Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Jolly Roger Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps Subject: Re: sierra? Date: 8 Oct 2016 23:58:17 GMT Organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Pirates Lines: 55 Message-ID: References: <57f7b4b0$0$1273$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com> <071020161110577036%nospam@nospam.invalid> <071020161214356108%nospam@nospam.invalid> <071020161315144458%nospam@nospam.invalid> <262dnatgxNiVemrKnZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <071020161443050717%nospam@nospam.invalid> <392dnf3d7tD9mWTKnZ2dnUU7-QfNnZ2d@giganews.com> X-Trace: individual.net QYUgg8rbBKx0eXcWfs9jKALMK6sgl8x4hJstlZPL9Duhq0pjQG Cancel-Lock: sha1:lAoA/HNHMrTbCSBfbEco/Ue4rXc= Mail-Copies-To: nobody User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (Darwin) Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.apps:36790 On 2016-10-08, Happy.Hobo wrote: > On 10-08-2016 14:52, Jolly Roger wrote: >> On 2016-10-08, Happy.Hobo wrote: >>> On 10-08-2016 13:36, Jolly Roger wrote: >>>> Alan Browne wrote: >>>>> >>>>> AFAIK there are no security issues with JRT. >>>> >>>> Huh? Of course there are. And they get patched all the time. >>> >>> Which makes me wonder why, after (how many?) years, Apple still >>> offers an installer for a long-obsolete JVM >> >> Why does Apple offer old versions of *anything*? Think about that for >> a bit. : ) > > I didn't say they shouldn't offer old versions of anything. I said I > don't know why they offer an old version of _that_ instead of > expecting people to get the latest from Oracle. Because naturally Oracle doesn't offer or support any version of Java for macOS 10.6 or earlier. Apple developed and maintained it before then. In fact Oracle *requires* 10.7.3 or later to run the earliest version they offer. Apple is doing the Mac community a service by allowing us to download old software. >>> instead of either updating or telling us to get it from Oracle. >> >> Where have you been? Apple announced long, long ago (back in 2010 >> circa macOS 10.6, IIRC) that Java for macOS is deprecated, and they >> they'd no longer be responsible for porting, maintaining and updating >> the JRE: > > Yes, I was born a few years before that. And it wqs 10.6.i Then you can't legitimately claim Apple never told us we'd have to get future updates to Java from Oracle. > Providing that made sense for a while, and even still for people who > refuse to upgrade. Or for anyone who happens to keep their older Macs up and running. So providing it does make sense. > But folks on on 10.11 would be better served by getting six years of > updates from Oracle. Then they can safely ignore the fact that Apple offers an older version of Java for download. I'm not seeing the problem here... -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR