One obvious concern is how long old versions of Java will continue to work. If the deed registry changes their software they can currently produce Java 8 update 201, but will they still be able to produce that release in, say, 2022? Will they be required to purchase a license or change to something other than Java? What if I need to use other software that uses update 211. I'll have to install it, but then switch back to update 201 the next time I need to look up a deed. ...
I use Oracle's Virtual Box to have a Windoze XP computer inside my windoze 10 computer. This allows me to run an old software program in Windoze XP. I just boot up the Virtual Box to use the software, and use the W10 for everything else.
Thanks for the suggestion, VirtualBox sounds neat, but it turns out that once I got Java 201 going that I was able to fix my registry problem. I shouldn't need to use New Hampshire's online real estate registry again.
But the problem with Oracle and Java remains. What happened to me virtually out of the blue shows that Oracle's Java licensing actions are not innocuous. They are not something your average person doesn't have to worry about. There must be many other Java software programs caught in the same bind, and we have to be concerned about how fast the set of Java programs that no longer run on the currently released version will grow, affecting yet more people.
Oracle apologists need to relearn the tale of the camel's nose. Oracle is using the carrot of free Java to lure increasing numbers of unsuspecting users into the grasp of their non-free Java. They're a good corporate citizen the way Trump is a very stable genius. This isn't an argument against corporations making profits, just against underhanded sneakiness, which is easy to hide in the software world. Volkswagen provides a good example. No one objects to Volkswagen making money on their diesel vehicles, but rigging the software to adjust how the engine runs when connected to emissions testers is beyond the pale. What Oracle is doing is different only stylistically - it's still dishonest.