Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Makes Latest Chrome Build Open PDFs By Default

timothy posted about a year ago | from the open-it-use-dynamite-if-necessary dept.

Chrome 202

An anonymous reader writes "Google is changing the way its browser handles PDF files, starting with the Chrome Canary channel. Citing security concerns, the company wants Chrome to open PDF files by default, bypassing any third-party programs such as Adobe Reader or Foxit Reader."

cancel ×

202 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Great (5, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | about a year ago | (#45439571)

Great. Another configuration change to manage on all our workstations.
The Chrome PDF viewer is shit. So is the Firefox one. They're fine for viewing most basic PDFs, but anything more involved (forms, interactive PDFs, portfolios, etc.) and they both just shit the bed.

Re:Great (5, Insightful)

LunaticTippy (872397) | about a year ago | (#45439673)

I understand hating the built in viewers, but to me they are a blessing. There are so many things that are PDFs for no reason. I really appreciate a quick and dirty way to see PDFs, and with my usage it is good enough 90% of the time. For the interactive ones etc. I tend to recognize which ones aren't going to work so I just download the file. On unfamiliar systems I always grit my teeth when clicking a link causes a 20 second delay while Adobe Viewer lurches from the shadows and demands to be updated.

Re:Great (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45439879)

Just give me a prompt to save/open/cancel any day. I miss the good old days.

Re:Great (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45440349)

Just give me a prompt to save/open/cancel any day. I miss the good old days.

You can disable individual Chrome pug-ins - including the PDF viewer - in Settings -> Content Settings. I'm sure there are other ways to get to that setting.

Re:Great (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45440405)

If a new feature is added by way of an update, it should prompt for its settings the first time it becomes relevant. So on the first click on a PDF the browser should prompt: "you can now view PDFs within the browser, enable / disbale this feature / let me try once and prompt me again." It shouldn't silently enable the feature and let the hapless user hunt in the settings for a way to disable it, that's just rude.

Re:Great (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45440795)

You know what's even more rude? When a PDF viewer infects your computer with a virus because it's a piece of crap. Before you invite people's sympathies by playing the "naive users can't disable it!" card, remember that naive users are the REASON that Firefox and Google are doing this in the first place.

Re:Great (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45440985)

Oh gag on a penis. The poster offers a very good idea and you shit on it with elitist assholery.

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45440839)

Would you like fries with that?

Re:Great (4, Informative)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#45440359)

Agreed, I actually PREFER to have Chrome open a pdf, because its one less virus ridden file I have to deal with.
I'm still given the option of saving it if I want. Chrome itself seems to recognize which PDFs it can't handle, and prompts for download.
(but those are PRECISELY the ones you have to worry about the most. )

I really don't understand why this is news, since Chrome has been doing this for years now.
(At least since 2010 according to TFA).

Maybe they will enhance it enough such that we don't need to run any Adobe software. With Adobe dropping linux support
all together, there are no fully capable alternatives.

Re:Great (4, Interesting)

HJED (1304957) | about a year ago | (#45440497)

I don't know about the chrome one, but in Firefox the inbuilt PDF viewer correctly displays less than half the pdfs I open. This is primarily due to its terrible Unicode support (worse than slashdot), but also due to failures in displaying pretty much anything that isn't text.

Re:Great (2)

DavidClarkeHR (2769805) | about a year ago | (#45439683)

Great. Another configuration change to manage on all our workstations.

No problem with anti-competitive practices, or inferior-by-default programs. Just don't make your system administrator ... administer anything else.

Why are we even holding onto PDFs, anyways?

"We"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45439743)

Why are we even holding onto PDFs, anyways?

Unless you have tapeworms, speak for yourself.

Re:Great (1)

vlueboy (1799360) | about a year ago | (#45439927)

Why are we even holding onto PDFs, anyways?

Same reason why we "even" hold onto Word files: it's not that we *create* them, but that they're PUSHED hard to us by other content creators for work reasons. In a digital world, they are transmission and retention standards*. Our only influence is issuing private complaints to whoever sends us the files, but sometimes their workflow or software removes any say they personally have in the matter, as much automation outputs exclusively to pdf.

We can't be judging standard fatigue till *we* stop sending all our own non-trivial stuff in them. We tend to have "important" docs like high-quality resumes (*.doc is shifty for that), digital copies of your e-filed tax returns, blueprints, and certain legal docs and paystubs that just GOTTA be assured to look the same in all platforms. Thus, no, our trying to change the world by pasting into plain text, taking a screenshot, or giving a link to an [insecure] HTML server doesn't fix the issue. Sending a doc in some esoteric typeset format? ditto.

Just like the "solution" to facebook we all know, what will fix this one problem it is the appearance of yet another a run-everywhere competitor. Sadly, none of those tend to be very Free & Open

* Remember zip files?

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45440125)

I hate to break this to you, but you have spelled "pond life that should never be let near a computer incorrectly". Its not written as "content creators".

Re:Great (5, Informative)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about a year ago | (#45439959)

Why are we even holding onto PDFs, anyways?

I myself tend to like PDFs for print materials because it's pretty much the only format that is guaranteed to scale exactly as shown. When I scan documents, or create documents that are primarily going to be used in print form, it's pretty much a given that they'll always be PDF's.

For anything else though they're annoying.

Re:Great (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45440699)

I use it because it is easy to export from MS Word and pretty much everyone can read it. I use MS Word because it is pretty much a corporate standard. Also, it is nice that people can save the file and read it whenever and whereever they like. And mostly everyone understands what it is and is able to view it.

Re:Great (2)

rsilvergun (571051) | about a year ago | (#45439983)

Because PDFs open up correctly on just about any computer and PDF printers make it simple for end users to use a skill they already have (printing documents, and don't laugh, for a lot of people it was something they had to learn with real effort).

Re:Great (1)

Threni (635302) | about a year ago | (#45440021)

> Why are we even holding onto PDFs, anyways?

Because we love formats which are impossible to convert into any other format; which require complicated, ugly tools to perform even basic formatting, and because we desperately need a format which essentially displays graphics and text to require weekly updates to remove the latest batch of exploits.

Re:Great (5, Interesting)

mbkennel (97636) | about a year ago | (#45440201)

| Because we love formats which are impossible to convert into any other format; which require complicated, ugly tools to perform even basic formatting,

This is a feature, not a bug. It's not just a feature, it is THE feature.

I'm very serious. Plenty of times an 'editable' PowerPoint is substantially garbled when it's opened up on a different version, or some Office configuration changed, or it's on somebody else's installation or it's 3 years old, or it needed an equation plugin, or the fonts are whatever...

If I have an important presentation---"save as PDF" is essential. I want to be able to give away (and use) poorly-editable copies which Microsoft programs will NOT do anything to.

That is an essential feature.

| and because we desperately need a format which essentially displays graphics and text to require weekly updates to remove the latest batch of exploits.

PDF isn't the problem. Adobe is that problem. MacOS and other software display PDF fine.

Re:Great (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45440481)

| Because we love formats which are impossible to convert into any other format; which require complicated, ugly tools to perform even basic formatting,

This is a feature, not a bug. It's not just a feature, it is THE feature

This. I was doing literal rocket science (a project for the ISS) and Solidworks document printing was incessantly moving things around (typically on top of something else, making both notations illegible). I printed always to PDF, fixed the errors in PDF, and then submitted *that* paper to the controlling authority (JAXA, in this case). I couldn't trust Solidworks to print what it said it would. I could trust PDF.

AC

Re:Great (2)

colinrichardday (768814) | about a year ago | (#45440029)

Why are we even holding onto PDFs, anyways?

Can you even generate Word docs from LaTeX files?

Re:Great (2)

gigaherz (2653757) | about a year ago | (#45440053)

Because they do what they are supposed to do well enough, and they have a large corporation backing and supporting the format.

If you don't like PDF, you should propose an alternative format that can properly serve the same purpose: to be able to distribute documents in a way that is rendered identical -- or as close to it as possible, anywhere you see it. It should support rendering formatted and spaced text, images, composite images for scanned documents, vector graphics, forms, digital signing, ... and any other feature PDF may have that people want to use.

OpenXPS does all of that already, but since it was designed by Microsoft, it may not be acceptable to you.

Re:Great (1)

mysidia (191772) | about a year ago | (#45440395)

No problem with anti-competitive practices, or inferior-by-default programs. Just don't make your system administrator ... administer anything else.

Before you diss it, or decide to be heavyhanded and think you need to override Google's choice, because you have to do one more thing.... talk to your security administrator.

The change creates a minor inconvenience for a small number of uses, and greatly reduces a major security risk.

Now if only MS, Google, and FF would all agree to put out security updates for all versions to block the Java browser plugin from running permanently, once and for all.

Why are we even holding onto PDFs, anyways? (1)

rossdee (243626) | about a year ago | (#45440701)

We aren't, they are.

(RTFM has become RTFPDF - you don't get a paper manual these days for anything.

Re:Great (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45439775)

Maybe PDFs are shit

Re:Great (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45439981)

"The Chrome PDF viewer is shit. So is the Firefox one. They're fine for viewing most basic PDFs.." ..leastways, two of the above sentences are true. There is fucking *nothing* fine about the Firefox PDF viewer, at all. Not only does it fuck up the formatting of more or less *every* PDF that isn't a full page A4 scan, it also fucks them up for Adobe Reader by saving, and it appears additionally impossible to cache the fucking things.

Seriously, Firefox is otherwise grand, but why, oh fucking why, did that POS viewer become a fucking default? - it really, truly, does suck, sorry.

Re:Great (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45440097)

Seriously. Complaining about the quality of a PDF viewer is like complaining about the taste of a shit sandwich.

Re:Great (1)

HJED (1304957) | about a year ago | (#45440525)

Hear, Hear.
If you going into the applications settings in firefox you can change it to use the adobe reader plugin again, but I doubt adobe will continue to support the plugin.

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45439993)

if you don't like chrome don't use it, it's that simple

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45440009)

PDFs are shit. tftfy.

Re:Great (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year ago | (#45440045)

Great. Another configuration change to manage on all our workstations.

Use the chrome GPO templates, thats sort of why theyre there.

Re:Great (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about a year ago | (#45440081)

Great. Another configuration change to manage on all our workstations.

Use the chrome GPO templates, thats sort of why theyre there.

Of course. But my list of shit to deal with just went from 2395720 items to 2395721 items. A drop in the ocean, sure, but FUCK each and everyone one of those unnecessary drops.

Re:Great (2)

Cajun Hell (725246) | about a year ago | (#45440441)

anything more involved (forms, interactive PDFs, portfolios, etc.) and they both just shit the bed.

It's 2013 and still not a single documented sighting of any user ever wanting any of those things from a PDF. Thus, it sounds like you're saying Chrome perfectly does everything, that anyone might ever need.

Re:Great (2)

HJED (1304957) | about a year ago | (#45440531)

I don't know about chrome, but the firefox reader fails to render correctly 60% of PDFs I open. I also use PDF forms, which are extremely useful if you need to type on an official form rather than writing it out. (MS Word consistency isn't good enough for that).

Re:Great (2)

ne0n (884282) | about a year ago | (#45440761)

If it doesn't support js/embedded flash/whatever shitty thing Adobe thinks of next, I'm all for it. PDF is bloated past recognition. This atavistic approach makes sense.

adobe reader. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45439575)

somehow adobe reader installer is bigger than a JRE install.

how can a document renderer, basically a postscript web browser with ALL THE FUNCTIONS REMOVED, be bigger than an virtual computer in your computer?

Re:adobe reader. (2)

Great Big Bird (1751616) | about a year ago | (#45439605)

I don't think you understand what Adobe Reader is.

Re:adobe reader. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45439769)

I don't think you understand what Adobe Reader is.

An insecure, steaming pile of monkey shit that people voluntarily fling to themselves despite readily available alternatives for some masochistic reason?

Re:adobe reader. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45440287)

Which of your proposed PDF displaying alternatives is not also a runtime environment that interprets the Postscript language?

Re:adobe reader. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45439781)

I don't think you understand what Adobe Reader is.

Or a JRE, for that matter.

Re:adobe reader. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45440057)

I understand that it is a shit program made by a company that play fast and loose with their customers credit card details and have an appalling track record when it comes to security.

hell, a complete OS os smaller than most PDFs (4, Interesting)

raymorris (2726007) | about a year ago | (#45439631)

For that matter QNX, a complete graphical OS including essential programs like a web browser and even a web server is a couple MB - smaller than many odd DOCUMENTS.

I wonder how blazingly fast a 4MB OS is on 4GHz machine with GBs of RAM. The CPU could process the entire OS in less than a millisecond.

Re:hell, a complete OS os smaller than most PDFs (4, Funny)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | about a year ago | (#45439871)

I wonder how blazingly fast a 4MB OS is on 4GHz machine with GBs of RAM.

No matter. Adobe will find a way to bring the system to its knees.

Re:hell, a complete OS os smaller than most PDFs (1)

tgetzoya (827201) | about a year ago | (#45440035)

Try out a BlackBerry 10 OS based device, that's QNX.

Re:hell, a complete OS os smaller than most PDFs (2)

muridae (966931) | about a year ago | (#45440065)

Unless a userland process has a ton of OS level locks on the I/O devices (disk read/writes, managing it's own cache in files, other strange behavior) that all result in OS API calls. If the userland process does all of that, than the OS is going to grind along trying to manage all of the coder's stupidity.

Which probably explains both Adobe and the early JREs, in fact.

Re:hell, a complete OS os smaller than most PDFs (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year ago | (#45440071)

process the entire OS

Im not sure what that combination of words means, and It surely does not follow from "being only 4MB".

I could write a LOT of 4MB programs that take a long time to "process".

Re:hell, a complete OS os smaller than most PDFs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45440447)

I wonder how blazingly fast a 4MB OS is on 4GHz machine with GBs of RAM. The CPU could process the entire OS in less than a millisecond.

1. Unfortunately, there's no 64-bit version, so your GBs of RAM are likely to be useless.
2. It's still a traditionally-designed[*] microkernel, with the high frequent task switching overhead that implies, so performance isn't great. It is, however, *consistent*, which is of course the most important thing for many applications.

[*] There are a number of tricks to avoid task switching overhead in a microkernel OS. QNX predates the development of any of them, and hence has poor IO performance. See, for example, the networking subsystem benchmarks here [huji.ac.il] , which show that Linux can clearly outperform QNX on a 100Mbit network (reaching peak throughput of 80Mbps, compared to QNX's of around 68Mbps). I can't find any recent hard disk performance benchmarks anywhere, but I'm willing to bet Linux outperforms QNX on disk IO by a higher margin still.

Re:hell, a complete OS os smaller than most PDFs (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | about a year ago | (#45440793)

Blackberry 10 is QNX, you are right it's very snappy and crashes exactly never

Re:adobe reader. (4, Informative)

mysidia (191772) | about a year ago | (#45440437)

how can a document renderer, basically a postscript web browser with ALL THE FUNCTIONS REMOVED, be bigger than an virtual computer in your computer?

Ah.... what you are missing is clear now. You missed the point that a PDF viewer is a virtual computer in your computer.

Among other things.... PDFs can contain scripts and various executable bits. What do you think the major source of security issues in PDF is?

Excellent (2)

mike555 (2843511) | about a year ago | (#45439581)

Chrome's viewer seems to be able tot handle every PDF I've ever encountered. So no reason to use those third-party plugins.

How so very secure! (3, Insightful)

themushroom (197365) | about a year ago | (#45439587)

And another example of some tools wanting to be the do-all where they weren't asked and don't belong.

Re:How so very secure! (1, Troll)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#45439745)

And another example of some tools wanting to be the do-all where they weren't asked and don't belong.

I would prefer if the browser stick to rendering only what the standards tell it to: CSS, HTML, PNG, JPEG, GIF... these are all standards. "Adobe PDF" is not. Save it to disk; and let me worry about what to do with it. Everytime you add more features, more code, you add more vulnerabilities.

Knock it the fuck off, Google. Get your head together: We liked Chrome because it was fast and minimalist. If I wanted a bloated up kitchen sink I'd go with Firefox. Firefox is the emacs of browsers. Chrome is supposed to be the vi. Stop trying to make vi into Emacs!

Re:How so very secure! (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45439837)

I would prefer if the browser stick to rendering only what the standards tell it to: CSS, HTML, PNG, JPEG, GIF... these are all standards. "Adobe PDF" is not.

However ISO 32000-1 is a standard.

Firefox is the emacs of browsers. Chrome is supposed to be the vi. Stop trying to make vi into Emacs!

*backs away slowly*

Re:How so very secure! (2, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#45440241)

However ISO 32000-1 is a standard.

Because a bunch of companies paid a fuckton to have it become a standard, yeah. Google up the history on that... a lot of money was handed out to get an ISO working group and get it stamped as a standard. It was bought and paid for by Adobe. So there's that.

There's also the fact that PDFs don't belong in a browser anyway. It's an outgrowth of PCL, a language for printing documents out of the 90s. It's not multimedia, and every attempt to make it web-friendly is a bandaid that opens large numbers of vulnerabilities up.

Don't put it in the browser. For the love of god don't put it in. Standard or no standard it's a shit technology.

Re:How so very secure! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45439989)

Mod parent up.

I hate browser plugins that try to treat all documents as "the web." NO: a PDF is a separate, stand-alone document and should be treated as such.

Re:How so very secure! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45439747)

Exactly. How about putting the option there instead of making it default? Shits me, the avarice of Google, does.

So very much this. (1)

gweilo8888 (921799) | about a year ago | (#45439791)

Seriously, I do not want Chrome's PDF renderer. It is ridiculously slow -- I can force a download of a PDF, get it pulled down, launch my own PDF reader and have it open in less than 1/4 the time it takes Chrome to download and render the PDF itself. It is also sorely lacking on features.

If this cannot be disabled, I for one will be removing Chrome from my machine, and I say that as somebody who has used it as my primary browser since it first came out. I am getting more and more fed up with the continuous feature creep and bloat in Chrome.

Re:So very much this. (4, Informative)

Zenin (266666) | about a year ago | (#45439941)

That's completely opposite of my experience.

On my not-so-hot computer I regularly open very complex, 400+ page PDFs (music scores mostly). We're talking 30MB w/o any imbedded images, just pure intensive processing instructions.

Chrome, from a total standstill (the process not even running yet), takes just slightly longer then it takes me to blink to start, load the PDF, and render. It's an order of magnitude faster in every way then every other PDF viewer I've tried, and I've tried quite a few.

It lacks features (PDF bookmarks, etc), but render speed is fantastic.

Re:How so very secure! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45440019)

And another example of some tools wanting to be the do-all where they weren't asked and don't belong.

PDFs contain text, images, embedded fonts, forms and javascript.

Web browsers include support for text, images, custom external fonts, forms and javascript. Browsers are hardened against attacks.

Supporting PDF in a browser is not that difficult, it already has 90% of the required functionality, and is a lot more secure than Adobe's garbage.

Firefox has PDF support as well, it uses javascript to display PDFs, the JS program converts the PDF to HTML and the browser displays that. I'm not sure what Chrome does, it might be native code but the principle is the same.

Re:How so very secure! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45440869)

Firefox has PDF support as well, it uses javascript to display PDFs, the JS program converts the PDF to HTML and the browser displays that. I'm not sure what Chrome does, it might be native code but the principle is the same.

Yo dawg, suppose I wrote a PDF renderer in Javascript, and embedded that renderer in a PDF, so that Firefox's Javascript could render it and run the... umm... dawg?

Re:How so very secure! (4, Insightful)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year ago | (#45440079)

Back in reality, this will stop a large number of infections from occurring.

Data usage & Battery life (-1, Offtopic)

RandomUsername99 (574692) | about a year ago | (#45439593)

Certainly this data is not going to be exempt from data usage charges, simply because it's a gubmint program... i wonder how much it actually consumes? Also, if it's running in the background constantly, using data when the data connection is not in use, what are the battery life implications? How identifiable is this data going to be? Would there be a way to surreptitiously prioritize over other data?

Re:Data usage & Battery life (3, Funny)

WilliamGeorge (816305) | about a year ago | (#45439655)

I think you may have posted on the wrong thread - Google is not (yet) the government ;)

Re:Data usage & Battery life (1)

Curate (783077) | about a year ago | (#45440671)

Google is not the entire government, but they are certainly a branch.

Of course! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45439601)

Google don't want you to have options and they want to skim your PDFs for their data gathering business...
 
So much for Google Chrome.

Re:Of course! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45439719)

Indeed. It's like the OtherOS feature that Sony took away. Good bye Sony. The NSA is behind this. Global warming.

Just another step... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45439603)

...on the long march to evil. When MS tried to push out other third-party applications, it got vilified for it. Here's hoping the community stays consistent and shines a light on this as well.

Nice touch citing security concerns as justification as well. How very totalitarian.

I'm OK with that... (4, Interesting)

tibit (1762298) | about a year ago | (#45439617)

On older laptops - those that reasonably work well only with XP, I not only install Chrome as the best performing browser, but I also advise people to use it to view PDFs. Note that viewing a PDFs is very different than filling it out etc. A viewer needs to be simple and well performing, and in my experience, even on 10+ year old hardware, Chrome shines there. So, for one, I do welcome this change.

Re:I'm OK with that... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45439761)

You don't have to be ashamed for taking Google's penis in the butt. It's quite common nowadays. I wouldn't do it though...

Re:I'm OK with that... (1, Troll)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year ago | (#45439847)

Ugh. Chrome is dog-slow at viewing PDF's. If I had to use it on an older laptop it would be approaching physical pain to suffer with it. I use Sumatra - it is bare-bones and blazing fast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumatra_PDF [wikipedia.org]

Re:I'm OK with that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45439929)

It's NOT the best performing browser however.

"third-party programs"? (4, Insightful)

themushroom (197365) | about a year ago | (#45439619)

bypassing any third-party programs such as Adobe Reader or Foxit Reader

Technically, Adobe Reader is the first-party program and Chrome is the third-party program for reading PDFs.

Re:"third-party programs"? (4, Informative)

Ksevio (865461) | about a year ago | (#45439693)

I think it means "third-party" in relation to Chrome, not PDFs

Re:"third-party programs"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45439721)

The specification is open and while they are author of both spec and their (reference? er...) implementation, the governing one might well be the spec. But that is technical hairsplitting. Much more interesting is this:

Here we see that google thinks their code doesn't stink.

Party Party Party (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45439789)

bypassing any third-party programs such as Adobe Reader or Foxit Reader

Technically, Adobe Reader is the first-party program and Chrome is the third-party program for reading PDFs.

Technically, there's a party in my pants and yo mama is invited.

party in your pants (5, Funny)

themushroom (197365) | about a year ago | (#45439853)

And you're the only one who came.

Re:"third-party programs"? (1)

djmurdoch (306849) | about a year ago | (#45439861)

No, the first party is the user, and the second party is the program the user is running.

Google is not proposing to force Adobe Reader to use Chrome.

use the force (0)

themushroom (197365) | about a year ago | (#45439977)

Chrome will be forcing the system default for the filetype .pdf to become Chrome, not the user.
And if you don't know how to make that not happen or change it when it does, as happens to most people...

Re:"third-party programs"? (1)

mysidia (191772) | about a year ago | (#45440457)

Technically, Adobe Reader is the first-party program and Chrome is the third-party program for reading PDFs.

Any document viewer outside the web browser; whether implemented as an executable program or a plugin module, is 3rd party software.

Chrome has an internal PDF viewer; and then there are 3rd party choices such as Foxit, Sumatra, or Adobe.

Personally I least-prefer Adobe's PDF reader, even though it used to be one of the most popular ones.

That's only secure (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45439657)

Until someone breaks whatever security google has put in place. Which is inevitable; a homogenous environment is too tempting for the bad guys to not abuse.

Sunnary unclear (5, Informative)

The MAZZTer (911996) | about a year ago | (#45439779)

  1. It will NOT change the way the system handles PDF files.
  2. It has NOTHING to do with how the browser views PDF files on the web (the Chrome PDF viewer is already the default).
  3. It only affects how Chrome handles when you choose to open a downloaded PDF file.

Likely this was done to be consistent. Any security the Chrome PDF viewer could offer could be easily bypassed by an attacker forcing the file to download. If the user clicks it, it opens in the system PDF viewer.

I believe Adobe Reader has its own sandbox so this might seem a bit weird... but at least one thing Chrome has going for it that Reader has not is that Chrome is more likely to be up-to-date (I forget how Reader updates itself, if it does at all) AND it pulls the latest Chrome PDF plugin with it.

When I set a default (4, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | about a year ago | (#45439825)

When I set a default for a file extension in the OS, I expect the browser to respect that setting. Both Firefox and Chrome are now "bad apples" in the desktop configuration arena. Shame on them both. I see no reason why their implementation would be any more secure than the applications I've already chosen.

Re:When I set a default (4, Insightful)

Dahan (130247) | about a year ago | (#45440479)

So when you click a link to a JPG file, does it open in the browser, or does it open in the viewer configured for .jpg in your OS? I'd wager that for just about everyone, it opens in the browser. What's different about PDFs that you think they shouldn't do the same?

Re:When I set a default (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45440507)

well difference for me is that jpegs are porn while pdfs are technical documents.. I'd say the demands of the task at hand are somewhat different..

Security Issues with Foxit? (3, Insightful)

jader3rd (2222716) | about a year ago | (#45439835)

I've never heard of anyone having any security issues with Foxit. Plus, the top priority for Foxit is going to be a good PDF viewer, whereas that might not make top priority for a browser.

Thank You Google! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45439855)

If Google says I need it, I must need it!

I for one welcome my PDF reading and Google+ YouTube integrating overlords!

Simple as that (5, Informative)

lesincompetent (2836253) | about a year ago | (#45439857)

chrome://plugins/
Chrome PDF Viewer --> Disable.

Obligatory Zawinski's Law (3, Insightful)

feufeu (1109929) | about a year ago | (#45439869)

"Every program attempts to expand until it can read mail. Those programs which cannot so expand are replaced by ones which can." Replace "mail" by "PDFs"...

But Try To Escape (1)

rueger (210566) | about a year ago | (#45439891)

I've been working on moving much of my on-line life out of the Googleverse. It has proved surprisingly difficult.

Today I was trying to lose Chrome, and go for another browser. I wasted about an hour and a half trying to sync Firefox between Android and my Mint Linux desktop, [mozillazine.org] then gave up.

I tried Opera, which does install and sync with ease, and looks great, except that it refuses to display Google Calendar at all well. [threesquirrels.com]

What I'm finding is that Google has a lock on a lot of things that I use, that it can be difficult to replace many of them, and that the automagic Google integration is really something that I'll miss.

Re:But Try To Escape (2)

Zumbs (1241138) | about a year ago | (#45440003)

Today I was trying to lose Chrome, and go for another browser. I wasted about an hour and a half trying to sync Firefox between Android and my Mint Linux desktop, [mozillazine.org] then gave up.

Then stop wasting your time. Use the XMarks addon. It is able to sync bookmarks among a number of browsers, including Firefox, Chrome, Safari and Internet Explorer. It is also available on Android.

Xmarks - Syncs 200%, 400%, 800% better! (Blows) (0)

xenoc_1 (140817) | about a year ago | (#45440757)

Oh sure, use Xmarks. Then watch your Chrome bookmarks get duplicated folders over and over again, some empty, some full, some half-empty (or half-full if you're an optimist). Yes, even if you do what they say, which is to disable Chrome sync and Firefox Sync for your bookmarks. God help you if you do still use RSS and use Firefox's Live Bookmarks feature: watch those become empty folders on Chrome, then circle back to Firefox and frak you over there.

There is a thread from Hades complaining about this on their support site, which they don't even run, it's a section, the abominable GetSatisfaction-dot-com, I spent more time cleaning up the frak-ups of using Xmarks cross-browser cross-machines weekly than it would have taken to just sync changes manually once every week or thereabouts. I let Mozilla sync handle syncing between PCs and intra-PC for Firefox, Aurora (alpha-test FF), Pale Moon, and synching with Firefox or Aurora on my Android phone/tablets. I let Chrome sync handle bookmark sync between various Chrome and Dragon instances on Windows and Linux, and on Android.

Once in a while I pick one Linux or Windows machine, one browser of each family (Chromium or Firefox-based, usually Comodo Dragon and Pale Moon), look at my most recent bookmark additions in each, and copy/paste them to the other. Then let their native syncs propagate them to all the other device/OS/browser instances I have.

I just don't let Xmarks go anywhere near any of them anymore.

Seriously, don't recommend Xmarks to people. It sucks to high hell.

It also is insecure, in that LastPass admits they analyze your bookmarks and use them for commercial purposes. Hell they have a "popular bookmarks" feature right on the site.

Chrome sync by default is scanned and used for marketing and targeting by Google, but they give you the option to encrypt with your own passphrase, not just your Google account. If you do that, they can't get at it for their own purposes, as even their decrypted clear version is still your in-browser encrypted version.

Mozilla sync works that way by default, in fact by your only choice. Your sync data is encrypted with your generated recovery key and they don't know it.

Re:But Try To Escape (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45440015)

Trying to move out of the Googleverse by using Android and Google Calendar? That's rich.

Re:But Try To Escape (1)

rueger (210566) | about a year ago | (#45440175)

Realistically no serious Google user is going to try and replace all of Gmail, Calendar, Contacts, Drive, Reader (now defunct), Chrome, Search, Youtube, Android, (and whatever other Google tools that I'm not recalling) at the same time.

I like having stuff like contacts and calendar synced between my desktop and smartphone. Google does that really, really well.

I've moved my RSS feeds over to Tiny Tiny RSS, and like that model - I control it.
I want to eliminate Chrome next because (I thought) it would be easy to change over to Firefox or Opera, but that is proving somewhat more difficult than I expected.

Can I move my contact lists away from Google and still have them sync between desktop and phone? That may be the next project.

Or perhaps I'll look at how I can move my calendar out of Google. I don't know.

The point is that once you're used to that lovely Google integration of many essential functions, and the overall ease of spreading that over multiple devices, it can really hard to extricate yourself.

Probably be Google's design of course - they certainly have learned much from Apple's model.

And would I like to get away from Android? You bet. Even flashed Cyanogenmod a couple of times on my last phone. Sadly the smartphone equivalent to Mint Linux isn't quite here yet.

But when it does arrive I'll be ready.

(Note: the problem with add-ons like XMarks is that it becomes just one more thing that needs to be watched over or maintained. The other nice thing about staying with Google, or Apple, or even a major Linux distro is that stuff tends to just work, and do so reliably without a lot of fiddling.)

aka (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45439947)

aka snooping.

Google wants to snoop your pdfs before you see them.

Google Makes Latest Chrome Build Open PDFs By Defa (1)

digitalPhant0m (1424687) | about a year ago | (#45440047)

You bastards.

Not terribly concerned (1)

istartedi (132515) | about a year ago | (#45440157)

1. NotScript seems to be blocking all PDFs on my setup. I didn't get it for that; but that seems to be what it does by default. I'll have to look into it. 2. Google's in-browser PDF viewer is able to handle files that Adobe's can't. The Adobe viewer seems to have some kind of memory management issue. It thrashes my disk on files that Chrome handles just fine. When I have a PDF on the desktop, I drag it to the browser now instead of letting the default association kick in. 3. About that default association and the dragging. The fact that I can do that means that I still have choice.

Can I stop it following links? (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about a year ago | (#45440297)

For some insane reason the pdf document thinks it is a web page and has tons and tons of stuff for javascript and hyperlinks etc etc. In fact the holes in pdf is on of the biggest vulnerabilities and if you strictly follow the standard, the same hole would exist in all the platforms. One of the main reasons for not using Adobe reader is to force it to stop following the links. Adobe for some reason resets all those security settings every time I am forced to upgrade Adobe viewer by some insane company policy.

Google stops Fox-it or it absorbs and assimilates Foxit I don't care. But I don't want Chrome to follow hyper links in any pdf document. Will it follow? Can I force it not to follow?

What a bunch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45440935)

of fuck tards. It was bad enough when Mozilla went down that road, now Chrome? Too many skinny low fat lattes out there at the Chocolate factory.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?