Guys, software like this can and often is just fine! The point is that being open to installing these things without a good deal of due diligence means you're likely to install other things with a similar level of confidence which aren't fine. That's all.
I repeat. The vast majority of computer problems in the world are caused directly by users installing malware themselves.
You do have a good point there about the due diligence. In my case, I only started using SumatraPDF after finding it mentioned on various websites I trusted -- including and especially websites run by reasonably well-known security researchers (either by name or by the company/organization/etc. they work for). The fact that it was open source was an added bonus.
If it was J-random piece of software that wasn't open source, wasn't vetted by other trusted websites, and wasn't vetted by security researchers, I wouldn't have downloaded it.
Yeah, I agree. Due diligence should be taken with every piece of software you download. Personally, I'm probably not as careful as I ought to be, but I've never really had any trouble with malicious software - though of course my own experience is statistically meaningless.
I personally use Foxit PDF Reader. Adobe Reader just keeps getting more bloated for my taste. Although, I find myself using PDF less and less as more information exists primarily on the web.
Foxit isn't shady and is also ultra-lightweight and excellent at its job. Look; they even have a contact phone number right there in the upper right hand corner.
Have we satisfied the Sacred Criteria, O Techgnostic Priests?
Foxit (at least last time I tried) does like to install toolbars and crap though. However, other than that, it also gets good reviews from the same security folks that liked Sumatra.
As for your complaints. It's not slow. I've never encountered a bug. You've also previously heard my arguments about how it is stupid to care about "bloat." I don't give a shit about how much RAM or hard drive space a program uses, and you shouldn't either.
Also, to add one more point. Distrusting software that comes from a web site with shitty graphic design is the same as ignoring an argument from someone in a forum, or ignoring a resume, because of bad grammar and spelling. Not smart enough, or willing to work hard enough, to get your grammar and spelling correct? Then clearly you aren't even worth listening to.
Scott remember that you are in minority of people. You have good fancy computer and it is expected that you have no problems with Adobe Reader, but for someone like me with four year old laptop, using Adobe Reader is about as comfortable as using a cactus as a anal dildo.
I admit that I don't prefer Sumatra because I feel it's the most safe alternative, but because it's the most comfortable to use. And I'm willing to give up a fraction of my safety for easier life while using my computer.
I suspect Apsup's four year old laptop is much worse than your four year old laptop.
And Apreche doesn't have a four year old laptop.
I have more than one laptop. Though, you are right that I don't have a four year old one. I have a 5 year old one and 2 year old one. The 5 year old Core Solo Fujitsu P7230 can Adobe Read just fine.
Rym, I know. You a very good giver of advice. While sometimes I question the practicality of following said advice, I have no doubts that it is always well-reasoned. You deliver it well and with the patience of someone who knows they are effectively teaching.
Scott, on the other hand, has the same advice; however, his methodology in giving it is akin to trying to teach someone to smile by kicking them in the face with steel-toed boots whenever they frown.
Rym, I know. You a very good giver of advice. While sometimes I question the practicality of following said advice, I have no doubts that it is always well-reasoned. You deliver it well and with the patience of someone who knows they are effectively teaching.
Scott, on the other hand, has the same advice; however, his methodology in giving it is akin to trying to teach someone to smile by kicking them in the face with steel-toed boots whenever they frown.
So very concerned with the manner in which I give instructions, even though instructions are the same. Not at all concerned with the manner in which software is presented.
Just do what I say. I'm not steering you wrong. I am a trustworthy person.
I would say that they're not particularly good when it comes to advice as they give advice mainly useful to people like themselves. If you are a white male with good grades and plenty of money, I wouldn't fault much of their advice.
If your problems are things of the political, social or emotional, they're pretty useless.
I'd say 90% of the "software" most computer users install is, at best, useless, and more often, actively harmful. We need to have a culture of never installing anything without:
1. A clear prior need.
2. Due diligence vetting of the software to be installed versus the alternatives
3. A reluctance to install anything where the need it intends to fulfill can be equally fulfilled by another piece of software more commonly used and vetted.
While sometimes I question the practicality of following said advice, I have no doubts that it is always well-reasoned...[but] his methodology in giving it is akin to trying to teach someone to smile by kicking them in the face with steel-toed boots whenever they frown.
While sometimes I question the practicality of following said advice, I have no doubts that it is always well-reasoned...[but] his methodology in giving it is akin to trying to teach someone to smile by kicking them in the face with steel-toed boots whenever they frown.
True. But, is it not correct in this case? Just listen to my advice instead. It's the same advice, but with smiles and puppies.
I do feel the need to point out that while I'm hard on him for his manners, I nearly always follow Scott's advice. When it comes to computers. He's nearly always right.
Rym, I know. You a very good giver of advice. While sometimes I question the practicality of following said advice, I have no doubts that it is always well-reasoned. You deliver it well and with the patience of someone who knows they are effectively teaching.
Scott, on the other hand, has the same advice; however, his methodology in giving it is akin to trying to teach someone to smile by kicking them in the face with steel-toed boots whenever they frown.
So very concerned with the manner in which I give instructions, even though instructions are the same. Not at all concerned with the manner in which software is presented.
Just do what I say. I'm not steering you wrong. I am a trustworthy person.
Just with a shady UI (;
I'm someone who regularly has to read/make PDFs, use software like Adobe CS, Solidworks, etc. and doesn't have money for said software. I know I'm playing with fire and try to be fairly diligent (scanning with VirusTotal or similar, using sandboxie or VM, regular malwareBytes scans via safe mode & boot disk, legit 3rd party firewall, non-admin accounts, catBlock, FlashBlock, Panda Cloud & MSE, WOT, heavy research before download, and safe browsing practices). And I have no issues. So am I safe or just lucky?
So very concerned with the manner in which I give instructions, even though instructions are the same. Not at all concerned with the manner in which software is presented.
Just do what I say. I'm not steering you wrong. I am a trustworthy person.
Because giving people advice after bashing them on the head with your batshit insane views for a fucking hour makes people really want to listen to you. Words of a self-agrandizing asshole of a fool: "Trust nothing". Don't complain when people finally follow even a fraction of your so-called advice. By the time you get to that point Rym has often already said everything useful, though often already past the point where any of that matters. Btw, have I won that other argument yet?
If your problems are things of the political, social or emotional, they're pretty useless.
HALLELUJAH, PRAISE THE LORD JESUS CHRIST FOR HE WILL SAVE YOUR SOUL! Bit of a short list though, you give Apreche way too much credit.
Your advice is pretty much correct, although just like with everything, there may be exceptions. Particularly in case #3 you mentioned above since "more commonly used" doesn't necessarily always apply, although it probably does well over 99% of the time.
Adobe Reader is a case and point where #3 doesn't necessarily apply perfectly. It's the most commonly used PDF reader on Windows. It's also pretty well vetted since it's, by and large, the "standard" PDF reader. However, it's also well known in security circles to be pretty insecure -- enough that many security researchers say to use something else.
That said, if you're going to use something else, you should use something those same security researches (hence the vetting of the alternatives, as you mentioned) recommended. Sumatra and FoxIt are two of the recommended alternatives.
However, if someone doesn't know any better, Adobe Reader is probably the best and safest bet. Alternative readers in general should only be used by expert users or at the recommendations of trusted expert users. If it came down to Adobe Reader or Joey Joe-Joe Shabbado's PDF Reader, I'll take Adobe's in a heartbeat. Adobe Reader may be riddled with security issues, but at least you know for sure (barring Adobe's website being hacked -- which could happen) that any misbehaving it does was not intentional by the authors/distributors, as opposed to JJJS's PDF Reader which could very well be purposefully designed as malware.
That's a genius idea that would end up being a disaster.
Am I not right? Is my advice not correct?
Is anyone challenging the advice, saying that it's wrong? Not as far as I can see. Most of the people that partook in this discussion likely already knew it, at most it was a reminder. In my case, I went to Wikipedia, looked up Sumatra PDF, read about it, followed some information, and then didn't bother going to the website because I already use Evince. That was two days ago. Can't speak for the others in this discussion but I'm quite sure most of them don't just install things at random without any information. Very much a case of preaching to the choir. Apreche just is a horrible preacher who denounces everything that's not in his church as satanic whorehouses and dragon dildo's.
Well, ideology is nice, but the closer you come to the needs and cares of your average person, it becomes prohibitive.
Is the impact most people perceive from running pirated software and other such programs such that they should be held responsible for not shelling out considerable sums of money for things like Windows and Adobe products?
At current, we can't make any good moves, at least not major ones. We have, in some ways, reached an odd equilibrium where: Software from creators is prohibitively expensive, open source is advancing but highly deficient for certain uses, consumers aren't directly affected enough to care and are unaware of the indirect effects, and the hackers aren't causing enough disruption to be drawing ire.
If you took a more realistic methodology, instead of insisting all nerds should be watertight and work from there, you start a push for everyone to go install chrome and open office on their relative's computers and turn on Windows updates. Operating on volume instead of vidulence. Stepping down from "never install" to "try not to if there is any alternative.".
Comments
GG, guys
EDIT: Shit, can't move Chrome with a menu open. Man, that'd be a problem if I didn't run nearly everything maximized or docked.
Have we satisfied the Sacred Criteria, O Techgnostic Priests?
I admit that I don't prefer Sumatra because I feel it's the most safe alternative, but because it's the most comfortable to use. And I'm willing to give up a fraction of my safety for easier life while using my computer.
Also, my ancient laptop has never had problems with even 100+MB PDFs using the old Adobe Reader. It has little RAM and a Centrino processor...
Scott, on the other hand, has the same advice; however, his methodology in giving it is akin to trying to teach someone to smile by kicking them in the face with steel-toed boots whenever they frown.
Just do what I say. I'm not steering you wrong. I am a trustworthy person.
If your problems are things of the political, social or emotional, they're pretty useless.
I'd say 90% of the "software" most computer users install is, at best, useless, and more often, actively harmful. We need to have a culture of never installing anything without:
1. A clear prior need.
2. Due diligence vetting of the software to be installed versus the alternatives
3. A reluctance to install anything where the need it intends to fulfill can be equally fulfilled by another piece of software more commonly used and vetted.
Do you disagree?
I'm someone who regularly has to read/make PDFs, use software like Adobe CS, Solidworks, etc. and doesn't have money for said software. I know I'm playing with fire and try to be fairly diligent (scanning with VirusTotal or similar, using sandboxie or VM, regular malwareBytes scans via safe mode & boot disk, legit 3rd party firewall, non-admin accounts, catBlock, FlashBlock, Panda Cloud & MSE, WOT, heavy research before download, and safe browsing practices). And I have no issues. So am I safe or just lucky?
Am I not right? Is my advice not correct?
Adobe Reader is a case and point where #3 doesn't necessarily apply perfectly. It's the most commonly used PDF reader on Windows. It's also pretty well vetted since it's, by and large, the "standard" PDF reader. However, it's also well known in security circles to be pretty insecure -- enough that many security researchers say to use something else.
That said, if you're going to use something else, you should use something those same security researches (hence the vetting of the alternatives, as you mentioned) recommended. Sumatra and FoxIt are two of the recommended alternatives.
However, if someone doesn't know any better, Adobe Reader is probably the best and safest bet. Alternative readers in general should only be used by expert users or at the recommendations of trusted expert users. If it came down to Adobe Reader or Joey Joe-Joe Shabbado's PDF Reader, I'll take Adobe's in a heartbeat. Adobe Reader may be riddled with security issues, but at least you know for sure (barring Adobe's website being hacked -- which could happen) that any misbehaving it does was not intentional by the authors/distributors, as opposed to JJJS's PDF Reader which could very well be purposefully designed as malware.
Is the impact most people perceive from running pirated software and other such programs such that they should be held responsible for not shelling out considerable sums of money for things like Windows and Adobe products?
At current, we can't make any good moves, at least not major ones. We have, in some ways, reached an odd equilibrium where: Software from creators is prohibitively expensive, open source is advancing but highly deficient for certain uses, consumers aren't directly affected enough to care and are unaware of the indirect effects, and the hackers aren't causing enough disruption to be drawing ire.
If you took a more realistic methodology, instead of insisting all nerds should be watertight and work from there, you start a push for everyone to go install chrome and open office on their relative's computers and turn on Windows updates. Operating on volume instead of vidulence. Stepping down from "never install" to "try not to if there is any alternative.".