default such that you could simply switch to that browser to access the Java content then switch back to your primary browser.
I use ClickToFlash - someone should write a ClickToJava plugin.
This is a misleading article. It leaves out important facts like Java 1.7 being a manual download from Oracle.com, and that only in the last month has a non-beta version become available for Mac users. Most Mac users do not have Java 1.7 installed, and Apple continues to update the newest version of 1.6 on Lion and Mountain Lion.
No one wants to read your shitty blog. Go pimp it somewhere else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by internetworld7
Still think macs don't need antivirus? Time to wake up and properly protect your mac. Sure you can cut off Java but there are other trojan horse that can infect your mac WITHOUT Java. I too use to be a smug Apple fanboy who thought this day would never come... so much for that, I had to "change my ways". Running Eset Cybersecurity for Mac and proud of it.
Shilling for virus programs. Yay. Definitely adds to the conversation /s
Alternately, the "Java Preferences" application can also be used to make sure the software is disabled.
Some remarks:
1) I disabled Java long time ago and never missed it. If by chance I land on a java powered site, I just try to find another equivalent site. There must be one.
2) I never had to use a Java application. Do they exist?
3) Apple should put "Java Preference" Manager in the Preference Pane. Looking for it in the Applications/Utilities folder is awkward.
It would be a quick fix but Applets have some advanced functionality like multi-threading and it's clear to see the benefits when you can run Battlefield 3 right in your browser:
It also powers the most popular MMORPG, Runescape. This functionality can be provided as an app but we still don't have the same appification on the desktop that we do on mobile yet.
Some people still like the idea of apps being delivered completely by the browser and you'd have to question if Runescape wasn't delivered via the browser but by an app, would it be the most popular MMORPG?
On the other hand, the amount of cases where Applets are used to their potential are so few, nobody is adopting it for the vast majority of web deployment and the security risk is always going to be present. A better solution might be to have a whitelist for execution. So the applet functionality is disabled but when you visit a site that needs Java, you manually add its URL to the whitelist (no automated way of enabling via popup) and Java will only execute for the sites you decide. The same would be good for all plugins.
I think it's a good idea to draw a line between high-privileged secured code and low-privileged easily accessible code. The best place to draw the line will be debated by every company pushing their own solutions. It seems that the iOS platform has done it the best way except for the fact that Apple reserves the right to block apps beyond just security threats.
Java is more than a server-side platform. I'll agree that web applications using a java plug-in are less than ideal, but standard web applications without Java are quite crappy in my opinion. Oracle is now pushing java user interface development using the JavaFX platform and the Netbeans platform for application development. The goal is to deliver rich UI applications to users' desktops running java as one would any Mac or IOS or Windows application, without the need to use a web browser. In addition, the JVM is becoming an execution platform for programming languages other than Java itself, while still allowing access to significant Java/JVM libraries and developer support subsystems such as developed by the Apache group. Then, there are JVM to native compilers which might give a best of all worlds solution for application development and deployment.
Looking at the computing world through a developer's eyes, being able to "write once, deploy everywhere" is still the Holy Grail, and Java VM shouldn't be overlooked. However, neither Android nor iOS devices would be able to participate -- that's the rub.
No one wants to read your shitty blog. Go pimp it somewhere else.
Shilling for virus programs. Yay. Definitely adds to the conversation /s
Shilling for virus programs? Lol. I wonder how the over 600,000 mac owners would feel about your smug Apple fanboy comment? For the record I do not believe antivirus is mandatory for macs as it is for PC's but mac threats are truly growing and antivirus for the mac should be seriously considered.
Shilling for virus programs? Lol. I wonder how the over 600,000 mac owners would feel about your smug Apple fanboy comment? For the record I do not believe antivirus is mandatory for macs as it is for PC's but mac threats are truly growing and antivirus for the mac should be seriously considered.
I could care less how they feel. Your post read like an advertisement for the AV program. You are the only one who self-identified as a fanboy. Ther are random people (and AV companies) who say that of course we need AV on the Mac, but no one EVER does a real article about it. We never see articles that actually test the abilities of AV programs on the Mac. I had a sub to MaximumPC for 14 years and I saw plenty of those articles over the years and they were very detailed. ArsTechnica did an article about Mac AV about 2 months ago, but it wasn't actually testing the protective and removal capabilities. It basically ended up being "This one looks pretty and is easy to use, this one is less so", which accomplishes jack shit.
It also powers the most popular MMORPG, Runescape. This functionality can be provided as an app but we still don't have the same appification on the desktop that we do on mobile yet.
Some people still like the idea of apps being delivered completely by the browser and you'd have to question if Runescape wasn't delivered via the browser but by an app, would it be the most popular MMORPG?
We're approaching the point where the browser itself can do it without a plugin, e.g.
Java is dead, when will people stop making Java apps? Shit, web apps are as powerful as java apps, without the security flaws or performance penalties.
Riiight. That's why many browsers pulled support for WebSockets (a web app technology) a little while back due to security issues.
It took me less than a week to port a fairly complex Objective-C app I'd written for iOS to Java (in order to create a compatible, browser-based version of it) due to those programming languages being so similar. I can't imagine how long it would take to port that same code to be a web app which works as well in the multitude of web browsers out there (if it'd even be possible).
Why doesn't Oracle just abandon their web plugin? The real strength of the platform is on the server side, and the client side is just giving it a bad name.
because the client side plugin also allows for some very fast back and forth with the server side. sadly, it's also, on occasion, the source of badware
It would be a quick fix but Applets have some advanced functionality like multi-threading and it's clear to see the benefits when you can run Battlefield 3 right in your browser:
It also powers the most popular MMORPG, Runescape. This functionality can be provided as an app but we still don't have the same appification on the desktop that we do on mobile yet.
Some people still like the idea of apps being delivered completely by the browser and you'd have to question if Runescape wasn't delivered via the browser but by an app, would it be the most popular MMORPG?
On the other hand, the amount of cases where Applets are used to their potential are so few, nobody is adopting it for the vast majority of web deployment and the security risk is always going to be present. A better solution might be to have a whitelist for execution. So the applet functionality is disabled but when you visit a site that needs Java, you manually add its URL to the whitelist (no automated way of enabling via popup) and Java will only execute for the sites you decide. The same would be good for all plugins.
I think it's a good idea to draw a line between high-privileged secured code and low-privileged easily accessible code. The best place to draw the line will be debated by every company pushing their own solutions. It seems that the iOS platform has done it the best way except for the fact that Apple reserves the right to block apps beyond just security threats.
Shilling for virus programs? Lol. I wonder how the over 600,000 mac owners would feel about your smug Apple fanboy comment? For the record I do not believe antivirus is mandatory for macs as it is for PC's but mac threats are truly growing and antivirus for the mac should be seriously considered.
you mean the ones that downloaded a mac antivirus software app that ended up being malware? I would imagine they feel betrayed and annoyed
Oracle is now pushing java user interface development using the JavaFX platform and the Netbeans platform for application development.
The goal is to deliver rich UI applications to users' desktops running java as one would any Mac or IOS or Windows application, without the need to use a web browser.
Java's use of non-native UI frameworks has long been a problem for Mac users and I don't see it changing. You end up with rendering glitches, ugly appearance and unexpected behaviour. With UIs for Retina displays, gestures and hardware rendering through Apple's core frameworks, non-standard frameworks just won't hold up. It would be a stop-gap at best and the developers would be hassled to death to develop a proper Cocoa UI and then the cross-platform aspect is largely unnecessary anyway.
This happened ages ago with some Linux apps when OS X came out, they tried to use cross-platform UI frameworks and it just didn't work. I can't remember if VLC was like this but similar apps.
Looking at the computing world through a developer's eyes, being able to "write once, deploy everywhere" is still the Holy Grail, and Java VM shouldn't be overlooked. However, neither Android nor iOS devices would be able to participate -- that's the rub.
Yeah, cross-platform binaries will be a holy grail to some people but they are much easier to reverse engineer too. Obviously they can be obfuscated but then become harder to debug. The more I see cross-platform deployment, I don't think cross-platform binaries are an issue any more. Expecting your userbase to have the right VM installed would be a bigger hurdle IMO - does Java even come pre-installed on any platform now? Having to ask someone to install a VM to run your cross-platform app isn't an elegant solution.
We're approaching the point where the browser itself can do it without a plugin. Not there yet, but speaking personally, it's coming faster than I expected.
Yes, web standards have really had a shot in the arm over the last few years and clearly driven by mobile platforms. Without Flash and Java there, there's not really much other option. I don't see big things ahead for rich web apps though, I think people will draw a line in the sand with native apps on one side and cool websites on the other.
This goes beyond functionality and into human behaviour. If I put a newspaper online and charge $1 to visit the site, you likely won't pay for it because you expect the web to be free. If I wrap that newspaper in an app and charge $1, people will buy it because it becomes a product even if it's exactly the same code. I don't see the web ever being able to monetize commercial software the way that apps can. Through advertising sure but not everybody wants to use the ad-supported model.
One example I used myself that is an exception was Runescape but I don't see that distribution model being mainstream for apps other than games. Streaming services like Gaikai clearly have a future, which is why Sony bought them.
Riiight. That's why many browsers pulled support for WebSockets (a web app technology) a little while back due to security issues.
Native technology certainly has its own security issues - WebGL had some too - but plugins take control away from the platform operator. A user can have multiple plugins installed and have to ensure they are all up to date. In the case of Java, there's a security risk in a plugin that most people won't have ever used.
Comments
It would be a quick fix but Applets have some advanced functionality like multi-threading and it's clear to see the benefits when you can run Battlefield 3 right in your browser:
http://www.gaikai.com/
It also powers the most popular MMORPG, Runescape. This functionality can be provided as an app but we still don't have the same appification on the desktop that we do on mobile yet.
Some people still like the idea of apps being delivered completely by the browser and you'd have to question if Runescape wasn't delivered via the browser but by an app, would it be the most popular MMORPG?
On the other hand, the amount of cases where Applets are used to their potential are so few, nobody is adopting it for the vast majority of web deployment and the security risk is always going to be present. A better solution might be to have a whitelist for execution. So the applet functionality is disabled but when you visit a site that needs Java, you manually add its URL to the whitelist (no automated way of enabling via popup) and Java will only execute for the sites you decide. The same would be good for all plugins.
I think it's a good idea to draw a line between high-privileged secured code and low-privileged easily accessible code. The best place to draw the line will be debated by every company pushing their own solutions. It seems that the iOS platform has done it the best way except for the fact that Apple reserves the right to block apps beyond just security threats.
I have version 6 update 33 I just checked it. Should I download the latest one or just keep what I have now? Thanks
@marvfox If you wanna be in the boat of the guys with a security hole install Java 7.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman
The report did indicate the problem was with Safari but Java 7. If that is the case, an alternative browser is not going to solve the problem.
I believe the suggestion is to have Java permanently disabled in your favorite browser of choice for everyday use - and when you run across a site which requires Java for content that you want to access - instead of changing the setting, accessing the content, then changing the setting back, either or both of which might require a browser restart, that instead you have an alternate browser installed with Java not disable by default such that you could simply switch to that browser to access the Java content then switch back to your primary browser.
I use ClickToFlash - someone should write a ClickToJava plugin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSam86
How do I determine whether I have any Java?
iSam
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13727_7-57408841-263/how-to-check-for-and-disable-java-in-os-x/
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysamoria
Software has critical flaw. World in shock.
*SNIP URL and such*
No one wants to read your shitty blog. Go pimp it somewhere else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by internetworld7
Still think macs don't need antivirus? Time to wake up and properly protect your mac. Sure you can cut off Java but there are other trojan horse that can infect your mac WITHOUT Java. I too use to be a smug Apple fanboy who thought this day would never come... so much for that, I had to "change my ways". Running Eset Cybersecurity for Mac and proud of it.
Shilling for virus programs. Yay. Definitely adds to the conversation /s
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Alternately, the "Java Preferences" application can also be used to make sure the software is disabled.
Some remarks:
1) I disabled Java long time ago and never missed it. If by chance I land on a java powered site, I just try to find another equivalent site. There must be one.
2) I never had to use a Java application. Do they exist?
3) Apple should put "Java Preference" Manager in the Preference Pane. Looking for it in the Applications/Utilities folder is awkward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSam86
How do I determine whether I have any Java?
go to folder "Utilities" of folder "Applications", look for "Java Preferences" app and launch it. You'll know everything Java on your Mac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
It would be a quick fix but Applets have some advanced functionality like multi-threading and it's clear to see the benefits when you can run Battlefield 3 right in your browser:
http://www.gaikai.com/
It also powers the most popular MMORPG, Runescape. This functionality can be provided as an app but we still don't have the same appification on the desktop that we do on mobile yet.
Some people still like the idea of apps being delivered completely by the browser and you'd have to question if Runescape wasn't delivered via the browser but by an app, would it be the most popular MMORPG?
On the other hand, the amount of cases where Applets are used to their potential are so few, nobody is adopting it for the vast majority of web deployment and the security risk is always going to be present. A better solution might be to have a whitelist for execution. So the applet functionality is disabled but when you visit a site that needs Java, you manually add its URL to the whitelist (no automated way of enabling via popup) and Java will only execute for the sites you decide. The same would be good for all plugins.
I think it's a good idea to draw a line between high-privileged secured code and low-privileged easily accessible code. The best place to draw the line will be debated by every company pushing their own solutions. It seems that the iOS platform has done it the best way except for the fact that Apple reserves the right to block apps beyond just security threats.
Java is more than a server-side platform. I'll agree that web applications using a java plug-in are less than ideal, but standard web applications without Java are quite crappy in my opinion. Oracle is now pushing java user interface development using the JavaFX platform and the Netbeans platform for application development. The goal is to deliver rich UI applications to users' desktops running java as one would any Mac or IOS or Windows application, without the need to use a web browser. In addition, the JVM is becoming an execution platform for programming languages other than Java itself, while still allowing access to significant Java/JVM libraries and developer support subsystems such as developed by the Apache group. Then, there are JVM to native compilers which might give a best of all worlds solution for application development and deployment.
Looking at the computing world through a developer's eyes, being able to "write once, deploy everywhere" is still the Holy Grail, and Java VM shouldn't be overlooked. However, neither Android nor iOS devices would be able to participate -- that's the rub.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13727_7-57408841-263/how-to-check-for-and-disable-java-in-os-x/
No one wants to read your shitty blog. Go pimp it somewhere else.
Shilling for virus programs. Yay. Definitely adds to the conversation /s
Shilling for virus programs? Lol. I wonder how the over 600,000 mac owners would feel about your smug Apple fanboy comment? For the record I do not believe antivirus is mandatory for macs as it is for PC's but mac threats are truly growing and antivirus for the mac should be seriously considered.
Originally Posted by internetworld7
I wonder how the over 600,000 mac owners would feel about your smug Apple fanboy comment?
That number was never the truth. But you'd know that if you'd been paying attention. It was sheer fabrication. We don't use "fanboy".
…antivirus for the mac should be seriously considered.
Abject nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by internetworld7
Shilling for virus programs? Lol. I wonder how the over 600,000 mac owners would feel about your smug Apple fanboy comment? For the record I do not believe antivirus is mandatory for macs as it is for PC's but mac threats are truly growing and antivirus for the mac should be seriously considered.
I could care less how they feel. Your post read like an advertisement for the AV program. You are the only one who self-identified as a fanboy. Ther are random people (and AV companies) who say that of course we need AV on the Mac, but no one EVER does a real article about it. We never see articles that actually test the abilities of AV programs on the Mac. I had a sub to MaximumPC for 14 years and I saw plenty of those articles over the years and they were very detailed. ArsTechnica did an article about Mac AV about 2 months ago, but it wasn't actually testing the protective and removal capabilities. It basically ended up being "This one looks pretty and is easy to use, this one is less so", which accomplishes jack shit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
It also powers the most popular MMORPG, Runescape. This functionality can be provided as an app but we still don't have the same appification on the desktop that we do on mobile yet.
Some people still like the idea of apps being delivered completely by the browser and you'd have to question if Runescape wasn't delivered via the browser but by an app, would it be the most popular MMORPG?
We're approaching the point where the browser itself can do it without a plugin, e.g.
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/08/firefox-15-arrives-supports-compressed-textures-for-impressive-3d-gaming/
Not there yet, but speaking personally, it's coming faster than I expected.
Try ClickToPlugin, from the same developer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcusj0015
Java is dead, when will people stop making Java apps? Shit, web apps are as powerful as java apps, without the security flaws or performance penalties.
Riiight. That's why many browsers pulled support for WebSockets (a web app technology) a little while back due to security issues.
It took me less than a week to port a fairly complex Objective-C app I'd written for iOS to Java (in order to create a compatible, browser-based version of it) due to those programming languages being so similar. I can't imagine how long it would take to port that same code to be a web app which works as well in the multitude of web browsers out there (if it'd even be possible).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
Why doesn't Oracle just abandon their web plugin? The real strength of the platform is on the server side, and the client side is just giving it a bad name.
because the client side plugin also allows for some very fast back and forth with the server side. sadly, it's also, on occasion, the source of badware
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
It would be a quick fix but Applets have some advanced functionality like multi-threading and it's clear to see the benefits when you can run Battlefield 3 right in your browser:
http://www.gaikai.com/
It also powers the most popular MMORPG, Runescape. This functionality can be provided as an app but we still don't have the same appification on the desktop that we do on mobile yet.
Some people still like the idea of apps being delivered completely by the browser and you'd have to question if Runescape wasn't delivered via the browser but by an app, would it be the most popular MMORPG?
On the other hand, the amount of cases where Applets are used to their potential are so few, nobody is adopting it for the vast majority of web deployment and the security risk is always going to be present. A better solution might be to have a whitelist for execution. So the applet functionality is disabled but when you visit a site that needs Java, you manually add its URL to the whitelist (no automated way of enabling via popup) and Java will only execute for the sites you decide. The same would be good for all plugins.
I think it's a good idea to draw a line between high-privileged secured code and low-privileged easily accessible code. The best place to draw the line will be debated by every company pushing their own solutions. It seems that the iOS platform has done it the best way except for the fact that Apple reserves the right to block apps beyond just security threats.
http://examplesite.com wants to use Java. [Allow] [Ignore]
Something like a location request? Totally agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by internetworld7
Shilling for virus programs? Lol. I wonder how the over 600,000 mac owners would feel about your smug Apple fanboy comment? For the record I do not believe antivirus is mandatory for macs as it is for PC's but mac threats are truly growing and antivirus for the mac should be seriously considered.
you mean the ones that downloaded a mac antivirus software app that ended up being malware? I would imagine they feel betrayed and annoyed
They don't have to dynamically start a VM though and I've never seen an attractive or particularly useful Java Applet online.
Java's use of non-native UI frameworks has long been a problem for Mac users and I don't see it changing. You end up with rendering glitches, ugly appearance and unexpected behaviour. With UIs for Retina displays, gestures and hardware rendering through Apple's core frameworks, non-standard frameworks just won't hold up. It would be a stop-gap at best and the developers would be hassled to death to develop a proper Cocoa UI and then the cross-platform aspect is largely unnecessary anyway.
This happened ages ago with some Linux apps when OS X came out, they tried to use cross-platform UI frameworks and it just didn't work. I can't remember if VLC was like this but similar apps.
Yeah, cross-platform binaries will be a holy grail to some people but they are much easier to reverse engineer too. Obviously they can be obfuscated but then become harder to debug. The more I see cross-platform deployment, I don't think cross-platform binaries are an issue any more. Expecting your userbase to have the right VM installed would be a bigger hurdle IMO - does Java even come pre-installed on any platform now? Having to ask someone to install a VM to run your cross-platform app isn't an elegant solution.
Yes, web standards have really had a shot in the arm over the last few years and clearly driven by mobile platforms. Without Flash and Java there, there's not really much other option. I don't see big things ahead for rich web apps though, I think people will draw a line in the sand with native apps on one side and cool websites on the other.
This goes beyond functionality and into human behaviour. If I put a newspaper online and charge $1 to visit the site, you likely won't pay for it because you expect the web to be free. If I wrap that newspaper in an app and charge $1, people will buy it because it becomes a product even if it's exactly the same code. I don't see the web ever being able to monetize commercial software the way that apps can. Through advertising sure but not everybody wants to use the ad-supported model.
One example I used myself that is an exception was Runescape but I don't see that distribution model being mainstream for apps other than games. Streaming services like Gaikai clearly have a future, which is why Sony bought them.
Native technology certainly has its own security issues - WebGL had some too - but plugins take control away from the platform operator. A user can have multiple plugins installed and have to ensure they are all up to date. In the case of Java, there's a security risk in a plugin that most people won't have ever used.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffreytgilbert
Why do people always troll with uninformed assumptions? If you're not a programmer, stop telling people how much you think you know about coding.
Nope, I'm not a programmer, but that doesn't mean I'm an idiot about it either thank you very much.