Gothi[c]: it actually is safer - while it was affected by the JBIG2 issue (used same rerefrence library, I betcha) the crash wasn't code-executable exploitable as with Adobe. You could call this "by obscurity" if you insist, but nobody has shown that FR is exploitable through this bug, afaik. And for basically all the other AR exploits, Foxit hasn't been vulnerable - that would would simply be because of less bugs.
Yes, I call that obscurity
The only reason nobody has shown foxit isn't vulnerable is because it's not as big a target as acrobat, not because the software is not exploitable.
That said, I would have to agree that adobe has indeed shown incompetence with their slow response times etc.
I can't say they practice bad coding habits (though it may be likely) since the software is closed source. It's not because a piece of software has many heap overflows, that the developers are incompetent. All complex software has those. What is incompetent is their slow patch time and unresponsiveness, but whether or not that is to blame on the coding team or internal politics/management is a different issue.
I don't know what's going on there, and as it's closed source, I can't judge the quality of it, and definitively not the people that have been writing it.
Foxit may have less bugs because it's less bloated and simpler. Which is only natural. I'm not bashing foxit here. I'm just trying to point out the fact that when people say less used application x is more secure because it has less discovered bugs/vulnerabilities than popular application y, they are advocating obscurity, not security, and the fact that the vulnerability is present in both applications is a good reminder of that.