Firefox 2.0.0.1 trashes Java Console

M

Mickey Segal

The latest Firefox update (2.0 to 2.0.0.1) de-activates the Java Console and
suggests fixing the problem by getting an updated version of the Java
plugin. Uninstalling JRE 7 build 02 and installing the current pre-release
build 04 (from http://download.java.net/jdk7/binaries/) does not restore the
Java Console in Firefox.

I haven't tried using the latest official release of Java, but one would
hope that the pre-release builds are at least as advanced in all respects.

Does anyone know how to get this working properly?
 
O

Oliver Wong

Mickey Segal said:
The latest Firefox update (2.0 to 2.0.0.1) de-activates the Java Console
and suggests fixing the problem by getting an updated version of the Java
plugin. Uninstalling JRE 7 build 02 and installing the current
pre-release build 04 (from http://download.java.net/jdk7/binaries/) does
not restore the Java Console in Firefox.

I haven't tried using the latest official release of Java, but one would
hope that the pre-release builds are at least as advanced in all respects.

Does anyone know how to get this working properly?

I've got JDK 1.5.0_06 and JDK 1.6.0, and the console doesn't work there
either.

- Oliver
 
M

Mickey Segal

Oliver Wong said:
I've got JDK 1.5.0_06 and JDK 1.6.0, and the console doesn't work there
either.

It sounds from this post on mozilla.support.firefox that this is something
Sun needs to fix:

http://groups.google.com/group/mozi...read/thread/490b5d57fc3b8360/ec8397452742dcf1

"This is not a problem with Firefox but a problem with how Sun Microsystems
wrote the Java Console extension. They specified in the extension that the
maximum version that it would work on will be Firefox 2.0, they should have
specified the maximum version as 2.0.0.*

When Firefox updated to 2.0.0.1 it checked the installed extensions and
since the Java console extension only specified that it would work with 2.0
it was disabled."
 
J

John Ersatznom

Mickey said:
It sounds from this post on mozilla.support.firefox that this is something
Sun needs to fix:

There is however something that Mozilla needs to fix. I got hit with a
double-dose of screwy behavior. My Firefox announced that there was a
new version available: 1.5.9. I canned the dialog since losing all my
open tabs at the time would have been inconvenient, and went manually to
mozilla.org later. I found that the latest version available was
actually 2.0.0.1, far later than 1.5.9! Here's hoping the 2.0.0.1
auto-update functionality is a bit smarter about detecting what the
latest version *really* is.

Then, of course, I got bit by the "Java Console disabled" thing.

Fortunately, I don't tend to use it, since I'm developing apps not applets.

However, Mozilla's own auto-update code thinking 1.5.9 > 2.0.0.1 makes
me doubt that this is entirely Sun's fault. It looks like any error Sun
made may have been because of confusing, corner-casey behavior in
Mozilla's version number comparator. A comparator that at least *used*
to think 1.5.9 > 2.0.0.1. Of course, 2.0.0.1 > 2.0 is correct, but
requiring funky wildcards to include minor versions seems like a recipe
for confusion and error. It should be "first version NOT supported",
like String's "substring(begin, end+1)" interval idiom, so Sun would
have said "need a new version for 2.1" rather than "OK up to 2.0" and
everything would be fine. :)
 
T

Tim Slattery

John Ersatznom said:
There is however something that Mozilla needs to fix. I got hit with a
double-dose of screwy behavior. My Firefox announced that there was a
new version available: 1.5.9. I canned the dialog since losing all my
open tabs at the time would have been inconvenient, and went manually to
mozilla.org later. I found that the latest version available was
actually 2.0.0.1, far later than 1.5.9! Here's hoping the 2.0.0.1
auto-update functionality is a bit smarter about detecting what the
latest version *really* is.

The 1.* version never offered the upgrade to 2.* as an automatic
upgrade, the way it does for the smaller "point" updates. Apparently
Mozilla considers 1.* and 2.* to be separate applications.

As to losing your tabs: Firefox 2.x doesn't. It will notify you of the
update and ask whether you want to install it now. If you say yes, it
closes the browser, does the necessary, then restarts the browser and
restores all the tabs that were open when it closed. It also opens on
more tab where the "Successful update" page is displayed.

--
Tim Slattery
(e-mail address removed)
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
 
J

John Ersatznom

Tim said:
The 1.* version never offered the upgrade to 2.* as an automatic
upgrade, the way it does for the smaller "point" updates. Apparently
Mozilla considers 1.* and 2.* to be separate applications.

That doesn't make any sense, since they're not.
As to losing your tabs: Firefox 2.x doesn't.

But the Firefox 1.5.7 I was using at the time would have.
 
O

Oliver Wong

John Ersatznom said:
There is however something that Mozilla needs to fix. I got hit with a
double-dose of screwy behavior. My Firefox announced that there was a new
version available: 1.5.9. I canned the dialog since losing all my open
tabs at the time would have been inconvenient, and went manually to
mozilla.org later. I found that the latest version available was actually
2.0.0.1, far later than 1.5.9! Here's hoping the 2.0.0.1 auto-update
functionality is a bit smarter about detecting what the latest version
*really* is.

Actually, I think what you experienced was the intended behaviour. You
mentioned elsewhere in the thread that you were using "1.5.7". "2.0.0.1" is
not considered to be an automatic upgrade for "1.5.7", but "1.5.9" *is*.
It's like how Apache 2.0 and Apache 1.3 are separate products, and both of
them are still actively developed.

[...]
It should be "first version NOT supported", like String's
"substring(begin, end+1)" interval idiom, so Sun would have said "need a
new version for 2.1" rather than "OK up to 2.0" and everything would be
fine. :)

Except that Sun (and other plugin developers) probably can't predict the
future. How will they know whether or not a new version of the plugin will
be needed for 2.1, unless they have a copy of Firefox 2.1 to test with?
Contrast this with the fact that they DO have a copy of Firefox 2.0, so they
can state "It works OK with Firefox 2.0. Anything higher, and we're not
making any promises."

- Oliver
 
J

John Ersatznom

Oliver said:
Actually, I think what you experienced was the intended behaviour. You
mentioned elsewhere in the thread that you were using "1.5.7". "2.0.0.1" is
not considered to be an automatic upgrade for "1.5.7", but "1.5.9" *is*.
It's like how Apache 2.0 and Apache 1.3 are separate products, and both of
them are still actively developed.

Let me get this straight. You're claiming that the intended behavior is
to nag the user about every single minor bugfix or tweak update, but not
to bother informing them about a major upgrade's availability?

That would be equivalent to Windows XP Update constantly nagging you
about bugfixes (which it does on a weekly basis) while Microsoft quietly
stocked store shelves with shrinkwrapped boxes of Windows Vista without
any fanfare and simply hoped people would accidentally stumble onto them
while shopping some day.

Mind you, having Windows Update nag you to upgrade to Vista would be
annoying, because Vista costs money and is as much a downgrade
(performance, DRM) as an upgrade, but Firefox 1.x to 2.0 is a straight
upgrade, and free, rather than a lateral move that costs money.
Except that Sun (and other plugin developers) probably can't predict the
future. How will they know whether or not a new version of the plugin will
be needed for 2.1, unless they have a copy of Firefox 2.1 to test with?
Contrast this with the fact that they DO have a copy of Firefox 2.0, so they
can state "It works OK with Firefox 2.0. Anything higher, and we're not
making any promises."

The claim was that Sun should have said it would work with 2.0.0.* or
2.0.* or similarly. The latter definitely amounts to "it may not work
with 2.1" and the former to "it may not work with 2.0.1". It's a matter
of whether you specify the end point or one past the end point, and in
this case it looks like requiring specifying the end point was the more
confusing choice.

More generally, plugin developers would have the problem of guessing
exactly what the first future version would be where it no longer worked
(or the last where it did). Maybe Mozilla should take a page from Sun's
book here, and just publish an interface that plugins will always work
if they adhere to, and keep a separate version (like serialVersionUID)
for just the interface, which changes only when an incompatible change
to the interface is made that won't work with old plugins.

Better still, they could have done what most software has been doing
since the 80s or earlier, and been backward compatible with older
versions. Any plugin that worked in Firefox x would then work in Firefox
x+1, but changes to the interface, when such were made, would mean some
plugins designed for x+1 might not work in x.
 
O

Oliver Wong

John Ersatznom said:
Let me get this straight. You're claiming that the intended behavior is to
nag the user about every single minor bugfix or tweak update, but not to
bother informing them about a major upgrade's availability?
[...]

No. The intended behaviour is to notify the user of updates available to
software that is installed on his/her computer, and not to notify them of
updates to software which isn't installed on his/her computer. Given that
the FireFox 2.0 and Firefox 1.5 series are considered different products by
Mozilla, a FireFox 1.5 user should not be notified about a FireFox 2.0
update, just as much as a Opera user shouldn't be notified about a FireFox
2.0 update.
That would be equivalent to Windows XP Update constantly nagging you about
bugfixes (which it does on a weekly basis) while Microsoft quietly stocked
store shelves with shrinkwrapped boxes of Windows Vista without any
fanfare and simply hoped people would accidentally stumble onto them while
shopping some day.

Mind you, having Windows Update nag you to upgrade to Vista would be
annoying, because Vista costs money and is as much a downgrade
(performance, DRM) as an upgrade,

Actually, yeah, your comparison is apt. Some people feel that 1.5 is
better than 2.X. Rather than piss those people off, Mozilla felt that 2.0
should be considered a completely seperate product, and 1.5 will continue to
be actively developed in parallel with 2.0
but Firefox 1.x to 2.0 is a straight upgrade, and free, rather than a
lateral move that costs money.

People disagree with this assertion.
The claim was that Sun should have said it would work with 2.0.0.* or
2.0.* or similarly. The latter definitely amounts to "it may not work with
2.1" and the former to "it may not work with 2.0.1". It's a matter of
whether you specify the end point or one past the end point, and in this
case it looks like requiring specifying the end point was the more
confusing choice.

Right. I guess I was focusing more on the "need a new version" instead
of "*maybe* need a new version".
More generally, plugin developers would have the problem of guessing
exactly what the first future version would be where it no longer worked
(or the last where it did). Maybe Mozilla should take a page from Sun's
book here, and just publish an interface that plugins will always work if
they adhere to, and keep a separate version (like serialVersionUID) for
just the interface, which changes only when an incompatible change to the
interface is made that won't work with old plugins.

Better still, they could have done what most software has been doing since
the 80s or earlier, and been backward compatible with older versions. Any
plugin that worked in Firefox x would then work in Firefox x+1, but
changes to the interface, when such were made, would mean some plugins
designed for x+1 might not work in x.

Well, dem's the apples...

- Oliver
 
T

Tim Slattery

John Ersatznom said:
Let me get this straight. You're claiming that the intended behavior is
to nag the user about every single minor bugfix or tweak update, but not
to bother informing them about a major upgrade's availability?

Apparently, yes.
That would be equivalent to Windows XP Update constantly nagging you
about bugfixes (which it does on a weekly basis) while Microsoft quietly
stocked store shelves with shrinkwrapped boxes of Windows Vista without
any fanfare and simply hoped people would accidentally stumble onto them
while shopping some day.

AFAIK, Windows Update doesn't let you know about Vista or offer to
upgrade you to that system.

--
Tim Slattery
(e-mail address removed)
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
 
J

John Ersatznom

Oliver said:
No. The intended behaviour is to notify the user of updates available to
software that is installed on his/her computer, and not to notify them of
updates to software which isn't installed on his/her computer.

Since Firefox is software which is installed on my computer, I rest my
case. Yep -- I would find it screwy if the Firefox auto-update told me
about a new version of Windows, or even of Thunderbird.
> Given that the FireFox 2.0 and Firefox 1.5 series are considered different
> products by Mozilla

What Mozilla internaly considers them is irrelevant to the end user. The
end user sees "Firefox version whatever". None of this is making any
sense, anyway -- they could as well consider Firefox 1.4 and 1.5
"different products", or even 2.0 and 2.0.0.1 "different products".
That's just word-games.
Actually, yeah, your comparison is apt. Some people feel that 1.5 is
better than 2.X.

That is illogical; 2.0 is a straight upgrade rather than a sidegrade.
Firefox 1.5 is not to 2.0 as it is to Opera, or IE, which is what you
seem to be claiming.
People disagree with this assertion.

What "people"? There's a good reason why wikipedia would flag your
article with "This article contains weasel words" if you'd written this
there, you know...
 
J

John Ersatznom

Tim said:
AFAIK, Windows Update doesn't let you know about Vista or offer to
upgrade you to that system.

That's largely because Vista isn't free. It's also not true anyway. I
just did some research, and Windows Update did something suspiciously
like what you are describing a few months back, when the big "Vista is
coming!" MS hype machine was in full bore.

First, it pushed people to install "Windows genuine advantage" with the
threat to withhold updates if it wasn't installed, or reported your copy
of windows was phony.

Next, it pushed people to install "Windows genuine advantage
notification", which would supposedly make the former tell the *user*
and not just Microsoft if it thought their windows were phony.

In actual fact, the "notification" thing had all kinds of side effects
and some sort of legal crud telling people they weren't permitted to
remove it once they'd installed it. One of the commonest side effects
was that WGA would "suddenly realize" that their copy was bogus. This
would stop updates being available to the user, but worse, it would
often force them to actually redo the "product activation", whereupon MS
would frequently refuse to cooperate on the grounds that their windows
copy was supposedly bogus. This often happened to people who had gotten
preloaded machines with Windows on and hadn't done any funny business.
It also did not happen to people who only installed the first of the two
"genuine advantage" thingies.

Moreover, the "notification" thing was NOT necessary to continue to
receive updates. Also, both were pushed as "critical" updates by Windows
Update, as if they were security patches to protect users from being
hacked. They weren't -- in fact, the "notifications" one, at least,
actually made users have *less* control over their machines, so if
anything there should have been a "critical update" to *remove* the
"notifications" update; I think I'd have recommended including it in the
next "malicious software removal tool" myself.

I found posts on multiple software-pundit, product-gripe, and similar
blogs all speculating that the real motive behind these bogus "critical
security fix" updates wasn't users' security, or even (a false sense of)
security for Microsoft's so-called "intellectual property", but in fact
to push people towards Vista. The "notifications" update created the
ability to remotely deactivate already-activated copies of Windows XP,
which otherwise would work until people changed their hardware sufficiently.

Apparently, Microsoft found the two or three year average replacement
time for peoples' PCs to be too slow and impatiently figured out a way
to force people to replace XP sooner than that, leveraging the existing
product activation.

It backfired. There was so much bad press that MS yanked most of the
"notifications" misfeatures in a later update and quit peddling it, and
decided to let people who were happy with their XP keep it until they
have new hardware after all.

But there is one way in which you are technically correct. The updates
didn't themselves explicitly push Vista. Although making XP stop working
and leaving users with no recourse except to buy a new copy of Windows,
even while XP is being swept off the shelves and Vista boxes lined up by
their hundreds, amounts to the same thing. Well, worse, actually.
Nagging about an update is common practise. The kind of arm-twisting
observed here is the special province of Microsoft, governments, and the
mob, as near as I can make out. :p
 
O

Oliver Wong

John Ersatznom said:
What Mozilla internaly considers them is irrelevant to the end user. The
end user sees "Firefox version whatever". None of this is making any
sense, anyway -- they could as well consider Firefox 1.4 and 1.5
"different products", or even 2.0 and 2.0.0.1 "different products". That's
just word-games.


That is illogical; 2.0 is a straight upgrade rather than a sidegrade.
Firefox 1.5 is not to 2.0 as it is to Opera, or IE, which is what you seem
to be claiming.

Are you twisted? I'm explaining to you why things are the way they are
now. You are free to argue that things *shouldn't* be that way, but that
doesn't change the fact that that's the way they are.
What "people"?
http://listvine.com/2006/10/25/9-reasons-not-to-upgrade-to-firefox-20/
http://bluey.livejournal.com/116819.html
http://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?ForumId=48&TopicId=10004
etc.

There's a good reason why wikipedia would flag your article with "This
article contains weasel words" if you'd written this there, you know...

Luckily this isn't Wikipedia.

- Oliver
 
J

John W. Kennedy

Tim said:
The 1.* version never offered the upgrade to 2.* as an automatic
upgrade, the way it does for the smaller "point" updates. Apparently
Mozilla considers 1.* and 2.* to be separate applications.

No, it just regards 2.* as too radical for automatic update /at/ /present/.
 
J

John Ersatznom

John said:
No, it just regards 2.* as too radical for automatic update /at/ /present/.

We're not talking about automatic update though. We're talking about
automatic update *notification*. Which the user then gets to act on, or
not, as they choose.

Telling the user that 2.x is now available and including an "[ ] I'm not
interested in Firefox 2, so don't tell me about it again" to use if they
really prefer 1.x would have worked nicely.
 
J

John Ersatznom

Oliver said:
Are you twisted?

Only when I'm playing Quake. Then I do things like shove opponents into
the lava to boil and scream rather than just snuff them out with my
rocket launcher. Otherwise...nah.
I'm explaining to you why things are the way they are now. You are free
> to argue that things *shouldn't* be that way, but that doesn't change
> the fact that that's the way they are.

You seem to think that somehow that makes you "right" and me "wrong",
when it just means you're talking right past me for some reason.
Luckily this isn't Wikipedia.

ITYM "Unluckily". Unclear and weaselly debating tactics may make you
look clever or your opponent look stupid, but they don't actually alter
the facts being debated. Are you here to discuss factual matters or are
you here to win "points" by getting into debates and "winning"
arguments? If the latter, might I suggest alt.flame or some similar
group instead? Same goes for that fellow you were arguing for weeks with
at the start of this month. Nobody who helps clutter up a technical
group with 500+ offtopic articles in less than twenty days at an average
rate of around 1 an hour has won any "points" in my books. In fact,
nobody here is winning any "points" in my books at all. All that really
matters is the code, and what it does...in fact, I probably shouldn't
post anything after this to this digression about Firefox. Everyone's
missing the point anyway, it seems, including the Mozilla devs, which is
that update notification functionality that doesn't notify a user of new
versions of their stuff isn't doing its job. Apparently, nobody will
find out about some new Firefox versions that become available unless
they regularly visit their Web site. If they have to do that to remain
fully informed anyway, the whole purpose of having
auto-update-notification functionality in the product has been defeated.

'Nuff said on the topic.
 
J

John Ersatznom

Oliver said:

OK, that wasn't quite my last word on the subject after all. I just got
around to checking these links, and the very first one gives me an error
page rather than any kind of content. I didn't even bother to try the
other two after seeing that.

If you really want to back up something in a debate with outside
references, it really doesn't look too good when it's obvious you didn't
even make sure the links you posted work, unless the thing you're trying
to prove is actually the fact that the link doesn't work, or that
there's such a thing as a 404 response code in HTTP, or something like
that. :)
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,769
Messages
2,569,580
Members
45,054
Latest member
TrimKetoBoost

Latest Threads

Top