Re: private vs. public JRE in different OSs
- From: neuneudr@xxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 08:02:16 -0800 (PST)
Every time this F.A.Q. is raised here, the answer usually
boils down to "the JDK uses a private JRE because the docs
say it will." Usually a link is provided to the language spec.
I *dare* someone to explain what bad thing might happen if
the JDK tools used the public JRE, and if the JDK only
shipped the single, public JRE in the bundle. In fact
I double-dare you!
Don't know if it has anything to do with security but...
A default Java install on a Un*x system does NOT mandate
to be the admin (i.e. "root") while a default Windows
install forces you to give the admin account.
As a security measure every single Java VM I install on
a server is installed in a user account. I just set up
a dedicated server (for a client of mine) running Tomcat.
Both the JVM and Tomcat are installed in a user account
and Linux's iptables is used to transparently redirect
request to the privileged ports 80 and 443.
The reason to install a "private" JVM on linux is
simple: security. There is simply no compelling reason
to install the JVM and Tomcat and to run them as root
when they can be installed in a dumb user account.
Could this be something similar for Windows?
I *know*, for having been bitten by that, that you
cannot install the "regular" JRE without being the
admin on an XP system... Could this be that the
"private JRE" can be installed without needing to
be the admin of the machine? For that would be
a *very* compelling reason to have a "private JRE".
Driss
.
- References:
- private vs. public JRE in different OSs
- From: lbrtchx
- Re: private vs. public JRE in different OSs
- From: Wayne
- private vs. public JRE in different OSs
- Prev by Date: Re: JAVA_HOME
- Next by Date: Re: JAVA_HOME
- Previous by thread: Re: private vs. public JRE in different OSs
- Next by thread: Re: private vs. public JRE in different OSs
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
