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 @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 ]