Do you have Java installed on your PC, and if, which version? Do you mind programs on Linux systems written in Java?
>>54467134
I do, if you're distributing applications you can distribute a stripped version of the JRE with it, so people without Java installed can run it.
>>54467134
>Do you have Java installed on your PC
No
>Do you mind programs on Linux systems written in Java?
Yes
>>54467215
But how does that grow the botnet?
>>54467134
I have both java 8 and 7 installed on my Linux desktop.
Don't really care, but Java has some pretty shit tier GUI frameworks.
>>54467134
>Do you have Java installed on your PC
No.$ dpkg --get-selections | grep -E "(java|jdk|jre)"
javascript-common install
libjavascriptcoregtk-4.0-18:amd64 install
plasma-scriptengine-javascript install
>Do you mind programs on Linux systems written in Java?
Yes, if they're desktop applications.
I usually don't care if it's for a server though, because there's usually already something running there that needs it anyway.
Kind of is a bitch for containers with a single service or two though, having to run JVMs everywhere.
>>54467134
Java SE 8u92
I have no problem with Java programs providing they do what I want/need. Java is a very stable platform.
>>54467134
No, why would you have Java installed on your computer?
jre7u45
>muh applets
>>54467227
What botnet?
>>54467236
JavaFX is pretty good
>>54467134
GHGDGJDDGJ
>>54467274
Because Java EE Engineer.
no, not on my desktop
but i do have it installed on my vps because that's what opengts is written in
do i mind? yes, i do, i really wish there was an alternative to opengts
>>54467236
I use awt and draw the GUI in gimp if I'm doing something in java
>>54467350
>Java
>EE
Well that sounds cancerous.
>>54467134
No. Like Flash, and Adobe Reader, the Java Runtime Environment presents a surface of significant security risk. Ensuring that the browser plugin is not enabled mitigates some of that risk, but Oracle have (once again) gone back on that promise.
It is forbidden from all my server installs, partially because of the security risk, partially because of the fact that none of the line-of-business applications use Java, and partially because for about a decade, the NX kernel patches I was using meant the JRE just dumped core because it didn't have permission to execute stack or heap.
Curiously, this was not a problem with LuaJIT, probably because it allocated the memory correctly. Also, LuaJIT was over ten times faster than Java when I benched it, actually running faster than a toy implementation in C of the same thing, so there's that.
Am I biased? Sure. I worked on Freenet and I2P. I actually looked at the network and cryptography libraries. They are miserable failures: a lot of the problems those two projects have are directly because they are written in Java. Not everything will be impacted so badly, certainly, but I've seen the pathologically worst, so I'm not exactly inclined to give it another chance.
Trust me, you want to audit those libraries before you put them into production. Look at the SSL/TLS implementation. Abandon hope all ye who enter there. It's worse than SSLeay/OpenSSL. It might actually be worse than RSA BSafe. I have a depressing feeling the NSA have actually been at it: if not, certainly it was single-handedly responsible for DHE being stuck at 1024 bits for years because it flatly refused to do 2048. It's hell in there.
>>54467134
Yes, 1.7
And yes I mind.
