|
Does this mean I can finally be rid of Foxit Reader? [Edit] Hmm, maybe not. This one's a bit slower, but it IS quite nice for a native viewer.
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 15:22 |
|
|
Buff Skeleton posted:Does this mean I can finally be rid of Foxit Reader? SumatraPDF is what will allow you to be rid of Foxit Reader. It's the least poo poo PDF reader. Only downside is it doesn't support forms or scripting or flash or whatever the gently caress else they put in PDFs these days that would never work when printed. This is also the reason why it is under 5MB and isn't constantly being exploited.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
Lum posted:SumatraPDF is what will allow you to be rid of Foxit Reader. It's the least poo poo PDF reader. SumatraPDF is indeed super fast and is my default reader next to adobe's, and I cant recommend Sumatra enough, but man it's so minimalistic and simple to a fault. I wish they would at least add a few things to it that are pretty much standard nowadays to make life easier, thumbnail previews, customizable toolbar, and even a few smaller things like show the current zoom% on the toolbar would help a ton in using it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
I will use PDF X-Change Viewer until the end times come. It's super fast, well-designed, and absurdly feature-rich (OCR? Importing/exporting comments as separate files? Area measuring tool?). And if you want minimalism, just press F11 to hide the UI. I know I just sounded like an ad, but it's the kind of program I love so much I seriously checked to see if I could buy a premium version just to throw them some money (I could, for $40, but it was only for commercial use with no extra features so ehhh).
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 02:38
|
|
|
I'll never get over the fact that PDF X-Change's homepage is named tracker-software. I'm sure that alone makes a lot of people hesitant to accept that recommendation, even if the software itself is legit. And if you feel like "throwing them some money" just because you feel like their hard work has made your life easier, then maybe you should give'em the 40 bucks anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 02:52
|
|
|
NihilCredo posted:I will use PDF X-Change Viewer until the end times come.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 03:18
|
|
|
Fangs404 posted:No, but I've definitely encountered this bug, and it's super frustrating. I don't think it's actually a bug in Firefox but a misconfiguration of the server. More specifically, Firefox now requests the https page by default, but if the web server doesn't have https/SSL setup and is not configured to redirect an https request to the http site, you'll get that error.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 04:22
|
|
|
syzygy86 posted:I don't think it's actually a bug in Firefox but a misconfiguration of the server. More specifically, Firefox now requests the https page by default, but if the web server doesn't have https/SSL setup and is not configured to redirect an https request to the http site, you'll get that error. The bug I'm referring to is this: You go to http://butts.com and then later go to https://butts.com (and both correctly resolve - the server is correctly configured). Then, sometime later, you want to go back to http://butts.com so you type butts, and then inline autocomplete automatically fills in https://butts.com. Even if you press CTRL+enter (which should just add https://www. and .com to butts without the https), it'll incorrectly take you to https://www.butts.com.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 07:13
|
|
|
Today I learned that butts.com is for sale.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 07:15
|
|
|
withak posted:Today I learned that butts.com is for sale. Redirect it to a bitcoin website.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 15:05
|
|
|
Whatever the new Firefox is doing, it's making it incredibly buggy and unstable on quite a few sites. I've cleared the cache, started a new profile, all of that. I think it's this HTTPS forcing thing that simply doesn't work. It took the forums here about 5 minutes to actually load where it takes them only a few seconds to load on Chrome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
ThermoPhysical posted:Whatever the new Firefox is doing, it's making it incredibly buggy and unstable on quite a few sites. I've cleared the cache, started a new profile, all of that. I think it's this HTTPS forcing thing that simply doesn't work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
On this subject, is there really any reason not to use Adobe Reader nowadays? A long while back I used Foxit because Adobe was really slow, but now it doesn't have that problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
Adobe Reader is extremely insecure, it's one of the primary ways that computers are infected with malware. If you use the built-in PDF reader you are protected from security vulnerabilities and also don't have to wait for the plug-in to load, which makes things snappier (especially when actually loading pages with PDFs).
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Adobe Reader is extremely insecure, it's one of the primary ways that computers are infected with malware. If you use the built-in PDF reader you are protected from security vulnerabilities and also don't have to wait for the plug-in to load, which makes things snappier (especially when actually loading pages with PDFs). Not really, Adobe X and XI now both sandbox the files much like their flash player, and for the super paranoid you can even go into preference>javascript>disable and boom it's now very secure. Now you have a fully featured reader with great rendering. The only reason people hate on it so much is that yes it gets exploited just like everything, and because its the standard everywhere and very popular it makes the news on all the blogs, no one gives two poo poo about Foxit Reader enough to say that an exploit has been found, so people think its the better safer option, yet look through Foxit's change logs for all the versions and you'll find a lot of vague security fixes, like this last update of theirs. "- Fixed a security issue where attackers can exploit a web browser plugin vulnerability to execute arbitrary code."
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
Im_Special posted:Not really, Adobe X and XI now both sandbox the files much like their flash player, and for the super paranoid you can even go into preference>javascript>disable and boom it's now very secure. Now you have a fully featured reader with great rendering. http://www.adobe.com/support/security/advisories/apsa13-02.html Buffer overflow exploit that bypasses the sandbox in Adobe Reader 10 and 11, advisory released last week.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
pseudorandom name posted:http://www.adobe.com/support/security/advisories/apsa13-02.html I never said it didn't get exploited or ever will again, only that it's now much more secure then it used to be and you only every hear about this kind of stuff about Adobe, when the alternatives are just a vulnerable and by many of the exact same exploits that are used against Adobe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
Im_Special posted:I never said it didn't get exploited or ever will again, only that it's now much more secure then it used to be and you only every hear about this kind of stuff about Adobe, when the alternatives are just a vulnerable and by many of the exact same exploits that are used against Adobe. That's the nice thing about pdf.js. It's implemented entirely in content-level Javascript, so the surface area for attack is exactly the same as Javascript in general. Plugins or native applications* just increase the surface area. That's not necessarily the end of the world, but unless you really need the features of Adobe/Foxit/Sumatra, it's smarter to use pdf.js. You can always fall back to an alternate PDF reader for files that don't work (or submit a patch to pdf.js!). * Really, anything whose code is "trusted" on some level.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
Fangs404 posted:I'm on the stable channel, so this is the fist time I've seen the JS PDF reader in action. It seems to work amazingly well. I'm really impressed. I still like it, though; I just use Chrome's PDF reader in those cases. I recommend installing the dev version (scroll down) of pdf.js instead of the normal one. It's updated constantly, while the normal version is a couple months old. I've never had the dev version do anything weird. Man this new download window in FF20 is weird.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 04:12
|
|
|
Keyboard Kid posted:On this subject, is there really any reason not to use Adobe Reader nowadays? A long while back I used Foxit because Adobe was really slow, but now it doesn't have that problem. Is there any reason to use it? It's been garbage for so long (still is), there are lots of good alternatives, why go back?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 04:39
|
|
|
Adobe Reader isn't garbage. It has obviously excellent PDF support, quick start up time, fantastic rendering and capabilities. The only thing that could be more user friendly is the update process. It's just popular so it gets attacked a lot. Like someone said, most other PDF readers are just as vulnerable but aren't as publicized. All that being said, if you don't work with PDFs very much, the one bundled in a browser is probably good enough.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 05:09
|
|
|
Also Adobe Reader on Linux is terribad, and most of the other options don't play nice with Firefox, so for us, it's a godsend.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 06:23
|
|
|
Magic Underwear posted:Is there any reason to use it? It's been garbage for so long (still is), there are lots of good alternatives, why go back? Have you... tried it recently? It's pretty much as snappy as I could ask for everything and I see no problems with it. It's the standard and everything is made to work with it. Why I would I go out of my way to seek third party software that may or may not be as good or secure?  I can see the vulnerability issue, especially since it's the most common pdf reader to target, but I'm not convinced other readers are better about this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 07:15
|
|
|
Keyboard Kid posted:Have you... tried it recently? It's pretty much as snappy as I could ask for everything and I see no problems with it. It's the standard and everything is made to work with it. Why I would I go out of my way to seek third party software that may or may not be as good or secure? The other PDF viewers don't implement the video decoders or Flash plugins or JavaScript interpreter or 3D graphics or any of the other stupid poo poo Adobe wedged into the PDF specification. So they have a smaller attack surface.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 09:30
|
|
|
pseudorandom name posted:The other PDF viewers don't implement the video decoders or Flash plugins or JavaScript interpreter or 3D graphics or any of the other stupid poo poo Adobe wedged into the PDF specification. So they have a smaller attack surface. This... PDF is supposed to be for storing documents, not some gigantic online multimedia experience. There are very few PDFs that actually need all that poo poo. Adobe also have a track record of producing lovely, buggy software full of security vulnerabilities, e.g. Flash. I put Flash, Reader and Java in the same category of "uninstall unless you know you need them". Unfortunately most folk can't get rid of flash, but Java can go and Reader has viable 3rd party replacements.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
Lum posted:Reader has viable 3rd party replacements.  )
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Ive never had a single problem with foxit yet. (No jinx no jinx Does foxit still bundle shovelware toolbars in the installer? They also had that buffer overrun where a really long URL to a PDF file allowed code execution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
Lum posted:Does foxit still bundle shovelware toolbars in the installer?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
oh god. Ask Jeeves! Why are they still even trying?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 21:11
|
|
|
Oracle has Ask packaged with the java update installer as well. (They have less of an excuse since they are buried in cash.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 21:29
|
|
|
Lum posted:oh god. Ask Jeeves! I was shocked earlier, I tried it out of the blue; it came up with a useful result, better than Google or DuckDuckGo (which is what I mostly use). (I was asking about letter frequency in Danish) So it may actually not be a useless website, but they sure do piss everyone off by bundling toolbars with everything, which is probably why everyone vaguely hates Ask Jeeves..
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:So it may actually not be a useless website, but they sure do piss everyone off by bundling toolbars with everything, which is probably why everyone vaguely hates Ask Jeeves.. Getting off topic and probably better in the ticket thread, but I used to have a user who, when the corporate browser was replaced with Firefox, with Google as the home page, would always start the browser, google for ask jeeves and then do her search there. She was also the biggest offender for getting infested with malware which is part of what prompted the switch to Firefox in the first place. (it didn't help)
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 00:17
|
|
|
So Firefox is going to block third party cookies by default. I have a question about Adblock Plus on Chrome though, does it work the same way as in Firefox where it prevents the ads from loading in the browser? Or does it just hide it after the fact? cremnob fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Feb 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 02:28
|
|
|
cremnob posted:So Firefox is going to third party cookies by default. Er, what are you trying to say there? Seems like there might be a word missing
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 02:43
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Er, what are you trying to say there? Seems like there might be a word missing Meant to say block. Edited my post.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
cremnob posted:I have a question about Adblock Plus on Chrome though, does it work the same way as in Firefox where it prevents the ads from loading in the browser? Or does it just hide it after the fact? It started out as a stylesheet hack, but Chrome's support for fiddling with web requests landed a year ago or more and current AdBlock Plus prevents the web request from ever happening.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
I'm trying to go to a site that has an expired certificate, this is in FF19 In FF18 There would be a button to add an exception and carry on. This is gone in FF19. I've tried going to about:certerror and pasting in the URL there, but it still ignores it. How can I sort that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 05:12
|
|
|
Go to Firefox, History, Show All History, search for the site in the upper-right corner, right-click on a result, select "Forget About This Site". Restart Firefox. This isn't a Firefox change, the site you're using probably has HTTPS Strict Transport Security enabled, and the spec requires that browsers not allow users to ignore certificate errors. I think forgetting about the site works because the browser isn't required to honor that requirement if it never saw it on a valid cert, but I could be mis-remembering.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
That worked, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 06:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 15:22 |
|
|
I'm getting a bug on the release channel where rss feeds will just display the shadow of the dropdown menu and not the menu itself. If you click the feed button repeatedly the menu will show up, but maybe 1/3 or 1/2 of the time. Is this a known bug, or could there be something else causing it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 06:18
|
|
