Slashdot Mirror
Dreamweaver MX, Flash MX With CrossOver Office
AstroDrabb writes "It seems that CodeWeavers' CrossOver Office 2.1 now supports Dreamweaver MX and Flash MX. So for those who have been waiting to ditch MS Windows because of these two apps, now is your chance. The announcement from CodeWeavers can be found here
and the changelog can be found here.
The list of supported applications is also getting pretty impressive."
but if they've been holding out for Dreamweaver and Flash before defection, what happens if the other side doesn't want them and their bloated, annoying web pages?
Remember to have an open mind !
:
Try others applications, try many applications ! Never say "I wan THIS application" or you will maybe loose a better apps.
I you want to run Outlook, Internet Explorer and MS office, I don't see why you would switch to another OS ! !
There' two kind of people
- people that want to STAY ! Those people are static. They think that it can be worse. They just follow others people...
- people that want more. They think that it can be better. Those people always look for the best.. Those people SEARCH !
So, if you want to search for better thing, say "I want to switch to another OS than Windows but I cannot since I use this and this software". Maybe someone know an answer or mayber someone will work on it.
If you want to stay, please don't post to say it, it's your choice, not the choice of people who are using tools like crossover office.
Ploum.net.
Some smaller developers may well take up the older versions under linux - certainly there could be benefits for testing on a local machine that's already running Apache, PHP & mysql, but bigger developers will want latest releases to stay up to date in the marketplace.
Mostly people who commission corporate websites are impressed by aesthetics, and are not informed enough by the designers of what is functionally possible, to increase the companies trade. You're right it is lame but it's lameness on the side of the designers, because rather than design a site that is functional, quickly loaded and informative, they go the way of bells and whistles because they think it 'looks good'.
Our free and open GNU/*nix world is really missing some kind of Dreamweaver. As a Web developer I have not found something similiar in the free software and open source world. As the Dreamweaver/HomeSite/TopStyle pack is the one and only, there is still this big gap in the free software world. I would really appreciate a free software alternative before using any emulation.
Please developers of free and open software here is a great work to do for your fellow hackers!
I think this argument is rather academic. Being able to use popular apps in Linux is undoubtably good, however the "bad" arguments rely on two flawed assumptions:
1) Macromedia might one day do a native port. Not going to happen anytime soon guys. Dreamweaver is a huge app, and I'd be willing to bet that (as with most apps) the majority of the code is platform specific GUI and graphics calls. It would take a truly astonishing amount of manpower to port it to say GTK+, make it fully integrate and so on, and it just isn't economically viable while Linux has only 1% of the desktop market. Even if we had 5% or 10% we'd still be pushing our luck - a port in this sense often means a rewrite.
2) That we'd have an open source dreamweaver killer anytime soon. Quanta is about the only thing that comes close, and while a great effort, is not a Dreamweaver killer. It might be one day, but that's yet another long term dream.
Basically, the best way out of a bad situation here is via emulation, which is exactly what we're doing.
It's very different. I suggest you try their trial version and see. For starters, you get practically 100% performance, there is no slowdown due to emulating a CPU or holding an entire copy of Windows in memory. Secondly, you get much better integration - apps appear in your Linux menu system, they use your native window manager (so they support virtual desktops etc), you can copy and paste between native and emulated apps ... the list goes on and on.
You only pointed out hardware, and we're talking about software here. RTFA.
I guess you can defend mac vs. pc hardware debates and almost always win on price, but when you're talking about the OS and software, that's a whole different ballgame.
If you, on the other hand, are having problems with Windows, or find that it "kind of works", but would love to find something better, you should be more open-minded and realize that you probably won't be able to use all your apps on the new OS. And why should you? It is good for you to try out alternatives to the applications you are currently using if they do not suit your needs. But if they do, feel free to stick with them. Whatever suits your need.
CrossOver tries to run Windows software under Linux, which is probably useful for those who really want Linux but also would like to run certain Windows applications. Nothing wrong about that of course, as the Linux environment is quite different from Windows.
But in the end, is it really necessary to post trollish remarks like yours? I cannot see how it could possibly be useful. Then again, looking at your posting history, the comment does not surprise me :)
Clever signature text goes here.
What is the earthly point of a bank having a web site? There are only two reasons I ever set foot anywhere near a bank.
- To pay in a cheque through the hole-in-the-wall.
- To draw out some cash from the hole-in-the-wall.
Unless someone has come up with a new killer application that lets me scan a cheque at home and pay it into my account, or print pound notes on my own printer {actually, I have done the very next best thing, but that's another story}, I have absolutely no use for internet banking.
You're kidding, right? Either you're trolling or your bank is still in the stone ages. I pay all my bills online from my bank's website. That's phone, internet, health, credit cards, insurance, etc. Bill comes in the mail, I go online and pay it. I can also schedule payments in advance so that they're made exactly on the due date, or schedule automatic monthly/weekly/whatever payments. I also transfer amounts between accounts (personal and business) online as well. I can pay other people online at no cost, if they are using the same bank as I do.
The earthly point is that I hardly ever set foot near a bank these days, and that's on the odd occasion that I need to deposit a che[ck/que] or money order myself, rather than having it direct deposited. If your bank doesn't offer this, maybe you should look around for a new bank?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Just because it's a standard doesn't make it by definition not lame. The original SGML spec - and remember, HTML is a special case of SGML - actually called for upper and lower case to be treated the same. So my guess is that browsers will have to continue to support capitalised tags for a long while to come - and failing that, someone will come up with an Apache module to get the server to lowercase tags on-the-fly. Beside which, there simply is no reason why <li> and <LI> should be treated differently. The tags are first and foremost a mnemonic for humans {otherwise they would be like \x1b[1m and \x1b[m}, who have a rather different kind of case-sensitivity than machines ..... we can spot a capital letter amongst lower case letters very quickly, not by its ASCII code but by its size.
XML is primarily a standard for document interchange formats, and would normally be written by machines. Case sensitivity was just something that happened incidentally and wasn't felt to be worth fixing. HTML was meant to be written by humans. I can't think of a single good reason for breaking the spec the way they are trying to do.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
You are missing a very significant point. Tools like Crossover are an ideal co-existence/migration strategy. You expect FAR too much of the masses to simply dump Win and MSOffice etc. all in one step. I ran Excel and Powerpoint under Crossover for less than a year and haven't touched them since. They're no longer even installed, but I could not have made the jump without this co-existence/migration platform.
Mabye they're "breaking the spec" to extend the capabilities of webpages. How many times has a spec been broken across versions of a file format or a protocol, especially one with such a wide audience like HTML?
HTML needs to change because it doesn't fit with what has changed since its inception. This isn't change for change sake, its trying to make something clunky into something more useful than it was originally inteded to be.
When it comes to browsers, the same users are actually thrilled to get away from MSIE's very basic user interface once they get to know it - in my experience. The user doesn't just care about web sites. You see, the user experiences a number of annoyances on the web, and finding out that other browsers can get rid of these annoyances is a huge plus! What good is a web page which works as it should if you get bombarded with ActiveX installation requests, popup ads and similar?
In the Real World, it does not matter which system you set the newbie to use, as he or she can use anything. You just need to tell them what to click to get what they want.
The problem with Linux vs. Windows is basically the intermediate user which is, say, used to Windows and expect Linux to behave the same. This intermediate user doesn't just click an icon to run a program - he installs new programs and knows a little about how the system works. And so, he's stuck with one system because other operating systems are so different from what he's used to.
I'm one of the people who are used to Windows and stick with it because it gets the job done. And it gets the job done because I'm used to it.
On the other hand, I've found superior alternatives to Microsoft's offerings when it comes to browsing, e-mail, newsgroups, and so on. The OS is just used to organize my files and launch the software I use every day, as you say. I have lots of minor and not so minor problems with Windows, such as problems with Explorer.exe crashing in Windows XP (something I've heard is not exactly uncommon, judging by other people's comments).
I'm a Linux user as well, but it's more because of curiosity than anything else. I use Windows as my primary OS. It's been like this for a few years now.
Would I switch to Linux full time if I got my favorite apps working under Linux? Probably not. I'm just so used to how Windows handles things, and I simply do not have the time to "master" a new OS (Mac is out of the question for me). For one, Linux is developing rapidly, and I am worried that I would be spending a lot of time configuring things again and again. Also, I am a gamer, and as a gamer, Windows is really the only choice for now.
But I don't go around posting trollish comments like the one by Sir Haxalot here...
Clever signature text goes here.
The open source equivalent to dreamweaver is: a text editor (vi, emacs etc) the w3c recommendations for xhtml, css, dom level 1 Many professional web developers and designers choose not to use an application like dreamweaver because their knowledge is such that they can work faster and more precisely with a simple text editor.
I use my Gentoo Linux partition for just about everythnig, but have to reboot to windows when I need to get some work done and work with Macromedia Studio 2004. I know I'm not the only one who has repeatedly e-mailed and faxed and called Macromedia about Linux versions of their programs. I'd buy them in a heartbeat, and I know I'm not the only one.
Now that the MX versions of Flash and Dreamweaver can be run on Linux what incentive does Macromedia have for porting Stuio 2004 to Linux? While I compliment the Wine and Codeweavers teams in their effort, I wonder even how possible it will be to continue the progress they have started. MX 2004 comes everyone's favorite "feature," activation which will be a big hurdle for the Wine/Codeweavers team. They will either have to re-enginer the activation code (Hello DMCA) or work around it which will may further incite Macromedia reducing the chances it will get ported.
P.S. if we are going to have to go the compatability route, wouldn't it be easier/better to create a compatibility layer with OS X? This would open not only the Macromedia apps, but also the Adobe apps.
Introducing Microsoft Vacuum 1.0 The first Microsoft product that doesn't suck.
You really expect linux people to pay $400-$900 for a piece of software? Free as in beer, remember!
;-) And linux people are used to paying *nothing* (as a rule) already.
Though the mac might only have 5% of the market, the mac people are used to paying high prices for everything already
Yet another reason that it would be (from a business standpoint) an extremely bad idea to port to linux, and another reason why it's not likely to happen for a while...
And I believe Adobe quit making Photoshop for Unix for these same reasons...
You're not "breaking the spec" if you're writing the spec. I'm certain HTML broke more of SGML's rules than XML does. Difference is that they're not children of the SGML spec, they're derivatives. As such, they're not confined to the limits of the SGML spec, they just take the basic idea and modify it to fit a new need.
The single good reason for "breaking the spec the way they are trying to" is that XHTML is meant to be BOTH readable and writable for humans, with little trouble, and readable and writable for machines, with little trouble. XML is a commmunications format, not a presentation format. XHTML is an XML parsable presentation format. It's a web page that, with some work, could be broken down by a program and presented some other way, or communicated to another program. The idea is that anyone can write an XML reading/writing program. HTML 4.01, though more strict than previous versions, still had far too many exceptions and special cases that programs would have to be written to allow. XHTML makes parsing an actual web page much easier. Try it some time.