Short but insane Adobe WTF



  • Take a look at this entry in Adobe's Knowledge Base. Because of their oh-so-wise decision to rewrite UI elements in Flash, installing a plug-in in a completely different application can now break Adobe Fireworks.



  • What the...? How does that even work?



  • Adobe sucks ass?  Not news...

    Kidding aside, they consistently blow me away with their massive amounts of suckage and how that fire-hose of suckage never really seems to slow down.  All their shit is slow bloatware which is always licensed up the ass...  "Oh, you wanna use the 'A' key? You're gonna have to upgrade to our ultra-premium-pro edition."

    This is a good read: http://dearadobe.com/top_rated.php



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Adobe
     

    There's the WTF. I installed Adobe Reader X on a workstation I imaged this morning. First there was the 60+MB download, then it had to uncompress the installer. The machine in question is an old P4, so this took a while. Then it wanted to install the Google toolbar, so I got to untick the checkbox that was checked by default. The icing on the cake was when it prompted me to restart the computer. I clicked "No" because I'd like to actually get something done between restarts, so then the installer threw an error message telling me it did not install properly. It did, because I was able to start Reader after restarting the computer later.



  • Unless I actually NEED one of Adobe's bullshit PDF features (like running JS in the PDF or whatever), now I just view PDFs by either dragging them into Chrome (which has a non-WTF PDF reader and, as a full-featured web browser, is much smaller and less annoying than Adobe's PDF Reader), or email them to myself and let some Google magic translate them into HTML.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Unless I actually NEED one of Adobe's bullshit PDF features (like running JS in the PDF or whatever), now I just view PDFs by either dragging them into Chrome (which has a non-WTF PDF reader and, as a full-featured web browser, is much smaller and less annoying than Adobe's PDF Reader), or email them to myself and let some Google magic translate them into HTML.

    Not smart enough to permanently associate PDFs with Chrome, eh? Or to add Chrome to your SendTo folder? Or to install an alternative PDF reader like Foxit?



  • @Zylon said:

    Not smart enough to permanently associate PDFs with Chrome, eh? Or to add Chrome to your SendTo folder? Or to install an alternative PDF reader like Foxit?

    Hyuk! I guess I just ain't as brain-smart as you city-folk Einsteins, durrr.

    Or maybe the cognitive load of having to drag the icon to Chrome the three times a fucking year I even need to read a PDF in the first place is less than the cognitive load of dealing with the file type associations dialog box. Which I'd have to redo anyway, since I reinstall my computer pretty often. And which wouldn't work if I was viewing the PDF on a computer I didn't own, say, my parents' or the one I use at work. Basically I'm saying you're an idiot.



  • I just wrote an entire rant about Flash being used for development purposes set to music. Seriously.

    It's probably best for everyone if I don't record/post it.



  • @MiffTheFox said:

    I just wrote an entire rant about Flash being used for development purposes set to music. Seriously.

    It's probably best for everyone if I don't record/post it.

    Post only, I repeat ONLY, if it it set to the theme of Airwolf.



  • @LegacyCrono said:

    What the...? How does that even work?
     

    In order for FlashBug to work, it probably needs to hook into, and perhaps modify, the existing installation of Flash.

    The insane thing is that it is a problem entirely created by Adobe, and yet is is not their problem, and yet may still be fixable by them.

    Still, I'd first try to throw some mud at the authors of flashbug. Thay guy claws up the Flash installation, he probably realizes it can mess shit up.



  • @dhromed said:

    @LegacyCrono said:

    What the...? How does that even work?
     

    In order for FlashBug to work, it probably needs to hook into, and perhaps modify, the existing installation of Flash.

    The insane thing is that it is a problem entirely created by Adobe, and yet is is not their problem, and yet may still be fixable by them.

    Still, I'd first try to throw some mud at the authors of flashbug. Thay guy claws up the Flash installation, he probably realizes it can mess shit up.

    Right, but... affecting Fireworks UI? Does it even depends on Flash technology to work?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    [...] maybe the cognitive load of having to drag the icon to Chrome the three times a fucking year I even need to read a PDF in the first place is less than the cognitive load of dealing with the file type associations dialog box. Which I'd have to redo anyway, since I reinstall my computer pretty often. And which wouldn't work if I was viewing the PDF on a computer I didn't own, say, my parents' or the one I use at work. Basically I'm saying you're an idiot.

    So you reinstall pretty often, but don't take the time to add a simple pdf reader to your install routine? And you count on Chrome being installed on computers you don't own?



  • @Adriano said:

    So you reinstall pretty often, but don't take the time to add a simple pdf reader to your install routine?

    Correct. I don't even have an "install routine". Seriously what the fuck even is that.

    @Adriano said:

    And you count on Chrome being installed on computers you don't own?

    It's worked for me so far.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @Adriano said:
    So you reinstall pretty often, but don't take the time to add a simple pdf reader to your install routine?

    Correct. I don't even have an "install routine". Seriously what the fuck even is that.

    Well, a "routine" is "a regular course of procedure" according to the first link I got by searching. An "install" is something you do when you want to suffer by means of software. By the context (that is, "the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs", according to the fourth link obtained), I assume that we're talking about OS reinstallations. My bad if otherwise. Someone who installs an OS and its apps "pretty often" usually has an "install routine" which more or less is a common procedure for rendering a system usable, with known needed apps and the means to obtain and install them, order of installation, common tweaks to the OS and apps, etc. I hope I cleared your doubts.



  • @Adriano said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    @Adriano said:
    So you reinstall pretty often, but don't take the time to add a simple pdf reader to your install routine?
    Correct. I don't even have an "install routine". Seriously what the fuck even is that.
    Well, a "routine" is "a regular course of procedure" according to the first link I got by searching. An "install" is something you do when you want to suffer by means of software. By the context (that is, "the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs", according to the fourth link obtained), I assume that we're talking about OS reinstallations. My bad if otherwise. Someone who installs an OS and its apps "pretty often" usually has an "install routine" which more or less is a common procedure for rendering a system usable, with known needed apps and the means to obtain and install them, order of installation, common tweaks to the OS and apps, etc. I hope I cleared your doubts.

    And of course this can all be automated so that you don't actually need to do anything creating an unattended routine.



  • @dhromed said:

    In order for FlashBug to work, it probably needs to hook into, and perhaps modify, the existing installation of Flash.
    You mean like actually modify the.dlls or whatever it is that makes up a Flash installion?  That's insane.  Not impossible, but insane.  But even if someone did that, it doesn't explain why the UI of Fireworks would be affected ..... unless ..... Fireworks is written in Flash?



  • @El_Heffe said:

    But even if someone did that, it doesn't explain why the UI of Fireworks would be affected ..... unless ..... Fireworks is written in Flash?

    They have way of embedding Flash in their UI, Adobe's been doing that since... CS2, I believe. It was a terrible technical decision then, and it's a terrible technical decision now. As bugs like this demonstrate.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    They have way of embedding Flash in their UI, Adobe's been doing that since... CS2, I believe.
    OK.  That's really, really nuts.  No argument there.  But I still don't see how a Firefox extension could have any effect on the Fireworks UI, unless Flashbug is doing some weird shit that it really shouldn't be doing.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    OK. That's really, really nuts. No argument there.  But I still don't see how a Firefox extension could have any effect on the Fireworks UI, unless Flashbug is doing some weird shit that it really shouldn't be doing.

    Well, 2 points:

    1) I'm guessing that, while this bug report doesn't spell it out, the bug only occurs when Flashbug in Firefox is actually running at the same time Fireworks is running (not simply present on the computer)

    2) They probably left a "debugger;" line (and/or actually unhandled exceptions or syntax errors, I put nothing past them at this point) in their ActionScript. Since Flashbug registers itself as an ActionScript debugger, that could be the cause of the issue. It still doesn't explain why the Flash running for Fireworks is the same process as the Flash running for Firefox, though...

    Note that those two points are educated guessing on my part. I could be entirely, completely wrong.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Note that those two points are educated guessing on my part. I could be entirely, completely wrong.

    Whoa, you, making educated guesses? How come you never do that when replying to someone else's posts, but instead launch into wild rants about communication when you see something you're unfamiliar with? (Protip: these forums are not here just for you. Next time you don't understand someone's wtf, how about just moving on to the next thread.)



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I'm guessing that, while this bug report doesn't spell it out, the bug only occurs when Flashbug in Firefox is actually running at the same time Fireworks is running (not simply present on the computer)

    In fact, the workaround in the bug report makes it sound as if the problem only happens if Flashbug is {installed|running} while Fireworks starts up. (It doesn't say anything like "When you've finished working in Fireworks, reinstall...") Of course, this could well just be poor writing on Adobe's part. It would complement their poor coding.

    As you said, there are still some pretty big unanswered questions anyway. Mostly along the lines of "WTF, Adobe?"

    Open-source products we can mock on the basis of what they're doing. With closed-source products we just have to mock them on the basis of what we imagine they might be doing. :)



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Take a look at this entry in Adobe's Knowledge Base. Because of their oh-so-wise decision to rewrite UI elements in Flash, installing a plug-in in a completely different application can now break Adobe Fireworks.
    What the hell even is this "Adobe Fireworks" that this is about? I never heard that name before I read your post (and clicked your link). From you, who keeps on complaining about lack of context in WTF posts, isn't that a surprising lack of background information?



  • @Anonymouse said:

    [What the hell even is this "Adobe Fireworks" that this is about? I never heard that name before I read your post (and clicked your link). From you, who keeps on complaining about lack of context in WTF posts, isn't that a surprising lack of background information?

    To be fair, if you're going to criticise blakey for leaving out possibly relevant background information, you should be willing to accept the response "Why don't you just Google it?" which he so often receives.



  • @LegacyCrono said:

    Fireworks UI? Does it even depends on Flash technology to work?
     

    From the OP:

    @blakeyrat said:

    Because of their oh-so-wise decision to rewrite UI elements in Flash,




  • @Scarlet Manuka said:

    the workaround in the bug report makes it sound as if the problem only happens if Flashbug is {installed|running} while Fireworks starts up. (It doesn't say anything like "When you've finished working in Fireworks, reinstall...")
     

    Here's exactly what it says: @WTF Adobe said:

    Solution

    1. Close Fireworks if it is open on your computer. 
    2. Uninstall Flashbug/FlashFirebug plug-in.
    3. Open Fireworks. The panels should display as intended.

    You can now reinstall the Flashbug/FlashFirebug plug-in. 

    So this means .... what exactly?  If Flashbug interferes with Fireworks, wouldn't you have the same problem every time?  Wouldn't that mean every time you want to run Fireworks you have to first uninstall Flashbug and then reinstall it when Fireworks is successfully up and running?@Scarlet Manuka said:
    there are still some pretty big unanswered questions anyway. Mostly along the lines of "WTF, Adobe?"
    Amen to that.

     



  • @C-Octothorpe said:

    This is a good read: http://dearadobe.com/top_rated.php
    Why is Adobe Reader using more RAM than Supreme Commander?
    That's hilarious. Also funny is that #29 "Better font browser in Photoshop, please?" is the first serious request that's not just a rant.

    BTW: I've only ever used Adobe's free crapware. Photoshop otoh is supposed to be pretty powerful, but is it actually any good?

     



  • @blakeyrat said:

    2) They probably left a "debugger;" line (and/or actually unhandled exceptions or syntax errors, I put nothing past them at this point) in their ActionScript. Since Flashbug registers itself as an ActionScript debugger, that could be the cause of the issue. It still doesn't explain why the Flash running for Fireworks is the same process as the Flash running for Firefox, though...

    Note that those two points are educated guessing on my part. I could be entirely, completely wrong.

     



  • @El_Heffe said:

    OK.  That's really, really nuts.  No argument there.  But I still don't see how a Firefox extension could have any effect on the Fireworks UI, unless Flashbug is doing some weird shit that it really shouldn't be doing.

    It's infact Flash Player which deals piss-poorly with concurrent access to a log file. I've been bitten by this issue with the Dreamweaver startup splash screen myself and took a little time to look at it then.

    FlashBug (and several other browser-integrated Flash debugging tools) set a few options inside a text-based configuration file that resides somewhere in your AppData folders. Debug versions of Flash Player pick up on these settings. Among them is a setting that enables logging to file of all trace() instructions. An open Flash Player instance seems to take some kind of process-wide lock on the log file, causing other processes that host a Flash Player instance and want to trace() some log message to wait for the lock's release.



  • @topspin said:

    Photoshop otoh is supposed to be pretty powerful, but is it actually any good?
     

    For serious people doing serious graphics work, Photoshop is better than GIMP, Paint Shop Pro and Pain.Net. Fuck those programs. PS just Does it Better

    Depending on your requirements (lack of system power, n00b user), those other three may be a better choice.

    For digital art, things like Paint Tool SAI and Painter break Photoshops kneecaps no problem, though Photoshop is still quite competent in the digital brush department.



  • @Zylon said:

    install an alternative PDF reader like Foxit?
     

    Sumatra is my favourite for Windows - the portable zip version is only a 2.3MB download. You don't get nagged to buy a "premium version" - its a GPLv3 project

     



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @Scarlet Manuka said:

    the workaround in the bug report makes it sound as if the problem only happens if Flashbug is {installed|running} while Fireworks starts up. (It doesn't say anything like "When you've finished working in Fireworks, reinstall...")
     

    Here's exactly what it says: @WTF Adobe said:

    Solution

    1. Close Fireworks if it is open on your computer. 
    2. Uninstall Flashbug/FlashFirebug plug-in.
    3. Open Fireworks. The panels should display as intended.

    You can now reinstall the Flashbug/FlashFirebug plug-in. 

    So this means .... what exactly?  If Flashbug interferes with Fireworks, wouldn't you have the same problem every time?  Wouldn't that mean every time you want to run Fireworks you have to first uninstall Flashbug and then reinstall it when Fireworks is successfully up and running?

    My bet is that Flashbug overwrites some code / config / whatever upon installation. Fireworks requires those, and locks them when started, which causes Flashbug to be unable to overwrite it. Once the installation's finished, Flashbug can run just as well without those changes and thus shows no problems.

    Mind you, I'm not a good gambler, so I wouldn't put my money on my bet if I were you. 



  • the poop of DOOM



  •  Really blakey, mocking someone for their stupid username?  Granted in this case it does raise some questions, but still...



  • @locallunatic said:

    Really blakey, mocking someone for their stupid username?

    What's the matter with you? It's an AWESOME username. I was QFA.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @locallunatic said:
    Really blakey, mocking someone for their stupid username?

    What's the matter with you? It's an AWESOME username. I was QFA.

     

    You're both right. It's an awesome name, but it's stupid because I couldn't put the dots and the exclamation mark in it. It should've been The Poop... of DOOM! but the forum didn't accept that as a valid username. It surprised me, since some WTFs on this site deal with exactly that.



  • @The poop of DOOM said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    @locallunatic said:
    Really blakey, mocking someone for their stupid username?
    What's the matter with you? It's an AWESOME username. I was QFA.
     

    You're both right. It's an awesome name, but it's stupid because I couldn't put the dots and the exclamation mark in it. It should've been The Poop... of DOOM! but the forum didn't accept that as a valid username. It surprised me, since some WTFs on this site deal with exactly that.

    It's called ironny!



  • @The poop of DOOM said:

    It should've been The Poop... of DOOM! but the forum didn't accept that as a valid username.
    Try using this instead of 3 dots: … ‮


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.