«

On 02/17/2012 01:53 PM, Fredrik Jonson wrote:
> In<jhhp7k$sum$> Rajiv Gupta wrote:
>
>> As for Android. It is in my opinion a fiendishly clever honeypot aiding
>> Google in collecting the identities of as many people in the world as
>> they can.
>
> Cyanogenmod is your friend. Available for many Android devices and wont tell
> Google about your existence if you don't ask it to.
>
Hm. "incognito browsing mode" better than a tinfoil hat?

Fredrik Jonson schrieb:
> Dalvik a firewall? Do you mean that was a oringinal goal or more like a
> selling point after the fact?

http://developer.android.com/referen...tyManager.html
Security managers do not provide a secure environment for executing
untrusted code. Untrusted code cannot be safely isolated within the
Dalvik VM.

On 2/17/2012 3:38 PM, Jeff Higgins wrote:
> On 02/17/2012 01:53 PM, Fredrik Jonson wrote:
>> In<jhhp7k$sum$> Rajiv Gupta wrote:
>>
>>> As for Android. It is in my opinion a fiendishly clever honeypot aiding
>>> Google in collecting the identities of as many people in the world as
>>> they can.
>>
>> Cyanogenmod is your friend. Available for many Android devices and
>> wont tell
>> Google about your existence if you don't ask it to.
>>
> Hm. "incognito browsing mode" better than a tinfoil hat?

Probably.



Arne

On 2/17/2012 5:52 AM, Rajiv Gupta wrote:
> On 2012-02-17 13:23:25 +1100, Arne Vajhøj said:
>> On 2/15/2012 9:21 PM, Rajiv Gupta wrote:
>>> On 2012-02-15 23:50:04 +1100, Richard Maher said:
>>>> Is anyone else gutted that the Chrome browser on Android will not
>>>> support JAVA, Flash or any other pluggin?
>>>>
>>>> I thought Google and Android were big on JAVA?
>>>
>>> Android uses the Dalvik VM, ostensibly to take advantage of the CPU
>>> architectures of the devices commonly used in mobile devices. For Google
>>> it also provides a convient firewall to keep out unwanted code from
>>> their eco system.
>>
>> Given that they provide free tools to generate code for Dalvik, then
>> they do not really keep anyone out.
>
> It is still a barrier.

Without any noticeable effect.

>>> Flash is no longer necessary since HTML5.
>>
>> If you can live with 30% of web users not seeing your stuff.
>
> The situation is rapidly changing.

Not really. A large portion of users do not update their
browsers when a new major version come out.

> Adobe have acknowledged it themselves
> as they have stopped developing Flash for mobile devices.

Adobe has acknowledged that Flash on mobile is a dead end.

But there are still a few people left that use PC's to
browse the web.

>>> The same goes for Java Applets. It has been a long time since applets
>>> have been useful. I recommend that people disable Java in their
>>> browsers. It is just a security risk and a way to waste memory.
>>
>> ????
>>
>> On a page that does not use applets, then Java will not be running and
>> therefor not e using memory.
>>
>> On a page that does use applets, then Java will consume memory but also
>> be needed.
>>
>> So I do not understand that advice.
>
> Are you retarded or just a pedant? By disabling Java in the browser, you
> will prevent the browser from running applets.

If you delete the browser you will save even more memory.

There is not much point in saving memory by disabling functionality
that you want.

>>> HTML
>>> canvas and websockets and JS can do anything that you could do in Java
>>> in a browser.
>>
>> For web then Java applets is still more widely supported than HTML5.
>
> For any new developments you would be an imbecile to choose deploying an
> applet.

Imbecile preferring bigger market share? I don't think so!

> The browser that has the most rapidly increasing market share
> (Chrome) does not even bother to support it.

Have you considered investigating these matters a bit?

Applets is supported in Chrome since Java 6u12.

>>> As for Android. It is in my opinion a fiendishly clever honeypot aiding
>>> Google in collecting the identities of as many people in the world as
>>> they can.
>>
>> That problem is solvable:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat
>
> Google's main business is to collect information about people in order
> to profit from it by advertising or selling the information in some
> form. This is not a paranoid delusional statement. In some jurisdictions
> their activities border on criminal. For example, forging emails from
> registered users which state that user "XXX" has invited you to join
> Google+. In fact an official complaint has been made to a member of
> parlaiment in my jurisdiction asking for the federal police to
> investigate these mass forging of emails because forging of emails is an
> offence.

The fact that a person write the parliament and ask them to
investigate something does not make it illegal or immoral.

Arne

"Rajiv Gupta" <> wrote in message
news:jhhp7k$sum$...
> On 2012-02-15 23:50:04 +1100, Richard Maher said:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is anyone else gutted that the Chrome browser on Android will not support
>> JAVA, Flash or any other pluggin?
>>
>> I thought Google and Android were big on JAVA?
>>
>> Cheers Richard Maher
>

>
> Flash is no longer necessary since HTML5.

Choice and competition are often good things, as is supporting a client base
that isn't that keen to be on the bleading edge. Leaving video aside, I
still haven't seen a charting tool that can match what can be achieved with
Flex charting.

> Flash is unwanted anyway

Seems pretty popular to me.

> as it
> offers some pernicious features for marketers (and others) to track users
> using Flash cookies.

With iOS giving everyone access to your contacts and address book let alone
what sites like Facebook get up to, I see no reason to highlight Flash
cookies. Also, given that Web-Sockets have been firstly removed from HTML5
then disabled everywhere (except maybe Chrome) due to security flaws, I
believe your smugness to be unjustified.

> I say good riddence to Flash.

With the cartel of Apple, Google, and Microsoft ganging up to destroy it,
there doesn't appear to be any other course of action.

>
> The same goes for Java Applets. It has been a long time since applets
> have been useful.

*******s!

While the pixel footprint of modern Applets may be reduced to zero, their
usefulness continues unabated. Nothing else on the planet can provide the
awesome, yet sandboxed, power of an unsigned Java Applet! Multi-tab,
multi-threaded power and functionality only dreamt of by today's
long-polling, Javascript, hacks. (I note you diddn't mention HTML5
"worker-threads"; too embarassing for even you to gloat over?)

> I recommend that people disable Java in their browsers.

I'm sure your blog is just clocking up those clicks as we speak.

> It is just a security risk and a way to waste memory.

Yet I'm willing to wager that in the same breath you're a big jQuery
cargo-cult fan.

> HTML canvas and
> websockets and JS can do anything that you could do in Java in a browser.

Anyone who thinks WebSockets implemented over HTTP can come anywhere close
to providing the full-blown functionality of a native TCP/IP or UDP socket
is either in denial or just plain ignorant.

> Applets are a dying technology and the sooner they kick the bucket the
> better for everyone.

Certainly better for every supplier except Oracle. And all those developers
who like more than one tool in the toolbox.
>
> As for Android. It is in my opinion a fiendishly clever honeypot aiding
> Google in collecting the identities of as many people in the world as they
> can.

Just another Apple fanbois?

>
>

There is a trick to it. See
http://mindprod.com/jgloss/googlechrome.html
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
http://mindprod.com
When you were a child, if you did your own experiment
to see if it was better to put to cocoa into your cup first
or the hot milk first, then you likely have the programmer gene..

On 2/15/2012 6:50 AM, Richard Maher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is anyone else gutted that the Chrome browser on Android will not support
> JAVA, Flash or any other pluggin?
>
> I thought Google and Android were big on JAVA?
>
> Cheers Richard Maher
>
>

I am starting to think that this whole idea of 'running applications
in the cloud' will never work as well as running an application
on the desktop.

If I see the same thing with a choice of an applet or a jar file
that I can download first and run on the PC, I now go for the jar
file choice.

The speed of the internet these days makes downloading things
not an issue any more.

People now think HTML5/Javascript is the next big thing, where
everyone will write their wonderful advanced 20 million lines
applications in HTML5 and Javascript.

May be for simple games and basic app this will work, but
for advanced applications where good and robust performance
is important, running things directly on the desktop/computer
will always be better than running things inside yet another
software application like the browser.

Bottom line, it is not a big deal for me not being able to run Java
inside the browser as long as I can run the same thing on the PC. It
will run better that way.

--Nasser

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 13:39:43 -0500, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:


> People now think HTML5/Javascript is the next big thing, where everyone
> will write their wonderful advanced 20 million lines applications in
> HTML5 and Javascript.

You're assuming everyone has stable, non-infected pc's. The whole point
of the cloud, insofar as I can tell, to avoid annoying support calls
which end in either "reboot" or "re-install".

The beauty of AJAX, etc, is in terms of support. It's a complex way of
getting away from Windows, to which people will go to extraordinary
lengths.


-Thufir

On 4/1/2012 3:50 PM, Thufir wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 13:39:43 -0500, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
>
>
>> People now think HTML5/Javascript is the next big thing, where everyone
>> will write their wonderful advanced 20 million lines applications in
>> HTML5 and Javascript.
>

> You're assuming everyone has stable, non-infected pc's. The whole point
> of the cloud,

I guess I used the wrong word. I did not mean to run things on
the server vs. on the desktop/pc.

I meant to run things in a browser vs. on the desktop/pc.

But I thought this was clear even though I used the word
'cloud' when may be I should have used RIA (rich internet applications).
After all, I was talking about applets and HTML5 and Javascript
all the time? These run in the browser, not on the server.

>insofar as I can tell, to avoid annoying support calls
> which end in either "reboot" or "re-install".
>

If the PC is 'bad', then applets/HTML5/javaScript/Flash/
pick_your_Browserplugins/ etc.. will also run bad. After all,
the browser runs on the PC as well.

> The beauty of AJAX, etc, is in terms of support. It's a complex way of
> getting away from Windows, to which people will go to extraordinary
> lengths.
>
> -Thufir

So, You want to run say, photoshop application, on the server using
AJAX so to get away from the PC? Do you think it will work as good
as running it on the PC?

I like my PC, and I do not want to get away from it.

--Nasser

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 17:28:11 -0500, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:


> But I thought this was clear even though I used the word 'cloud' when
> may be I should have used RIA (rich internet applications). After all,
> I was talking about applets and HTML5 and Javascript all the time?
> These run in the browser, not on the server.

Maybe it's semantics, or maybe I have no idea what you're talking about.
Either is equally likely

When you say "run in the browser" does that mean you navigate to
www.whatever.something? Pardon, I guess, yeah, the server passes the
processing off to the browser, but the code (or applet) itself resides
server side.

My point was that if you call tech support they'll say "works from here"
and tell you to re-install your OS or something. Whether the processing
is client or server side doesn't seem that much of a big deal(?), unless
you have a slow computer. It virtually eliminates version problems.

I suppose the "next" step will be to cache the js/whatever. Hey, they re-
invented JWS! Anyhow...

Is that what you mean buy RIA? Yes, I'm too lazy to go wikipedia before
posting this.


-Thufir