5 ms·

It is unbelievable how invasive Adobe software is. I try very, very hard to avoid installing anything by Adobe, because I know that the software will do whateve

by jwr 11y ago

It is unbelievable how invasive Adobe software is. I try very, very hard to avoid installing anything by Adobe, because I know that the software will do whatever it wants on my drive, install itself all over the place, install various (ugly) menubar items which are non-removable, run things at login, make a "Creative Cloud Files" on my Desktop (!), make me a member of the "Community", demand my password to get administrative privileges, without explaining what for, make lots of network connections to various servers, sending unknown information about me, run various processes in the background (AAM Updates Notifier, anyone?) and run various updaters with annoying popups whenever it feels like it. I think CC will also pester you with upselling popups, or new features information. Back when Flash was still a thing, they got so low as to try to sneak in more of their products when I just wanted to update Flash. It's crappy behavior and should be called out for being what it is. We are too quiet about it and we got so used to taking crap from software producers that many people don't even complain.

mattmanser 11y ago
This is a fairly common programming mistake to make, nothing to do with Adobe being invasive. I remember when eve online's updater deleted C:\boot.ini in 2007 for example: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/about-the-boot.ini-issue/ http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/about-the-boot... That said I completely agree Adobe's software is disgustingly invasive, just not for this particular reason.
- nathanvanfleet 11y ago
  Can you more clearly define "common" for me?
- cypret 11y ago
  This is not a common programming mistake to make at all, I'd also say it has everything to do about being invasive. The EVE reference you mentioned was 9 years ago for a video game in an early release stage.
  - comex 11y ago
    EVE had already been out for 4 years at that point - much younger than it is today, but hardly at an early release stage.
  - matheweis 11y ago
    I don't know the exact nature of the Adobe bug, but Steam had a similar problem recently too "Moved ~/.local/share/steam. Ran steam. It deleted everything on system owned by user" https://github.com/valvesoftware/steam-for-linux/issues/3671 https://github.com/valvesoftware/steam-for-linux/issues/3671 Honestly (and imnsho) the prevalence of that sort of thing makes it even less excusable for a large company like Adobe.
    - revelation 11y ago
      That is incredible. > Line 468: rm -rf "$STEAMROOT/"* Without a check for $STEAMROOT validity. I'm not sure you couldn't sue Valve for the incredible recklessness. That is just beyond the pale.
      - cmurf 11y ago
        In general you can't. Most all software EULAs pretty much says you agree there is no warranty and no liability no matter what happens.
        Sharlin 11y ago
        EULAs are not magic, at least in sane jurisdictions. A lot of stuff they contain is not legally binding.
    - itsthisjustin 11y ago
      Holy shit how have I never heard of this. That's an insane bug for Steam to let slip
  - mioelnir 11y ago
    EVE wasn't early release stage at that point. But: EVE at the time had a startup configuration file `boot.ini` inside the game folder. They tried to delete a game file, but if the game was not installed on C:\, a couple of path variables were empty and it realpathed to `C:\boot.ini`, if I remember correctly.
- Gratsby 11y ago
  A commmon mistake... No. It's an idiot mistake. It's an idiot mistake that should have been caught by code review. It should have been caught by release engineering. It never should be made in the first place because deleting files that your software didn't create in the first place is asinine. If your software does this you should be fired. End users should be free to install software without having to sort through their backup/recovery process.
EvanPlaice 11y ago
Adobe Creative Cloud is the Tyler Durden of software.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  Actually it's the Windows 10 of software. Which is the problem: if you hire a builder or a plumber and they do something stupid which causes you significant harm, you can sue them. And you'll probably win. If you buy a car and it's defective and causes you significant harm, you'll likely get compensation from a class action suit. How did destructive software errors get an exemption from the legal principle of accountability? (I know the EULAs say whatever, but that doesn't mean they can't be challenged in court.) Adobe, MS, Apple and the rest don't need to care about software quality because they don't need to worry about expensive legal action by customers. Stupid crap like this will continue to happen until that changes.
  - Nutmog 11y ago
    I think it's fair to put the blame for data loss on users as long as it isn't done maliciously. That's because users are the ones in the best position to protect against it by making backups in proportion to how valuable their data is. It would be a nightmare if Adobe had to make a backup of every customer's computer just in case their software had a bug that deleted something. Much more efficient for the user to just have a single backup protecting them from bugs in all their software rather than all their software redundantly doing it.
  - AsyncAwait 11y ago
    I agree that some stronger regulation may be needed, but applying a broad "punish for a bug" strategy will have terrible effects for our industry as it will lead to a stagnation in innovation and a reluctancy to experiment. (We can already see this with the "Error 53" bug, where Apple is actually doing the right thing by not letting the secure enclave be compromised and getting sued for it). Look, bugs in software are as old as software itself, comparing software to a builder is not helpful because it is simply not the same thing at all - software is a lot more abstract and the effects of doing certain things are far less measurable at composition time - also builders have several thousands of years of tradition, programmers have less than a hundred.
fivesigma 11y ago
On OSX with just Photoshop CC installed, there's around 10 adobe related processes running at any given time, all the while making connections and sending data to both adobe and non-adobe (CDNs) IPs. And that's AFTER you disable all of it's settings including run at startup. There's even an adobe Node.js instance (wtf?) constantly running and using CPU. I don't take kindly to my system being commandeered, so I cancelled my CC subscription, removed their bloated, slimy POS software and bought Affinity Photo.
- maljx 11y ago
  Go to /Library/LaunchDaemons/ and delete what you don't want to run at launch. (At your own risk of course.)
  - x0x0 11y ago
    Better to run "launchctl list | grep -iv com\.apple" for both yourself and root; there are multiple places that startup items can be placed.
  - lobster_johnson 11y ago
    Don't delete. Instead, run "launchctl unload -w <file name>". This will stop the service and disable it from loading on boot.
    - fivesigma 11y ago
      Tried that, didn't work. My guess is that Photoshop ran some kind of script that re-enabled it. I went to great lengths trying to gracefully disable all the CC crap before I gave up and rm -rf'd every damn file/directory containing adobe.
0xmohit 11y ago
> It is unbelievable how invasive Adobe software is. Have you ever attempted to analyze the periodic data transfer that happens from your computer to Adobe servers when you have one of their products running? They log every action that you perform: from opening a file to clicking a menu item. Hint: The "encryption" scheme employed to _encrypt_ the user actions is a substitution cipher.

by jwr 11y ago

mattmanser 11y ago

This is a fairly common programming mistake to make, nothing to do with Adobe being invasive. I remember when eve online's updater deleted C:\boot.ini in 2007 for example: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/about-the-boot.ini-issue/ http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/about-the-boot... That said I completely agree Adobe's software is disgustingly invasive, just not for this particular reason.

nathanvanfleet 11y ago
Can you more clearly define "common" for me?
cypret 11y ago
This is not a common programming mistake to make at all, I'd also say it has everything to do about being invasive. The EVE reference you mentioned was 9 years ago for a video game in an early release stage.
- comex 11y ago
  EVE had already been out for 4 years at that point - much younger than it is today, but hardly at an early release stage.
- matheweis 11y ago
  I don't know the exact nature of the Adobe bug, but Steam had a similar problem recently too "Moved ~/.local/share/steam. Ran steam. It deleted everything on system owned by user" https://github.com/valvesoftware/steam-for-linux/issues/3671 https://github.com/valvesoftware/steam-for-linux/issues/3671 Honestly (and imnsho) the prevalence of that sort of thing makes it even less excusable for a large company like Adobe.
  - revelation 11y ago
    That is incredible. > Line 468: rm -rf "$STEAMROOT/"* Without a check for $STEAMROOT validity. I'm not sure you couldn't sue Valve for the incredible recklessness. That is just beyond the pale.
    - cmurf 11y ago
      In general you can't. Most all software EULAs pretty much says you agree there is no warranty and no liability no matter what happens.
      - Sharlin 11y ago
        EULAs are not magic, at least in sane jurisdictions. A lot of stuff they contain is not legally binding.
  - itsthisjustin 11y ago
    Holy shit how have I never heard of this. That's an insane bug for Steam to let slip
- mioelnir 11y ago
  EVE wasn't early release stage at that point. But: EVE at the time had a startup configuration file `boot.ini` inside the game folder. They tried to delete a game file, but if the game was not installed on C:\, a couple of path variables were empty and it realpathed to `C:\boot.ini`, if I remember correctly.
Gratsby 11y ago
A commmon mistake... No. It's an idiot mistake. It's an idiot mistake that should have been caught by code review. It should have been caught by release engineering. It never should be made in the first place because deleting files that your software didn't create in the first place is asinine. If your software does this you should be fired. End users should be free to install software without having to sort through their backup/recovery process.

EvanPlaice 11y ago

Adobe Creative Cloud is the Tyler Durden of software.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
Actually it's the Windows 10 of software. Which is the problem: if you hire a builder or a plumber and they do something stupid which causes you significant harm, you can sue them. And you'll probably win. If you buy a car and it's defective and causes you significant harm, you'll likely get compensation from a class action suit. How did destructive software errors get an exemption from the legal principle of accountability? (I know the EULAs say whatever, but that doesn't mean they can't be challenged in court.) Adobe, MS, Apple and the rest don't need to care about software quality because they don't need to worry about expensive legal action by customers. Stupid crap like this will continue to happen until that changes.
- Nutmog 11y ago
  I think it's fair to put the blame for data loss on users as long as it isn't done maliciously. That's because users are the ones in the best position to protect against it by making backups in proportion to how valuable their data is. It would be a nightmare if Adobe had to make a backup of every customer's computer just in case their software had a bug that deleted something. Much more efficient for the user to just have a single backup protecting them from bugs in all their software rather than all their software redundantly doing it.
- AsyncAwait 11y ago
  I agree that some stronger regulation may be needed, but applying a broad "punish for a bug" strategy will have terrible effects for our industry as it will lead to a stagnation in innovation and a reluctancy to experiment. (We can already see this with the "Error 53" bug, where Apple is actually doing the right thing by not letting the secure enclave be compromised and getting sued for it). Look, bugs in software are as old as software itself, comparing software to a builder is not helpful because it is simply not the same thing at all - software is a lot more abstract and the effects of doing certain things are far less measurable at composition time - also builders have several thousands of years of tradition, programmers have less than a hundred.

fivesigma 11y ago

On OSX with just Photoshop CC installed, there's around 10 adobe related processes running at any given time, all the while making connections and sending data to both adobe and non-adobe (CDNs) IPs. And that's AFTER you disable all of it's settings including run at startup. There's even an adobe Node.js instance (wtf?) constantly running and using CPU. I don't take kindly to my system being commandeered, so I cancelled my CC subscription, removed their bloated, slimy POS software and bought Affinity Photo.

maljx 11y ago
Go to /Library/LaunchDaemons/ and delete what you don't want to run at launch. (At your own risk of course.)
- x0x0 11y ago
  Better to run "launchctl list | grep -iv com\.apple" for both yourself and root; there are multiple places that startup items can be placed.
- lobster_johnson 11y ago
  Don't delete. Instead, run "launchctl unload -w <file name>". This will stop the service and disable it from loading on boot.
  - fivesigma 11y ago
    Tried that, didn't work. My guess is that Photoshop ran some kind of script that re-enabled it. I went to great lengths trying to gracefully disable all the CC crap before I gave up and rm -rf'd every damn file/directory containing adobe.

0xmohit 11y ago

> It is unbelievable how invasive Adobe software is. Have you ever attempted to analyze the periodic data transfer that happens from your computer to Adobe servers when you have one of their products running? They log every action that you perform: from opening a file to clicking a menu item. Hint: The "encryption" scheme employed to _encrypt_ the user actions is a substitution cipher.