Java Forum / General / December 2006
Firefox 2.0.0.1 trashes Java Console
Mickey Segal - 20 Dec 2006 15:53 GMT The latest Firefox update (2.0 to 2.0.0.1) de-activates the Java Console and suggests fixing the problem by getting an updated version of the Java plugin. Uninstalling JRE 7 build 02 and installing the current pre-release build 04 (from http://download.java.net/jdk7/binaries/) does not restore the Java Console in Firefox.
I haven't tried using the latest official release of Java, but one would hope that the pre-release builds are at least as advanced in all respects.
Does anyone know how to get this working properly?
Oliver Wong - 20 Dec 2006 16:41 GMT > The latest Firefox update (2.0 to 2.0.0.1) de-activates the Java Console > and suggests fixing the problem by getting an updated version of the Java [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Does anyone know how to get this working properly? I've got JDK 1.5.0_06 and JDK 1.6.0, and the console doesn't work there either.
- Oliver
Mickey Segal - 20 Dec 2006 21:13 GMT > I've got JDK 1.5.0_06 and JDK 1.6.0, and the console doesn't work there > either. It sounds from this post on mozilla.support.firefox that this is something Sun needs to fix:
http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.support.firefox/browse_thread/thread/490b 5d57fc3b8360/ec8397452742dcf1
"This is not a problem with Firefox but a problem with how Sun Microsystems wrote the Java Console extension. They specified in the extension that the maximum version that it would work on will be Firefox 2.0, they should have specified the maximum version as 2.0.0.*
When Firefox updated to 2.0.0.1 it checked the installed extensions and since the Java console extension only specified that it would work with 2.0 it was disabled."
John Ersatznom - 21 Dec 2006 04:31 GMT >>I've got JDK 1.5.0_06 and JDK 1.6.0, and the console doesn't work there >>either. > > It sounds from this post on mozilla.support.firefox that this is something > Sun needs to fix: There is however something that Mozilla needs to fix. I got hit with a double-dose of screwy behavior. My Firefox announced that there was a new version available: 1.5.9. I canned the dialog since losing all my open tabs at the time would have been inconvenient, and went manually to mozilla.org later. I found that the latest version available was actually 2.0.0.1, far later than 1.5.9! Here's hoping the 2.0.0.1 auto-update functionality is a bit smarter about detecting what the latest version *really* is.
Then, of course, I got bit by the "Java Console disabled" thing.
Fortunately, I don't tend to use it, since I'm developing apps not applets.
However, Mozilla's own auto-update code thinking 1.5.9 > 2.0.0.1 makes me doubt that this is entirely Sun's fault. It looks like any error Sun made may have been because of confusing, corner-casey behavior in Mozilla's version number comparator. A comparator that at least *used* to think 1.5.9 > 2.0.0.1. Of course, 2.0.0.1 > 2.0 is correct, but requiring funky wildcards to include minor versions seems like a recipe for confusion and error. It should be "first version NOT supported", like String's "substring(begin, end+1)" interval idiom, so Sun would have said "need a new version for 2.1" rather than "OK up to 2.0" and everything would be fine. :)
Tim Slattery - 21 Dec 2006 13:46 GMT >>>I've got JDK 1.5.0_06 and JDK 1.6.0, and the console doesn't work there >>>either. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >auto-update functionality is a bit smarter about detecting what the >latest version *really* is. The 1.* version never offered the upgrade to 2.* as an automatic upgrade, the way it does for the smaller "point" updates. Apparently Mozilla considers 1.* and 2.* to be separate applications.
As to losing your tabs: Firefox 2.x doesn't. It will notify you of the update and ask whether you want to install it now. If you say yes, it closes the browser, does the necessary, then restarts the browser and restores all the tabs that were open when it closed. It also opens on more tab where the "Successful update" page is displayed.
-- Tim Slattery Slattery_T@bls.gov http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
John Ersatznom - 21 Dec 2006 15:25 GMT > The 1.* version never offered the upgrade to 2.* as an automatic > upgrade, the way it does for the smaller "point" updates. Apparently > Mozilla considers 1.* and 2.* to be separate applications. That doesn't make any sense, since they're not.
> As to losing your tabs: Firefox 2.x doesn't. But the Firefox 1.5.7 I was using at the time would have.
John W. Kennedy - 22 Dec 2006 21:44 GMT >>>> I've got JDK 1.5.0_06 and JDK 1.6.0, and the console doesn't work there >>>> either. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > upgrade, the way it does for the smaller "point" updates. Apparently > Mozilla considers 1.* and 2.* to be separate applications. No, it just regards 2.* as too radical for automatic update /at/ /present/.
 Signature John W. Kennedy "The blind rulers of Logres Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue." -- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
John Ersatznom - 23 Dec 2006 13:16 GMT > No, it just regards 2.* as too radical for automatic update /at/ /present/. We're not talking about automatic update though. We're talking about automatic update *notification*. Which the user then gets to act on, or not, as they choose.
Telling the user that 2.x is now available and including an "[ ] I'm not interested in Firefox 2, so don't tell me about it again" to use if they really prefer 1.x would have worked nicely.
Oliver Wong - 21 Dec 2006 15:43 GMT > There is however something that Mozilla needs to fix. I got hit with a > double-dose of screwy behavior. My Firefox announced that there was a new [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > functionality is a bit smarter about detecting what the latest version > *really* is. Actually, I think what you experienced was the intended behaviour. You mentioned elsewhere in the thread that you were using "1.5.7". "2.0.0.1" is not considered to be an automatic upgrade for "1.5.7", but "1.5.9" *is*. It's like how Apache 2.0 and Apache 1.3 are separate products, and both of them are still actively developed.
[...]
> It should be "first version NOT supported", like String's > "substring(begin, end+1)" interval idiom, so Sun would have said "need a > new version for 2.1" rather than "OK up to 2.0" and everything would be > fine. :) Except that Sun (and other plugin developers) probably can't predict the future. How will they know whether or not a new version of the plugin will be needed for 2.1, unless they have a copy of Firefox 2.1 to test with? Contrast this with the fact that they DO have a copy of Firefox 2.0, so they can state "It works OK with Firefox 2.0. Anything higher, and we're not making any promises."
- Oliver
John Ersatznom - 21 Dec 2006 16:56 GMT > Actually, I think what you experienced was the intended behaviour. You > mentioned elsewhere in the thread that you were using "1.5.7". "2.0.0.1" is > not considered to be an automatic upgrade for "1.5.7", but "1.5.9" *is*. > It's like how Apache 2.0 and Apache 1.3 are separate products, and both of > them are still actively developed. Let me get this straight. You're claiming that the intended behavior is to nag the user about every single minor bugfix or tweak update, but not to bother informing them about a major upgrade's availability?
That would be equivalent to Windows XP Update constantly nagging you about bugfixes (which it does on a weekly basis) while Microsoft quietly stocked store shelves with shrinkwrapped boxes of Windows Vista without any fanfare and simply hoped people would accidentally stumble onto them while shopping some day.
Mind you, having Windows Update nag you to upgrade to Vista would be annoying, because Vista costs money and is as much a downgrade (performance, DRM) as an upgrade, but Firefox 1.x to 2.0 is a straight upgrade, and free, rather than a lateral move that costs money.
>>It should be "first version NOT supported", like String's >>"substring(begin, end+1)" interval idiom, so Sun would have said "need a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > can state "It works OK with Firefox 2.0. Anything higher, and we're not > making any promises." The claim was that Sun should have said it would work with 2.0.0.* or 2.0.* or similarly. The latter definitely amounts to "it may not work with 2.1" and the former to "it may not work with 2.0.1". It's a matter of whether you specify the end point or one past the end point, and in this case it looks like requiring specifying the end point was the more confusing choice.
More generally, plugin developers would have the problem of guessing exactly what the first future version would be where it no longer worked (or the last where it did). Maybe Mozilla should take a page from Sun's book here, and just publish an interface that plugins will always work if they adhere to, and keep a separate version (like serialVersionUID) for just the interface, which changes only when an incompatible change to the interface is made that won't work with old plugins.
Better still, they could have done what most software has been doing since the 80s or earlier, and been backward compatible with older versions. Any plugin that worked in Firefox x would then work in Firefox x+1, but changes to the interface, when such were made, would mean some plugins designed for x+1 might not work in x.
Oliver Wong - 21 Dec 2006 18:37 GMT >> Actually, I think what you experienced was the intended behaviour. >> You mentioned elsewhere in the thread that you were using "1.5.7". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > nag the user about every single minor bugfix or tweak update, but not to > bother informing them about a major upgrade's availability? [...]
No. The intended behaviour is to notify the user of updates available to software that is installed on his/her computer, and not to notify them of updates to software which isn't installed on his/her computer. Given that the FireFox 2.0 and Firefox 1.5 series are considered different products by Mozilla, a FireFox 1.5 user should not be notified about a FireFox 2.0 update, just as much as a Opera user shouldn't be notified about a FireFox 2.0 update.
> That would be equivalent to Windows XP Update constantly nagging you about > bugfixes (which it does on a weekly basis) while Microsoft quietly stocked [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > annoying, because Vista costs money and is as much a downgrade > (performance, DRM) as an upgrade, Actually, yeah, your comparison is apt. Some people feel that 1.5 is better than 2.X. Rather than piss those people off, Mozilla felt that 2.0 should be considered a completely seperate product, and 1.5 will continue to be actively developed in parallel with 2.0
> but Firefox 1.x to 2.0 is a straight upgrade, and free, rather than a > lateral move that costs money. People disagree with this assertion.
>>>It should be "first version NOT supported", like String's >>>"substring(begin, end+1)" interval idiom, so Sun would have said "need a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > case it looks like requiring specifying the end point was the more > confusing choice. Right. I guess I was focusing more on the "need a new version" instead of "*maybe* need a new version".
> More generally, plugin developers would have the problem of guessing > exactly what the first future version would be where it no longer worked [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > changes to the interface, when such were made, would mean some plugins > designed for x+1 might not work in x. Well, dem's the apples...
- Oliver
John Ersatznom - 22 Dec 2006 09:45 GMT > No. The intended behaviour is to notify the user of updates available to > software that is installed on his/her computer, and not to notify them of > updates to software which isn't installed on his/her computer. Since Firefox is software which is installed on my computer, I rest my case. Yep -- I would find it screwy if the Firefox auto-update told me about a new version of Windows, or even of Thunderbird.
> Given that the FireFox 2.0 and Firefox 1.5 series are considered different
> products by Mozilla What Mozilla internaly considers them is irrelevant to the end user. The end user sees "Firefox version whatever". None of this is making any sense, anyway -- they could as well consider Firefox 1.4 and 1.5 "different products", or even 2.0 and 2.0.0.1 "different products". That's just word-games.
> Actually, yeah, your comparison is apt. Some people feel that 1.5 is > better than 2.X. That is illogical; 2.0 is a straight upgrade rather than a sidegrade. Firefox 1.5 is not to 2.0 as it is to Opera, or IE, which is what you seem to be claiming.
>>but Firefox 1.x to 2.0 is a straight upgrade, and free, rather than a >>lateral move that costs money. > > People disagree with this assertion. What "people"? There's a good reason why wikipedia would flag your article with "This article contains weasel words" if you'd written this there, you know...
Oliver Wong - 22 Dec 2006 15:45 GMT > > Given that the FireFox 2.0 and Firefox 1.5 series are considered > > different [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Firefox 1.5 is not to 2.0 as it is to Opera, or IE, which is what you seem > to be claiming. Are you twisted? I'm explaining to you why things are the way they are now. You are free to argue that things *shouldn't* be that way, but that doesn't change the fact that that's the way they are.
>>>but Firefox 1.x to 2.0 is a straight upgrade, and free, rather than a >>>lateral move that costs money. >> >> People disagree with this assertion. > > What "people"? http://listvine.com/2006/10/25/9-reasons-not-to-upgrade-to-firefox-20/ http://bluey.livejournal.com/116819.html http://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?ForumId=48&TopicId=10004 etc.
> There's a good reason why wikipedia would flag your article with "This > article contains weasel words" if you'd written this there, you know... Luckily this isn't Wikipedia.
- Oliver
John Ersatznom - 23 Dec 2006 13:26 GMT > Are you twisted? Only when I'm playing Quake. Then I do things like shove opponents into the lava to boil and scream rather than just snuff them out with my rocket launcher. Otherwise...nah.
> I'm explaining to you why things are the way they are now. You are free > to argue that things *shouldn't* be that way, but that doesn't change > the fact that that's the way they are. You seem to think that somehow that makes you "right" and me "wrong", when it just means you're talking right past me for some reason.
>>There's a good reason why wikipedia would flag your article with "This >>article contains weasel words" if you'd written this there, you know... > > Luckily this isn't Wikipedia. ITYM "Unluckily". Unclear and weaselly debating tactics may make you look clever or your opponent look stupid, but they don't actually alter the facts being debated. Are you here to discuss factual matters or are you here to win "points" by getting into debates and "winning" arguments? If the latter, might I suggest alt.flame or some similar group instead? Same goes for that fellow you were arguing for weeks with at the start of this month. Nobody who helps clutter up a technical group with 500+ offtopic articles in less than twenty days at an average rate of around 1 an hour has won any "points" in my books. In fact, nobody here is winning any "points" in my books at all. All that really matters is the code, and what it does...in fact, I probably shouldn't post anything after this to this digression about Firefox. Everyone's missing the point anyway, it seems, including the Mozilla devs, which is that update notification functionality that doesn't notify a user of new versions of their stuff isn't doing its job. Apparently, nobody will find out about some new Firefox versions that become available unless they regularly visit their Web site. If they have to do that to remain fully informed anyway, the whole purpose of having auto-update-notification functionality in the product has been defeated.
'Nuff said on the topic.
John Ersatznom - 23 Dec 2006 13:30 GMT > http://listvine.com/2006/10/25/9-reasons-not-to-upgrade-to-firefox-20/ > http://bluey.livejournal.com/116819.html > http://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?ForumId=48&TopicId=10004 > etc. OK, that wasn't quite my last word on the subject after all. I just got around to checking these links, and the very first one gives me an error page rather than any kind of content. I didn't even bother to try the other two after seeing that.
If you really want to back up something in a debate with outside references, it really doesn't look too good when it's obvious you didn't even make sure the links you posted work, unless the thing you're trying to prove is actually the fact that the link doesn't work, or that there's such a thing as a 404 response code in HTTP, or something like that. :)
Tim Slattery - 21 Dec 2006 18:39 GMT >> Actually, I think what you experienced was the intended behaviour. You >> mentioned elsewhere in the thread that you were using "1.5.7". "2.0.0.1" is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >to nag the user about every single minor bugfix or tweak update, but not >to bother informing them about a major upgrade's availability? Apparently, yes.
>That would be equivalent to Windows XP Update constantly nagging you >about bugfixes (which it does on a weekly basis) while Microsoft quietly >stocked store shelves with shrinkwrapped boxes of Windows Vista without >any fanfare and simply hoped people would accidentally stumble onto them >while shopping some day. AFAIK, Windows Update doesn't let you know about Vista or offer to upgrade you to that system.
-- Tim Slattery Slattery_T@bls.gov http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
John Ersatznom - 22 Dec 2006 09:57 GMT > AFAIK, Windows Update doesn't let you know about Vista or offer to > upgrade you to that system. That's largely because Vista isn't free. It's also not true anyway. I just did some research, and Windows Update did something suspiciously like what you are describing a few months back, when the big "Vista is coming!" MS hype machine was in full bore.
First, it pushed people to install "Windows genuine advantage" with the threat to withhold updates if it wasn't installed, or reported your copy of windows was phony.
Next, it pushed people to install "Windows genuine advantage notification", which would supposedly make the former tell the *user* and not just Microsoft if it thought their windows were phony.
In actual fact, the "notification" thing had all kinds of side effects and some sort of legal crud telling people they weren't permitted to remove it once they'd installed it. One of the commonest side effects was that WGA would "suddenly realize" that their copy was bogus. This would stop updates being available to the user, but worse, it would often force them to actually redo the "product activation", whereupon MS would frequently refuse to cooperate on the grounds that their windows copy was supposedly bogus. This often happened to people who had gotten preloaded machines with Windows on and hadn't done any funny business. It also did not happen to people who only installed the first of the two "genuine advantage" thingies.
Moreover, the "notification" thing was NOT necessary to continue to receive updates. Also, both were pushed as "critical" updates by Windows Update, as if they were security patches to protect users from being hacked. They weren't -- in fact, the "notifications" one, at least, actually made users have *less* control over their machines, so if anything there should have been a "critical update" to *remove* the "notifications" update; I think I'd have recommended including it in the next "malicious software removal tool" myself.
I found posts on multiple software-pundit, product-gripe, and similar blogs all speculating that the real motive behind these bogus "critical security fix" updates wasn't users' security, or even (a false sense of) security for Microsoft's so-called "intellectual property", but in fact to push people towards Vista. The "notifications" update created the ability to remotely deactivate already-activated copies of Windows XP, which otherwise would work until people changed their hardware sufficiently.
Apparently, Microsoft found the two or three year average replacement time for peoples' PCs to be too slow and impatiently figured out a way to force people to replace XP sooner than that, leveraging the existing product activation.
It backfired. There was so much bad press that MS yanked most of the "notifications" misfeatures in a later update and quit peddling it, and decided to let people who were happy with their XP keep it until they have new hardware after all.
But there is one way in which you are technically correct. The updates didn't themselves explicitly push Vista. Although making XP stop working and leaving users with no recourse except to buy a new copy of Windows, even while XP is being swept off the shelves and Vista boxes lined up by their hundreds, amounts to the same thing. Well, worse, actually. Nagging about an update is common practise. The kind of arm-twisting observed here is the special province of Microsoft, governments, and the mob, as near as I can make out. :P
Mickey Segal - 23 Dec 2006 15:23 GMT There is now a bug report about this problem: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6506635
Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
|
|