I agree on the fingerprint thing. Android OEMs did one thing better than Apple, putting the fingerprint sensor in the correct spot (at the back), now they want to copy Apple anyway by putting the fingerprint sensor at the front. I disagree when it comes to Face ID. It's nice to look at the screen and have the phone unlock itself, but the iPhone X is expensive and is an iPhone (no Kodi, emulators and sideloading).
Since when does the iPhone have "no Kodi"?
While there is no Kodi App on the Apple iOS App Store, you CAN Sideload the Kodi.apt file using Cydia Impactor. This does not require Jailbreaking, and is completely legit and ok with Apple (since iOS 8.0).
So you don't deny that before Server 2016 it's a problem. You see in my real world scenario, we don't install whatever version of Windows Server we want. We have to install versions of Windows that we have license to install. Also in my real world scenario, I don't update the server OS on a live server because I want to read a PDF. In my scenario I have to use whatever version already exists like 2012 R2. But to address my question: how do you explain that in a server OS released in 2014, MS didn't think to include a PDF viewer?
In my real-world scenario, I install Chrome and stop whining like a two year old about a problem that isn't one.
What do you do when it is someone ELSE's Server, and you're just maintaining some software on it?
You see in my real world scenario, we don't install whatever version of Windows Server we want. We have to install versions of Windows that we have license to install. Also in my real world scenario, I don't update the server OS on a live server because I want to read a PDF. In my scenario I have to use whatever version already exists like 2012 R2. But to address my question: how do you explain that in a server OS released in 2014, MS didn't think to include a PDF viewer?
Exactly! At least SOMEONE else has been outside their Mother's basement!!!
You know this whole thread we are talking about Windows right?
No, I thought that we were discussing "MS Server 2014," whatever the hell that is.
BT-dubs: Administrators can read PDFs natively on Windows Server 2016 in the Edge browser. Instead of complaining of a "complete lack of forethought about real world scenarios on the part of MS," complain about your years-out-of-date knowledge about Windows.
Doesn't matter: You deal with the Server OS as you find it. In this case it was Server 2012 R2 (sorry for the brain fart about Server 2014. I was thinking of SQL Server 2014, which was also on this particular Server box). Wishing for something that was in Server 2016 would have been ridiculous.
Almost as ridiculous as no NATIVE PDF Support in an OS released in 2014...
Installer looks a little hokey, but it works great. Been my viewer of choice since Foxit went to shit.
I became aware of SumatraPDF when I needed a PDF Print Application that could actually be driven by a Command Line, and could be made COMPLETELY "Silent".
And no, none of the Acrobat Components can do it, sorry. Plus, that wasn't really an option.
But that isn't really what we were talking about...
Dear, the servers are the things in the rack mount, not the ones with the keyboard and monitor attached.
You do know that there are these things called rackmounted monitors and keyboards which allow you to directly access a server on a rack, right? They are designed to be 1U and stow away when not needed. If you don't I would have to wonder when is the last time you actually visited a server room.
And there are QUADRILLIONS of Stand-Alone Windows Servers that don't live in a Rack; because they are sitting in a closet or a back-room in a small business that doesn't have a full-time (or even part-time) IT Staff. They have a one or a few Power-Users that handle day-to-day "Admin" duties. Doesn't mean they "don't deserve" to read PDF docs on those Servers.
And there are also other legit situations where getting a file back from a Remote Server isn't so straightforward. What then?
I doubt if most here run Windows servers. Neither do we distribute documentation exclusively in PDF format. I suppose if it were common for servers to have a GUI then we might consider a PDF reader to be necessary. However, my file manager is capable of browsing foreign servers and allowing me to open documents located on those servers, and it's possible that Microsoft has managed to duplicate this functionality as well.
And WHY should I have to use a specific BROWSER to gain system-wide PDF support?!?
You don't. You wanted to know why it wasn't natively in there, and now you're complaining at the potential native solution that MS would offer (Edge is the native PDF renderer in Windows 10)
All this leads me to my original point: Thank Christ the ball is in your court to install something and you're not shipped with a default turd.
If that is an aside slight regarding MacOS' and iOS' native PDF support; both of those OSes have the ability to Open PDFs in alternate Applications. So, you aren't "stuck" with ANYTHING.
But if you are just trying to read a PDF documentation file, would you rather have to mess around and Install something; or just Open the frickin' file? Afterall, most documentation files are nothing more than piles of text, with perhaps the occasional table or illustration. None of those elements are likely to trip any esoteric issues in anyone's PDF-rendering library.
The caveat there is that this breaks a lot of PDF files out there, is incompatible with anything protected, and isn't that good with embedded content (e.g. a font to render a different language).
On a server I'd rather be forced to make the choice of what software opens what filetype than rely on my vendor shipping something broken by default to eliminate attack vendors. Just don't ship anything at all.
Mind you, who opens PDFs on a server, and how do you even get them to display in an 80x25 text mode console.
Even on iOS, you can choose to Open In... any App that can handle the filetype. And on macOS, where the rules about "private libraries" are nonexistent, you can truly have alternate PDF renderers. So, you have the CHOICE to use the built-in PDF libraries, or some other Applications' versions.
WTF is wrong with Microsoft that I can attempt to open a PDF in MS Server 2014, and it STILL can't handle it natively?!?
That's easy to solve, just install the MS app store on your critical server and install Edge, then everything is handled natively by MS's OS bundled apps.
Or maybe you're an idiot for wanting this bundled on a server, doubly so from an MS package. Absolutely EVERYTHING should be opt-in on a server, including what happens when I click on a file (that is after I choose to install a GUI).
I just used MS Server 14 as an example; because that's where I encountered this long-standing weakness most recently.
And WHY should I have to use a specific BROWSER to gain system-wide PDF support?!?
WTF is wrong with Microsoft that I can attempt to open a PDF in MS Server 2014, and it STILL can't handle it natively?!?
Are they waiting to see if PDF will "take off"? Are they waiting to see if their "PDF-Killer" XPS will win-out (hint: It won't). Or what?!?
What morons.
Microsoft ships Win10 with a "print to PDF" option out of the box.
Also, they natively open PDFs in Edge, to the point of restoring the file association with every major upgrade.
So, you got exactly what you wanted, in the exact Microsoft way of handling such a situation. I hope you're happy.
Well, other than the fact that I was talking specifically about MS SERVER (not Windows 10), AND that "Restoring the Association" is just typical "This is not YOUR computer" MS-think; it IS exactly what I want...
If MS built PDF into their OS, there would immediately be cries that they were abusing their monopoly position to try to kill Adobe and third-party PDF apps.
Which shows a complete lack of forethought about real world scenarios on the part of MS. That assumes the scenario that I only remote login to the server and I never have actual access to it. For example the installation is on a CD/USB, it's much easier to stick into the server than upload it to a network share then download it.
The second part of why that is silly is that after I unpack/unzip the installation files on the server. I have to do the same thing on my machine just to read the documentation on the installation process. Or transfer them my client machine." That also doesn't take into account if there are issues and I have to look at additional information written in PDF from the vendor.
Bottom line: There's just NO excuse; and I would be a Meeelion dollars that every one of the Slashtards that is naysaying the completely-foreign concept of being able to open a PDF on their MS Servers HAS ALREADY INSTALLED ACROBAT for that EXACT Reason!
But they'll never admit it; because they just like to argue.
I think the intended use case is to read documentation on the client device through which you are remotely accessing the server.
And when that Client is ALSO a Microsoft OS, like the W7 my work laptop runs, you STILL have to to out of your way to install that bug-fest that is Adobe Acrobat, JUST to read a frickin' file that's in a PUBLIC DOMAIN format!!!
[sarcasm]Heaven forbid someone should open and read a PDF document on a server. I mean it's not like everyone uses that format being so obscure. Every installation manual I've used in the last several years was in binary in.txt files.[/sarcasm]
Regardless of what you use, it can only minimize your attack surface -- not eliminate it. What if there's a bug in Rust? Rust itself doesn't mitigate certain bugs like granting too much permission to a database.
On a server, you want the minimum components you need to run whatever's being served.
Until you're trying to troubleshoot something, and the only help you can find is in a PDF.
The basic PDF format is secure, it's only data. That's what OS X/macOS/iOS supports.
Since OS X 10.0.0. That's why it bugs me to no-end at work, that I have to go install Acrobat Reader on ANYTHING in 2018, just to open a Documentation file.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree on the fingerprint thing. Android OEMs did one thing better than Apple, putting the fingerprint sensor in the correct spot (at the back), now they want to copy Apple anyway by putting the fingerprint sensor at the front. I disagree when it comes to Face ID. It's nice to look at the screen and have the phone unlock itself, but the iPhone X is expensive and is an iPhone (no Kodi, emulators and sideloading).
Since when does the iPhone have "no Kodi"?
While there is no Kodi App on the Apple iOS App Store, you CAN Sideload the Kodi .apt file using Cydia Impactor. This does not require Jailbreaking, and is completely legit and ok with Apple (since iOS 8.0).
If this was an Apple product there would be a full conspiracy theory freak-out already...
And 10 Class Action Lawsuits!
In my real-world scenario, I install Chrome and stop whining like a two year old about a problem that isn't one.
What do you do when it is someone ELSE's Server, and you're just maintaining some software on it?
You see in my real world scenario, we don't install whatever version of Windows Server we want. We have to install versions of Windows that we have license to install. Also in my real world scenario, I don't update the server OS on a live server because I want to read a PDF. In my scenario I have to use whatever version already exists like 2012 R2. But to address my question: how do you explain that in a server OS released in 2014, MS didn't think to include a PDF viewer?
Exactly! At least SOMEONE else has been outside their Mother's basement!!!
No, I thought that we were discussing "MS Server 2014," whatever the hell that is.
BT-dubs: Administrators can read PDFs natively on Windows Server 2016 in the Edge browser. Instead of complaining of a "complete lack of forethought about real world scenarios on the part of MS," complain about your years-out-of-date knowledge about Windows.
Doesn't matter: You deal with the Server OS as you find it. In this case it was Server 2012 R2 (sorry for the brain fart about Server 2014. I was thinking of SQL Server 2014, which was also on this particular Server box). Wishing for something that was in Server 2016 would have been ridiculous.
Almost as ridiculous as no NATIVE PDF Support in an OS released in 2014...
Sumatra PDF.
Installer looks a little hokey, but it works great. Been my viewer of choice since Foxit went to shit.
I became aware of SumatraPDF when I needed a PDF Print Application that could actually be driven by a Command Line, and could be made COMPLETELY "Silent".
And no, none of the Acrobat Components can do it, sorry. Plus, that wasn't really an option.
But that isn't really what we were talking about...
Dear, the servers are the things in the rack mount, not the ones with the keyboard and monitor attached.
You do know that there are these things called rackmounted monitors and keyboards which allow you to directly access a server on a rack, right? They are designed to be 1U and stow away when not needed. If you don't I would have to wonder when is the last time you actually visited a server room.
And there are QUADRILLIONS of Stand-Alone Windows Servers that don't live in a Rack; because they are sitting in a closet or a back-room in a small business that doesn't have a full-time (or even part-time) IT Staff. They have a one or a few Power-Users that handle day-to-day "Admin" duties. Doesn't mean they "don't deserve" to read PDF docs on those Servers.
And there are also other legit situations where getting a file back from a Remote Server isn't so straightforward. What then?
...Is this is "Extend" or "Extinguish" phase?
It's surely one or the other.
I doubt if most here run Windows servers. Neither do we distribute documentation exclusively in PDF format. I suppose if it were common for servers to have a GUI then we might consider a PDF reader to be necessary. However, my file manager is capable of browsing foreign servers and allowing me to open documents located on those servers, and it's possible that Microsoft has managed to duplicate this functionality as well.
Straw man, nice to meet you!
And WHY should I have to use a specific BROWSER to gain system-wide PDF support?!?
You don't. You wanted to know why it wasn't natively in there, and now you're complaining at the potential native solution that MS would offer (Edge is the native PDF renderer in Windows 10)
All this leads me to my original point: Thank Christ the ball is in your court to install something and you're not shipped with a default turd.
If that is an aside slight regarding MacOS' and iOS' native PDF support; both of those OSes have the ability to Open PDFs in alternate Applications. So, you aren't "stuck" with ANYTHING.
But if you are just trying to read a PDF documentation file, would you rather have to mess around and Install something; or just Open the frickin' file? Afterall, most documentation files are nothing more than piles of text, with perhaps the occasional table or illustration. None of those elements are likely to trip any esoteric issues in anyone's PDF-rendering library.
WTF is wrong with Microsoft that I can attempt to open a PDF in MS Server 2014, and it STILL can't handle it natively?!?
There is a reason for this:
Adobe Systems refused to let Microsoft implement built-in PDF support in Microsoft Office, citing fears of EEE (Embrace, extend, and extinguish). -- Wikipedia
PDF is a Public-Domain Format. Exactly WHAT was Adobe going to "Refuse" them to do, legally?
And so how is this different from the PDF support built-into Edge in W10?
That's what OS X/macOS/iOS supports.
The caveat there is that this breaks a lot of PDF files out there, is incompatible with anything protected, and isn't that good with embedded content (e.g. a font to render a different language).
On a server I'd rather be forced to make the choice of what software opens what filetype than rely on my vendor shipping something broken by default to eliminate attack vendors. Just don't ship anything at all.
Mind you, who opens PDFs on a server, and how do you even get them to display in an 80x25 text mode console.
Even on iOS, you can choose to Open In... any App that can handle the filetype. And on macOS, where the rules about "private libraries" are nonexistent, you can truly have alternate PDF renderers. So, you have the CHOICE to use the built-in PDF libraries, or some other Applications' versions.
I think you're first issue is that you're trying to use a version of Server that doesn't exist.
You are correct.
The Server OS is 2012 R2. I was brain-farting the SQL Server version, sorry.
WTF is wrong with Microsoft that I can attempt to open a PDF in MS Server 2014, and it STILL can't handle it natively?!?
That's easy to solve, just install the MS app store on your critical server and install Edge, then everything is handled natively by MS's OS bundled apps.
Or maybe you're an idiot for wanting this bundled on a server, doubly so from an MS package. Absolutely EVERYTHING should be opt-in on a server, including what happens when I click on a file (that is after I choose to install a GUI).
I just used MS Server 14 as an example; because that's where I encountered this long-standing weakness most recently.
And WHY should I have to use a specific BROWSER to gain system-wide PDF support?!?
WTF is wrong with Microsoft that I can attempt to open a PDF in MS Server 2014, and it STILL can't handle it natively?!?
Are they waiting to see if PDF will "take off"? Are they waiting to see if their "PDF-Killer" XPS will win-out (hint: It won't). Or what?!?
What morons.
Microsoft ships Win10 with a "print to PDF" option out of the box.
Also, they natively open PDFs in Edge, to the point of restoring the file association with every major upgrade.
So, you got exactly what you wanted, in the exact Microsoft way of handling such a situation. I hope you're happy.
Well, other than the fact that I was talking specifically about MS SERVER (not Windows 10), AND that "Restoring the Association" is just typical "This is not YOUR computer" MS-think; it IS exactly what I want...
It is built into their desktop OS (Edge opens PDF files by default.)
Which begs the question even more, not less.
If MS built PDF into their OS, there would immediately be cries that they were abusing their monopoly position to try to kill Adobe and third-party PDF apps.
I think you forgot the sarcasm tag.
Which shows a complete lack of forethought about real world scenarios on the part of MS. That assumes the scenario that I only remote login to the server and I never have actual access to it. For example the installation is on a CD/USB, it's much easier to stick into the server than upload it to a network share then download it.
The second part of why that is silly is that after I unpack/unzip the installation files on the server. I have to do the same thing on my machine just to read the documentation on the installation process. Or transfer them my client machine." That also doesn't take into account if there are issues and I have to look at additional information written in PDF from the vendor.
Bottom line: There's just NO excuse; and I would be a Meeelion dollars that every one of the Slashtards that is naysaying the completely-foreign concept of being able to open a PDF on their MS Servers HAS ALREADY INSTALLED ACROBAT for that EXACT Reason!
But they'll never admit it; because they just like to argue.
I think the intended use case is to read documentation on the client device through which you are remotely accessing the server.
And when that Client is ALSO a Microsoft OS, like the W7 my work laptop runs, you STILL have to to out of your way to install that bug-fest that is Adobe Acrobat, JUST to read a frickin' file that's in a PUBLIC DOMAIN format!!!
[sarcasm]Heaven forbid someone should open and read a PDF document on a server. I mean it's not like everyone uses that format being so obscure. Every installation manual I've used in the last several years was in binary in .txt files.[/sarcasm]
EXACTLY my point!
Even MICROSOFT distributes docs in PDF, FFS!
WTF is wrong with Microsoft that I can attempt to open a PDF in MS Server 2014
Their client OS supports PDF natively. I think the problem you're having is you're trying to use a server OS as a client OS.
No. Gimme a break!
I was ON the Server (well, RDC'ed in), and was trying to check the output of some of my code running on that Server, that was creating a PDF File.
Regardless of what you use, it can only minimize your attack surface -- not eliminate it. What if there's a bug in Rust? Rust itself doesn't mitigate certain bugs like granting too much permission to a database.
On a server, you want the minimum components you need to run whatever's being served.
Until you're trying to troubleshoot something, and the only help you can find is in a PDF.
The basic PDF format is secure, it's only data. That's what OS X/macOS/iOS supports.
Since OS X 10.0.0. That's why it bugs me to no-end at work, that I have to go install Acrobat Reader on ANYTHING in 2018, just to open a Documentation file.
WTF is wrong with Microsoft that I can attempt to open a PDF in MS Server 2014, and it STILL can't handle it natively?!?
In my view, getting P0WN3D should be opt-in.
It is Acrobat that is insecure, not PDF itself. MS has enough Developers to create their own native PDF parser.
WTF is wrong with Microsoft that I can attempt to open a PDF in MS Server 2014, and it STILL can't handle it natively?!?
Are they waiting to see if PDF will "take off"? Are they waiting to see if their "PDF-Killer" XPS will win-out (hint: It won't). Or what?!?
What morons.