Hi,

I think there are several groups of Java users out there. For some of them
silent updates are the right thing for others those updates might cause a lot of
headaches.

I would like to propose to let the user decide which strategy is the right one
for him. For most "consumers" a silent update is probably the right choice. If
so why not enable it with one of the next updates automatically (by default)?

For managed environments it should be possible to disable the silent updates
through a switch in the unattended install. Changes need to be tested here.

And then the power users, some of them might be dependent on a specific version
of the JRE/JDK and only want to update when they can tolerate the additional
time needed to test if anything impotant broke (Juniper VPN anyone?). For these
users there should be a dialog at the end of the update which enables silent
updates that lets them turn silent updates off again. The important thing here
is that if the user does nothing the default (silent updates enabled) should
apply.

Now, I don't know how "silent" a JDK update on Windows can be performed
nowadays. I guess you need admin rights to perform it. On Linux the "consumer"
user will have their JDK managed through the distribution. The "roots" will be
able to manage the updates themself.

Cheers, Tobias

-- Frech IT tob...@frech.info / @TobiasFrech Am Brünnele 7 / 71642 Ludwigsburg / Germany Büro: +49-7141-9113027 / Mobil: +49-172-7112352

Vorstand SENS [Software-Experts-Network-Stuttgart] Vorstand iJUG [Interessenverbund der Java User Groups]

----- Reply message ----- Von: "John Yeary" <john...@gmail.com> An: <jug-...@jugs.java.net> Betreff: [jug-leaders] Re: That&apos;s bad for JavaFx Datum: Fr., Aug. 17, 2012 16:30 Agreed. Manfred has put it quite nicely.  Hildeberto I think it is a good thing that you brought it up so that the folks
at Oracle get some feedback. Remaining positive makes it possible to be
productive in making changes. 

I have not seen those messages before, but I run the latest JDK at all times. I
can see where an untrained user may say "I don't want to get hacked" and disable
it. A process which would be bad for all of us.

John____________________________ John Yeary____________________________  NetBeans Dream Team President Greenville Java Users Group Java Users Groups Community Leader Java Enterprise Community Leader

____________________________         

"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though
checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither
enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows
not victory nor defeat."

-- Theodore Roosevelt

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:15 AM, Hildeberto Mendonça <me...@hildeberto.com> wrote:

Well said Manfred! Well said. :-)

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Manfred Moser <manf...@mosabuam.com> wrote:

I agree with Hildeberto that it is important to crack this problem.

However I fail to see how it is so hard .. Google Chrome and Firefox are

showing nicely how to do:

Release regularly - update automatically with no user intervention, just

do it - make it hard for the user to stick to an old version

As you rightfully said the users dont want to have to care... so lets care

of it for them. Update automatically. Let's just be brave about this and

get on with it. Also imagine what pressure it would put on the quality of

Java, the JRE and so on as well as any Java programs if any developer can

expect to have some users running with the LATEST Java release and in fact

over time the majority running with it.

it would make the progess updating to Java 7 and going forward 8 and 9

MUCH faster and better..  the time to do this is yesterday.

manfred

http://simpligility.com

manfred

Community: http://www.cejug.org