Main

December 16, 2009

Every time I'm able to show someone a feature of Preview that lets them avoid the abomination that is Acrobat Pro, I feel good for two reasons:

1. They get more use out of a tool they already have and are familiar with, resulting in higher productivity at lower cost, always a good thing


2. Payback

Ever since it first came out, Preview has consistently rocked. It doesn't have a UI that looks like it was designed by ex-Notes engineers. Seriously, look at the difference. Here's Preview in Mac OS X 10.6:

Same PDF in Adobe Reader 9:

Not having an overly complicated UI is one thing, but for fuck's sake, your icons are not all that. Even if I turn on "all" labels for toolbars, which is itself a fucking adventure compared to Preview. In Reader:

and in Preview:

However, while turning on text for the icons in the toolbar in Preview creates the respected results:

In Adobe Reader, it's a bit...not what you expected:

Where's my labels? Well, there's a secret. To see all the labels, you either have to undock the toolbars from the window:

or you have to ensure you don't have "too many" toolbars docked:

or you can use multiple rows of toolbars:

But if you have "too many" items, evidently, Adobe decided that labels can never go underneath an icon:

So yeah. Go Acrobat UI Team!

Secondly, Preview, as a lightweight PDF reader, kicks Adobe ass, for file size if nothing else. Adobe Reader is over 220 MB in size. As a comparison, OpenOffice 3.1.0 is not even 2X that size, yet does a lot more. Preview? 34.9 MB. Now, of course, the Acrobat people will start arguing about how Reader does so much more than Preview, and that's true. But that doesn't make it better. That just makes it bigger, and if you're going to be that big, then why not just call it Acrobat Essentials, and stop pretending it's a reader.

I don't think that Adobe understands that there is a market for a lightweight application that does a minimum beyond viewing, and does so with a clean UI.

It's not like all Preview does is let you view. You can do annotations, notes, add links, simple shapes, bookmarks, etc. You can combine PDFs or add pages from another file, (something you can't do in Adobe Reader) delete pages, (can't in Reader), etc. You can even add files in other formats that Preview supports, such as PNG, JPEG, etc., again, something Reader doesn't support. (At least not in a generic not-tied-to-an-Adobe-server-farm configuration. You know. The way normal people would use it.)

Preview doesn't support the collaboration or Adobe server tricks that Reader does, but again, if you're that big of an Adobe customer, why aren't you just licensing Pro or Standard? (On Windows at least. Mac users only get Acrobat Pro.) Preview doesn't support PDF portfolios, but so what? For one thing, PDF Portfolios are rather counter to the idea that PDF should be a universal format. Right now, even the 'big' alternative to Acrobat, FoxIt, is still working on integrating Portfolio support, so if you use Portfolios, you're requiring everyone who wants to read your work to ONLY use Adobe Reader 9.

So much for PDF as a pseudo open standard. So much for Adobe not trying to make PDF an Adobe-only standard. Pull the other one guys.

Finally, and this is important, because Preview isn't running embedded javascripts et al, it's immune to the plethora of security issues that have hammered Acrobat and Reader over the last year or so. (Adobe at this point is just saying "Turn off Javascript". Great. So much for people actually trying to use a program feature. Call me when you get that security shit stabilized.)

At this point, if there's something I need to do with a PDF that Preview won't handle, I just use Acrobat Pro. Reader's about as necessary as a 73-wheeled bicycle, and less fun to ride. I don't expect Pro to be lightweight, or just a viewer, so my expectations are properly set for using the application. Reader? That shit's just lying to me.

Besides, considering the way the Acrobat team has shat upon their Mac customers since before Acrobat 5, exactly why the fuck do I want to use their product anyway?

So tl;dr: Fuck you Adobe Reader, call me when you aren't a fucking mess. In the meantime, Preview FTW.

Comments

Every time I'm able to show someone a feature of Preview that lets them avoid the abomination that is Acrobat Pro, I feel good for two reasons:

1. They get more use out of a tool they already have and are familiar with, resulting in higher productivity at lower cost, always a good thing
\n
2. Payback

\nSeriously, Preview fucking rocks, and unlike Acrobat with shit like Portfolios, the PDF files I create in Preview aren't proprietary to that application. \n\nEver since it first came out, Preview has consistently rocked. It doesn't have a UI that looks like it was designed by ex-Notes engineers. Seriously, look at the difference. Here's Preview in Mac OS X 10.6:\n\n\nSame PDF in Adobe Reader 9:\n\n\nNot having an overly complicated UI is one thing, but for fuck's sake, your icons are not all that. Even if I turn on \"all\" labels for toolbars, which is itself a fucking adventure compared to Preview. In Reader:\n\n\nand in Preview:\n\n\n\n\n\nHowever, while turning on text for the icons in the toolbar in Preview creates the respected results:\n\n\nIn Adobe Reader, it's a bit...not what you expected:\n\n\nWhere's my labels? Well, there's a secret. To see all the labels, you either have to undock the toolbars from the window:\n\n\nor you have to ensure you don't have \"too many\" toolbars docked:\n\n\nor you can use multiple rows of toolbars:\n\n\nBut if you have \"too many\" items, evidently, Adobe decided that labels can never go underneath an icon:\n\n\nSo yeah. Go Acrobat UI Team!\n\nSecondly, Preview, as a lightweight PDF reader, kicks Adobe ass, for file size if nothing else. Adobe Reader is over 220 MB in size. As a comparison, OpenOffice 3.1.0 is not even 2X that size, yet does a lot more. Preview? 34.9 MB. Now, of course, the Acrobat people will start arguing about how Reader does so much more than Preview, and that's true. But that doesn't make it better. That just makes it bigger, and if you're going to be that big, then why not just call it Acrobat Essentials, and stop pretending it's a reader. \n\nI don't think that Adobe understands that there is a market for a lightweight application that does a minimum beyond viewing, and does so with a clean UI.\n\nIt's not like all Preview does is let you view. You can do annotations, notes, add links, simple shapes, bookmarks, etc. You can combine PDFs or add pages from another file, (something you can't do in Adobe Reader) delete pages, (can't in Reader), etc. You can even add files in other formats that Preview supports, such as PNG, JPEG, etc., again, something Reader doesn't support. (At least not in a generic not-tied-to-an-Adobe-server-farm configuration. You know. The way normal people would use it.)\n\nPreview doesn't support the collaboration or Adobe server tricks that Reader does, but again, if you're that big of an Adobe customer, why aren't you just licensing Pro or Standard? (On Windows at least. Mac users only get Acrobat Pro.) Preview doesn't support PDF portfolios, but so what? For one thing, PDF Portfolios are rather counter to the idea that PDF should be a universal format. Right now, even the 'big' alternative to Acrobat, FoxIt, is still working on integrating Portfolio support, so if you use Portfolios, you're requiring everyone who wants to read your work to ONLY use Adobe Reader 9.\n\nSo much for PDF as a pseudo open standard. So much for Adobe not trying to make PDF an Adobe-only standard. Pull the other one guys. \n\nFinally, and this is important, because Preview isn't running embedded javascripts et al, it's immune to the plethora of security issues that have hammered Acrobat and Reader over the last year or so. (Adobe at this point is just saying \"Turn off Javascript\". Great. So much for people actually trying to use a program feature. Call me when you get that security shit stabilized.)\n\nAt this point, if there's something I need to do with a PDF that Preview won't handle, I just use Acrobat Pro. Reader's about as necessary as a 73-wheeled bicycle, and less fun to ride. I don't expect Pro to be lightweight, or just a viewer, so my expectations are properly set for using the application. Reader? That shit's just lying to me.\n\nBesides, considering the way the Acrobat team has shat upon their Mac customers since before Acrobat 5, exactly why the fuck do I want to use their product anyway?\n\nSo tl;dr: Fuck you Adobe Reader, call me when you aren't a fucking mess. In the meantime, Preview FTW.

December 3, 2009

Then just fucking say so. Or better yet, turn off comments. But spare the internet namby-pamby tripe like this:

fwiw, comments somehow assuming that my point in this essay was "Gears is dead, HTML5 droolz" will not get through the moderation queue. (Strawmen eat undue attention.)

Um sparky? If you don't want people getting the wrong idea from your posts, learn how to find a point and stay on it. Also, for you to bag on the LA Times about the quality of THEIR sources, when you pull this one:

Maybe the story isn't accurate -- I haven't found any source link in the first few retellings I've read [!!], so it could be just another blogospheric falsehood. But if the story is accurate, then that translates to "We'll be dropping support for the majority of the world -- people who use Microsoft browsers or older browsers -- in order to reduce our development costs for the people who buy Apple's hardware." Sounds strange!

I have to assume you're an atheist, because no one who's even vaguely afraid there's a hell could be as much of a fucking hypocrite as you are.

I hope you get a bonus from your masters on the Flash team, because lord knows, you're one of the blindest little soldiers I've ever seen.

Comments

November 17, 2009

Okay, not even close. From the release notes for the Flash 10.1 beta:

H.264 Hardware acceleration support on Windows only. Why? Well according to Adobe:

There's also no support for H.264 hardware acceleration on anything but Windows, because "Mac OS X does not expose access to the required APIs," but to keep torches and pitchforks at bay, Adobe is pressing on to "evaluate adding the feature."

I don't know enough to say if this is crap or not, but if anyone does know, please, feel free to expound on it in the comments.

It supports multitouch and Gestures, but the beta only supports it in Windows and Mobile devices. Yeah, because it's not like anyone on the Mac uses multitouch and gestures. GPU Acceleration? Mobile devices only. Why?

Adobe's reasoning for only supporting GPU-based rendering on smartphones is that it "decreases performance [in some cases]" and "driver support varies wildly," even though Mac OS X has supported native GPU-compositing ever since it introduced Quartz Extreme in Mac OS X 10.2.

Oh, and in cases where the Flash Plugin runs out of memory, it handles it "better":

Flash Player 10.1 prevents out-of-memory browser crashes by shutting down instances where a SWF attempts to allocate more memory than is available on the device. When a SWF tries to allocate more memory than is available on a device, Flash Player 10.1 adds logic to shut down Flash Player to prevent the browser from crashing. Users will receive notification to restart the SWF, or will see a notice to refresh the page if all instances must be shutdown.

There's support for content protection, but output protection is Windows only. Again, it's not like anyone watches movies or streams on a Mac. (Yeah, I know content protection is stupid, however, if you can't watch the shit you want to watch, the stupidity of content protection is kind of a nonissue)

Oh, and on a Mac, it may use more CPU than expected when idle. No, really, they finally admit it:

[FP-2009] CPU Utilization in an idle app is more than expected on Mac. (2294236)

But it's not all bad. Cocoa browsers get scroll-wheel support.

w00t.

You know, it would be a lot easier to believe that Adobe considers anything but Windows as a strategic platform if they didn't do stupid shit like this, and you know, actually acted like !Windows really matters to them. Considering how little this offers to Mac users, why the fuck even download it?

Comments

October 5, 2009

and the iPhone.

Hey, maybe THIS version is the one that won't bog your fucking machine down just to view a shitty 2" x 2" ad, and watching a single movie won't eat an entire CPU for lunch.

Shit, wait, I was thinking of what Silverlight is now. Never mind, it's Flash. The idea that team will fix that rectal spew of code on anything but a "superior browser and OS" is in fact, ridiculous. Shit, I bet the installer will still be a total fuckup for remote installs.

Technorati Tags:
Adobe Can Kiss My Ass, Adobe: Just install a Flash Blocker, Adobe: Simplicity is our enemy

Comments

August 3, 2009

Dear Acrobat Team:

Once again, I would like to thank you for the shitacular way you send patches. I'm sure you're very proud of your proprietary "only works manually" patches. I think that you should be forced to go to every site with more than 5 computers and run your fucking shitpile patches for us.

I can forgive security holes. I do not LIKE them, but humans are imperfect, and therefore, our creations are too. I would prefer not to have security holes, but then, I'd much prefer if shitheads didn't try to use them to cause problems and steal things. But, because humans are still a bunch of screeching fucking monkeys throwing shit at each other, we have the current situation.

What I cannot forgive is when a company makes it as difficult as possible to apply critical patches. That is why I think whomever keeps approving the current Acrobat patching methodology, whomever keeps rejecting the calls to release patches in the native format used by various admin tools on whatever platform Acrobat runs on should not only be fired, along with any sycophants who agreed with them, but publicly named and shamed. There is no more excuse for this from you, or anyone else really. Even Microsoft got this, with Office 2008.

I don't give a fuck why you do this for critical security patches, nor do I fucking care. Because see, it doesn't matter that you released it in a timely manner. Due to the unforgivably manual process you force upon your customers to apply this patch, it will, not may, but will be delayed, because you ensured that it would be. You forced that delay upon us, because you're too fucking cheap, lazy, stupid, or whatever to say "for time-sensitive critical patches, we will take the effort to release them in the format(s) that ensure they are applied as quickly as possible".

Fuck you, you should be billed for all the extra costs your stupid bullshit costs and the day we no longer need your shitty software methodology, I shall throw a "rm Acrobat" party.

Hoping you get your ass kicked by a vendor who cares about their customers, and the lot of you have to work in the cafeteria,

john

Comments

July 24, 2009

And hooooooooly shit does it suck.

I wonder how FlashBoy will explain this? Probably just tell you to install a Flash blocker, that seems to be Adobe's solution to shit Flash performance.













...unless you're on windows.

Technorati Tags:
Adobe: Just install a Flash Blocker

Comments

June 22, 2009

So somehow, because my bile levels aren't high enough, I find something both rare and common:

http://blogs.adobe.com/jd/

Rare, in that it's an Adobe blog not written by John Nack that appears to update more than once a quarter, and common in that it's an Adobe blog written by someone who when presented with anything other than a love fest, (This one's thing appears to be Flash, so we'll go with...Flashatio) retreats into whiny sarcasm and really, really stupid ideas.

How stupid?

Well, for example, when presented with the fact that the Flash plugin on anything but Windows makes your browser sputter and crash, Flashboy takes two tactics: First, you have too many tabs open and you should use a Flash Blocker. You're browser will still crash, but slower. No, I'm sure as fuck not making this up. It's in this post, in my comment. Here, for your...is "appallment" even a word? If not, it should be.

Wait, in ten years, will Adobe have a version of Flash that runs well on something BESIDES Windows? [jd sez: No reason to think non-Windows will go away during the decade, so "Probably, yes". ;-) ]

Because that would be beautiful. No more watching browsers spinlock because of flash. No more browser crashes because of Flash. Just a smooth experience, because one.single.plugin cannot be written in a way that does not make you think you're using dialup on a Mac Plus. [jd sez: Got too many tabs from pushy sites on a weaker browser? Try a Flash blocker, control your load. Will still crash, but slower cycle.]

So, what will come first: HTML 5 release and acceptance, or a non-windows Flash implementation that isn't utter garbage?

Taking bets now. I lean towards HTML 5, given the lack of caring by Adobe to Flash performance issues on !Windows to date.

Use.A.Flash.Blocker.

That's his response. Not "Yes, the problems with Flash performance on platforms other than Windows has been a problem for years, and we're working hard to fix that". Not "Well, I'm not in Flash engineering, but I'll pass that along to the team". No, his advice is to use a Flash Blocker. Your "weaker" browser will still crash, but hey, IT'LL CRASH SLOWER, AND THAT'S ALMOST AS GOOD AS NOT CRASHING, RIGHT?

Why not just call me a fucking worthless hippie for not using a "real" browser in a "real" OS and be done with it. Jesus!

Where the FUCK does Adobe find these nitwits, and WHY are they allowed to interact with the public? Holy fuck, if I was the Flash Engineering Manager, I'd be roaming the halls with a taser, a box of salt and a wet towel, screaming his name. If there was any better way to make me hope that fucking Silverlight, HTML 5, or a backup method disaster killed Flash fucking dead, I can't think of it.

"Got too many tabs from pushy sites on a weaker browser? Try a Flash blocker, control your load. Will still crash, but slower cycle."

Holy.

Fucking.

Shit.

Here's a tip John...(Why the FUCK do these nitwits have to have my name?)...go talk to the Adobe Installer team. Learn how they deal with criticism, blistering and otherwise. Those guys? They're doing it right. You? Not so much.

Technorati Tags:
Adobe Can Kiss My Ass, Fucking Flash

Comments

May 12, 2009

So today, Adobe releases the updates that patch the large javascript security holes in Acrobat and Reader.

"Of course," you think, "they'll release these patches in the most easily installed manner possible, in such a way that they are easily pushed out to existing machines as fast as possible.'

mmf

snrk

heh

BAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Of fucking COURSE the Acrobat team won't do that you fucking loser Mac user! Stop smoking crack and acting like you fucking count!

You'll get a patch that has to be manually run, (on 9.1 only for 9.X. Older version? FUCK YOU, DO MORE WORK YOU STUPID MAC FUCK!), and in the case of Reader, just in case you aren't using that aborted slop of a single-browser plugin, you have to ONCE AGAIN TELL IT TO LEAVE SAFARI THE FUCK ALONE. Same thing for Acrobat Pro. MANUAL FUCKING UPDATE TIME!

Can someone at that company...don't talk to the Acrobat team, it's obvious that they don't fucking give a shit, just walk over there and grab whomever the fucking IDIOTS were who released the patch in this form, and KICK THEM IN THE FUCKING HEAD, OVER AND OVER WHILE THEY MANUALLY PATCH EVERY FUCKING MAC IN ADOBE INC.!

Then send them to me, so I can get really mean. They'll suck Cheney's wrinkled cock with a fucking SMILE when I'm done abusing them.

What a fucking douchebag collective.

There, I finally created an Adobe category, because this is the last straw. Fucking hell, goddamned CS Installer team is great to work with, trying to do the right thing, and fucking Acrobat sticks their ass over the castle wall and shits all over it.

Jerks.

Comments

April 29, 2009

But it also isn't an ActiveX-level security fuckup on wheels either.

Maybe if that team hadn't crapped on their Mac users for the last ten years or so, I'd feel bad for them. But right now?

<nelson>
HA-HA
</nelson>

Technorati Tags:
Adobe Acrobat Team = Annoying

Comments

April 21, 2009

So on the Adobe Installer Blog, they've put up two posts that do a good job of describing what's in the massiveness that is the CS 4 installer.

That's something I know I've wanted to have available for some time now, so good on them for providing it.

Technorati Tags:
Adobe Installer Team

Comments

April 16, 2009

Something that I've been too busy to rag about properly:

Dear Adobe Acrobat Team: (Yes, I know, another dirty hippie Mac user thinking we have rights. What can I say, we're all delusional like that) While I am glad to see that the Reader 9.X is an installer, and would give you a cookie for that, the fact that it's really just a Package Installer wrapper around your bullshit iNosso crapware and so won't work with anything makes me take that cookie back, stomp on it, piss on the crumbs, bury the crumbs in Love Canal, and sow salt on the burial site.

LYING to us about the installer is actually a worse crime than using some obviously proprietary installer, because at least with a proprietary installer, we know it's dicked up, and that we'll have to do extra work. When you LIE to us about it, we think it's all good, do a mass push, then wonder why nothing was installed.

Why did you even fucking bother? Was it just "hey, they're too stupid to notice and there's no real IT on the Mac anyway, so all that shit about mass installs with management tools is just bullshit anyway" or did you really think that we'd somehow not notice that your installer wasn't installing? Or are you just stupid enough to think that what you did made it an actual native installer.

I know, I know, Adobe Acrobat, fuck you stupid mac user, you're lucky to get Reader at all. But if you're going to be evil, then be evil and lazy, and stop doing extra work just to fuck with us, okay?

Jerks.

Technorati Tags:
Adobe Acrobat Team = Annoying, Adobe: Simplicity is our enemy, Installers MATTER

Comments

February 25, 2009

So today, I tried to use Acrobat Pro 9. I get the stupid "This was installed as part of a suite, please run one of the other applications in the suite first" message.

bad feelings start...this never ends well.

Okay, fire up Photoshop, I kind of needed to dick with it anyways...

"Licensing is not functioning"

oh

fuck

Pull up the Adobe tech note, do the multipart dance for this error...no good. Same error.

Okay, fine, AGAIN, I will pull up all the CS4 disk images, mount them ALL and repair the install. Last time, it only took me like an hour so I could use Acrobat Pro for 20 minutes.

Get done...nope. Same error.

Fuck-O-LA

Move all the Adobe stuff back to it's original install, even though I hadn't ever started most of it, and it had worked fine from my other folders in /Applications before.

AGAIN, I pull up all the CS4 disk images, mount them ALL and repair the install. Last time, it only took me like an hour so I could...get the same error and not get work done. This time, while it's running, I use GraphicConverter, 'cause at least that WORKS.

Get done...nope. Same error.

Okay, I'm fucking done. You know it takes a bit of meticulous work to manually erase Adobe shit from your system, but man, watching that space come back....that's some happy feelings there. Even better, realizing that the only thing you have on your system with "Adobe" in the name is a flash plugin.

God, that's so fucking hot.

Maybe one day, I'll be able to USE my LEGAL COPY OF CS 4 MASTER COLLECTION...I mean other than the installer.

Maybe one day, Adobe licensing won't suck balls.

Yeah...and I'll get to bang every one of my "Guilt-Free Three" in one night on a bed made of hundred dollar bills, on camera so I have proof.

Technorati Tags:
Adobe Can Kiss My Ass, Adobe: Simplicity is our enemy

Comments

February 11, 2009

I'm rather pleased to note, (as should John Nack) that the Adobe CS installer team now has a blog, with the first post from the engineering team manager, Eric Wilde.

So now there's at least something of a direct line into that team, a small step, but a good one to be sure.

Comments

February 5, 2009

Ah, just when I thought the Kimbell brothers were going to win the stupid contest for this month, Adobe proves how much ass they kick...

So my licensing won't work anymore. Thank god they check that all the fucking time, and it's evidently so fragile that they have a massive tech note with multiple steps. Even Microsoft gets this shit right. Idiots.

But the process...ah, the process is full of epic fail. First the license recovery launcher tool. I don't know who the fuck is doing Adobe's AppleScripting, but they don't have a fucking clue. First, here, look at the code for this shit:

Yeah...they're scripting terminal. However, since they have a python script with multiple user inputs, I guess that makes sense. Okay, I can live with that. However, look at what the code does. Instead of creating a new window, and running in that. You know via this insanely hard code:

tell application "Terminal"
     activate
     do script foo
end tell

(do script by itself always creates a new window)

They go and look for an existing window and if it's idle, they run in that. What happens if the "idle" window is oh, say logged into another machine? All kinds of fun errors. There's no excuse here, just create a new goddamned window, and you avoid this shit.

That's stupid #1

Stupid #2

If the above script didn't work, then you have to adjust the permissions on the licensing server folder. This is /Library/Preferences/FLEXnet Publisher/FLEXnet/

What do you need to set the perms to? 777

That's right, in /Library, they want you to make a folder world writeable. Wow Adobe, thanks for creating such a great place to hide malware. I bet this decision was made by the people who think a hidden copy of Opera can't possibly create problems.

But wait, there's more...

Stupid #3

So let's say turning your FLEXnet folder into a gaping hole didn't work. Next, reset the permissions on the Adobe PCD folder. So you go to /Library/Application Support/Adobe/ and there it is, Adobe PCD/

What do you "fix" the permissions to?

777

Yep. Because in Adobe's world, that's okay. Caring is sharing. Idiots. Just once I want to go a month without my Adobelcer flaring up. Just once.

Technorati Tags:
Adobe: Simplicity is our enemy

Comments

Ah, just when I thought the Kimbell brothers were going to win the stupid contest for this month, Adobe proves how much ass they kick...\n\nSo my licensing won't work anymore. Thank god they check that all the fucking time, and it's evidently so fragile that they have a massive tech note with multiple steps. Even Microsoft gets this shit right. Idiots.\n\nBut the process...ah, the process is full of epic fail. First the license recovery launcher tool. I don't know who the fuck is doing Adobe's AppleScripting, but they don't have a fucking clue. First, here, look at the code for this shit:\n\n\n\nYeah...they're scripting terminal. However, since they have a python script with multiple user inputs, I guess that makes sense. Okay, I can live with that. However, look at what the code does. Instead of creating a new window, and running in that. You know via this insanely hard code:\n\ntell application \"Terminal\"\n     activate\n     do script foo\nend tell\n\n(do script by itself always creates a new window)\n\nThey go and look for an existing window and if it's idle, they run in that. What happens if the \"idle\" window is oh, say logged into another machine? All kinds of fun errors. There's no excuse here, just create a new goddamned window, and you avoid this shit.\n\nThat's stupid #1\n\nStupid #2\n\nIf the above script didn't work, then you have to adjust the permissions on the licensing server folder. This is /Library/Preferences/FLEXnet Publisher/FLEXnet/\n\nWhat do you need to set the perms to? 777 \n\nThat's right, in /Library, they want you to make a folder world writeable. Wow Adobe, thanks for creating such a great place to hide malware. I bet this decision was made by the people who think a hidden copy of Opera can't possibly create problems.\n\nBut wait, there's more...\n\nStupid #3\n\nSo let's say turning your FLEXnet folder into a gaping hole didn't work. Next, reset the permissions on the Adobe PCD folder. So you go to /Library/Application Support/Adobe/ and there it is, Adobe PCD/\n\nWhat do you \"fix\" the permissions to?\n\n777\n\nYep. Because in Adobe's world, that's okay. Caring is sharing. Idiots. Just once I want to go a month without my Adobelcer flaring up. Just once.\n\n\n

Technorati Tags:\nAdobe: Simplicity is our enemy\n

\n

February 3, 2009

I have to start using Acrobat Connect Pro...dear lord.

First, from what I can tell, the built-in recording feature looks like steaming pixellated shit. No really, here's an ADOBE video for using it. It's barely legible, with shitacular screen boogers everywhere.

Oh wait, they don't all look like feces, this one's been done by someone who spent some time on it. Of course, the obvious "we recorded random audio bits" distracts. "Choosethe....Select" et al.

Seriously? You're telling a grownup how to use a pencil tool? Do you tell us when nap-time is? Oh, wait, never mind, you're now telling me how to type.

I'm not even sure what Adobe's doing here other than coming up with yet another reason to try to force everyone to use Flash for everything.

Comments

February 2, 2009

So, for anyone who reads John Nack's site, at least the comments on various things, you may know he and I have been having a back and forth about the copies of Opera buried in Bridge CS3 & CS4 and Device Central CS4.

It's a full copy of Opera, complete with IRC and Email clients. The complete Opera application. Not a library, not an engine. The full application. It's in the Bridge Bundle, in Contents/MacOS/

My point of view is that including an unpatched full copy of Opera is a bad thing. it's a security risk, made worse by the fact that most people either don't know it's there, or don't realize it's the full version. My take is that there is no excuse to include a full-on application when all you need is the HTML engine for a few small functions and that by "sneaking" the application on to a user's system, in an easily found, by default, place, (/Applications/Utilities/Adobe\ Bridge\ CS4/Adobe\ Bridge\ CS4.app/Contents/MacOS/Opera.app), that Adobe is leaving their users open to all kinds of problems, even if it only affects them. Face it, if I use Opera to make you unable to do work, it doesn't matter that your system is fine. I've effectively DOS'd you. My take is also that it is completely stupid and inexcusable to include the email and IRC clients in the application, as those elements have no business being in Bridge.

Nack's position is that because it's not easy to find Opera for the "normal" user, that the security risk is mitigated, because if you can't easily find it, you can't double-click it and use it to cause yourself problems.

Well, that's just idiocy, and I wish John would stop repeating it, because it's obvious he knows fuck all about this kind of thing.

First of all, it's pathetically easy to create a trojan that would copy an AppleScript bundle application to say..oh, pick some obscure-assed place that most people won't look, like, oh, ~/Application Support/Adobe/Bridge CS4. Since this is targeting Bridge CS4 users, it's a reasonable assumption to make. Or you could shove it somewhere obscure in Documents, ~/Library/Preferences, whatever. Give it a reasonable name, and a generic icon, (bundle application, easy to do), and then, just for fun, set LSUIElement to "true" in the info.plist file. That ensures that when this script application runs, it doesn't show up in the Dock. Won't that be fun!

Now, you create a user-level launchd item that keeps our bad application running.

What is our bad application?

Oh, three lines:

repeat
     tell application "Opera" to make new window
end repeat

Don't load it yet. Enable it though, we want it to run on the next login for that user.

Log in..WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW

The best part is? Killing Opera will only stop it for just a second, and since the poor schmuck doesn't know WHERE the fuck Opera is or how it got there, it'll take them forever to find it. Well, not forever but when you have how many windows opening how many times a second, and you have no idea how this is happening? Oh man, the panic. So they do a force shutdown, and log back in.

WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW WINDOW

Of course, since they can't see the application that's really causing the problem, it's hard for them to stop. Oh, and how many non-sysadmins/non-scripters know about ~/Library/LaunchAgents? Yeah. That's what I thought too.

But that's the nice version. How about instead of:

"tell application "Opera" to make new window

we use "tell application "Opera" to OpenURL "http://sheguzzleshorsejizzfromthetap.com/"?

Oh, now THAT's some fun shit at work. Or home.

Now, what happens if you follow normal troubleshooting and have a "test" user? Well, there's no problem. Obviously, it's some kind of weird preference issue, right?

Wrong.

Keep in mind, I'm not really trying hard here. This was about 20 minutes of work, with most of it figuring out the info.plist key to keep the Dock icons from showing. With a little more work, you can get an administrator login, and then you can...okay, so you can then do anything, but you could then keep Opera from showing a Dock icon, and still splatter windows across the screen, or use the IRC/Email clients to shove data off your box at a decent pace. Got Full Disk Encryption? Got File Vault?

Won't matter, this is happening after a login. All that shit is not going to stop this.

See, this is why including stuff you don't need to include is bad. Because someone like me, only much smarter, sneakier, and without a fucking conscience will use this shit to really make people's life miserable. "Oooooh, it's a neat set of Photoshop Scripts/plugin. Let's run the installer". Bang.

There's also this idea that if it happens in the User Home directory, that it's not really bad. Well, where is most of your fucking data kept? In your home directory. Password files? Homedir. Yeah. Just how much trouble can you make for someone with just their home directory? Tons.

But that's okay, because if you can't see the application, then you can't cause problems, because you can't double-click it, right?

p.s. Yes, I know, trojans can do much worse. However, I'm trying to show that security through obscurity is fucking stupid, even when Adobe does it, and in fact, the obscurity makes it worse, because people won't know what to look for or where. Using the Opera engine? Sure, that made sense a while back. Using the entire application? That's always been stupid.

Technorati Tags:
Adobe: Simplicity is our enemy

Comments

Face it, even Adobe can't make flash painless. I don't mean in a web browser, I mean in a local fucking application, like, oh Contribute CS4. Four times I launched that shit, and four times I watched it screw itself into SCODVille trying to display some bullshit Flash thing on the "Welcome" screen.

Here's the screenshot:

See that blank area at the bottom, next to "Quick Tour" and "Contribute Tutorial"? Yeah. That shows the "trying to load Flash" spinner for a few seconds, then the application goes off into StupidFlashAteMyApp Land.

GOD, I WISH I HAD FLASH ON MY iPHONE, SO IT COULD BE RENDERED USELESS ON A REGULAR BASIS TOO!

As soon as I was able to move fast enough to click the "Don't show again" checkbox and cleanly quit the application, lo, Contribute starts cleanly. Great job showing us how hard Flash rocks Adobe, GREAT job.

Oh, and when I tried to connect it to this site? Of course, it sat and spun for a few, then crashed. Fuckit, I'm done. Any product that cannot successfully launch without assistance, and then cannot cleanly perform one of its most basic duties does not need to ever be used again.

MarsEdit, you rule. Adobe Contribute, you suck.

Comments

Face it, even Adobe can't make flash painless. I don't mean in a web browser, I mean in a local fucking application, like, oh Contribute CS4. Four times I launched that shit, and four times I watched it screw itself into SCODVille trying to display some bullshit Flash thing on the \"Welcome\" screen.\n\nHere's the screenshot:\n\n\n\nSee that blank area at the bottom, next to \"Quick Tour\" and \"Contribute Tutorial\"? Yeah. That shows the \"trying to load Flash\" spinner for a few seconds, then the application goes off into StupidFlashAteMyApp Land. \n\nGOD, I WISH I HAD FLASH ON MY iPHONE, SO IT COULD BE RENDERED USELESS ON A REGULAR BASIS TOO! \n\nAs soon as I was able to move fast enough to click the \"Don't show again\" checkbox and cleanly quit the application, lo, Contribute starts cleanly. Great job showing us how hard Flash rocks Adobe, GREAT job.\n\nOh, and when I tried to connect it to this site? Of course, it sat and spun for a few, then crashed. Fuckit, I'm done. Any product that cannot successfully launch without assistance, and then cannot cleanly perform one of its most basic duties does not need to ever be used again.\n\nMarsEdit, you rule. Adobe Contribute, you suck.

And you know, you'd think it wouldn't anymore.

You'd think that after the continual "fuck off' that the Acrobat team gives the Mac community, (Fuck your AppleScript, it's VBA or nothing, and lemme tell you, I think even with the return of VBA, it'll be nothing. The Acrobat team has continually lied about Office integration on the Mac for how many years now? You think I'll believe a fucking thing they say sans released product? Oh SHIT no! Sorry Lampwick, you'll have to work the salt mines solo), that it'd be easier to deal with.

Nope, still sucks. "Oh, just use FlashPaper to convert things to Flash for use with Acrobat Connect...wait, Mac user? Yeah, fuck off hippie, go get a real OS".

The sad thing is, Acrobat is really a decent product, but it's hampered by a team that only cares about you if you're an all-Windows company with > 30,000 seats. They could give a fuck all about you if you're a small company, and if you have Macs, you can never have enough for them to give a squirt of piss about your needs. Mac users are pretty much lucky they didn't keep the PDF spec private, and forbid its use on anything but Windows. (Yeah, I will in fact bet that there's quite a few people in that team who wish they could take that product Windows-only at every possible level.)

I imagine I'll get it high and hard a few more times from the Acrobat team while trying to use Acrobat Connect.

Too bad they aren't more like the CS team proper.

Technorati Tags:
Adobe Acrobat Team = Annoying

Comments

January 27, 2009

Once again, thank you so much to John Gruber, for linking to this great post about how Adobe just fuxx0r3d basic UI principles in CS4.

However, I felt it was missing something, so I did a short video cast about CS4 and window handling. It's in the podcast link, the newest entry. I did the audio at work via the MacBook's built-in audio, so don't kvetch to me about how it sound. "Like Ass" is the way i'd describe the sound, so you're not telling me something new.

Technorati Tags:
Adobe: Simplicity is our enemy, Bad UI

Comments