Slashdot Mirror

I saw a few posts about concerns over using FTP for sharing files. I completely agree with those people. FTP is far too in-secure. I would rather use scp or sftp. But we use a better solution. We have WebDAV server with https:// (secured http) and LDAP authentication. The user just copies the files to a WebDAV location, using WebFolders and send the URL in the email. I also developed a application to keep track of who is accessing files etc. All this using Apache - not a single cent to buy any file sharing application. For more info: http://www.webdav.org or http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Apache-WebDAV-LDAP-HOWTO / BTW all 3 major OSes (Linux, MacOS X, Windows) now support WebDAV natively

I should learn to preview. That's http://www.webdav.org

The scenario gets even better as Subversion moves forward.

Honestly? Try WebDAV over SSL. Under recent versions of Windows (since win98se?) this is known as Web Folders. Unfortunately I don't know if it associates an actual legacy DOS drive letter to it but for all intents and purposes it looks like any other drive share to the user. Mac users are familiar with this technology since I believe the iDisk is based around it. Anyway, for more info go to the WebDAV page. We've been working with it in the lab testing interoperability and it seems to work nicely. Apache supports it well through a module. The alternative as other users have suggested is to establish an IPSEC tunnel to the server and use NetBIOS over that but it's probably more complex than you want to deal with. Putty (windows ssh client) also has some nice GUI frontends linked from their web page that use scp but hide all the complex bits from the user. Search for Putty on google and it should be the first result.

And I guess if you're on the 'other side of the fence', you want to check out the WebDAV protocol.

For god's sake, DON'T go try and invent your own! We'll all end up with another KDE/Gnome/.

When most people say web-based they mean browser based.
So, what does the WebDAV front page say? Go look, and asnwer.

If you actually meant http-based,
I meant what WebDAV means when they say web-based, no more no less.

As portrayed by web services, people don't care what protocol is used. (Unless they are network admins) People care that something works. Web Services work for distributing objects and WebDAV works for CMS. It may not be the best thing, but it is here today.

The end-user doesn't care, mostly because they just don't know. However, I am talking about the people that set it up, and are admining CMS repositories because they decide what gets used. There are many things you cannot get when using HTTP extensions, regardless of how clever your system is. A constant connection to the CMS system would be invaluable to certain people, especially enterprises who want to have a dedicated terminal to the CMS system. If you are going to go with single-session (or small-time keep alive) why not use SOAP?

Have you actually ever administrated a CMS system, or wrote one, or even contributed a few lines of code to one? Or are you just disagreeing because you want to show that you think Web Services can be a Good Thing?

Why can't WebDAV be the standard? From what I have seen WebDAV has a lot of the needed functionaility for a CMS. Jakarta Slide (Open Source Java CMS) is implementing WebDAV as their foundation.

Apple promised WebDAV over SSL in Jaguar, but didn't deliver as far as I can tell. I'm stuck dragging stuff back and forth to Goliath instead of being able to edit it directly in Emacs, and I can't use my secure WebDAV server to share my iCal with only my friends rather than everybody. This is terrifically irritating.

does anyone know a webdav server for free ?

Yeah, there's an obscure one that you probably haven't heard of.

I would like to point out that the iCalendar spec most certainly does provide the necessary transport bindings to match all the functionality of Exchange group calendaring. Beyond rfc2445 -- the base iCal object spec -- you will quickly find rfc2446 and rfc2447, the iTIP (iCalendar Transport-Independent Interoperability Protocol) specification for "Scheduling Events, BusyTime, To-dos and Journal Entries," and its email-transport binding, iMIP (iCalendar Message-Based Interoperability Protocol), respectively.

Together, these protocols provide all of the communications functionality necessary to implement all of Exchange's non-pure-messaging features -- email meeting, rescheduling, and relocation requests, etc., etc. All that remains is a central store for the distributed calendar, itself, and Apple's confusingly-named iCal product uses a clever solution to this: using WebDAV as a central store supporting distributed editing.

Further, through simple offline folders support, such a solution can quite easily provide offline operation atop a small set of existing and well-established, straightforward and powerful standards.

Perhaps someone should look into building an just such a solution as an OSS project. The simple metaphor for the WebDAV store is simply that each directory represents a Calendar, and is populated with iCal files. This exported interface could just as easily be backed by a database as by a filesystem, using further OSS like Catacomb, and such a system could similarly offer integrated shared file storage, all running through Apache atop either a conventional filesystem or a relational database, and exported through a simple, well-understood, and well-supported filesystem abstraction (WebDAV).

-JRK

Full Disclosure of their APIs: Done

Ensure that .NET runs on UNIX: Done and Done

Windows network protocols should be well documented in such a way that other companies can write software that interfaces with Windows clients (like SAMBA) and Windows servers (like Ximian Connector): Done

[Leave it to MS to never miss an opportunity to turn a great concept on its head to leverage the rest of their product line:) The folks at MS who actually implemented the web access feature in Project must have had the breath knocked out of them at the "IE specialization".]

Nevertheless, the concept of web based project management is still a really good one. Not only for read-access to view what's going on, but also to help formulate project plans.

I prefer to spend my time programming, but have had brushes with project planning exercises and noted the dearth of good open source alternatives to MS Project (which, practically, seems to require some training in order to learn the quirks of how to use it.)

The most intriguing development I've seen is out of the Horde Project (a PHP framework for web applications).

They mention something called Nag that came out 1.0 on June 11 of this year, but I don't know what it's really like.

But I can see where having an XML database for projects that is accessed via PHP would be a good thing. That, and having some SVG enabled browsers (and server code) to create and view Gantt charts on the fly.

Since I'm throwing buzzwords and wishlists about, I may as well suggest that WebDAV would be a great part of such a tool because it would offer a good means for collaborative authoring of project plans, which is really how the best ones get done. (The worst ones are guesses and dictats that make everyone mad.)

As it says right on the front page, Subversion uses WebDAV as its transport protocol. As webdav is based on HTTP 1.1 you get all the benefits of HTTP, like for example SSL encryption.

For me, all the hype and PR have tended to obscure what's really in .NET. Also, many of the language interfaces to it (VB, ASP, C#) do not have open source implementations. (Maybe Miguel de Icaza will be done soon:)

That said, there are probably some really good sound technical ideas hidden in .NET after the surrounding marketing has been washed away.

Subversion lets you use different low level layers for actually storing files, pluggin things through an API.

That great idea is compounded by their objective of using WebDAV as a lower level layer.

I like the idea of having an XML description of actions that need to be taken for a version control system. Perhaps .NET has some good ways for doing this, but I'm fearful of a simple open source tool acquiring too much bloated overhead (much in way that SOAP bloats XML-RPC) that could slow it down and make it dependent on more network activity than is always necessary.

Just use WebDAV with SSL and the right authentication mechanism. There's a WebDAV client for many OSes (Linux, BSD, MacOS, Windows, . . .) and most OSes have it bundled with the stock installation - no messing around trying to purchase and distribute additional software.

WebDAV, along with SSL, are even a standard part of Apache 2.0 as mod_dav and mod_ssl, respectively.

If you need a remote shell then it's SSH all the way, if you only need something for remote file manipulation for the unwashed masses then go with a WebDAV solution today! It's an (augmented) HTTP protocol which means you don't have to fiddle with firewalls.

I'd say what you need is an internet-enabled file system. Some might say NFS, and that seems like a fine solution.

On the other hand, if you have a computer that is always on, that can run Apache, you can have your own personal WebDAV server instead. Simply install mod_dav, and access it through mod_ssl, and have a secure web-based filesystem.

Better than NFS, you can mount it on Windows (through web folders), Linux (through davfs) and Mac OSX (through the native DAV file system client that is designed to run with iDisk).

NOTE: I work for Xythos software, and we make an enterprise-level WebDAV server called the Xythos WebFile Server. It's significantly more expensive than free, and we run in-house copies of the product (y'know eat your own dogfood), so that's where I keep my shared data, but if I didn't, I'd have mod_dav running right now.

Not true! The DeltaV specification, "Versioning Extensions to WebDAV" was published as RFC 3253 (Standards Track), in March, 2002.

This specification provides versioning, configuration management, workspaces, and logical change tracking capabilities.

First out the door with an implementation is the Subversion project, which is developing an Open Source replacement for CVS.

While we're at it, two other WebDAV specifications nearing completion are:
WebDAV Access Control Protocol
DAV Searching and Locating Protocol

I use a command line client with the horrible name cadaver. Cadaver can run WebDAV over SSL (https) for secure remote operation.

Cadaver is a part of Redhat (at least on 7.3), runs on MAC OS X, and a cygwin port is available for Windows.

HTTP = web
HTTP = webdav
HTTP = SOAP too.

You might want to consider whether WebDAV is a key standard for your needs.

The WebDAV extensions to HTTP 1.1 provide a way for remote authors to manipulate files and collections, and an extensible set of file properties; and addresses issues such as locking.

A related standard provides for versioning: RFC 3253

As such, WebDAV and its associated standards effectively standardise what the various CMS and DMS vendors provide proprietary interfaces for.

The standard is now widely implemented - see www.webdav.org - both in operating systems, and particular clients and servers (although not yet in most of the aforementioned CMS/DMS). For an open source Java implementation of client and server, I use Apache Jakarta-Slide.

It is and will continue to be fascinating to watch how the incumbent CMS/DMS vendors react as their market gets commoditised.

It uses WebDAV
A free and open mechanism that enables HTTP servers to allow clients to colaborativly modify a file.

What is WebDAV? Briefly: WebDAV stands for "Web-based Distributed Authoring and Versioning". It is a set of extensions to the HTTP protocol which allows users to collaboratively edit and manage files on remote web servers.

Since Exchange and Outlook 2000 are using WebDAV as their communications protocol, Ximian Connector is actually a WebDAV client.

I saw Greg Stein's WebDAV presentation in the Open Source CMS Conference. It seems that a lot of companies are actually switching for WebDAV as their primary communications protocol. Greg mentioned at least Adobe, Apple, Microsoft and Oracle. Good for interoperability.

/Bergie

Plus, as a side affect, it uses port 80 so it gets through most firewalls (don't bitch about this, it's HTTP, it makes sense - it's not just trying to be clever). You may need to upgrade Squid to 2.3 though (or patch 2.2).

A missing piece in the acticle is the importance of Apache 2.0 for WebDAV. WebDAV is a HTTP-extension making the HTTP-server a real fileserver - Apache 2.0 comes with full WebDAV support. As WebDAV is quite flexible and allows stuff like meta-data, versioning and different authentication mechanisms (that are unfortunately not finalized yet) it is a possible successor for both NFS and SMB/Cifs.
WindowsXP supports the mounting of WebDAV shares, as does Linux with the help of the DAV filesystem driver. And Apache could be the standard fileserver... scary.

As far as I understood, the iPod connected to the Macintosh using a DAV connection, so it shouldn't matter what filesystem is used.

If we shared files more [..], it would be nice if we could [..] just drag and drop to various locations, rather than emailing

sounds like WebDAV is perfect for you. someone hosts an apache web server, sets up some file space, and creates a DAV virtualhost. you can even run it over SSL and manage user ACL's just like any other virtualhost. Then all your family members (assuming they run windows) create web folders pointing to the URL. There are no private home directories, though. Everyone has full access to all files and directories.

Try a webdav based solution. WebDAV allows you to interact with a WebDAV enabled server to manipulate files with support for locking via extensions to HTTP 1.1

Delta V adds version control to that.

There are webdav enabled DMSs starting to appear (inc eg MS Sharepoint); WebDAV and its related standards will become the standard API for interacting with a DMS.

While not yet fully featured DMS, there are good open source implementations of webDAV clients and servers; I use Slide - which works well with Tomcat 4.

Ok, maybe HTTP/1.1 isn't quite as good as you might want, but if you add in WebDAV, it becomes an incredible replacement for FTP. And CVS. And NFS...

WebDAV servers support (by default) Locking of files, Put of files, PropPatches of custom properties, PropFinds of those custom properties,Moves, Copies, and Delete. Plus Get, Put, Head, etc. that HTTP/1.1 provides.

Furthermore, there are standards defined for:

• Access Control Lists (so you can decide WHO has acess to WHICH of your files with a fine level of granularity).
• Versioning (AKA DeltaV) checking in/out, etc.
• Searching (AKA DASL) using XML-based grammars.

Furthermore, MANY clients support saving and locking of files over WebDAV. In particular:

Microsoft Web Folders uses a WebDAV server as a file system and ships with Win 98 +

Mac OSX has WebDAV support built into the File System

Several Open Source Developers are working on a quite-functional Linux WebDAV file system that you should check out.

Adobe Photoshop 6.0 does saving over WebDAV. So does Macromedia's Dreamweaver UltraDEV. So does Microsoft Office. Many others do as well.

Mozilla's Composer WILL HAVE WebDAV support (eventually, see bug #13383)

Wish to try it out? Got apache? A level 2 DAV server (sometimes) ships with Apache. It's called ModDAV, and it seems to be quite easy to setup.

Dav on

Then, in theory anyway, you instantly have the ability to PUT files there, LOCK them, etc.

Read more at The mod_dav page

-marick

P.S. Want more functionality?

Check out Sharemation for a free (5Meg) WebDAV account that has DeltaV, ACL, DASL support. (And yes, I work for Xythos Software, we host sharemation and sell the Web File Server it's based on.)

Or go check out Tigris' Subversion a highly capable free DeltaV enabled DAV server.

Ok, maybe HTTP/1.1 isn't quite as good as you might want, but if you add in WebDAV, it becomes an incredible replacement for FTP. And CVS. And NFS...

WebDAV servers support (by default) Locking of files, Put of files, PropPatches of custom properties, PropFinds of those custom properties,Moves, Copies, and Delete. Plus Get, Put, Head, etc. that HTTP/1.1 provides.

Furthermore, there are standards defined for:

• Access Control Lists (so you can decide WHO has acess to WHICH of your files with a fine level of granularity).
• Versioning (AKA DeltaV) checking in/out, etc.
• Searching (AKA DASL) using XML-based grammars.

Furthermore, MANY clients support saving and locking of files over WebDAV. In particular:

Microsoft Web Folders uses a WebDAV server as a file system and ships with Win 98 +

Mac OSX has WebDAV support built into the File System

Several Open Source Developers are working on a quite-functional Linux WebDAV file system that you should check out.

Adobe Photoshop 6.0 does saving over WebDAV. So does Macromedia's Dreamweaver UltraDEV. So does Microsoft Office. Many others do as well.

Mozilla's Composer WILL HAVE WebDAV support (eventually, see bug #13383)

Wish to try it out? Got apache? A level 2 DAV server (sometimes) ships with Apache. It's called ModDAV, and it seems to be quite easy to setup.

Dav on

Then, in theory anyway, you instantly have the ability to PUT files there, LOCK them, etc.

Read more at The mod_dav page

-marick

P.S. Want more functionality?

Check out Sharemation for a free (5Meg) WebDAV account that has DeltaV, ACL, DASL support. (And yes, I work for Xythos Software, we host sharemation and sell the Web File Server it's based on.)

Or go check out Tigris' Subversion a highly capable free DeltaV enabled DAV server.

webdav'll do this.

There is a set of extensions to HTTP designed for precisely this kind of file sharing.

The protocol is called WebDAV.
WebDAV, a set of extensions to HTTP provide the following additional things that are especially useful for file-sharing: locking, versioning, logging, access-control lists, and searching (yes, with different grammars, too), and it runs over HTTPS along with HTTP.

Most people don't realize it, but A TON of products((by such luminaries as Adobe, Macromedia, and Microsoft) support WebDAV (which is an extension of HTTP).

It was mentioned in the Halloween Document as a decommoditizing protocol.

Furthermore, there are plenty of open-source implementations of webDAV on both the client- and server-side including:
mod_dav (an apache module that makes it into a DAV-enabled server)

and
davfs (a module for linux that makes dav folders seem like normal directories) Check it all out! -Michael p.s. By the way, it runs over HTTPS as well as HTTP, so don't get scared. p.p.s. In the interests of full-disclosure, I work for Xythos Software and we make a robust, scalable WebDAV-enabled server.

There is a set of extensions to HTTP designed for precisely this kind of file sharing.

The protocol is called WebDAV.
WebDAV, a set of extensions to HTTP provide the following additional things that are especially useful for file-sharing: locking, versioning, logging, access-control lists, and searching (yes, with different grammars, too), and it runs over HTTPS along with HTTP.

Most people don't realize it, but A TON of products((by such luminaries as Adobe, Macromedia, and Microsoft) support WebDAV (which is an extension of HTTP).

It was mentioned in the Halloween Document as a decommoditizing protocol.

Furthermore, there are plenty of open-source implementations of webDAV on both the client- and server-side including:
mod_dav (an apache module that makes it into a DAV-enabled server)

and
davfs (a module for linux that makes dav folders seem like normal directories) Check it all out! -Michael p.s. By the way, it runs over HTTPS as well as HTTP, so don't get scared. p.p.s. In the interests of full-disclosure, I work for Xythos Software and we make a robust, scalable WebDAV-enabled server.

There is a set of extensions to HTTP designed for precisely this kind of file sharing.

The protocol is called WebDAV.
WebDAV, a set of extensions to HTTP provide the following additional things that are especially useful for file-sharing: locking, versioning, logging, access-control lists, and searching (yes, with different grammars, too), and it runs over HTTPS along with HTTP.

Most people don't realize it, but A TON of products((by such luminaries as Adobe, Macromedia, and Microsoft) support WebDAV (which is an extension of HTTP).

It was mentioned in the Halloween Document as a decommoditizing protocol.

Furthermore, there are plenty of open-source implementations of webDAV on both the client- and server-side including:
mod_dav (an apache module that makes it into a DAV-enabled server)

and
davfs (a module for linux that makes dav folders seem like normal directories) Check it all out! -Michael p.s. By the way, it runs over HTTPS as well as HTTP, so don't get scared. p.p.s. In the interests of full-disclosure, I work for Xythos Software and we make a robust, scalable WebDAV-enabled server.

There is a set of extensions to HTTP designed for precisely this kind of file sharing.

The protocol is called WebDAV.
WebDAV, a set of extensions to HTTP provide the following additional things that are especially useful for file-sharing: locking, versioning, logging, access-control lists, and searching (yes, with different grammars, too), and it runs over HTTPS along with HTTP.

Most people don't realize it, but A TON of products((by such luminaries as Adobe, Macromedia, and Microsoft) support WebDAV (which is an extension of HTTP).

It was mentioned in the Halloween Document as a decommoditizing protocol.

Furthermore, there are plenty of open-source implementations of webDAV on both the client- and server-side including:
mod_dav (an apache module that makes it into a DAV-enabled server)

and
davfs (a module for linux that makes dav folders seem like normal directories) Check it all out! -Michael p.s. By the way, it runs over HTTPS as well as HTTP, so don't get scared. p.p.s. In the interests of full-disclosure, I work for Xythos Software and we make a robust, scalable WebDAV-enabled server.

Check out WebDAV

Started off at M$...now it's trying to be standard.

It's implemented in SharePoint Portal Sever (SPS) formerly know as Tahoe.

It's pretty cool, actually...tries to find the compromise between a beefy versioning system and something that can be employed with HTTP headers and XML "messages."

As far as SPS is concerned...it can search many M$ documnets, like Word, Excel...prolly can search *.pdf docs as well.

But, alas...it's a M$ product...

The Nautilus install is similar to the Helix install and runns relatively smoothly (RH6.2)

RH7 is not yet supported. Total install is about 80Mb. It has support for online file space similar to WebDAV. Upload is earlier this evening was approx 128kb and integrates seemlessly into the file manager.

Overall interaction is not exactly zippy, however it does seem much more stable than the last incarnation.

Got sick of getting jammed by inconsistent floppies, so I installed mod_dav and mod_ssl into apache and "mount" the sucker using web folders for windows. If yah tried this, you could buy a box or two or four (HW/RAID 5, 4 CPU's, FC/AL, 2+ GB RAM, TEST IT FIRST!), (charge each student like 2-3$/meg of remote storage), that should be fully capable of handling the load (it would be prudent to check the scaling prior to purchase, but it shouldn't be too bad to verify the scalablility using a bit of perl to emulate a population of client file operations.)
You don't want students plugging their own drives into computers, or media into drives. They will break something.
mod_dav isn't very quick for file transfers (256 kB/sec), (dunno why, the cable modem I'm on isn't rev limited upstream yet..., maybe some funky locking semantics in mod_dav, haven't looked at it yet.)I also have slow as crap ide drives on my box.
The nice thing about this solution is that it is usable thru any firewalls which permit tcp outbound 80/443.

Can anyone tell me how this relates to WebDAV?

What about the WebDAV that has been development? see the IETF page or the webdav site, and let's not forget the Apache webdav module mod_dav.

Plus there is RFC 2518 for it -

http://andrew2.andrew.cmu.edu/rfc/rfc2518.html

While there may not be a 100% fit, there could be enough to invalidate this patent.

What about the WebDAV that has been development? see the IETF page or the webdav site, and let's not forget the Apache webdav module mod_dav.

Plus there is RFC 2518 for it -

http://andrew2.andrew.cmu.edu/rfc/rfc2518.html

While there may not be a 100% fit, there could be enough to invalidate this patent.

The real solution for the future is WebDAV (and being worked on by the W3C), which fully supports named servers and authentication, and is designed to replace FTP and the various ugly "web posting" systems out there, including the uploading aspects of FrontPage Extensions.

Notably WebDAV implementations include Zope and mod_dav for Apache.

The real solution for the future is WebDAV (and being worked on by the W3C), which fully supports named servers and authentication, and is designed to replace FTP and the various ugly "web posting" systems out there, including the uploading aspects of FrontPage Extensions.

Notably WebDAV implementations include Zope and mod_dav for Apache.

I wish there were more screenshots of the support for WebDAV; I'm very happy to see something like this built into Nautilus..!

Here's some Microsoft PR (Yes, I know, sorry), on the PUBLIC STANDARD, WebDAV. It's relevance to Free Software developers should be immediately apparent.

ISPs will also be initial adopters, since WebDAV provides a standard way to support authoring of Web pages by their customers. The big benefit for an ISP is the lower support cost that comes from not having to explain how to use FTP, and a shell account. Just hand out a password and a URL for an area where people can make their Web pages.

Once the versioning standard has been completed, I expect to see a lot of WebDAV support show up in software development tools. It has long been a goal of many development tools to better support geographically dispersed teams of developers. WebDAV is a standard which allows teams of developers, even ones which are using different sets of tools, to collaboratively develop software across the Internet.

IMHO, the Mac has had a lot of strong shareware development, but personally, the hastle of getting the $10 or $20 bucks per install isn't worth the effort of putting in nagware or timeout schemes - i'd rather put my time and effort into building better features than lock users out.

In my practical experience from being the principal on a MacOS open source project (http://www.webdav.org/goliath), I decided to use the GPL over other licenses (including LGPL) for the fact that it offers me and my code the best protection. The other side of the balance can include, however, adoption of your project/library. For example, there is only one WebDAV client library for MacOS (mine), and it is open source. Putting that under LGPL would put me and other open source developers at a disadvantage since any commercial software vendor (Apple included) could come down and basically incorporate the code into a commercial product and benefit at the cost of open source initiatives. In other cases (like the GNU GLibC), it may be beneficial to LGPL the source to gain acceptance/ubiquity.

My biggest challenge has been growing a community around my product, but I've been surprised at the number of places where links to the project have shown up (C-Net and Apple.com especially). I've also been lucky in that my project is part of a bigger, open standrad and cross platform community (being the associated WebDAV protocols).

The thing that would help me the most as a MacOS open source developer would be for Apple to open up their ADC seeding for a minimal cost to qualified open source developers (qualified being that you've at least shipped something and minimal cost being enough to cover CD-ROM pressing/shipping charges and adminstrative expenses). I hope that the development tools derived from the NeXTStep ProjectBuilder and InterfaceBuilder remain free and come with MacOSX; having GCC for mach-o binaries is going to be a boon as well. I love the MetroWerks environment, but for the $500 it costs, gdb/gcc and make work for me.

IMHO, the Mac has had a lot of strong shareware development, but personally, the hastle of getting the $10 or $20 bucks per install isn't worth the effort of putting in nagware or timeout schemes - i'd rather put my time and effort into building better features than lock users out.

In my practical experience from being the principal on a MacOS open source project (http://www.webdav.org/goliath), I decided to use the GPL over other licenses (including LGPL) for the fact that it offers me and my code the best protection. The other side of the balance can include, however, adoption of your project/library. For example, there is only one WebDAV client library for MacOS (mine), and it is open source. Putting that under LGPL would put me and other open source developers at a disadvantage since any commercial software vendor (Apple included) could come down and basically incorporate the code into a commercial product and benefit at the cost of open source initiatives. In other cases (like the GNU GLibC), it may be beneficial to LGPL the source to gain acceptance/ubiquity.

My biggest challenge has been growing a community around my product, but I've been surprised at the number of places where links to the project have shown up (C-Net and Apple.com especially). I've also been lucky in that my project is part of a bigger, open standrad and cross platform community (being the associated WebDAV protocols).

The thing that would help me the most as a MacOS open source developer would be for Apple to open up their ADC seeding for a minimal cost to qualified open source developers (qualified being that you've at least shipped something and minimal cost being enough to cover CD-ROM pressing/shipping charges and adminstrative expenses). I hope that the development tools derived from the NeXTStep ProjectBuilder and InterfaceBuilder remain free and come with MacOSX; having GCC for mach-o binaries is going to be a boon as well. I love the MetroWerks environment, but for the $500 it costs, gdb/gcc and make work for me.

XML, for one. IE5 also supports webDAV. Unfortunately, webDAV probably won't be Netscape 5.
--
Man is most nearly himself when he achieves the seriousness of a child at play.

First there is of course CVS from http://www.cyclic.com. CVS isn't just for source code you know. It provides all that's needed to do complete web site management between a number of webmasters at once. It keeps a copy of every revision of every file, giving you access to it in case you change something by mistake. Other control systems like Aegis and RCS are equally usable.

There are MS Frontpage Extentions from http://www.rtr.com for Apache. These automate common tasks such as access controls, simple CGI. Frontpage, even thought it is a Microsoft product, isn't that bad of a program. It provides a fairly good UI for WYSIWYG editing of web pages along with a file manager resembling Microsoft Explorer. Frontpage 2000 will also feature a way to directly access your web pages from Microsoft Explorer via Network Neighborhood... which is pretty cool.

There is WebDAV from http://www.webdav.org for Apache. WebDAV is the "standard" extensions for Apache for web site editing. All your favorite programs should be using it in the future including Frontpage 2000, Dreamweaver (unconfirmed.. but hinted at), etc. It is currently supported by IE5's little editor dealy as well as a few simple clients for Unix.

More and more webmasters are having to conceed to using a WYSIWYG editor, as well they should. Web standards today are not exactly the simple tags they used to be. You have CSS, XML, XSL, HTML 4 with their complex box algorithms and silly incompatibilities between web browsers which make WYSIWYG programs very attractive. WYSIWYG editors have their place, don't dismiss them simply because the common-folk use them as well.

Then again, don't abandon source editing altogether, nothing beats a text editor when you need a quick fix :)

--

WebDAV looks pretty cool, at least you can run it under SSL/https. I can't believe so many folks are still maintaining sites remotely with FTP. Can't believe there aren't more cracks b/c of plaintext admin & authoring access...

web-dav (web distributed authoring and versioning) is a good first place to check, i think with the appropriate apache module it supports in-place page locking and editing via msie 5. if your user community is semi literate, you might also look into cvs to manage web development, which is easier and more effective imho. HTH