Talk:Foxit PDF Reader

message: The bundled Ask.Com software now actually hijacks the user's default browser, doing the following (which I'm repeating here from the article, in case it's subsequently edited out):
* Sets the user's default search engine to Ask.Com
* Sets the user's homepage to a big Ask.Com page
* Locks the user's Internet settings so they can't change these back
* Hides itself—from both Add/Remove Programs, and in the user's file system—so it's nearly impossible for the average user to uninstall.
What's more, the options for installing this intrusive, stealthed add-on are presented in an unusually convoluted, unintuitive way—so that even if the user clears the checkboxes for installing the add-on, then clicks the highlighed "I Accept" button (on the same screen), the add-on is installed anyway.
Anyway, I'm not just being dramatic... This is really something people should be warned about.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.184.60 (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Still contains malware. My avast! firewall automatically created a rule for Ask.com when installing Foxit Reader last week without the toolbar ever being mentioned during setup. See http://forums.foxitsoftware.com/archive/index.php/t-18238.html 22:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Bundled software hijacks user's browser

message: Thanks for your last change, we are slowly getting there..
I have been looking at the paragraph:
"Foxit Reader is favoured by some system administrators of Windows-based servers. Foxit Reader normally does not require reboots after updates.[citation needed]"
I have no information that it is liked by system administrators and don't know who added that. But it is certainly true that reboots are not needed after updates. Foxit comes in two versions - with the .zip version you simply unzip its .exe file and write it on top of the existing one and away you go. The .exe version includes a simple installer which effectively does exactly the same (though I guess system admins wouldn't use that one). I found nothing on the web to cite this fact, but did find a lot pointing out that Adobe DID need reboots and has auto updating functions which would drive any system admin nuts...
I am inclined to delete this whole paragraph (maybe adding a phrase 'simple install' in the introductory lines), it adds little to the article and only increases its 'anti-Adobe' tone. Best to let the reader make up his mind...   Dsergeant 20:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The paragraph should be deleted. --Hamitr 14:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Hamitr 21:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bit late but I agree too. It's me 203.213.7.133. Had proxy vandal problems. Been looking for refs to back up the Foxit article. Unfortunately I haven't found any IT press reviews at all, and Foxit don't have an 'In the Press' section on their site (I'm guessing they're still in Startup mode but they really should ramp up their PR). There is a lot anecdotal recommendations in blogs, but most of these were brief. *BUT* the best collection of user reviews though was this one: Many reviews and I think it nicely covers the gamut both good and bad: http://fileforum.betanews.com/review/1102316680/1/view  It's also fairly recently updated. How about using this as a reference? Frondfall 06:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Giving Notice: I intend to use the above reference to update the article. Frondfall 07:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry not to have picked this up before. Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable sources -> Using questionable or self-published sources. Blogs, bulletin boards, user reviews etc. come under the heading of "self published" and "...self-published material is largely not acceptable." There are specific exceptions like blogs of known notable people, which is attributable. It is the case that a great deal of the "common knowledge" about software has not crossed the threshold from popular discussion to being mentioned in the press, probably the threshold for inclusion. Notinasnaid 07:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to agree. I am still looking for a decent magazine review or similar for Foxit and the two I added were about the best I could find. Certainly the one you mention above does not seem to be appropriate as it is largely just blog comments on it. At the moment reviews of Foxit seem to be buried among more general articles on pdf software. Hopefully this will soon change as Foxit appears to be becoming more widely accepted. Dsergeant 11:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's why I asked first :-). That policy works fine for popular issues, but for fringe things like this it doesn't really work. That page of comments, by its sheer volume, is probably the best indicator of the state of Foxit. It's far more useful that the CNET little stub review we're using as a reference, yet, by Wiki policies, we can only quote that and not the other. I'd suggest the Wiki policies in this area are broken. Likewise if you have to do your own article just so you can use it as a Wiki reference. Are we allowed to list those user reviews as a link? At least that way people can make up their own mind. Frondfall 03:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Just re-read the CNET stub review and found it's updated over the old version I saw. Still not comprehensive, but it's an improvement. BTW I've been using FoxIt since first visiting this web page and it's now my #1 Browser. Could perhaps ask another mag to look at it, but heck, I wish FoxIt would down their own PR! Frondfall 03:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No need for reboots 

message: http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file/fid,62648-order,1-page,1/description.html
"This free utility lets you view PDF files, and edit any of the text they contain.
Adobe Reader isn't your only option for viewing PDF files. Foxit Reader is a free utility that includes some tools that Adobe lacks, including a "typewriter" tool that lets you type text over any PDF, not just files that have been set with form fields.
We found that Foxit launches very quickly (in about one second) and it requires no installation--you just run the executable file. It allows you open, view, print, and change the page layout in PDF files. For some functions, such as the typewriter function, FoxIt Reader shows an ad for FoxIt Reader Pro. However, these functions still work with minor limitations.
In our experience, when it comes to viewing PDF files, Foxit Reader beats Adobe Reader hands-down.
Note: We have received reports that some security software flags Foxit Reader as a security threat. The vendor claims that this is because FoxIt reader is an .exe file with no installer package. PC World has scanned Foxit Reader for malware, and we have discovered none in the program."
71.174.78.146 01:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PC World Review from March 2006 

message: :Image:Foxitreader.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Foxitreader.png

message: The article says 
Foxit Reader is notable for its short load time[1] and small filesize
 But with version 3.x that is not true any more. It might still load faster than Adobe Reader v9.x, but it is a lot slower than Foxit v2.0. I personally still use v2.x for this reason.
--Xerces8 (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short load time, no more 

message: the german version (link already above) is much better and describes good the problems which this application with some pdf files can have (such as unicode or jpeg2000 probs, and more!). why are here nothing as this described? mabdul 17:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  critism 

message: The application license is currently set to freeware, however have a look at the definition for freeware on Wikipedia: "The only criterion for being classified as freeware is that the software must be fully functional for an unlimited time with no cost, monetary or otherwise." This is hardly the case of Foxit Reader - it is NOT fully functional without having to pay for the full version. It is also bundled with unwanted applications and eBay affiliate links, which doesn't fit the description either (see "no cost, monetary or otherwise"). The most appropriate definition IMO is crippleware since the feature set is volontarily reduced in order to encourage users to buy the full version. What do you think? Laurent (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your interpretation is unjustified. Firstly the toolbar and those other things you mention are only included in the Installer (.exe) version of the program, the .zip version does not have them, and in any case they can ALL be disabled in the setup. Admittedly Foxit promote the installer version (maybe because it is seen as best for users who cannot fathom out how to extract a single file from a zip archive...) and you have to hunt for the .zip on their download pages, and I have already moaned at them for that. The extra features which come with the pro versions are taking the program beyond a reader, ie into an editor, and as such watermarks etc are added, just the same as is done in many other free programs including PDFXchange. This is not unreasonable. Crippleware can hardly be used for a program which does exactly what is expected of a PDF READER, ie read PDF files, and that is what I use it for every day. Even the advertisement in the right hand side can be permanently disabled in the current versions. I have edited you last changes to correct these errors. Dsergeant (talk) 06:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Having read your latest changes, although it reads a little better and there is probably a bit of truth in your allegations, I feel it is somewhat excessive and wrongly placed in the article. It seems to give a strong indication that people should steer clear of Foxit whereas it is now widely used and a very popular and capable PDFReader. The comments may be considered by some as significantly POV and not appropriate in an encyclopedia. However I will leave them for now and maybe somebody else can interpret the situation. Dsergeant (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freeware? 

message: Two conflicting categorisations in the article:
# "Operating system: Microsoft Windows,Linux" (infobox)
# "Categories: Windows-only software"
80.177.58.134 (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Platform? 

message: While many of their products have native 64-bit versions, their reader does not.  The line, "Foxit Reader v3.x is available for 32-bit and 64-bit Microsoft Windows 2000 through 7," is therefore misleading, even if it is compatible with 64-bit systems. --417 「話」 14:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  64 bits of disappointment 

message: LOL! I laughed, thought about changing it, and decided to post here instead. "Debian based systems like Ubuntu", thats hilarious. How about "Debian". It's shorter. --108.132.169.195 (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to "Debian and Debian-based distributions (e.g. Ubuntu, LMDE)", keeping focus on Debian and mentioning Ubuntu and LinuxMint Debian Edition, two of the most "popular" Debian-based distros.--Tatann (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debian based systems like Ubuntu 

message: The article states that a new Linux version is under development (v1.2), but the current version is still 1.1 (released in 2009) and in reply to an email enquiry, Foxit replied as follows:
 
Thanks for your using our Free Linux Reader and your feedback. Unfortunately, due to human resources limited, we have stopped maintaining Reader for Linux. But we are developing windows-less frame Reader that can run across platforms. That will be a substitute version of current one.
So, I am tempted to remove the sentence:
Foxit Corporation stated that it will be improving the GNU/Linux version with more functions and release a new development plan of Foxit Reader v1.2 for Desktop GNU/Linux in December, 2009.
(In any case, the link no longer works ... the referenced release is apparently no longer published on the Foxit website.) Presumably, Foxit has backtracked and now the Linux version appears to have become abandonware. Instead they now plan to release a "windowless frame Reader" ... maybe that is browser based?
Enquire (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linux version 

message: Might it be worth listing the download sizes for each individual OS? I say this as a major reason people would use this kind of software over other pdf readers is on the basis of a GUI which is not as weighty as other readers. (Not to imply that this is lightweight) --Bolkonsk (talk) 08:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size figures 

message: I'm pretty sure Foxit headquarters is a Chinese company. Both the CEO and president are China nationals, the latter is a former Chinese government astronomer. The app reporting usage back to Foxit was provided by Apple. It was not regarded as a threat, but it did not comply with the user's request for privacy.203.221.247.51 (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  California based? 

message: Actual version of installer for Windows (FoxitReader831_L10N_Setup_Prom.exe) detected by Rising Antivirus (on VirusTotal.com) as comtaining Ransom.WanaCrypt!1.AAEB (cloud:FThkqRTRVPU). 193.233.70.48 (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues 

message: The current page has an "Issues" section that criticizes the software using citations #12-16. These citations are:
::(12) Wilders Security Forum (a forum)
::(13) How to Geek (a Facebook group)
::(14) Foxit.com user forums (a forum)
::(15) InfoSec Handlers Diary Blog (a personal blog)
::(16) Foxit.com Version History (a primary source)
I would like to ask that the section be removed per Wikipedia's rules for reliable secondary sources. Additionally, I'd like to ask that the second sentence be changed from "Fuzhou, China-based" to "U.S.-based" as the company's global headquarters is in Fremont, California. Fuzhou, China is where the regional headquarters is. Alisafetic (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the links to the discussion forums per WP:RS. If the information remains unsourced for some time, it may be removed. I didn't remove the link to InfoSec, as it's not really a personal blog, and there is nothing wrong with the primary source (foxitsoftware.com), which is just used as a confirmation of an objective fact (in general, primary sources can be used on Wikipedia for factual information about the subject of the article, as long as they're not self-serving). So there is no need to remove the whole section.—J. M. (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks . It looks like I should wait at least a month to see if anyone responds to the citation needed tag. However, for citation 13 to FoxIt.com itself, even if the citation is ok, does it belong under a section called "issues"? That seems like Wikipedia is adding editorialized commentary/analysis not supported by the citation. Alisafetic (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right about the Issues section. I moved the sentence to the intro, as this is actually neutral information, not necessarily an "issue".—J. M. (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested Edits  

message: I would like to ask for removal of the “Issues” section, because it does not contain any content properly cited to reliable, secondary sources:
* The first paragraph has no references
* The second paragraph is cited to a personal blog
* The third paragraph is cited to a forum on the FoxIt website and source code on Github.
Some of the content was marked “citation needed” 4+ months ago and nobody has produced any citations. Alisafetic (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I added citations for the first paragraph. As I said earlier, the source for the second paragraph is not a personal blog, even if it says "blog" in its title. As for the third paragraph, I can't see a big problem with the sources. Even though Wikipedia should not normally link to internet discussion forums because they're usually anonymous, this forum thread actually contains official statements from the Foxit team, so it should be acceptable. And the GitHub source is not used for information about Foxit, but just as a confirmation about the fact that there is a third-party solution.—J. M. (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This edit request has been answered, so I am closing the request. Z1720 (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested Edits