To Avoid Confusion: Oracle's Confusing New Java Numbering Scheme

twofishy writes "'To avoid the confusion caused by renumbering releases,' Oracle has announced that it is adopting a new numbering scheme for JDK 5.0, JDK 6 and JDK 7. 'The next Limited Update for JDK 7 will be numbered 7u40, and the next 3 CPUs after that will be numbered 7u45, 7u51, and 7u55." The vendor notes that a more elegant solution would require the changing of the version numbering scheme to accommodate different kinds of changes (for example by using 7u44-2 ). However this cannot be implemented outside of a major release, since doing so might break existing code that parses version strings (possibly including the Java auto-update system)" Here's Oracle's announcement.

Comments

CPU=Critical Patch Update

[fnj]

An absurd TLA overloading.

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[DickBreath]

> An absurd TLA overloading.

To be more concise, simply say: ATO. (ATO = Absurd TLA Overloading.)

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[ArcadeMan]

Oh, a different meaning for an acronym that's been in use for over 50 years. That will sure help with the confusion!

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not like they could have just said Critical update patch...oh no, we need to make things confusing.

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[Anonymous Coward]

So, is it an update to a critical patch or a critical update to a patch, and can't they release proper patches that don't need updates?

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[Anonymous Coward]

critical update needed today

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[interval1066]

So it's a TLA about a critical CPU that's gonna clear up all this FUD.

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[Gabest]

This person has obviously never in his life heard of the Central Processing Unit.

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[Anonymous Coward]

DYM, "TBC: ATO"?

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[chinton]

That's like overriding toString() to format your hard-drive.

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[ajlitt]

Its not like they could have just said Critical update patch...oh no, we need to make things confusing.

What happens when admins get confused and pour the contents of their beverage containers into their servers?

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[gstoddart]

So it's a TLA about a critical CPU that's gonna clear up all this FUD.

LOL, WTF?

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[Likes Microsoft]

You mean an ATO, obviously.

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[tom17]

YHD

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[Anonymous Coward]

An absurd Textile Labour Association?

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[AngryNick]

TLA

Three Letter Acronym

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[Tackhead]

Its not like they could have just said Critical update patch...oh no, we need to make things confusing.

What happens when admins get confused and pour the contents of their beverage containers into their servers?

We apologize for the confusion in the Critical Patch Updates. The individuals responsible have been sacked. To avoid further confusion, all CPUs will be processed through CUPS, the Critical Update Patch Server.

And now the goddamn printer doesn't work.

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[benhattman]

No 3 letter acronym is unique. At best, it's unique in the domain you are currently working in.

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[Anonymous Coward]

No 3 letter acronym is unique. At best, it's unique in the domain you are currently working in.

Well this one sure as hell fails that test!

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[Anonymous Coward]

Format... haven't heard that for a long time... such a silly Windows concept.
Did you know that you can abort your "format" at 95% and *nothing^ will be changed *at all*? Because what it actually does, is checking blocks for errors. And only at the very end (99%) will it do the actual action, which is called *creating a new file system*.

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[Anonymous Coward]

Format... haven't heard that for a long time... such a silly Windows concept.
Did you know that you can abort your "format" at 95% and *nothing^ will be changed *at all*? Because what it actually does, is checking blocks for errors. And only at the very end (99%) will it do the actual action, which is called *creating a new file system*.

Because as we all know, "creating a new file system" rolls off the tongue so much easier than "format". If you're a tool.

I've been using non-Windows for a decade and a half now, and I still use "format" and "reformat" (for the few times I need such a term).

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[chinton]

Lighten up, Francis.

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[gl4ss]

cri would have done nicely.

or you know, they could have called them critical patches. or patches. or whatever - anything else than cpu.

but what the fuck is this about deciding in advance to skip some numbers on the scheme?

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[Anonymous Coward]

Format... haven't heard that for a long time... such a silly Windows concept.
Did you know that you can abort your "format" at 95% and *nothing^ will be changed *at all*? Because what it actually does, is checking blocks for errors. And only at the very end (99%) will it do the actual action, which is called *creating a new file system*.

silly rabbit get back into the hole.
there's more to formatting than just creating a file system, it's preparing the harddisk for that. you can skip the bad sectors check if you want. but that's part of preparing the device for the file system to be created. putting it into form. checking bad sectors is not a windows concept.

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[FatdogHaiku]

DYM, "TBC: ATO"?

I like their frozen yogurt...

Re: CPU=Critical Patch Update

[Anonymous Coward]

To support scheduled security updates, scheduled feature updates, and in scheduled security updates.

They used to do odd/even for the first two, but an increase of the third is the reason for the changes.

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure XYZ has only one meaning, and it's "eXamine Your Zipper".

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[Joce640k]

It's not an acronym, it's an abbreviation.

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[Joce640k]

Oh, a different meaning for an acronym that's been in use for over 50 years. That will sure help with the confusion!

It's not an acronym, it's an abbreviation.

(or do you go around saying "CUPOO" to everybody?)

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's an abbreviation, not of the type called an acronym, but of the other type called an initialism:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/initialism?q=initialism

Let's hear it for the initialisms, ATO! BBC! IBM! CPU! WTF!!! :)

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's an initialism. An abbreviation is just a shortening of a word. If you're going to play the vocab* Nazi, try to be correct.

* The word vocab is an abbreviation.

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[CheshireDragon]

I think you are looking for "TCBY"

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[maxwell demon]

Two General Intermediate ReLeases, one Critical Update Patch! :-)

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[maxwell demon]

An absurd Three Letter Agency, of course.

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[Anonymous Coward]

TLI - Three Letter Initialism, please.

Unless you pronounce it K'poo?

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[Anonymous Coward]

2 Girls, 1 Critical Update Patch

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[ls671]

Christ Pete, Update!

http://www.petefinnigan.com/

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not an acronym, it's an abbreviation.

GeStaPo is an abbreviation ( Geheime Stadt Polizei )

NATO is an acronym that is pronouncable

CPU is an acronym that is not.

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[Anonymous Coward]

Double-check your dictionary. Language evolves, and this little words has fallen victim to evolution. Acronyms no longer have to be pronounceable.

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[Anonymous Coward]

My sister carved her initials into a moose with her toothbrush once...

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[AngryNick]

Another abbreviation comes to mind with your eager correction to the obvious variations for the "A". DILLIGAFF

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[petteyg359]

You keep using these words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update

[Anonymous Coward]

Funniest comment i've seen on Slashdot for a while.

Why Does Name Matter?

[Karganeth]

Surely they could just number them from 1 to infinity. Why does name matter? Who knows.

Re:Why Does Name Matter?

[alexo]

Why does name matter?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg9w0YSMLHY

Re:Why Does Name Matter?

[bunratty]

Because programs are used to decode/encode the name. It's the same problem with Y2K, user agent strings, and so on. When programs expect data in a certain format, such as two digits for years or a single number after a u in a version string, they don't react well when the format is changed. RTFA.

Re:Why Does Name Matter?

[hastalapasta]

if you are not descartian dualist then name is as big of a deal as demolishing temples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_soul#Ren_.28name.29
if you love Nethack like me then you know you get a damage bonus if you name your what was it dagger, maybe to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orcrist#Orcrist

Re:Why Does Name Matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely they could just number them from 1 to infinity. Why does name matter? Who knows.

There are not enough numbers in that list to uniquely identify all Java updates.

Re:Why Does Name Matter?

[LordLimecat]

Because the old numbering system of incrementing by 1 was far too complicated. The new system is much easier to understand:

* Limited Update releases will be numbered in multiples of 20.
  * We intend for Critical Patch Updates to continue to use odd numbers. The numbers will be calculated by adding multiples of five to the prior Limited Update and when needed adding one to keep the resulting number odd.
  * Updates containing Norton instead of McAfee will be prime numbers
  * If an update actually contains intentional regressions, it will end in a 9. We recommend you do not install these updates.
  * If the update number is a prime but also a member of the fibonacci sequence, it is considered a "surprise" update: It will be automatically installed, and will contain 1 or more undesirable features. It may also install the ask toolbar.

Obviously this system is far superior.

Re:Why Does Name Matter?

[rudy_wayne]

Because the old numbering system of incrementing by 1 was far too complicated. The new system is much easier to understand:

* Limited Update releases will be numbered in multiples of 20.

  * We intend for Critical Patch Updates to continue to use odd numbers. The numbers will be calculated by adding multiples of five to the prior Limited Update and when needed adding one to keep the resulting number odd.

Obviously this system is far superior.

But then there is the even more superior solution which would be to get their shit together. Seriously, the situation with Java is beyond absurd. The number of updates to fix security holes is a few orders of magnitude beyond absurd. How is it even possible to create software so shitty and full of holes?

Re:Why Does Name Matter?

[t4ng*]

Ah... I think I see were Sun can do some layoffs. First, promote the management of the team that came up with the new numbering. Then layoff all the programmers, except for one intern.

Re:Why Does Name Matter?

[jellomizer]

Well the issue with version numbers are Important.
I actually like the new scheme it makes it much easier to see how up to date you are.

The problem was back with MS changing their version numbers after Windows NT 4/Windows 3.1 with 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, 2003, 2008, Vista, 2012....
While the Date of the release is better, a general version number Major.Minor.Patch is superior, as it can really help you decide to Upgrade or Not or how much effort will it be to upgrade.

Major: Big New features, Full Compatibility Check should be considered.
Minor: Small Features, Check the Change log and check for effected areas for compatibility
Patch: In general you should just upgrade, as it usually fixes problems, and security issues, little to no compatibility loss is expected.

Now if you have groups of products that suppose to work together Such as Java Runtime vs Java SDK it would be nice to have similar version numbers as a policy as to know that your SDK and Runtime doesn't need to be checked to compatibility across each other, as both are released at the same time, with the same number.

Re:Why Does Name Matter?

[unrtst]

Because programs are used to decode/encode the name.

...except that isn't the problem.

They are using an incremental number on the RHS (right hand side) of the "u" seperator, and that number may represent either a critial patch update or it might be a new minor version. The problem arrises when they attempt to associate FUTURE releases with stuff in bugtrackers and their ilk. They could have more CPU releases than normal releases, making the CPU minor release number much higher than the planned normal release, causing a bunch of confusion.

Their solution, IMO, blows. But it's not because of the format of the version string.

IMO, the easy solution would be to treat it as a 3 part number, and make the current minor version part MUCH larger. So, first increase the minor version:
        5u40 becomes 5u00040000

That can be interpretted as: 5.00040.000

Then it's easy. Middle part is the normal incremental releases. Last 3 digit are for CPU releases on that incremental. FWIW, this provides FAR more room for CPU releases than this scheme they just announced, and it's very clear and easy to read. Most languages aslo support some character to allow the user to format the number within the codebase (in Perl, it could be written as 5.00040_000 and perl will just ignore the _), so it would still be crystal clear when written as well.

Anyway... this is NOT the same as Y2K, nor as user agent strings, and doesn't have anything to do with programs expecting the version string to be a specific format, except for the fact that they can't change the current format. How they plan to work within that limitation and the issues they have encounted is the problem.

Re:Why Does Name Matter?

[gl4ss]

why not just incrementally switch to 1.2.3.4 version? and guarantee that api's wont probably break at minor bumps.

Re:Why Does Name Matter?

[Joce640k]

Because "Java 7.53" makes them look bad - 53 critical updates!

Instead they chose to obfuscate things and redefine "CPU", which doesn't make them look bad at all.

Re:Why Does Name Matter?

[Zadaz]

There's a solution to this, it's called deprecation. A proper way to do this would be to still support Wacky Version Numbers with System.getProperty("java.version") but note that it is deprecated and list a date after it will no longer be supported.

Then you add something new like System.getProperty("java.realVersion") which is just a number from 1 to infinity. (Or something more common like Major and Minor version.) Doesn't break anything, provides a way forward. Languages that aren't thinking 10 years/revisions ahead are doomed in the present.

Re:Why Does Name Matter?

[Darinbob]

I belive the "surprise update" feature is patented by Mozilla.

Re:Why Does Name Matter?

[PhunkySchtuff]

I'm pretty sure that Sun have done all the layoffs that they're ever going to do...

Just like line numbers in BASIC

[Errol backfiring]

You know, to be able to insert something between two existing lines.

Re:Just like line numbers in BASIC

[Anonymous Coward]

My thoughts exactly...

Why not copy MS and have 2 ver numbers

[Joe_Dragon]

Why not copy MS and have 2 ver numbers like how windows 7 is also 6.1

Re:Why not copy MS and have 2 ver numbers

[The MAZZTer]

Windows 7 is 6.1 for compatibility reasons. When Vista went to 6.0 it broke a lot of applications that were incorrectly checking the Windows version, like so:

if (MajorVersion >= 5 && MinorVersion >= 1) {

Back when the latest version of Windows was XP, this code worked fine 100% of the time. Of course it fails to pass this check on Vista, where MinorVersion is 0. Windows 7 and Windows 8 are 6.1 and 6.2 respectively since they will pass this check. At least, that's what I've heard.

Re:Why not copy MS and have 2 ver numbers

[xxdinkxx]

because one is the operating system and the other is the kernel. Every linux distro does the same thing. Ubuntu 13.whatever uses linux 3.8.

Re:Why not copy MS and have 2 ver numbers

[ArcadeMan]

Who would be stupid enough to check for the OS version that way? It should have been something like:

if ( ( MajorVersion * 10 ) + MinorVersion >= 51 )
{
}

Re:Why not copy MS and have 2 ver numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

That's quite shocking. Where coders that terrible in 2001? The whole point of checking for "this version or higher" is that it will work for this version or higher, not break as soon the version goes up.

Of course, calling windows 7 "7.1" and 8 "8.1" would address this particular issue just as well as "6.1" and "6.2", but they may have had other reasons for being version-conservative.

Re:Why not copy MS and have 2 ver numbers

[X0563511]

Wrong. Ubuntu uses YY.MM date-based numbering.

Re:Why not copy MS and have 2 ver numbers

[RabidReindeer]

That's quite shocking. Where coders that terrible in 2001? The whole point of checking for "this version or higher" is that it will work for this version or higher, not break as soon the version goes up.

Of course, calling windows 7 "7.1" and 8 "8.1" would address this particular issue just as well as "6.1" and "6.2", but they may have had other reasons for being version-conservative.

The problem with simply checking for "version >= X" is that sometimes X.5 breaks the app. The ideal approach would be to be able to certify later releases on an individual basis. However, that would require updating the app.

Re:Why not copy MS and have 2 ver numbers

[David_W]

They do...

C:\>java -version
java version "1.6.0_43"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_43-b01)
Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 20.14-b01, mixed mode)

Re:Why not copy MS and have 2 ver numbers

[flink]

Who would be stupid enough to check for the OS version that way? It should have been something like:

if ( ( MajorVersion * 10 ) + MinorVersion >= 51 )
{
}

You know it's possible to have a v4.12, right?

Re:Why not copy MS and have 2 ver numbers

[ArcadeMan]

You know it's possible to have a woosh, right?

Re:Why not copy MS and have 2 ver numbers

[phoenix_rizzen]

Correct ... for the distro version.

The kernel version is 3.whatever.

Two completely separate numbers, incremented separately. Just like Windows OS versions and kernel versions.

Re:Why not copy MS and have 2 ver numbers

[Cenan]

Or stop trying to be clever and use the fucking number system invented a gazillion years ago to, I dunno, number your versions?
Pick a number and start from there; whenever you fuck something up that needs a new compile, increment the number. There you go, fool proof versioning that even works with the age old less than and greater than comparers.
The only reason people think they need major/minor/build numbers is because some dumbfuck a handful of decades ago decided that the version number needed to be part af the product name, but he wanted to cover up the fact that he sucked at development and had to tack on a lesser number to not completely outrun the integer system with new builds.

Re:Why not copy MS and have 2 ver numbers

[jellomizer]

There was a lot of terrible code that happened back then.
From around 1996-2006 was a real low point in Quality Code.
Before then Most Applications were DOS based, or mainframe based. Confined to forms that fit in 80x24/25 and did rather simple things. Then with Windows 95 release developers started a mad Rush to to make their Apps Windows Compatible. For many developers at this time, they didn't have much experience with Windows development and many developers were not really prepared for the complexities of win development. Tools like Visual Basic and Visual Fox Pro made such development easier, They tend to create code that had a lot of interesting compatibility problems, especially with people still using Windows 3.1 or earlier versions of windows, Windows at the time was in a lot of changes fixing problems (which broke hacked work around to other problems) 95, 98, ME, 2000 XP. All really had their own development issues.
Post 2006 is when .NET started to kick and be popular in and fixing a lot of compatibility issues, with Windows. As well as more advanced development better made for the newer OS's that is less version dependent.

Re:Why not copy MS and have 2 ver numbers

[RabidReindeer]

Or stop trying to be clever and use the fucking number system invented a gazillion years ago to, I dunno, number your versions?
Pick a number and start from there; whenever you fuck something up that needs a new compile, increment the number. There you go, fool proof versioning that even works with the age old less than and greater than comparers.
The only reason people think they need major/minor/build numbers is because some dumbfuck a handful of decades ago decided that the version number needed to be part af the product name, but he wanted to cover up the fact that he sucked at development and had to tack on a lesser number to not completely outrun the integer system with new builds.

The version number "has" to be part of the product name because different releases of the product can vary radically in both external (user-facing) and internal (codebase) characteristics. Tacking a version number onto the product name aids in supportability by attempting to ensure that all parties are, in fact, talking about the same thing. As a secondary characteristic, it makes it easier to document which features are available in what release, since the version number serves as a reference key.

Ideally, a major version number indicates a significant change, a minor version number indicates a feature release, and a semi-minor number a bugfix release. In practice, even in the best-regulated enterprise this sometimes breaks down.

Of course, you can use other versioning schemes - the SAS Institute preferred putting the release year into its version numbers. For most of us, however, Java 1.5 is an easier reference point to keep in mind than "Java Build #3722". Especially since it's not uncommon for unofficial builds to end up in the hands of preferred customers, which would wreck any attempt to only number the public releases.

Re:Why not copy MS and have 2 ver numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that it's 100% absurd to make that comparison.

With Windows, the kernel and the release are tied together. Like, in the "forever" kind of way that you can't change.

Re:Why not copy MS and have 2 ver numbers

[maxwell demon]

You know it's possible to have a woosh, right?

No, only a whoosh. :-)

Re:Why not copy MS and have 2 ver numbers

[flink]

Haha, totally missed that, whoops!

my comment

[Anonymous Coward]

v 0.0.2.6.b26b (version 1.2)

Re:my comment

[Anonymous Coward]

v.8.0.0.8.1.3.5

Re:my comment

[RabidReindeer]

v.8.0.0.8.1.3.5

s/u/\./

Cisco gives it two thumbs up

[Anonymous Coward]

Thinks the numbering scheme is second only to its own.

As long as they keep going up

[davidwr]

Going from 7u40 to 7U39-1 would be confusing.

I can just tell my users "don't worry, they never released 41-44."

IQ

[rossdee]

Mensa can use this as a 'What is the next number in the sequence' for their IQ test.

Re:IQ

[SJHillman]

I hear Mensa is planning on using the Microsoft Copy dialog instead.

"You have 4 minutes left, then 3 minutes, then 29 minutes, then 1800 years, then 32 seconds, then potato. What is the next number in the sequence?"

Re:IQ

[davidwr]

That depends on how you pronounce "potato".

Re:IQ

[riT-k0MA]

"Insufficient Disk Space"

Re:IQ

[Barefoot Monkey]

That's easy. The next number in the sequence is (not responding).

Re:IQ

[ArcadeMan]

"You have 4 minutes left, then 3 minutes, then 29 minutes, then 1800 years, then 32 seconds, then potato. What is the next number in the sequence?"

A blue screen.

Re:IQ

[higuita]

easy, its sid !!

Re:IQ

[Shagg]

BSOD

Obligatory..

[Anonymous Coward]

They should have named it: JAVA 3.0

Re:Obligatory..

[wed128]

This seems like a joke, but it's actually a good thing how the kernel went to 3.0. They realized that their numbering system was getting out of hand, and that the leading '2' was no longer needed. Emacs did something similar several years ago.

I think that may happen with android in the not distant future (rumours going around that the next update will be 4.3 instead of 5.0). maybe 4.5 will just be 5, then we'll have 6, etc.

I wonder if java will ever stabalize this way? (java 8, 9, 10)

I, for one, welcome our new leading-version-number-dropping-for-readability overlords.

Re:Obligatory..

[Anonymous Coward]

At least Java 8 will be reasonably feature complete. A language without closures just cannot be seriously be considered for GUI development (IMHO). Now if only they could clean up that mess they call "libraries"...

Re:Obligatory..

[drcheap]

>

I wonder if java will ever stabalize this way? (java 8, 9, 10)

I, for one, welcome our new leading-version-number-dropping-for-readability overlords.

Well they kinda already did back in 2004 when v1.5 came out by calling it "5.0" (and retroactively applied the lost prefix to all versions back to v1.2). And with v1.6 they dropped the ".0" suffix that was gained by for the official product name.

But, that was all in marketing land. In the real world, where it really matters, it has still has the leading "1." in the version. All the devs know, understand, and accept this with little concern.

I've long wondered what it would take to get them finally bump up that major # to a "2." prefix, but don't really care if it ever happens.

Internal procedure change forces external change

[davidwr]

Why is this change necessary now?

Some of the goals of this numbering scheme are:

        Allow us to assign a fix/enhancement to a specific release in our bug systems. To accomplish this all planned releases must have predictable numbers.

Oh, so the numbering change is for your benefit, not mine.

Marvelous

[Anonymous Coward]

An inelegant solution to a non-problem.

Oracle has always had confusing version numbers

[jfdavis668]

Every time they try to standardize version numbers, they make it more confusing. 11G database release 1 was 11.0, but release 2 is 11.2. Where was 11.1? App server 9i was actually an 8.0 base. Most of the time I can't even figure out which product I am actually buying.

Re:Oracle has always had confusing version numbers

[stevencbrown]

No it wasn't...
11gR1 is 11.1.x, and 11gR2 is 11.2.x.

11.0 doesn't exist.

I agree 11g badging has been a bit confused for some products (11g WebLogic Server is 10.3.6), but the database versioning is pretty clear.

Re:Oracle has always had confusing version numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always assumed that's why Oracle bought Sun: they saw the version number schemes that they managed to come up with Solaris and Java and became jealous. Larry, not to be out done in the field of non-deterministic version numbers, bought Sun. Just you watch: a future release of Oracle will be "13.Tuesday Banana Face Update SMERSH-4", and then you'll know the process is complete.

Re:Oracle has always had confusing version numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey... that's pretty consistent on their other products. Consider Weblogic: 10.3.1 is 10gR3. So of course the 10.3.2 is 11gR1! What's so difficult about that?

Re:Oracle has always had confusing version numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

A two- or three-digit dotted version would be okay, but Oracle insists on products having a 5-digit dotted version number. I can only guess if the product in question is NOT the database product, then the first two digits is basically a hint as to which database version it is aligned against. Consider Golden Gate version 11.2.1.0.5. Further consider that I tend to rarely (ever?) see the fourth digit ever non-zero.

Re:Oracle has always had confusing version numbers

[jonadab]

Java, too, has had confusing version numbers for a good long while -- long before Oracle became involved with it. Just for example, I'm pretty sure Java 1.6 is significantly newer than Java 2.

So yeah.

Re:Oracle has always had confusing version numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you just be happy they're still using numbers. Tried to get an Android phone lately, or install Ubuntu? Some of the strings they pass as "versions" you can hardly find in the dictionary.

Re:Oracle has always had confusing version numbers

[drcheap]

Java, too, has had confusing version numbers for a good long while -- long before Oracle became involved with it. Just for example, I'm pretty sure Java 1.6 is significantly newer than Java 2.

So yeah.

It's only confusing because you are mixing real versions with marketing versions. Stop doing that.

Real world: 1.2 vs 1.6
Marketing: Java 2 vs JDK 6 (or J2SE 2 vs J2SE 6 for an edition-specific example)

So 2 is less than 6, as expected. Not as confusing anymore.

Re:Oracle has always had confusing version numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the time I can't even figure out which product I am actually buying.

Then don't buy it.

Issue resolved.
Ticket closed.

Re:Oracle has always had confusing version numbers

[jonadab]

> It's only confusing because you are mixing real
> versions with marketing versions. Stop doing that.

Sorry. It was not clear to me which was which.

This may be because I am not a Java programmer. I am a programmer, but not a Java programmer -- and I shouldn't have to be one, to figure out which version I need and whether I have it or not. My main encounters with Java version numbers have involved trying to figure out what I need to do when other packages I wanted to install relied on certain versions of Java. This has not always been entirely trivial, and trying to find clear information about it on the Sun website was an exercise in frustration.

Numbering suggestion

[aaarrrgggh]

Why not just switch the numbering to the sha of the package. Equally informative...

Re:Numbering suggestion

[maxwell demon]

I guess that would not fly very well in marketing. The customer would run away before you reached the end of that version number.

Simpler solution..

[xtal]

I resolved the issue by removing it.. perhaps, that is the intended effect. Apologies to those with no choice.

Re:Simpler solution..

[WizardFusion]

Agreed, that and Flash.

Re:Simpler solution..

[denis-The-menace]

I've had a new PC for almost a year with no JAVA.

No apps/sites have complained and I run LibreOffice, too.

Re:Simpler solution..

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had a new PC for almost a year with no JAVA.

No apps/sites have complained and I run LibreOffice, too.

If you run Libreoffice, then you run it probably with a custom java-installation inside the LO-install dir. Having Java is not the problem. Using it as a plugin in your browser is!

Re:Simpler solution..

[gl4ss]

a bunch of programs that have java come with a java vm. it makes things easy to install.

but install packages take 90 megs for something that should be 2 megs..

Re:Simpler solution..

[Anonymous Coward]

Larry Ellison ought to get down on his knees every night and thank his deity of choice that a) Mojang develops Minecraft in Java, and b) that Android is a success.

Re:Simpler solution..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they are so thankful for Android's success that they tried to sue Google for billions in damages.

1 to infinity ... and beyond???

[davidwr]

If Java is "write once, once everywhere" surely it's running in Buzz's space-suit.

Re:1 to infinity ... and beyond???

[Anonymous Coward]

Neil Spacefarer's suit used .NET.

Unfortunately, he asphyxiated to death when Windows Update rebooted the suit automatically.

Re:Internal procedure change forces external chang

[drinkypoo]

Allow us to assign a fix/enhancement to a specific release in our bug systems. To accomplish this all planned releases must have predictable numbers.

Oh, so the numbering change is for your benefit, not mine.

It's for everyone's benefit. This will permit knowing when a bug is slated to be fixed, which currently has to be managed out-of-system.

Re:Please Die

[ArcadeMan]

Silly kids! Java is for dirty floors, not clean tables!

Re:Please Die

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? What does this contribute to the conversation?

If you are parsing version strings on Java updates

[exabrial]

You are a terrible terrible programmer and you deserve to be caned by a band of angry Thai policemen.

Why not...

[FellowConspirator]

Something simple like: API-level (revision release date)

Isn't something like "Java 7 (20130514)" relatively obvious what it means?

Re:Why not...

[Anonymous Coward]

No good.
It's Java, they'll be needing more than one security fix update per day.

Re:Why not...

[Anonymous Coward]

DNS manages to handle this just fine using the "serial number."

Most admins use the YYYYMMDDnn format. If you need more than 100 changes per day, then use a simple incremental serialized number. Or a larger number. YYYYMMDDnnnn ?

Why is this so hard?

Re:Why not...

[martijn hoekstra]

That's assuming that java will not have two critical patch updates on the same day. On the one hand, that sounds reasonable. On the other...

Re:Why not...

[Anonymous Coward]

DNS manages to handle this just fine using the "serial number."

Most admins use the YYYYMMDDnn format. If you need more than 100 changes per day, then you have serious issues.

Why is this so hard?

FTFY

Re:Please Die

[Anonymous Coward]

At this point I would be happy as soon as they stop trying to infect my computer with ask toolbar.
I still think that it is strange that it is legal to try to install it that way.

Ask Toolbar

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care what they call it so long as I don't have to install any toolbars.

Like seriously what is this 2003? It's crowding out my "Bonzi Buddy"

Re:Ask Toolbar

[Anonymous Coward]

The secret is to install the full developer-oriented JDK, not the consumer-oriented JRE. The JDK doesn't have any 3rd-party crapware tagging along with the 1st-party crapware.

Apache

[slash.jit]

Oracle... we don't care. Please just donate Java to Apache.

Re:Apache

[gbjbaanb]

Oracle... we don't care. Please just donate Java to the trash.

TFYFY.

Oh wait, you mean they already did that?!

Re:Apache

[Anonymous Coward]

Please just donate Java to Apache

For the love of God, no. The quality of the Java stuff at Apache is appalling. Replace donate with sell and Apache with Google and you have a proposal that's actually fairly reasonable and stands a good chance of success.

Re:Apache

[slash.jit]

I just want Java to die

Re:Internal procedure change forces external chang

[homes32]

Dear Oracle, In order to help you with your version numbering issues I have spent many hours inventing the perfect numbering scheme for you. The format is as follows: MajorVersion.Release.BugFix/Security for example: Java 7 update 45 (formally known as 7u45)becomes Java 7.45 Java 7 update 45 emergency security release 5 becomes Java 7.45.5 this allows you to have an unlimited number of security fixes (which you are sure to need) per release without having to rely on complex mathematics to decide what the next update version will be; simply incriminate the Release number. my billing department will be contacting you shortly.

Re:Please Die

[Anonymous Coward]

Java is a floor polish.

No! Java is a programming language!

Ha Ha Ha! Java is a floor polish and a programming language!

Obviously attempting to confuse the Malware

[sl4shd0rk]

It was easier to change the version numbering scheme to break all the current malware rather than fix the myriad of holes in the code.

Re:Please Die

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever heard of Android?

Why not simply uXY (X=features, Y=security)?

[Anonymous Coward]

They should have chosen to number their updates using two-three digits, the first one representing the feature update and the next the security one. This would have solved their problem while still being understandable.

All eggs in 1 basket. It may have been nice...

[bussdriver]

Sun made people feel safe putting their eggs all in 1 basket. Witness the result that many of us said was a foolish move.

C# may be a knock off and not have Oracle but then you have MS holding your eggs; and while MS might not act as badly as Oracle, they have a borg mentality that Oracle does not yet have with Java.

Do not build your business around closed languages. When C# becomes fortran the MS holdings company will still be extracting blood.

Oracle is secure (and just evil,) MS on the other hand has 1 real market success and 2 monopolies that people don't care about or even like. All 3 based on platforms that have a limited future at the scale they are presently. When MS gets more desperate... they already have taken the place of SCO instead of finding another shell corp to perform their legal extortion scheme.

While it is true there is a non-Oracle Java out there; it hardly replaces the official one and is still subject to their whims.

Re:All eggs in 1 basket. It may have been nice...

[devman]

Java 6 and 7 are both GPL'd with OpenJDK. Nothing says you have to use Oracle's JRE/JDK.

Re:All eggs in 1 basket. It may have been nice...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, server side use IBM JRE. Seriously, it is fast, conservative on memory usage and better with security. But it suck's at swing...

Re:Please Die

[ArcadeMan]

Marvin? Of course. But he's a bit paranoid.

Why not something normal?

[nine-times]

Why not just do a normal numbering scheme? If you dig into their packages, they sometimes claim stupidly to be version 1 of Java 7 update 17. WTF? Instead of that, how about Oracle just acts with some sanity and call it v. 7.17?

If you need sub versions of 7.17, then call it 7.17.1 and 7.17.2. You know, a sane person might do.

Or how about we all just drop Java since it's terrible and the cause of too many security problems?

Re:Why not something normal?

[NoImNotNineVolt]

You know, that does sound normal.
But you're forgetting that Java 7 is actually Java 1.7, much like Java 6 was actually Java 1.6, and Java 5 was actually Java 1.5, etc.
So there's that implicit "1." that you need to prefix to these version numbers.
So that sentence in the summary should read more like:

"The next Limited Update for JDK 1.7 will be numbered 1.7u40, and the next 3 CPUs after that will be numbered 1.7u45, 1.7u51, and 1.7u55."

I can't wait to see what happens when they finally make it to Java 2.0... Will it be "Java 0"?

Re:Why not something normal?

[nine-times]

It doesn't really change the basic idea. In fact, I think it makes my point even stronger.

If it's Java 1.7, why refer to a version as 7u40-3 version 1.0? Are you ever going to have a version of Java 1.7 that you're calling 7u40-3 version 2.0? That's insane.

Just call it 1.7.40.3. Or really, make it simpler than that.

Re:Why not something normal?

[martijn hoekstra]

Or how about we all just drop Java since it's terrible and the cause of too many security problems?

Java on the browser very much corresponds to the cliche of the horribly misshapen monster moaning "please... kill me". Java - or at least the JVM - outside the browser seems to be doing fine. Scala, Clojure and Groovy are thriving, and starting to get mature, Kotlin is hot. Java frameworks are doing really well in webframework performance. The JVM might be in better shape than ever at the moment.

Re:Internal procedure change forces external chang

[drinkypoo]

simply incriminate the Release number

Sadly, this is their current process.

At least they're not horsing with the major number

[togofspookware]

I would submit that this is somewhat sensible and that the switch from 1.5 to 5.0 back in the Sun days was far more confusing.

Re:If you are parsing version strings on Java upda

[togofspookware]

I'm assuming the updater does this to make sure it's getting a newer version than what's already installed. How would you handle it? A single 64-bit number? A history graph à la Git?

Why not just list the number of bugs per version?

[stiggle]

Or do we not have numbers that go that high?

I wonder if

[JustNiz]

Are their releases really called CPUs?
If so, that is so amazingly stupid it appears actually designed to confuse.

Just use the build/release date

[Anonymous Coward]

20130514 (year, month, day etc.) as an example of something meaningful.

Re:Please Die

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

That's not Java(TM)

Not that complex

[Anonymous Coward]

This is pretty simple. For a feature update, add 20. For a security update, add 5. For retrospective updates (for those "oh crap" releases), use the numbers in-between.

It only gets complicated because they wanted to use odd numbers for security updates. That means a bump by 1 in some cases. It's a bit random, but I imagine it's to do with legacy systems.

This scheme guarantees that the version of Java with the most security patches applied is the one with the highest number. Also, it guarantees that the feature set doesn't regress (eg. replacing 7u20 with 7u33 will not remove features that an app requires).

Re:If you are parsing version strings on Java upda

[phoenix_rizzen]

The way developers have been doing it for decades, using the de facto standard of major.minor.build version numbers.

IOW, JDK 5 uses 5.x.y numbers, JDK 6 uses 6.x.y numbers, JDK 7 uses 7.x.y numbers. X is incremented for feature releases and resets Y to 0. Y is incremented for security releases.

Simple. Easily parseable. And it the ways things used to be done before the whole stupid "my number needs to be bigger than your number, logic be damned" movement started.

Why can't they do it like everyone else?

[mindmaster064]

Microsoft - One big version number. One little one. .Net Framework 2.0, 3.5, etc... easy to know where you are. Security patches don't alter the name unless they're a service pack. Then it would be .Net 3.5 sp 1 whatever. You at least know that as long as you have the update service running you are fully patched up and manually running it will make sure. 7u45 is freaking Chinese - it sounds like something that should be on the side of a submarine. Imagine trying to say one of these numbers on a phone to someone you're trying to help through a problem. You can't overload CPU either; too damn confusing even for me. I won't know whether you will talking about your computer or the software. Especially if it is like 2am and something broken. Java is becoming more and more aggravating the longer Oracle has anything to do with it.

Re:Why can't they do it like everyone else?

[gbjbaanb]

except the little problem of major component updates coming in v3.51 and the server OS being released with v3.5 on it,so many of your bleeding-edge programs wouldn't run.

I think they fixed this by simply reducing the amount of development going into .NET, thereby reducing the frequency of .net releases.

Re:Why can't they do it like everyone else?

[mindmaster064]

Actually the .Net philosophy to me seems the polar opposite of Java. .Net releases seem further apart but seem to work better and have more integrated functionality. Personally... after using both for a long time C# + .net wins.... The portability comment isn't even an issue anymore really... Mono is working well in most cases (the gap is mostly in the latest incarnations of asp.net and MVC) and is fast enough to run games so it is fast enough for any business use at least in my mind. Personally, I dislike Microsoft and Oracle but I dislike Oracle way more.

Re:Why can't they do it like everyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oracle is what Microsoft would be if all the smart people left... not quite as evil because they can't figure out how.

Re:Why can't they do it like everyone else?

[gbjbaanb]

True, .net is much better than Java, but I think much of that is down to the tooling - try writing C# code in notepad!

They're both still pretty inefficient though, I've played a couple of games written in C#/XNA, they're ok, but there's a lot of grinding at startup and a lot of sluggishness after you've played for a while. Could be just general poor programming practice from games devs, but there's a fair amount of language "assistance" there.

Version numbering simplified

[Anonymous Coward]

Version is a single number. It is a database key.
Provide a database that maps version numbers to metadata (changelogs, bug fixes, security fixes, compatibility information, marketing name, etc). Make tools so that the database is useful, not just some text file.
Make the version number increase monotonically over time. This is the only contract to enforce with versioning.
Don't shove metadata into the version number.
Let the marketing drones identify your stuff by marketing names. The version number should not be in your marketing.

No problem, dudes - You're already just a bad joke

[robcohen]

Attention Oracle: Doesn't matter any more what you do because people are removing Java as quickly as they can. If you don't want Java you don't need to continue to rape it, just make it open software and let it go. Anyone, absolutely anyone, could do a better job of maintaining it - even a room full of monkeys with keyboards.

Wow. Just wow.

[QilessQi]

After reading the Oracle announcement through three times, I actually checked my calendar to see if April 1st had somehow come around again.

Which is a distinct possibility if Oracle takes over the Gregorian Calendar next.

Just number the bugs sequentially as they go in

[Anonymous Coward]

Just number the bugs sequentially as they go in

Re:Internal procedure change forces external chang

[rk]

I just had the realization that perhaps auto-correct is some emergent AI's first baby steps at trying to contact us. The GP is certainly evidence of it.

Shhhh. Ancient Chinese Secret!

[bessie]

My husband, some hotshot!

HERE'S his "Ancient Chinese Secret"!

Re:No problem, dudes - You're already just a bad j

[binarylarry]

No one really used applets anyway (they suck) and that's what people are getting rid of.

Java is already open source software.

I propose we call the next version of Java "7u5uck

[stenvar]

EOM

yeah!

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally something to break the obtuse Java updater.

If I tell you not to run, don't goddamn run.

Re:TLA

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, OMG, for Goodness' sake can we get it right for once?
TLA isn't what it claims to be. TLA is a TL_I_:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/initialism?q=initialism

Let's hear it for the initialisms, IMHO...FBI! NSA! CIA! MI5! NKVD! :)

Re:FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, now, FUD, that's a TLA alright. And LOL. Now you're getting it...

Microsoft had a good idea

[Cro Magnon]

Why not call it "Java Blew"?

Re:Microsoft had a good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it continues to blow.

Re:Wow. Just wow.

[zarr]

Oooh! GregorianCalendar, my favourite java class!

Re:Why not just list the number of bugs per versio

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox and Chrome are breaking new ground in this important technology field.

Warning: Ask.com toolbar

[icknay]

Note that addition to using a new numbering scheme, each critical Java security update attempts to install the Ask.com toolbar, even if upon the initial install you unchecked the Ask.com checkbox. The latest browser versions include measures to foil the attempted install of the Ask.com, so tech-savvy people tend to be unaware of how bad and intrusive the toolbar is. It mucks up all search results with complete garbage. (details here)

So basically the tech naive types get this thing installed and it thoroughly messes up their internet experience, but they are not sure how it happened... thanks Oracle! I cannot think of a better way of getting nobody to use Java.

I would like Java to thrive and compete with other languages, so I'm trying to make sure Oracle to get all the bad press it deserves for this abusive practice. Heh, every time there's a Java story, I try to post a reminder for people to be super careful when applying Java updates. Posting this warning repeatedly I think means I've satisfied one of the three tests for becoming a certified Internet Crazy Person. I just need to figure out what the other two are and I'm all set!

Re:If you are parsing version strings on Java upda

[drcheap]

They pretty much do that, just with a useless prefix and an _ instead of . as the last delimiter.

So instead of major.minor.build it is 1.major.minor_build, which means I could take your statement and easily alter it to read:

JDK 5 uses 1.5.y_z numbers, JDK 6 uses 1.6.y_z numbers, JDK 7 uses 1.7.y_z numbers. Y is incremented for feature releases and resets Z to 0. Z is incremented for security releases.

As you say, that's "Simple. Easily parseable."

The funny thing is, they never put out "feature releases" so the Y is always 0. Hey, that makes it even simpler (albeit more pointless) in a way.

Is this the long-term solution? No

[aled]

From TFA:

Is this the long-term solution?

This solution is a compromise to create predictable release numbers for future Java releases, leave version numbers available for unplanned releases needed to address security alerts, and maintain backward compatibility with systems that expect the version number to have only a family number plus a single “update” number. It will be the new standard for the affected version.

A more elegant solution requires changing the version format of the JDK to accommodate multiple types of releases. To avoid incompatibilities with existing code however, a change in the version string format needs to be implemented on a future major Java release and will have to be documented and communicated with adequate time to allow software developers to prepare for the change.
Is this the long-term solution?

This is a workaround. Oracle is being plain about this and at least making an effort not to break applications.

Answer:

[Tablizer]

It's not confusing, it's just Klingon numbering.

The actual motive

[slashmydots]

I'm thinking in a week or less, Oracle will actually release a frustrated press release that finally just states: "What aren't you people getting about this? Stop using Java! We've tried everything! Security flaws, endless releases, updaters that don't work, breaking all your code every update, numbering systems that make no sense, and a horribly misleading and impossible to navigate website. Why is anyone still using Java? We're trying to kill it, damn it!"

Re:Wow. Just wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

After reading the Oracle announcement through three times, I actually checked my calendar to see if April 1st had somehow come around again.

Which is a distinct possibility if Oracle takes over the Gregorian Calendar next.

http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/util/GregorianCalendar.html

You're welcome.