Canonical to remove all Sun JDK packages from the Partner archive

Re:Canonical to remove all Sun JDK packages from the Partner... by mdeslaur on Thursday December 15, 2011 @05:26PM (#3358333)

We originally thought about doing that, but we decided not to. It is likely that some users have installed sun-java6 in order to use applications that are incompatible with OpenJDK. If we silently replace sun-java6 with OpenJDK, they may experience unexpected failures or odd behaviour that will be difficult to diagnose.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Canonical to remove all Sun JDK packages from the Partner... by saurik on Thursday December 15, 2011 @06:43PM (#3358624)

... and just deleting the version of Java they have installed is somehow more reasonable? Honestly, the fact that this is even being seriously considered by Ubuntu is pretty much a death blow to me ever trusting a package update from the project again... what's next: a security update that uninstalls Apache from my web server, or one that uninstalls Exim from my email server?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Canonical to remove all Sun JDK packages from the Partner... by azernik on Thursday December 15, 2011 @08:45PM (#3359001)

Actually, I do think the Ubuntu solution is more reasonable. I installed sun-java6 for precisely the use case mdeslaur described, and I'm pretty sure that the errors from a missing JDK will be much more clear and noticeable than the subtler (but still work-killing) ones from OpenJDK.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Canonical to remove all Sun JDK packages from the Partner... by mdeslaur on Thursday December 15, 2011 @07:32PM (#3358785)

So we would be more trustworthy if we left millions of users vulnerable to being silently compromised by malware?

No, Apache and Exim wouldn't get removed, the source is available so a fix can be issued.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Canonical to remove all Sun JDK packages from the Partner... by saurik on Thursday December 15, 2011 @08:23PM (#3358936)

Strawman. Every other suggestion on this page is more reasonable than the one Ubuntu is choosing, whether it be replacing the package with one that is 90% functionally equivalent (openjdk) to printing giant warnings during the package upgrade process. The decision made by Ubuntu is so uncaring for its user community that this reads like comedy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Canonical to remove all Sun JDK packages from the Partner... by buntoo on Thursday December 15, 2011 @08:47PM (#3359003)

Removing packages seems to be the way Linux distros handle this type of issue

https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0368.html https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2008-1045.html

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Canonical to remove all Sun JDK packages from the Partner... by gldalmaso on Friday December 16, 2011 @05:20AM (#3360248)

I disagree. Many people leave windows in favor of Ubuntu for increased security against virus and malware.

I agree that there could be more transparent feedback to the user who probably will never check to see what's being update and why, but I don't think this reads like comedy at all.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Canonical to remove all Sun JDK packages from the Partner... by nirvdrum on Friday December 16, 2011 @12:31AM (#3359569)

Maybe a balance and not remove it on servers? I have a pretty locked down environment and trust my ability to read advisories and take necessary precautions. It's weird to presume your users can't deal with that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Canonical to remove all Sun JDK packages from the Partner... by regularfry on Friday December 16, 2011 @03:37AM (#3360017)

Can it not be done to require explicit confirmation at upgrade-time, the same way a license agreement would? It needn't be silent.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Canonical to remove all Sun JDK packages from the Partner... by obtu on Friday December 16, 2011 @10:49AM (#3361003)

Upgrades are silent and unattended. Tools build on that, sysadmins rely on that.

[ Parent | on HN ]