Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Firefox's Blocked-By-Default Java Isn't Going Down Well

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @12:24AM (#45209155)

    Users hate authorizing things, and become trained drones blindly okaying everything anyway.

    As security models go, it's a poor one.

    • by sortius_nod (1080919) on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @03:04AM (#45209777) Homepage

      Indeed, never trust basic security to users. Better to keep a your workstations up-to-date & deal with the IT nightmare that is updating rogue workstations than to deal with the IT apocalypse of click monkeys.

    • by erroneus (253617) on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @03:47AM (#45209917) Homepage

      Yes, while I tend to agree with that notion, I also have to remind that this is web Java applets we're talking about. Who does that any more? There are four places where I see that:

      1. Business/Office web based apps (Documentum in my case)
      2. Cisco "web interfaces"
      3. An older HP print server "web interface."
      4. Webmin (optional) controls for telnet/ssh and file management.

      In each of those cases, I am very comfortable making those explicit exceptions. There may be more. Not wanting to speak for the whole world, but at this point, I can't imagine this being a huge problem. So anyone, please correct me if I'm wrong by providing other examples.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @04:14AM (#45210011)

        Yes, while I tend to agree with that notion, I also have to remind that this is web Java applets we're talking about. Who does that any more? There are four places where I see that:

        1. Business/Office web based apps (Documentum in my case) 2. Cisco "web interfaces" 3. An older HP print server "web interface." 4. Webmin (optional) controls for telnet/ssh and file management.

        In each of those cases, I am very comfortable making those explicit exceptions. There may be more. Not wanting to speak for the whole world, but at this point, I can't imagine this being a huge problem. So anyone, please correct me if I'm wrong by providing other examples.

        Most online banking systems in Scandinavia use Java applet. Same Java-based id/login system can be used for many public services and for web shop payments. They are working on moving away from it, but for now being able to do online banking is a pretty key requirement for most users. I have Chrome set up with my bank as only trusted site where the Java applet is activated, for all other sites it is deactivated. As long as my bank is not compromised and serving malware through Java vulns that should be ok.

        As for Flash, many people seem to think that HTML5 video support can replace Flash, but then you are not aware of the huge amount of popular Flash games out there. As a tower defense game addict Flash is just a necessity for a long while still.

        • by erroneus (253617) on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @06:28AM (#45210545) Homepage

          As I run adblock and noscript, I'm already extremely comfortable with the white-list approach to securing browsers... so grains of salt in all of that -- users are not usually accustomed to the concept. I hadn't considered it when I first posted at 3-something AM this morning in my sleep. That said, it's useful to know that there are indeed still public/internet facing sites out there using Java. Shame on them.

    • by buchner.johannes (1139593) on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @03:54AM (#45209939) Homepage Journal

      Actually it's not an authorization dialog, but a "click-to-play" on the embed objects. You can get the same functionality already by setting plugins.click_to_play to true in about:config. That is just going to be a default setting on new installs, but you can set it to false. I set it to true myself, because it is useful to not have arbitrary Flash code to just start running (and playing).

      The gamble Mozilla makes is that because of the extra step, companies will move to putting content into HTML5 rather than external plugins, because it makes their website more clunky. They also do replace external PDF viewer plugins with a HTML5/JS based one [mozilla.org], so it is a coherent strategy towards open technologies. There are plenty of benefits if it works out, security is one of them. And it's a phased, non-invasive method, which can be disabled.

      • Why don't they "just" write a secure Java virtual machine? I guess they can even run javascript inside the same VM, so a unified approach.

        And Google recently developed an efficient sandbox called NaCl, so why not follow them? They could even run Java inside NaCl to add another layer of security. Hell, they could even run the complete browser inside NaCl, so Firefox would run on Chrome too :)

        • Why don't they "just" write a secure Java virtual machine?

          I'm pretty sure Oracle would sue them into the ground...

          • by HJED (1304957) on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @05:45AM (#45210403)
            There's actually a process for getting certified as having a valid implementation of java, I think that you don't have to pay license fees for it either ... however it is as about as 'easy' again as 'just' writing a jvm. Given Mozilla can't even write a PDF viewer with Unicode support I don't see that happening.
            If there was a better cross platform alternative I'd switch to it.
        • They do have a VM (Score:5, Informative)

          by DrYak (748999) on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @06:29AM (#45210553) Homepage

          I guess they can even run javascript inside the same VM, so a unified approach.

          In fact they already have a VM they use for javascript (the whole -Monkey family), and their VM is even able to compile to native. Not only JIT, but even more so for specially crafted javascript called ASM.js (it standard Javascript, that only use those features which translate nicely into machine code: doesn't use dynamic typing, only uses safe typing, etc.) enabling near-native speed for some code.

          In theory, it should be possible to create a process which recompiles java byte-code into ASM.js and feeds it into the VM for nearly-native speeds.
          In practice, Java is a huge pile of complicated mess, and thus lots of applications end-up being highly dependent on Sun/Oracle/IcedTea Java and not run well on any other implementation (like GCJ), mostly because of missing classes or whatever. So you'll end with something as good at running Java as currently Gnash is at running Flash - more or less works broadly on theory, but breaks on lots of specific cases. Given the current market for java (bazillions of inhouse applet in businesses) it is going to be hard to test every case. Whereas Gnash only breaks on some stupid casual games and video player for cute kittens (and pr0n), a Java-reimplemented-in-the-browser would probably break business intranets and core business applications.

          The only possible solution, is implementing only the bytecode execution itself (transcode Java bytecode into ASM.js - like pluging GCJ to LLVM to emscripten to odinmonkey, for example). Ant then re-use the opensourced classes from IcedTea and co. But then you're again running the original java with all the original bugs, only on a different platform. If a bug in the official libraries enable an attacker to steal encryption keys from other apps, this is still going to put your bank's e-banking applet at risk, no matter if said applet runs on an uncrashable Mozilla OdinMonkey VM or the official Oracle JVM.

          And Google recently developed an efficient sandbox called NaCl, so why not follow them? They could even run Java inside NaCl to add another layer of security.

          NaCl isn't really a sandbox. It's only a special way to package executable native code, with limitation of what said code can do. It's some security restrictions (NaCl applications can only run a subset of the whole API available to normal applications and aren't allowed to run some instructions), stacked on top of the pre-existing Google Sandboxes (each into its own process)

          Even if you use a JVM running as a NaCl application, you've only partially solved the stability problems (JVM crashes less, and when it crashes, it doesn't take the whole browser with it). You haven't solved security (obscure stupid java classes leaks encryption keys or password due to bad design).

          Also note that NaCl is completely against Mozilla's approach and will never get implemented. Mozilla simply doesn't want binary code, because it's limiting (NaCl only runs on x86 and ARM), and still a security problem (even if it's much better then ActiveX, you're still sending executable code from the internet into a browser).

          Still PNaCl is probably where everything will be heading: this time it's not the actual binary which is shipped, but the previous step in the compilation process - the LLVM bytecode. Google can still compile it into NaC (and run better security checks at compile time). And mozilla can use it to compile it with emcripten into ASM.js. It's now much more portable (you could run it on MIPS for exemple), and much more secure (when compiling ASM.js, memory access are translated into read/writes to/from an array instead of random memory writes).

          Hell, they could even run the complete browser inside NaCl, so Firefox would run on Chrome too :)

          If you want, you can even use Firefox to run one of the virtual machines written in Javascript, boot a virtual Linux distribution and run Chrome on it.

      • by HJED (1304957)

        They also do replace external PDF viewer plugins with a HTML5/JS based one [mozilla.org], so it is a coherent strategy towards open technologies. There are plenty of benefits if it works out, security is one of them. And it's a phased, non-invasive method, which can be disabled.

        Yeah the inbuilt PDF viewer is great: it has worse unicode support than slashdot, often fails to correctly render diagrams and is slower than the adobe plugin.
        Thankfully I occidentally found a way to make it default back to the Adobe plugin. If they want to keep users they need to stop removing functionality and adding half backed security systems that are very hard to disable.
        Sadly there isn't a better alternative at the moment, but already there are a few sites I switch to IE to view...

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @05:20AM (#45210265)

      It is not a security model. It is a responsibility model.
      Now the responsibility lies even less with Mozilla and more with the user who installed Java in the first place.
      If that user can not take hint, and becomes a trained drone, that is his problem. The only more secure thing to do would be to simply refuse running java at all. Obviously that is even less realistic.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @12:24AM (#45209163)

    They should probably get their heads checked, why are they making Java apps for webpages still?

    • by characterZer0 (138196) on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @12:33AM (#45209203)

      In my case, applets for doing signatures with USB signature tablets. Can't do that in JavaScript.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Skapare (16644)

        Sounds like a security hole to me.

      • Erh... I don't really know the exact specs of your application now, but so far I can't think of any constellation in which this isn't a security risk waiting to explode.

    • by GumphMaster (772693) on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @01:09AM (#45209381)

      I don't know... they built a substantial client-side Java app some years ago, it still works, and they don't feel the urge to reinvent a perfectly good wheel. E*Trade Australia still uses client-side Java.

    • Uses of Java applets (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @02:46AM (#45209709)

      Must we have this troll comment every time someone mentions Java applets?

      Java applets are commonly used, as they have been for many years. According to this Chromium blog post from September 2013 [chromium.org], 8.9% of Chrome users had launched something using the Java plugin in the past month.

      Among the common uses that get mentioned every time this discussion comes up are: public access to banking and government systems in various countries, games, user interfaces for devices (scientific equipment, network infrastructure, all kinds of examples), access to local hardware devices that aren't yet available via newer technologies, some popular teleconferencing and VPN software, and little demo graphics written by academics to go on their web sites a decade ago that are still just as relevant today.

      In other words, just because you don't use Java applets yourself or know when they're still useful, don't assume everyone else is in the same situation.

      • Exactly.

        In some cases you can see that the use of a Java Applet is a shortcut (VPN for instance) but in others, there's no other way around because browsers aren't allowed to do some stuff (like USB, which I'm perfectly fine with). Saying it isn't so is because you don't have enough data to take an informed decision... or simply because you're trolling.

        I've developed Java Applets before, and believe me, when confronted with a problem, a Java Applet is surely the last resource any serious JEE developer will

      • Both our KVM and NAS at work use Java as their interface. In both cases the reason is the same: to support management from arbitrary clients running any OS. They don't want to require you to install a program just to manage them and they want to easily support Windows, Linux, Mac, and so on. However the interface needs to be highly interactive to be useful. In the case of the KVM it actually has to stream video that it compresses from various sources. So Java it is.

        These are some outdated devices from yeste

  • Having problems for the past hour with cursed Java on my Mac. Really pisses me off that my Insteon controller absolutely requires it to update the system!!!

  • by Puls4r (724907) on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @12:26AM (#45209173)
    I'm not a developer, but I'm pretty savvy with computers. So the first time I got that message, I went and updated Java. Fixed it, right? Nope. So I clicked around, and finally accidentally clicked on the little red icon up in the menu bar. Success! Now it gave me an option to run it. Which popped up another window asking for permission. Dear Firefox: You have a small portion of the browser market. Making yourself a nuisance by breaking big pieces of the web is not intelligent. It just drives people to chrome, or IE. Especially everyday users who don't want to screw around and just want things to work.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      What in the world are you using that requires a Java applet?

      • by Kjella (173770) on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @12:56AM (#45209333) Homepage

        Well, if you're in Norway then 800-900,000 people use it daily and 2.9 million occasionally to access their bank and various other public services through BankID [bankid.no]. They are moving away from Java now after all the security issues, it was announced in April but hasn't happened yet so with this I expect Firefox usage here will drop like a rock.

        • by Splab (574204)

          Yeah, share your pain (from Denmark, NemID is the name of the game here, same vendor though).

          Fun fact, the alternative they are working on is javascript clocking in at $20m for the Danish version alone, Nets claims they are not reusing the code between BankID and NemID, but one does wonder (By the way, did you guys also suffer a 3 day downtime this weekend because the tards forgot to read the release notes?)

          • In Sweden ours is called BankID but I don't think it's the same vendor (the actual program I believe is called Nexus Personal), it's not in Java but is a native plugin, or a mobile app as that's how I'm using it, so much more convenient.
            You would think they could cooperate and build a common system for stuff like this, especially with nations as small as ours.

    • by reve_etrange (2377702) on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @12:46AM (#45209273)

      It just drives people to chrome

      Good luck, Chrome has the same behavior. Even with a signed applet and updated Java, Chrome users had to click twice to run.

      For the /.ers astounding by the persistence of Java applets, I was working with JMol [sourceforge.net]. I bypassed the issue by switching to the HTML5-and-JavaScript version and using the applet as a fall-back.

  • Like? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by The Cat (19816) * on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @12:29AM (#45209189)

    moving away from a dependence on proprietary plug-ins

    Like the browsers themselves?

    Hey maybe we can get all the people at Adobe and Oracle laid off the same week. Wouldn't that be fun?

    Isn't it great how the web is moving away from "proprietary plug-ins" and straight into proprietary mobile devices?

    And look at the web users cheer. The people who built the web would recoil in horror at what you have allowed to happen to the Internet.

    I give it five years, maybe six, and the Internet will be completely walled off by a McDonalds logo.

    • And yet we object to standard DRM as if it won't encourage exactly the same fragmentation?

    • I give it five years, maybe six, and the Internet will be completely walled off by a McDonalds logo.

      My bets are going to a McBook logo...

  • by JohnA (131062) <johnanderson @ g m ail.com> on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @12:32AM (#45209199) Homepage

    Firefox will be exactly what Scott Adams predicted...

    http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1995-03-25/ [dilbert.com]

    Applets may be "The Debil", but they also fill a need that can't be filled by Flash or HTML5.

    Mozilla needs to get over themselves.

    • What need? (Score:3, Interesting)

      I use firefox and haven't encountered a singled issue with java not working... that is because I can't even remember the last time I saw a site with an applet.

      Really this is a non-issue that will go the same way as active-x support. Only people in Korea will care.

      If you are still developing/depending on applets, 1995 called they want their stupid ideas back. What next, your mail link is an animated gif?

      • Re:What need? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Splab (574204) on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @02:45AM (#45209703)

        Java is needed to do banking in many places, the FF change gave me 30 minutes of "wtf?"; trying to work out why it kept complaining about insecure applet, when running newest Java had me perplexed.

        If I had an alternative to FF on Mac and Java, I'd ditch FF for this stunt in a heartbeat.

      • Re:What need? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @02:57AM (#45209751)

        If you are still developing/depending on applets, 1995 called they want their stupid ideas back.

        Hi 2013, this is 1995 calling. When your new shiny toys have the portability and performance and flexibility that we had nearly two decades ago, and developers can write software using them with a reasonable expectation that it will still be working in 5 or 10 years (or even 1 or 2 years) without needing constant maintenance, then you get a vote. Until then, we'll keep our "stupid" ideas, because they've been helping us get useful work done since before you were born. Kthxbye.

      • "I can't even remember the last time I saw a site with an applet."

        Do you have a better idea for, say, a software-based KVM or something that needs to deal with local hardware, like an authentication token?

    • by Lennie (16154)

      I don't know why you want to cry over Firefox, it's Chrome that started with saying they'll remove the Netscape Plugin API (NPAPI) first.

      At least in Firefox the API will remain longer and if you need it you'll be able to enable it on a per-site basis.

  • Who cares? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Hecatonchires (231908) on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @12:33AM (#45209207) Homepage

    Java is huge in the business back end, but front end Java just leaves a bad taste in the mouth of users. Slow, bloated, painful to use and kinda salty.

  • Untold headaches? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ichthus (72442) on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @12:44AM (#45209265) Homepage
    We'll see. I've been running the FlashBlock plugin for years (to manually enable flash elements) with VERY FEW adverse effects. I doubt having to manually activate Java elements will be any worse.
    • It's becoming increasingly annoying to use NoScript. Some sites have so many transitive JavaScript dependencies that you have to click "temporarily allow all this page" a dozen times before the site works.
      • by macraig (621737) <mark.a.craig@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @01:46AM (#45209521)

        You just succinctly explained why tools like NoScript are so desperately needed, not why they aren't. The real problem is Web design that serves an agenda contrary to the desires and rights of those who use the Web. Fix that problem and annoying tools like NoScript won't be necessary.

        What that means, BTW, is that Web developers need to grow both a conscience and a spine and say NO when they're asked to code Bad Things. It also means that the pushovers and corporate plants over at the W3C need to stop adding crap to the standard that aids and abets these Bad Things.

        • by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @03:03AM (#45209769)

          You do understand that without those Bad Things you so hate, there probably wouldn't be a Web worth saving, right? Someone has to pay the bills, and if you're not going to pay for content, you're not going to accept advertising, you want full privacy and security when using services you're not paying anything for... Who is going to write the cheque?

          I hate DRM and spammy ads and privacy invasions as much as anyone -- more that most, probably, given that I really do give up on some things most people accept because I refuse to support the intrusions. But still, we live in the real world, and you can't just wish Bad Things away without proposing Better Alternatives. BTW, "everything I want should be free and unencumbered" is not a viable Better Alternative.

          • by Artemis3 (85734)

            A web worth saving is a web without ads or DRM, just like it used to be. In the meantime the excellent addons to block trackers, scripts, cookies, referrer and ads will do.

          • by mx+b (2078162)
            You know, I remember a world wide web where random people ran their own websites giving away free everything -- knowledge, stories, tutorials, programs, whatever -- and no one gave a shit about monetizing everything. I actually miss those days and would love to go back to the internet being a community where people shared their passions for free because it was something to do, rather than a way for suits to make even more ridiculously larger amounts of money.
    • by antdude (79039)

      Embedded videos, Google Maps' Street View, etc. don't work with FlashBlock. I had to whitelist them. However, I don't use FlashBlock anymore since the latest Mozilla's web browsers come with an plugin ask prompt feature. :)

    • by Splab (574204)

      Click to play is fine and dandy, however, the warning FF has put in place is just wrong. Even someone working in tech for many a years had to go over everything to work out why the hell it was showing danger alerts when trying to run the banks applet...

  • Improve security?? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kwyj1b0 (2757125) on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @12:46AM (#45209275)

    There are two ways to improve security - lock out the user, or educate them.

    Locking out the user is great - but it only works on NEW products, and if you don't have competitors. The reason it works well on NEW products is that the user isn't conditioned on what to expect. Remember, trying to change how people use their computer is an uphill battle. It works well when the do not believe they have alternatives.

    Educating the user is harder, but that is the real fix. You aren't improving security by saying 'As responsible devs, our software won't do what you want'. Instead, make a two minute video showing them how $technology is flawed, and make them watch it ONCE. Then, let the choose whether to block $technology or live with it. Because right now they get fed up with Firefox (NOT Java), and click the little blue e.

    And yes, it isn't a great hassle to keep using FF when you allow users to "click to allow $applet". But the pain is that I need to look at the little red icon in the address bar to permanently enable something [mozilla.org]. You might say that if I can't handle this additional step, I shouldn't be making a choice on whether to run an applet or not (but that is a bad road to head down). You could have just made a popup when I run an applet that says "Do you want to remember this setting?" - it doesn't fix the security problem, but the current solution doesn't either. At least this way, I don't feel frustrated at my browser for someone else's (Oracle, in this case) screw ups.

  • My laptop went bad about a week or so ago, and I wiped it and have been reinstalling. One item is a VPN connection client that allows me into my University network from home, so I can access software licenses and work on my labs. This is for an MS degree in Electrical/Computer Engineering. Firefox forbade that from installing on my recovering laptop (Win 7 Ultimate 64) and so I was forced to use MSIE just to get my link installed and configured. Sorry Mozilla, but you did prevent me from doing something tre

  • by SpaceLifeForm (228190) on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @01:41AM (#45209505)
    Here's the problem: Non-technical users are going to scream about the steps needed to allow the Java Applet to run.

    How to enable Java if its been blocked [mozilla.org]

    In order to protect you, Firefox has stopped outdated versions of the Java plugin from running automatically because of security issues.

    So, now, the lastest version of Java (7.45) is considered outdated.

    Absolutely brain-dead decision.

    • by Splab (574204)

      One does wonder, are they going to pop up a warning when opening firefox? Since it most likely also contains various security issues users should be warned when opening every web page (by their logic at least...)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @01:45AM (#45209519)

    Oracle Java has ALSO decided, due to the persistent security problems due at least in part to having concurrent (i.e., old) versions installed (and the fact that the largest exploit kits have used Java as one of their main vectors for some time now, alongside Adobe Reader of course) to disable Java plugins in the browser by default in recent updates.

    So, what's the big deal? This is the correct decision from a security perspective. I can't remember the last time I saw someone on the World Wide Web actually USE a Java applet for good, rather than for evil. And I'd have noticed, because even after all these years, it still runs like an absolute dog. It's the kind of thing you might use on a local application (such as Minecraft, which is what I think probably most people who still have it installed use it for now, albeit they'd likely have the 64-bit version which wouldn't have a working browser plugin in a 32-bit browser anyway!) or an intranet site (which is your administrator's problem, to re-enable it for that site only, or to use a different browser for the web and the intranet, which you can totally do and is good practice).

    I've got many other criticisms about Firefox recently from a security and performance perspective - let's face it, it's just not the zippy, efficient browser it used to be, even relatively-speaking, it's lost its mojo and the security team have a reputation for having a slow, and fairly arsey, response - but this seems to be the right decision and they should be lauded for it. IE has also done it, as has Chrome.

  • by SpaceLifeForm (228190) on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @02:18AM (#45209613)
    They hopefully will convince Mozilla to back this out, and figure out a better UI for the user to deal with. A small red clickable icon that leads to more clicking is not going to fly with non-tech users.

    From Link [mozilla.org]:

    Donald Smith 2013-10-22 22:03:01 PDT

    Disclaimer: I'm in the Java SE Product Management team at Oracle.

    Just to add to my colleague in Engineering Joe McGlynn's comment #61 -- we're happy to help here however we can. We do frequently speak with mcoates, but are happy to plug into any other channels the mozilla team think would be worthy (as we seemed to somehow miss this one until it was too late I think we need more contact/channels). For example, I think we can help address questions related to the Java 6 (and Java 5, for that matter) updates as they are still supported and do receive updates along with the latest public baseline(s).

    As comment #50 notes, bugzilla is not forum software - so I'll leave it at that and send @bsmedberg a quick note and continue to try to catch up wit @coates.

    First I've heard that Java 5 and 6 are not considered dead yet.

    • They hopefully will convince Mozilla to back this out, and
      figure out a better UI for the user to deal with. A small red clickable icon
      that leads to more clicking is not going to fly with non-tech users.

      From Link [mozilla.org]:

      Donald Smith 2013-10-22 22:03:01 PDT

      Disclaimer: I'm in the Java SE Product Management team at Oracle.

      Just to add to my colleague in Engineering Joe McGlynn's comment #61 -- we're happy to help here however we can. We do frequently speak with mcoates, but are happy to plug into any other channels t

  • My mother learned in 10 minutes how to enable java script with noscript/flash. She is not technical savvy , but I explained it to her at her level. She got it. I expect a good slice of those using FF now "not getting it" are those not wanting to learn.
  • by SpaceLifeForm (228190) on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @02:33AM (#45209669)
    From link [mozilla.org]

    "Quote" - The plug-in screen shows options for always activate, ask to activate and never activate.

    It may in the English version but in FF24 Spanish all I get is ask to activate and never activate.

    Chrome (in Spanish) blocks too but at least gives me the always activate option.

    Due to the EXTREME IMPACT this has on the Public Sector here - and that we're somewhat forced to use M-Soft for other applications - We had to return to Explorer yesterday. Sorry - But moves like this could well kill off the use of Firefox. Java applets are continuously used in the piping of Digital signatures to secure ministerial sites. This includes PRIVATE citizens. IMO Java has to be "trusted" even if we don't. Otherwise the use of Firefox WILL DIMINISH. 90% of users have NO BLOODY IDEA.

    I am a firm fan of Firefox at home - but at work it's causing me more hassle than it's worth.

  • Not only a security problem, that's just the surface, but the smothering care of Oracle plus the whole 1999 feeling makes for a combination that made this step necessary years ago.
  • by sl4shd0rk (755837) on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @09:27AM (#45211515)

    If the people objecting to the new default knew the circumstances around the decision, they wouldn't be objecting to it.

Numeric stability is probably not all that important when you're guessing.

Working...