Dreamweaver MX, Flash MX With CrossOver Office

Hooray! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-27 21:40 · Score: -1

I can finally use that illegal copy I got off Kazaa on my Linux system!

Re:Hooray! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-27 21:42 · Score: -1

Flash MX has always been available on Wine.
Re:Hooray! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-27 21:43 · Score: 0

I meant Dreamweaver, but I'll guess I can download Flash too.
Re:Hooray! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-27 21:56 · Score: 0

Ditto for Director and even Authorware. I guess this is just a press release for Macrom~1

Intertrolls by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-27 21:41 · Score: -1, Troll

I'll ditch windows by Sir+Haxalot · 2003-10-27 21:41 · Score: -1, Flamebait

So for those who have been waiting to ditch MS Windows because of these two apps, now is your chance
I'll ditch windows when someone comes up with an OS that supports ALL the applications and games I currently run, and is faster or has some other 'thing' that would be beneficial to me.

--
I have over 70 freaks, do you?

Re:I'll ditch windows by ideatrack · 2003-10-27 21:47 · Score: 5, Interesting

In all fairness, that's never going to happen.

Personally I'll be happy to move when there's a viable alternative for all the applications I run. Except there already are...so I guess I'm just idle.

Anyway the point is, or at least how I read your comment, that you aren't looking to ditch Windows because it suits your needs. I am, I just need the push. This could be it.
Re:I'll ditch windows by Ploum · 2003-10-27 21:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
Re:I'll ditch windows by StingRay02 · 2003-10-27 21:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

You'll be wanting to get a Mac, then. In all seriousness, you honestly believe that Windows serves you better? That not having to update your OS's security holes five times a week and constantly sorting out what e-mails are good and what are viruses doesn't count as a beneficial "thing"? What beneficial "thing" do you need?
Re:I'll ditch windows by Savage-Rabbit · 2003-10-27 22:20 · Score: 2, Informative

I'll ditch windows when someone comes up with an OS that supports ALL the applications and games I currently run, and is faster or has some other 'thing' that would be beneficial to me.

This did exactly that for me, of course the downside is that you have to shell out a thick wad of cash. These Wine ports are nice if you are doing relatively light-weight stuff but as soon as you are working on a major website or a 100mb+ sized Photoshop document with a few dozen layers it is crash city. I prefer native software any day which is why I bought a Mac. That having been said this sort of software will certainly help generate Linux converts since it will more than do the trick for most people.

--
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Re:I'll ditch windows by ocelotbob · 2003-10-27 22:27 · Score: 1

Uh, the ability to have a fast machine that's several hundred dollars less expensive perhaps? The ability to purchase hardware from more than one vendor? Companies that believe in a little something called backward compatibility? Cheaper OS upgrades? Lemme know when you can upgrade a Mac to a 64 bit processor for under $1000 and we'll talk.

--
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
Re:I'll ditch windows by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-27 22:29 · Score: -1, Offtopic

free blowjobs! (or cunnilingus where appropriate)
Re:I'll ditch windows by Afrosheen · 2003-10-27 22:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
Re:I'll ditch windows by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-27 22:48 · Score: -1

While reading that, imagine it in the voice of a crazed, foreign mad scientist. The rampant spelling errors merely add to the ambience of madness.
Re:I'll ditch windows by ocelotbob · 2003-10-27 22:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

I dunno, but having a built-in Caching nameserver seems pretty useful to me. Makes web browsing faster, more convenient. One click install seems to be pretty much a linux only sort of thing, too. More directly related to the speed issue, the ability to compile everything from source means that you can do a shitload of optimizations to your system, and it'll probably run a lot faster. Plus, if you have a lot of network shares, Samba is faster, and a helluva lot nicer than windows for SMB shares. Plus, Linux has a Far nicer looking, more powerful windowing system than windows, to boot.

--
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
Re:I'll ditch windows by ocelotbob · 2003-10-27 23:09 · Score: 1

Okay, we'll start out with customization. On even a windows box, the development team was smart and humble enough to realize that not everyone likes the defaults. Thus, they built in customization applets right into the operating system, so that someone who doesn't like the default color scheme can change it quickly and easily. Contrast that with Apple, whose take on the whole matter is "we'll shove candy colored crap and brushed metal down your throat and you'll like it", forcing one to obtain third party apps, or hand-edit the files dealing with color schemes, to get the system looking somewhat decent.
Also, take the menubar at the top of the screen. Sorry, but it sucks. I'd much rather have one menubar per app window; it doesn't take up much more room, and you're always certain which app's menu you're going into. At least the windows start menu is customizable as to the position, and hides itself.
I can go on and on here. Apple's about "think differently, as long as it's what we want you to think". The PC is much more open to tinkering, which leads to a much nicer experience. Sure, it's got some rough edges, but at the same time, the end result is a system that feels more like "mine" than a mac ever could.

--
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
Re:I'll ditch windows by hkmwbz · 2003-10-27 23:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

You are obviously not one of the people who are waiting to ditch Windows, so I don't understand why you posted this comment. If you expect some other operating system to magically run Windows apps and behave just like Windows "and then some", you might as well go with Windows itself and maybe add some extensions/enhancements. There are plenty of tools out there that add new capabilities, both integrated into Explorer and other parts of Windows, and as separate applications.
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.
Re:I'll ditch windows by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-27 23:21 · Score: -1

You're an IDIOT !
Re:I'll ditch windows by bhtooefr · 2003-10-27 23:33 · Score: 1

But, since Mac OS X ONLY runs on Apple proprietary hardware, that means that anything wrong with the HW brings the OS's value down, too.
Re:I'll ditch windows by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-27 23:52 · Score: -1, Troll

Fuckin faggy macintoss luser! windows has all those programs and runs them faster.. and all the cool people run windows anyway
Re:I'll ditch windows by TrancePhreak · 2003-10-28 00:04 · Score: 1

He said games... But yeah, the Mac does have that game with the Apple logo....

--

-]Phreak Out[-
Re:I'll ditch windows by thenextpresident · 2003-10-28 00:10 · Score: 1

So basically, you won't use Linux until Linux supports all the viruses Windows gets?

--
Jason Lotito
Re:I'll ditch windows by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 00:13 · Score: -1, Flamebait

...or has some other 'thing' that would be beneficial to me.

Oh, that would be my cock in your mouth pumping quarts of jizz down your fucking faggy sir suxalotocock throat. Aren't you dead yet you AIDS-ridden homo? With all the cheap anal karma you try to whore for yourself on this site you must have every oral STD in the book.
Re:I'll ditch windows by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 00:32 · Score: 0

The Mac menu-bar bugs the hell out of me too. I also hate the lack of a 'background' for each app. There's nothing worse than maximizing an app and still seeing other apps behind it. Then if you accidentally click off the app onto the background, the menubar is now Finder's. So much for the often touted Mac usability. Don't get me started on the Dock.
Re:I'll ditch windows by Moraelin · 2003-10-28 00:47 · Score: 5, Interesting

Actually, if I had any mod points left, I'd mod him up.

Why? Because sometimes it's necessary that someone comes and rains on one's parade, just to remind one that reality is that-a-way. Otherwise, if all posts are along the lines of "woohoo, now we emulate Mini-Notepad-Lite v0.01, so Linux is ready for the desktop", some people might actually start believing it.

The reality, however, is more complex than that.

For the vast majority of people, an OS is just a funky loader for the applications they need. The _only_ reason to have an OS at all, or to have a computer at all, is to run those apps. That's all.

Real users (including corporate users) are really never Windows fans or Linux fans. They just have needs along the lines of "but I need a spreadsheet which can run all those macros and stylesheets we already have". (Something where, incidentally, OpenOffice fails miserably.) Or "but I need something which still runs all those ActiveX and Flash games on the MSN site." Or whatever.

Having Windows or Linux or OS/2 or even SCO Unix on their machine is _not_ their goal. Being able to keep hanging around with their buddies in EverQuest or with their ActiveX Backgammon buddies on Microsoft's site, on the other hand, might just be.

Normal users also don't like to learn new stuff or experiment. "Change" almost means "trauma" for the normal user. You have to give them a damn good reason to go through it. "You sorta can run some of your old apps" isn't even starting to cut it. They can run their apps without switching, too. Now if you gave them a killer app that they _can't_ run without switching, _that_ might count.

The normal user sees no thrill in experimenting. They don't want to try a car with the pedals in completely different position every week, and sometimes with a joystick or gamepad instead of a steering wheel. Same here. Ideally they'll want to learn once where the buttons are, and then find them in the exact same position in every single app, from now until doomsday.

I.e., again, you have to give them a damn good reason to switch to another OS.

Incidentally, it's another reason why Linux is still utterly unfit for Joe Average's desktop. Each app coming with a different set of widgets, and its own completely original interface, is _not_ what Joe Average wants. You can talk about the greatness of the Bazaar model and the advantages of free experimenting with new ideas all you want, for normal users all that's just unneeded stress. But that's a whole other topic.

Incidentally, the same applies to the browser flame wars. Same as Joe Average doesn't really care about the OS, only about the apps, he also doesn't care about the browser. He cares about the web sites. The browser is just a window to see the web through. It's just a tool, like his TV. And just like his TV, he'll not switch to another one, as long as the old one works reasonably well. But that's again another topic.

Basically all I'm saying is that the Real World (TM) works by completely other rules than the code-centric "woohoo, look at what cool gimmicks we've coded" view that's rampant on Slashdot. And sometimes someone has to come and rain on your parade. Call it trolling if you will. Personally I call it a "reality check."

Of course, that's not to say that I don't admire the work of the Wine coders. Damn impressive achievement, from a coder point of view. But also far from the point where it'll get Joe Average to switch. That's all I'm saying.

--
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Re:I'll ditch windows by Sir+Haxalot · 2003-10-28 01:30 · Score: -1, Troll

So basically, you won't use Linux until Linux supports all the viruses Windows gets?
an OS that supports ALL the applications and games I currently run
I don't know about you, but I've never considered a virus as an application or a game

--
I have over 70 freaks, do you?
Re:I'll ditch windows by armando_wall · 2003-10-28 01:33 · Score: 1

I guess you can write perfectly every single human language on earth.

Maybe the poster has a point, or maybe not, but don't pick on him just based on his effort to communicate on a foreign language.
Re:I'll ditch windows by hkmwbz · 2003-10-28 01:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually, the users you are describing are users that might as well use MacOS X or just Linux with KDE. They just need to know where to click to get what, so whether it is Windows, Linux, Mac, or whatever is, as you point out, irrelevant. As such, what really matters is what you get used to. However, it is easy to make KDE behave much like Windows, and all you need to know is "click that icon to start word processing".
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.
Re:I'll ditch windows by LnxAddct · 2003-10-28 01:49 · Score: 2, Funny

No sir, I assure you that you are the idiot.
Re:I'll ditch windows by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 02:27 · Score: -1, Offtopic

how about this for language you can understand fellow AC:

pussys follow like sheep.

comprende?
Re:I'll ditch windows by Joe+Tie. · 2003-10-28 02:32 · Score: 1

Basically all I'm saying is that the Real World (TM) works by completely other rules than the code-centric "woohoo, look at what cool gimmicks we've coded" view that's rampant on Slashdot.

And perhaps your post would have some merit if it wasn't addressing a message to people on slashdot who want to move to Linux, not Joe Average on realworldTM.com.

--
Everything will be taken away from you.
Re:I'll ditch windows by frission · 2003-10-28 03:01 · Score: 1

has anyone fully tested ms access? do vba modules work? i somehow doubt it, but it'd be great to know.
Re:I'll ditch windows by Lobo93 · 2003-10-28 03:10 · Score: 1

Funny...Have I been touched by your honorable presence as of late? You sure remind me of a sad, wicked, static beast I once knew. Sadly, s/h/e/it never made it 'cause of an strange refusal towards evolving!

You can lash out all you want, you'll never be like us - and that fact gnaws you to the bone...

--

--
"The only clear view is from atop the mountain of our dead selves." - Peter Carroll
Re:I'll ditch windows by GreyWolf3000 · 2003-10-28 03:10 · Score: 1
I'll ditch windows when someone comes up with an OS that supports ALL the applications and games I currently run, and is faster or has some other 'thing' that would be beneficial to me.
You're not that special. Many thousands of volunteer developers don't write an operating system to suit you, they write to suit them. Companies that try and win Windows users over only really target the ones that are tired of Windows. Besides, your reserved position works the other way. I'll ditch Linux and use Windows when:
1. I can open it up and see what's inside.
2. I don't have to rely on MS for patches to come
3. Windows gets rid of product activation keys
4. Is affordable
5. It can run Gnome
6. It eliminates spyware (you wouldn't see spyware on Linux, even IF it traded marketshare with Windows)
7. It eliminates viruses (same deal).
8. When it gets some form of package management
9. Has a decent CLI
10. Ditches the registry
11. Stops mixing actual configuration with advertisements (just try and connect to the internet with their wizard).
12. Supports all the hardware I have (I've got a lot of old stuff I run Linux on).
What, specifically, does one 'hack' in Windows, anyways? :P
--
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Re:I'll ditch windows by GreyWolf3000 · 2003-10-28 03:31 · Score: 1

> Actually, if I had any mod points left, I'd mod him up. Ok, let me show you why he's wrong. > "woohoo, now we emulate Mini-Notepad-Lite v0.01, so Linux is ready for the desktop" The article is about two very large applications, not one tiny one. > Incidentally, it's another reason why Linux is still utterly unfit for Joe Average's desktop.
Does that have anything to do with the article? This article is noting the fact that two big applications now work (more ore less) with Crossover's wine that couldn't before. The article doesn't claim anything about "Linux" being "ready" for anything, merely some important progress has been made, and Dreamweaver and Flash MX users who want to switch to a Linux distribution, but previously couldn't, now can.
When an article (or post) comes up claiming that "Linux" is "ready" for "end users," you are more than correct in stating your opinion to the contrary, but that is not the case here, and you (as well as Sir Haxalot) are inserting your own imagined adversary into the equation in order to make a point about Linux.
You'll find that most Linux users are interested in the betterment of their Operating System, not pleasing you and Sir Haxalot. Distributions that aim to please Windows users, however, are all ears as to why you don't like their work.

--
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Re:I'll ditch windows by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 03:47 · Score: 0

you need a so called reality check. you are totally out of touch with this "average user" you claim to know.

the average users hates microsoft, windows, and by extensio, the manufacturer of their computer. they hate the crashes and they want something else. they are frustrated and also they do like to try new things and experiment, (hency the spyware that ends up on constantly on their machines).

you need to get stop speakiong for people you obviosuely have no clue about.
Re:I'll ditch windows by hamster+foo · 2003-10-28 04:02 · Score: 1

In all seriousness, you honestly believe that Windows serves you better?

I don't believe it I KNOW it. I've messed around with the alternatives, and they all come up lacking for me. I'll grant that's at least partially due to my comfort with Windows, but that's not something I'm going to discount for the sake of fairness. If it suits me then it suits me. I actually used a Linux desktop for a few years exclusively on my home computer, and I went back to Windows b/c I got tired of always fucking with configurations to get things the way I wanted. I dual boot Gentoo now, but frankly, things seem so patchwork that it bothers me. Running KDE I've got a lot of nice KDE apps at my disposal, but I always end up finding a need for something that only Gnome has a mature answer for, or visa versa if I run Gnome. They have at least gotten a lot of the old configuration problems out of the way, I don't have to spend hours messing with text files anymore, but they still need some polishing. That said, I do boot into Linux for a good bit of development work because it provides a similar platform to what my web applications will be running in. The Mac desktop has ALWAYS felt counter intuitive to me despite what everybody seems to claim. OS X is the first time I've considered it a serious alternative, but I've already got a laptop, and OS X won't run on it, so it's not viable for me due to that.

That not having to update your OS's security holes five times a week and constantly sorting out what e-mails are good and what are viruses doesn't count as a beneficial "thing"?

Well, there's this crazy thing called Windows Update that will actually download updates automatically. It handles all those updates without much effort. Viruses in email aren't a problem for anybody who uses a decent mail client and has some common sense. I haven't had a virus on my computer in probably 5 years or more, and when I did have one it was b/c of something stupid that I installed.

Mac's are beautiful machines, and their operating system is extremely nice as well. That said, it is not the end all be all answer for everybody. Some people have used alternatives and *gasp* continue to use Windows. Whether it be for something as "unfair" as familiarity or lack of a certain application or for any number of reasons, it is their choice and a perfectly valid one. It gets old hearing "you need a Mac" everytime I turn around because no I really don't.

--
- b
Re:I'll ditch windows by JCholewa · 2003-10-28 05:17 · Score: 1

> I'll ditch Linux and use Windows when:

> I can open it up and see what's inside.
> I don't have to rely on MS for patches to come

Yeah, that's one of the killers. While Microsoft does a generally decent job nowadays of implementing somewhat timely patches, there are occasions when they distribute patches that either (A) break something else or (B) don't really fix whatever bug or hole they're supposed to fix. That happens in Linux, too, but in Linux, if the main program distributor puts out a bad patch like that, you're likely to see some other company, organization or individual releasing an actual working patch. In Windows, this is impossible, because only one vendor has the source code and rights to patch it.

> Windows gets rid of product activation keys
> Is affordable

Well, you have to expect them to want to make money, right? I do wish that Microsoft would go the extra mile for the money, though. They don't really make a good effort on the tech support side unless your problem entirely involves their products (if you're running another company's product with their OS, or if you're having a problem with a Microsoft product not quite working right with a non-Microsoft mouse/keyboard/joystick, then the default answer seems to be "it's the other guy's problem" more often than it should be. And they should provide updates to programs for their OSes other than the products they market. The "Free" software companies go this extra mile, especially for their paying customers. So why can't Microsoft? It'd barely put a dent into their massive bank accounts.

> It can run Gnome

http://cygnome.sourceforge.net/

There you go. GNOME on Windows. I haven't tried it, but I have tried KDE on Windows. It's painfully slow on an 800MHz Duron with 512MB PC133 SDRAM and all hoggish KDE features enabled, but I tried quite some time ago, and I could have probably done some process priority tweaking to make it better. One of the neat things about it is that it recognizes some win32 applications (like Civilization III) and automagically makes a link to it in the Application Menu.

Anyway, YMMV, but GNOME is there.

> It eliminates spyware (you wouldn't see spyware on Linux, even IF it traded marketshare with Windows)

I don't have any spyware on my Win2k box. Granted, that's because I'm careful (resulting in an 800MHz machine that outperforms much faster computers that happen to have lots of unwanted stuff running in the background), but a decent power user can live a win32 life free of software espionage.

> It eliminates viruses (same deal).

Fortunately, viruses these days only come into your system if you (A) run an email program apparently made by the shittiest Q&A development team in history or (B) forget to close all open ports (well, TCP135-139 should do for the most part) as well as that stupid Messenger service (not talking about instant messaging, this is an internal windows component thing). I never get infected by viruses. Ever.

> When it gets some form of package management

Crap. Damnit. You got me here. This is why I run Mandrake 9.1 (soon to be 9.2, just after I make sure that I don't have an LG CD-ROM, heh) most of the time. I'm at work, and I just did the following from my Windows 2000 cygwin shell: ....................
Administrator@jc ~
$ ssh jc@myipadress
[jc@jc jc]$ su
Password:
[root@jc jc]# urpmi --auto --no-verify-rpm OpenOffice.org ....................

That is to say, I remotely connected to my linux box with 'ssh', then I became the root (administrative) user with 'su', then that final 'urpmi' command automatically sought out, downloaded, installed and configured OpenOffice.org, along with any prerequisite libraries and other stuff like fonts and the spell-checking add-in. This required no interaction from me. Heck, it did this while I was writing this message!

For equivalent results on
Re:I'll ditch windows by b17bmbr · 2003-10-28 05:34 · Score: 1

then don't ditch windows. this is about choice. if windows is the best environment for you, then fine. for many of us, it isn't. and for many more, it needn't be either. if i had an ofdice, and istalled say RH9/Mandrake9.X, and had them use OO.org, mozilla, evolution, etc., i would save tons on licensing, tons on maintenance, and tons on virus/trojan worries. and, i doubt i would lose 1 ounce of productivity.

--
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Re:I'll ditch windows by Moraelin · 2003-10-28 05:37 · Score: 1

What makes you think I don't know about that?

Yes, wisely noted. For the common user, computers are still too much stress. They crash too often, they apparently become slower every month (or rather: the applications require more and more resources to run anywhere near acceptably), they're an endless source of unneeded trouble (e.g., spam and worms), they require entirely too much configuration, they require entirely too much reading dialog boxex (hence the clicking without reading, which installs that spyware), 90% of the programs he buys (e.g., PC games) are a sad excuse for a buggy beta, etc.

Yep, you're perfectly right. For the average user, today's state of computing is still a nightmare. And a lot of them do hate their computer, OS, whatever.

And I never claimed otherwise.

But I still maintain that said average user isn't anywhere near the "Windows is bad, Linux is good" state of mind, as you seem to assume. He still doesn't really care exactly what OS is on that computer, he just cares about running his apps with a minimum of fuss.

He's also not half as in an experimenting state of mind as you seem to assume. In fact, IMHO you seem to be mis-interpreting the phenomenon entirely.

A. Would he install a small app which claims to efortlessly save him some trouble (e.g., remember his passwords)? Damn right.

B. Would he go through the effort to install a whole new OS and learn a whole new set of apps? Not in your dreams.

What's the difference between the two? The difference is that A promises to let him use the same apps with a lot less hassle, while B promises to be more hassle.

The difference is that option A will still let him hang around the exact same Java chatrooms or ActiveX game sites, view the exact same web pages as before, use the exact same text editor that he hated learning to use in the first place, etc.

Option A promises to be a very small and very well defined change, that he thinks he understands. Usually one that requires learning no new skills, or very little in the way of new skills. Basically:

A. "Click here and we'll automatically store your passwords for you" is a small enough change to be pallatable, and it's conceptually easy to understand.

B. "Learn a whole new OS, a whole new browser and a whole new set of office apps" is not. It's already beyond the threshold where "change" means "trauma".

--
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Re:I'll ditch windows by Moraelin · 2003-10-28 05:47 · Score: 1

Well, the point is really the: "So for those who have been waiting to ditch MS Windows because of these two apps, now is your chance." (Right the front page.)
Basically I doubt that _that_ many people were just dying to switch, and those two apps were _all_ that was holding them back. I doubt that that many people were running Dreamweaver MX at home to start with. Or that those who were, now will suddenly miss no other Windows app, and are ready to go Linux full time. That's all.
Still, I guess it's an improvement.

--
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Re:I'll ditch windows by StingRay02 · 2003-10-28 08:35 · Score: 1

I should have known better than to joke about switching to Macs.....
Anyway, this is neither here nor there. Obviously for you, customization and the ability to think as little as possible when working on your computer is more important to you than innovation, stability and security.
Now, before you get angry, allow me to clarify. We'll work this backwards. Thinking as little as possible is not necessarily a bad thing. If you want your menus in your windows, then fine. I have a hard time believing you can't figure out how the menu bar on a Mac works, though. In OSX the name of the application the menu bar is related to is right there next to the file menu. Easy access, easy to see. Plus, if you're in the wrong app, all it takes is switching to an app window or selecting it on the dock.
As far as customization goes, personally, I could take it or leave it. I can put a desktop picture, I can even change various graphics and animations, I, however, don't really feel the need to, though.
A big part of why Apple doesn't have a wide range of customization is because you have one operating system for every level of user. My mother doesn't want to have to dig through seventy different control panels to fix something simple. She wants it right there in front of her, and she could care less about what her windows look like. The "candy-colored crap" (which I'll address in a minute) is directed at her. It looks "cool." To her anyway.
Yes, we "power users" have to work at our customization, but that's the point of being a power user, right?
As far as "forcing candy-colored crap and brushed metal down your throat," this comes to innovation. I take it you haven't looked at Microsoft's next OS, and you must have also missed the glut of PC manufacturers that jumped on the colored case band-wagon. The colors, though, are a moot point, since it's been a year or two since they sold colored iMacs, anyway. And "Longhorn," the next-gen OS that's three years away, has basically ripped off the brushed metal look, only minus the brushing.
I've tried to put my bias aside, but on that last note, I've gotta say this. It's becoming more and more apparent that Apple is the one that sets the bar, for software and style anyway, and MS and its PC clone followers just keep straining to touch that bar. I'd honestly be willing to bet that if Apple, in 2005, released an OSX update that changed the brushed-metal to a purple-with-pink-polka-dots format, MS would revamp their whole UI to violet-blue-with-Barbie-pink-squares.
Re:I'll ditch windows by StingRay02 · 2003-10-28 08:40 · Score: 1

Wow, that comment was so ridiculously out of touch with the present, that I'm not even sure what kind of dated slang I should respond with.
Re:I'll ditch windows by StingRay02 · 2003-10-28 08:42 · Score: 1

Okay, once and for all, the Mac comment was a joke. Honestly. I wasn't serious about that.
Thank you, however, for having a reasonable response to the serious, second part of my comment. I'm too poor to give the others a fair shake and I was honestly curious.
Note to self: no more joking about platform choices....
Re:I'll ditch windows by hamster+foo · 2003-10-28 09:05 · Score: 1

Sorry I didn't catch the joke. There are a lot of zealots on /., and most of them are quite serious when they make statements like "x is the only reasonable choice". Anyway, sorry if I took your comment in the wrong light.

--
- b
Re:I'll ditch windows by StingRay02 · 2003-10-28 09:10 · Score: 1

That's all right. There was supposed to be a paragraph break inbetween the Mac comment and the question, I just failed to format it correctly. I still, though, appreciate your answer. Nice to hear the occasional reasonable voice.
Re:I'll ditch windows by GreyWolf3000 · 2003-10-28 09:31 · Score: 1

True, but I don't mind the topic to be broadened to "So for those who have been waiting to ditch Windows but need the apps, we are one big step closer to Getting There, and might even suit your needs already."
The problem comes when a topic moves a step further, and becomes "To all those people who think Linux isn't ready for the desktop, It Is."

--
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Re:I'll ditch windows by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 17:40 · Score: -1, Troll

Not only that fagbitch, I'll surely grind your homo foreskin up as a stew and serve it to your starving crackwhore "mother" (ironic since your "mother" features both an airplane-hanger-sized vagina and a monstrous semen-dribbling cock). Given some nourishment, your "mother" will certainly perform random acts of whatever-the-fuck-i-want, including orally sodomizing her/his pedophile "son" "Sir Haxalot". Really, aren't you dead yet?
Re:I'll ditch windows by ocelotbob · 2003-10-28 20:25 · Score: 1

Ah, but I use Linux, where one can change Everything. I am not you. I don't think the way the same way you do, so why should my tasks be laid out the same way as yours? I personally think the kde method -- ask a user, the first time they login, what they want the desktop, etc to look like. Let them choose the keybindings, etc then, to what they feel is the most comfortable. Let them choose the colorschemes, etc, to their personality.
Of course, brushed metal was something I thought was crap 5 years ago when gnome came with a brushed metal theme. It looked like ass then, and it looks like ass now on OS X. Same goes with cases. I stayed out of the "designer" case nonsense, and have a nice, simple white case that holds almost a dozen drives. Just as impressive as a fancy case, yet much, much more useful.
I use Linux because I love innovation, stability and speed. I've had all the "new and exciting" features Panther has offered for years, such as OpenGL compositing, brushed metal everything, and a fast open-source HTML renderer.

--
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
Re:I'll ditch windows by TrancePhreak · 2003-10-28 20:44 · Score: 1

It's a reference to the Red Vs Blue switch paradoy. You can go watch it at www.redvsblue.com

--

-]Phreak Out[-
Re:I'll ditch windows by StingRay02 · 2003-10-29 12:14 · Score: 1

I'll take your word on it, as the movie download is timing out at the moment. I'll also apologize. I thought you might have been serious.
Re:I'll ditch windows by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-05 06:08 · Score: 0

then why were you talking about Windows?

dumbass...

Excuse me, by tarquin_fim_bim · 2003-10-27 21:42 · Score: 0, Insightful

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?

Re:Excuse me, by ElWelshWizard · 2003-10-27 22:04 · Score: 2, Informative

Dreamweaver does not build annoying bloated webpages.
Re:Excuse me, by tarquin_fim_bim · 2003-10-27 22:16 · Score: 1

You are of course correct, it's the people that use it, however the likes of Dreamweaver and other authoring software are not as efficient at writing mark up as humans.
Re:Excuse me, by foniksonik · 2003-10-27 22:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'll bite. It's a funny thing these days but some people actually get PAID real money to create web media. Hobbyists may have time to hand code everything and don't need anything more than text and a gif or two to communicate but professionals (getting paid $50 - $200 per hour to create) need a little more.

On the other hand pros also know enough to do plugin checks and provide alternative content for those who choose not to use proprietary plugins and can also provide text only versions for alternative browsers, if there is a need. Not all paid developers are pros, unfortunately.

The bigger problem is web developers who use platform specific plugins (anything DirectX essentially) and don't provide alternative content or provide it so poorly that the pages are rendered unusable.

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Re:Excuse me, by mirko · 2003-10-27 23:07 · Score: 1

A human using Dreamweaver in HTML mode will improve his efficiency because of the auto-completion possibilities (sorta like a GUI equivalent of BASH tab-termination)...

--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Re:Excuse me, by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-27 23:13 · Score: 0

Coding by hand is the fastest, most efficient and most professional way to create more robust web pages.

It's the Dreamweaver crowd that are the hobbyists.
Re:Excuse me, by ajs318 · 2003-10-27 23:20 · Score: 1, Informative

Good HTML means separating content from presentation as far as possible. So you write the text first, then decide what it should look like. Then you create a style sheet, and base BODY and P on what the majority of the document should look like - leaving you to define .classes for exceptional SPANs and DIVs. If you're really smart, you'll name them after what they represent { and are more meaningful than and and will survive a "refit" better - you will still have dates in the future and dates in the past, but they may well not be blue and orange anymore.} Of course, this involves thinking, which humans can do {with varying degrees of effort} but machines can only pretend to do, and in a fashion that looks more limited the longer you study it.

Anyone can use a stencil, but that does not make them calligraphers. The whole idea of Dreamweaver is fundamentally flawed - attempting to impose a type of user interface onto a task which is, by its nature, unsuited to that user interface. You can't use a point-and-drool system to place precise insertions into text and have it work reliably. It reminds me of a gadget that clips onto the neck of a guitar and allows you to fret and strum the strings using piano-like keys. You can never hope for that to sound better than a guitar played the traditional way, except maybe for a rather limited range of music, and it certainly won't make you into Steve Cradock.

On the web, there really is no such thing as What You See Is What You Get, because What You See Is Not Necessarily What Everyone Else Gets. Also, Dreamweaver uses tags all the time - how long have we had cascading style sheets now, for chuff's sake? - and I find its "trendy" lowercase tags too hard to spot in a non-context-sensitive editor like vi or pico. {Sometimes it's nice to have a few eye-stabbing caps ..... it's not as if any known browser gives a damn nor is ever likely to ..... if and started meaning different things one day, pretty much the whole Internet would break. Beside which, whatever conceivable use would that ever be? Except making money for monopolistic corporations ..... um .....}

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Re:Excuse me, by bhtooefr · 2003-10-27 23:36 · Score: 1

Visit my site. I dare you. It doesn't look GREAT, and it's sure as hell not handcoded, but I actually LIKE FrontPage. That's why I've actively looked for a clone (Quanta Gold is the best I've found, and it blows chunks unless you want to hand code)
Re:Excuse me, by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-27 23:49 · Score: 1, Informative

>and I find its "trendy" lowercase tags too hard to spot in a non-context-sensitive editor like vi or pico

I guess W3C thought lowercase tags were pretty trendy too when they came up with the XHTML spec.
Re:Excuse me, by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-27 23:51 · Score: 0

Who the hell is getting $200/hr these days to design web pages?

Those days are long gone pal.
Re:Excuse me, by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-27 23:57 · Score: -1

>It doesn't look GREAT

Boy, you said it!!
Re:Excuse me, by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-27 23:57 · Score: 0

XHTML requires the use of lowercase tags.
Re:Excuse me, by HyPeR_aCtIvE · 2003-10-28 00:20 · Score: 1

I guess it's been a while since you used Dreamweaver. I do web design EXACTLY as you state, keeping separation of content and style, using Dreamweaver.

I use it to help organize my stylesheets, for it's autocompletion capabilities, for the advanced manipulation of the code, for having constant code reference and 'CSS Helpers' so to speak so that I don't have to have every single CSS possible option memorized ...

For having a quick rough visual reference for what a page will look like, etc. etc. etc.

Dreamweaver has grown with the times, and continues to...
Re:Excuse me, by tolan-b · 2003-10-28 00:56 · Score: 1

No company I've worked for in the last 4 years has allowed developers to use Dreamweaver. It generates buggy bloated code. Professionals develop templates by hand and then they're typically used as part of a content management system.
Re:Excuse me, by ajs318 · 2003-10-28 01:03 · Score: -1, Flamebait

I don't use Dreamweaver. I just have to make small edits to pages on the server - using vi or pico - after they have already been uploaded by someone else who just happened to use Dreamweaver to create them.

So maybe it's the fault of the person using DW, and they are just using it wrongly. However, lousy HTML is still lousy HTML. Why write "" when you could write "" ?! In fact, I've seen Dreamweaver produce pairs of tags like <foo></foo> with no content between them! Obviously where something was deleted, but the tags persist. Maybe there is a procedure for combining / eliminating redundant tags or something ..... like a final prettification thingy, and someone's just not using it?

My favourite editor for creating web pages from scratch on a machine that isn't running a public webserver that gets several squillion hits a nanosecond has to be Kate. But only because Kate is my favourite editor for doing most things ..... I'm only too aware what an emotive subject favourite editors are, though .....

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Re:Excuse me, by hookedup · 2003-10-28 01:17 · Score: 1

In Dreamweaver MX:

Commands > Clean up HTML
or
Commands > Clean up WORD HTML
Re:Excuse me, by AaronLawrence · 2003-10-28 01:19 · Score: 1

And that source code! Yeah, baby! Tremendous example of ...

--
For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
Re:Excuse me, by ajs318 · 2003-10-28 01:21 · Score: 1

Right, thanks for the tip. I'll write that on the end of a piece of 100*50 constructional timber and show it to our web designer.

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Re:Excuse me, by HyPeR_aCtIvE · 2003-10-28 01:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

It sounds like whoever is using Dreamweaver has two problems:

A) Using an old version (newer versions really do check for those multi-tags as you do edits and cleans them up.)

B) Doesn't know what they are doing. Dreamweaver is GREAT, in that it SPECIFICALLY does EXACTLY what you tell it to. It's meant for the person who DOES understand HTML. It is not a true WYSIWYG in that sense. You have you know the different effects that assigning a class to the table, versus tr, versus td, versus the paragraph tag, versus the span means ... and tell DW exactly which one you wanted the class on.
If the person doesn't understand that, you will get crap, because they will be clicking in random spots, and DW will THINK they know what they are doing.
Re:Excuse me, by setmajer · 2003-10-28 01:44 · Score: 1

Good HTML means separating content from presentation as far as oossible.

Er, no. It means separating structure from presentation. See Douglas Bowman's piece on the topic and Eric Meyer's reply.

If you're really smart, you'll name them after what they represent { and are more meaningful than and

You're kinda defeating your own purpose with that. Much better to use a semantically meaningful emelent like address or similar and style or add classes/IDs to that. Just using a bunch of meaningless spans obviates the advantages of using a structural markup language in the first place.

--
Re:Excuse me, by SaltLord · 2003-10-28 01:53 · Score: 0

Sounds like frontpage code rather than dreamweaver..
Re:Excuse me, by kill-1 · 2003-10-28 01:56 · Score: 1

It's already lousy HTML if you use the font tag at all. I haven't used it for ages, that's what CSS is for. And styling fonts with CSS is something even Netscape 4 supports.

It's a pity that there are only a few who know the difference between Transitional and Strict HTML. Ever tried to do a HTML Strict website? It's quite different and you gonna learn a lot.
Re:Excuse me, by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 02:19 · Score: 0

>Good HTML means separating content from presentation as far as possible.

To which Dreamweaver is not a barrier.

>Then you create a style sheet, and base BODY and P on what the majority of the document should look like

All for style sheets, hate to use tag selectors however. I don't think it's a you do this process but use style sheets as you prefer... Again, Dreamweaver does this wonderfully.

>If you're really smart, you'll name them after what they represent

You have to be really smart?

>Of course, this involves thinking, which humans can do {with varying degrees of effort} but machines can only pretend to do, and in a fashion that looks more limited the longer you study it.

Ok, sure. Humans think. Dreamweaver is a tool that you can think of before and during use. It hardly forces much if anything on you, the author.

>Anyone can use a stencil, but that does not make them calligraphers.

Absolutely. Equating either hand coding or use of Dreamweaver with the quality of a site is ridiculous. The person is the key.

>The whole idea of Dreamweaver is fundamentally flawed - attempting to impose a type of user interface onto a task which is, by its nature, unsuited to that user interface.

Haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. Dreamweaver allows me to be very precise when creating web sites. It doesn't impose anything on me. Sure it has an interface that you can like or dislike. Use another program then. Easy.

>On the web, there really is no such thing as What You See Is What You Get

Yes. What has this to do with Dreamweaver? That's why you test in a browser. Really. It is.

> Also, Dreamweaver uses tags all the time

Only if you use font tags all the time. I use Dreamweaver all the time and I don't use font tags, I use CSS. Guess what, Dreamweaver does what I want it to! Astounding!

>how long have we had cascading style sheets now, for chuff's sake?

Quite some time. I use them all the time and have for years with Dreamweaver. Really.

>and I find its "trendy" lowercase tags too hard to spot in a non-context-sensitive editor like vi or pico

Then change them to "trendy" uppercase tags. Go ahead. You can do it. Go to Preferences and make it so. Man alive you're rich.

>Sometimes it's nice to have a few eye-stabbing caps ..... it's not as if any known browser gives a damn nor is ever likely to

Sure. It's a preference. Dreamweaver can adjust to what you tell it to. Surely you're not saying on one hand humans can think and machince can't and yet you want the "machine" to think for you rather than you instructing it what to do and therefore using it as an assistant.

> if
and
started meaning different things one day, pretty much the whole Internet would break.

Let's hear your take on the W3C then. What has a change in standards have to do with Dreamweaver or hand coding for example?
Re:Excuse me, by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 08:02 · Score: 0

Much like the argument 'guns dont kill people, people kill people' you can argue

- DreamWeaver doesnt make bloated pages, People make bloated pages

While guns may make it easier to kill people, DW makes it easier to make bloated pages.

However, in the hands of a skilled web author, it is a great tool for making the design and development proccess faster. auto-completion, getting a list of valid attributes in css, when you span=" and a list of valid CSS ids/classess pop up, it saves alot of time by being able to scroll down, select the one you want and hit enter, and have it pop in, then sitting there having to re-open your CSS to double check the name, or spelling, etc.

DW does a good job at cleaning up content you cut/paste from other programs, again - saving more time. I can cut/paste a chunk of text from a word document, have the strcutur remain intact, and not have a zillion inline span/style tags.

It's also usefull for doing up 'quickndirty' proto types.

One project I am working on, I needed to make a page using XML/XSL and CSS.

I did the basic layout quickly in just plain old HTML/CSS, and DW helped LOADS while defining the CSS, but then having a working template/shell layout, it made it much easier then to write the XSL to transform the page, if it hadnt been for DW, it would of taken me much longer.

DW is a great tool, and is 100x better if you know what your doing.
Re:Excuse me, by Sivaram_Velauthapill · 2003-10-28 08:34 · Score: 1

I agree... Newbies don't really have any decent programs for Linux. Frontpage may suck for anything large but it is good for people who just want a small personal page or something. I use Quanta Plus but it isn't a WYSIWYG, and it isn't feature complete. Even compared to some free Windows tools, like HTML-edit which I used to use, Quanta Plus is lacking. Also, Quanta Plus is lacking PHP support (from what I can gather).

Sivaram Velauthapillai

--
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
Re:Excuse me, by GreyPoopon · 2003-10-28 09:09 · Score: 1

Thank you for sharing your opinions on HTML development with us. While I respect what you've said, we also need to examine today's reality...
Good HTML means separating content from presentation as far as possible.
Reality is, not everybody is interested in writing GOOD HTML. Most are interested in getting cool looking content up and running quickly. While you are theoretically correct about what creating good HTML involves, this is not the direction in which many people are headed.
The whole idea of Dreamweaver is fundamentally flawed - attempting to impose a type of user interface onto a task which is, by its nature, unsuited to that user interface. You can't use a point-and-drool system to place precise insertions into text and have it work reliably.
And yet this works reliably for many people. They are able to quickly create layouts and get a web page up with the minimum of fuss. A little bit of testing on the "popular" browsers makes sure that what they have built is reliable enough for their audience. Like it or not, most humans will take the short cut whenever possible. Even if it means struggle in the long run.
On the web, there really is no such thing as What You See Is What You Get, because What You See Is Not Necessarily What Everyone Else Gets.
And Dreamweaver usually does a pretty good job of indicating what portions of your document aren't going to work as intended in certain browsers. This is one of the features I've always liked most about the product.
Also, Dreamweaver uses tags all the time - how long have we had cascading style sheets now, for chuff's sake?
You are aware that there are still browsers heavily in use that don't support CSS very well, right? Besides that, Dreamweaver uses whatever you tell it to use. If I highlight something and change the font, then it uses a tag. If I highlight something and select a CSS style, it uses CSS. This functionality dates back to at LEAST version 3.

--
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Re:Excuse me, by howhardcanitbetocrea · 2003-10-28 10:42 · Score: 1

While some of the code Dreamweaver puts out can be a little obtuse, the fact is it does the job well, efficiently and QUICKLY. But I am a little confused by the original comment, the presentation side of DW is actually pretty good. It is the scripts that can be a little complex, but they are executed in a split second and the person on the end of the browser has no idea of the complexity of the script. I think the person complaining is someone who isn't happy with the code s/he produces in DW. They probably don't realise that /. was produced using Dreamweaver ported to a Commodore 64

--

President ISES
(International Society for Elimination of Sigs)
Re:Excuse me, by martinX · 2003-10-28 11:31 · Score: 1

Dreamweaver does not build annoying bloated webpages.

No, that's what we use FrontPage for. Have you seen the crap the FP creates. Blurg...

--
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
Re:Excuse me, by -Speade- · 2003-10-28 20:06 · Score: 1

Coding by hands is nice, but after a while, I get bored with coding the same thing over and over again. For example, I draw my table on DW and copy-paste the code. You cannot be completely anti-DW, if the thing helps working more efficiently, I'll use it. And one feature I use a lot in DW is that search and replace function. And I also use Flash, this was actually the reason why my work machine is still under win2k

Can I sync my IPAQ? by laptime · 2003-10-27 21:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

iIs it possible to sync a ipaq using codeweavers? I tried multisync but it is still buggy.

I am stick on win4lin now, but I have to admit that cw seems impressive.

G.

Re:Can I sync my IPAQ? by lanswitch · 2003-10-27 22:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

You could install linux (gpe or opie) on your ipaq, and use the built-in pim functions. The pim should be able to sync to your desktop apps, although I didn't try it yet. See http://www.handhelds.org for more information.
Re:Can I sync my IPAQ? by laptime · 2003-10-27 22:45 · Score: 1

Yes I knew that, but due to firm policy I can not :(

G.
Re:Can I sync my IPAQ? by lanswitch · 2003-10-27 23:01 · Score: 1

If you have a microdrive or a large cf-card, it's possible to run linux from that, and keep the original software (almost) intact.
Re:Can I sync my IPAQ? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-27 23:04 · Score: 0

Foolish human! OBEY the rules of your sinister masters! ahahahahhaha
Re:Can I sync my IPAQ? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 00:13 · Score: 0

Try synce.
Re:Can I sync my IPAQ? by Joe+Tie. · 2003-10-28 02:38 · Score: 1

Have you tried synce? I finally gave installing it a shot a few days ago, and have been really happy with the results so far using Debian Unstable to synch with an ipaq. It even integrates with konqueror, so I can just copy and paste files right into the ipaq.

--
Everything will be taken away from you.

Dreamweaver == bloat by Dancin_Santa · 2003-10-27 21:46 · Score: -1, Troll

I can't remember the last time I went to a site and didn't find either a Dreamweaver or Frontpage content tag. I also can't remember the last time the internet wasn't bogged down by the Flash/custom tags/CSS/ECMAScript crap that pollutes the Information Superhighway these days.

We've got all this bandwidth. Do we really need to use it up with heavy pages? Wouldn't it be better to save that excess bandwidth for some nice, juicy porn?

Re:Dreamweaver == bloat by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-27 21:52 · Score: -1

Hee hee Haw haw

Oh wow.. a porno joke!!!!

How fudcking funny shitlicker
Re:Dreamweaver == bloat by PakProtector · 2003-10-27 21:55 · Score: 5, Informative

Obviously you know nothing about what CSS is, or are just stupid. Let me enlighten you.

In the beginning, there was the Web.

All was good. Bandwidth was, on average, low, but sites were small and to the point, and loaded quickly.

People began to use frames and many other things, marring the content with style.

But then, in this dark hour, when web pages loaded slowly and all hope was lost, a light appeared in the darkness.

It was CSS.

CSS is based on the idea that content, which is the actual information of a web page, should be entirely seperate from the style of a web page, which is defined by the CSS. If you disable CSS, the webpage should load as plain text and pictures and form elements, no spiffy navigation bar here, no sidebar here. Something that text-readers can understand and that loads very quickly. The CSS file also loads quickly, and by combining the two into one a web page can be made small, while still full of content and aesthetically pleasing.

--
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
Re:Dreamweaver == bloat by grosa · 2003-10-27 21:55 · Score: 1, Redundant

down by the Flash/custom tags/CSS/ECMAScript crap that pollutes the Information Superhighway these days.

you're either missing the point of CSS, or you've never really seen what it can do. CSS is great for trimming _down_ the size of a page. instead of having font tags everywhere, you can easily assign blocks of text that behave according to the specification. color, font, style, alignment, etc. instead of having tons of nested tables to make sure everything fits, you can do it all with a few blocks of css.

now if only IE supported css correctly, we could actually see some cool uses of it that aren't broken to be compatible with IE.

while i'm probably going to get my head chewed off for saying this, flash has the same value. when you really need to have a multimedia presentation up, it sure beats having to write a java app. you don't necessarily need to make your whole site out of flash, or having stupid flash ads. doing things like 3d-models of cell phones or is perfect for flash. it used to be that you used quicktime vr for that, but why have a bizillion different plugins for doing tons of stuff that one flash plugin can do?
Re:Dreamweaver == bloat by NeGz · 2003-10-27 22:00 · Score: 1

Hrm, whilst I agree wholeheartedly to the part about Frontpage, I think you'll find that in code view only mode (and a bit of settings tweaking in some cases) Dreamweaver MX can be a very useful tool for creating pleasant, w3 compliant (x)html. I find the site, database and CSS management features really useful, and I'm only a hobbyist when it comes to web design.

I can't really speak for the WYSIWYG mode because I don't think people who can't be bothered learning HTML should be allowed to have websites. :)
Re:Dreamweaver == bloat by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-27 22:13 · Score: 2, Informative

DreamweaverMX was a pretty horrendous application. But Macromedia got their act together with MX 2004 version which was released not too long ago. Old tags were depreciated and new standards took their place, such as complete CSS-based wysiwyg code generation. [table] tags are not default anymore, although I suspect you can revert back to standard HTML 4.1 transitional if you want. It has better integration with FireworksMX 2004, and x-browser compatibility development has greatly benefited.

Now, the bad part is that DW/FW MX 2004 are very unstable and bloated compared to the previous MX versions. Of course, if you're doing serious web development, Dreamweaver is not for you, but for casual users and people who aren't keen with site design and CSS, it could solve many problems.

MM_Script JS was quite possibly the worst thing in Fireworks and Dreamweaver had to offer. I haven't checked for its presence in the new version, but avoid it at all costs if you want your sites to be robust and unbloated.

Also, the content tags you speak of can be easily turned off in the preferences. Both in MX and MX 2004. Your rant about Flash presence is offtopic.
Re:Dreamweaver == bloat by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-27 22:44 · Score: 1, Funny
People began to use frames and many other things, marring the content with style.

Qua?? Oh, filthy, wretched style! You insidious style and your fiendish plots to RUIN my glorious plain text, filled, nay juicy and overflowing with rich, delicious , sensuous velvety content!! CURSE you and CURSE your evil aesthetic ways for defacing my precious, precious content!! One day, one day I will have my revenge, and I will unleash a slavering HORDE of
- text-based hand held black and white web-enabled devices
to **render** your filthy style USELESS!!! ahahahahhaha
Re:Dreamweaver == bloat by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-27 23:07 · Score: 0

Fool! The bandwidth that is wasted is that of third parties, competitors who might suck the bandwidth away from porn sites were they not preoccupied with slow loading "legitimate" sites. Let the others stagnate in their own diseased corner of the web and leave the vast plains of untamed porn ripe for the pillaging!
Re:Dreamweaver == bloat by Gramie2 · 2003-10-28 00:57 · Score: 0

I was perplexed by the first word in your post, until I sounded it out and realized that you were making a feeble attempt at the French interrogative pronoun "Quoi."

Hint: trying to sound more intelligent than you are only makes the deficiency more obvious.
Re:Dreamweaver == bloat by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 01:20 · Score: 0

Actually they were most likely trying to use the Spanish interrogative pronoun, "que", but spelled it phonetically since there is no easy way to make the e-acute in the slashdot text editor.
Hoisted by your own petard, your deficiency is glaringly obvious.
Don't worry... No one important ever reads this crap anyway.
Re:Dreamweaver == bloat by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 04:08 · Score: 0

Umm, the parent post (sig) made use of the word "Qua". Perhaps he was simply mocking him?
Re:Dreamweaver == bloat by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 08:50 · Score: 0

Yes , "Qua" was taken directly from the sig of the parent poster. MOCK, if you will, HIS feeble grasp of the romance languages, but know that I make no attempt here to speak in anything other than your "English."
Re:Dreamweaver == bloat by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 23:41 · Score: 0

You are a fucking retard if you think that page download time was the reason for CSS. Unmangling the source so that people could maintain content without nightmarish style breakage was the reason for CSS.

all good but... by grosa · 2003-10-27 21:47 · Score: 1

not to put down their achievement, but how is this any functionally different than running said applications in vmware/bochs/plex86? share a network drive, and you still have access to your filesystem(s). it's not like you need huge hardware accelerated performance (ie, running directx) to run flash authoring tools.

that said, this is pretty cool. my design windows using buddies all think flashmx is the de-facto standard app to know for getting hired as a designer these days. yes, it's lame, but it's hard to be elitist when it comes to getting paid.

Re:all good but... by tarquin_fim_bim · 2003-10-27 21:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

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'.
Re:all good but... by IamTheRealMike · 2003-10-27 22:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

not to put down their achievement, but how is this any functionally different than running said applications in vmware/bochs/plex86?
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.
Re:all good but... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-27 22:52 · Score: 0

not to put down their achievement, but how is this any functionally different than running said applications in vmware/bochs/plex86?

For starters, it's a lot cheaper.

Crossover Office is $60. VMWare is $300 or so, and then you need a copy of Windows on top of that. So that's like $600 total (I'm estimating... I may be off, but probably not far).
Re:all good but... by pubjames · 2003-10-27 23:00 · Score: 1

Mostly people who commission corporate websites are impressed by aesthetics

You said it right there.

If there is a multi-company pitch for the design of a web site, the company that pitches on the basis of fancy design will very often win.

I have been in pitches where we have stressed that it is the content itself which is important, not fancy design, and stressed things like quick loading, easy access and wide accessibility. You know what? It's often not a great pitch. Most often (and understandably) the company that shows the potential client something that makes them go "wow!" will more often than not get the job.

So anyway, these days, if I'm pitching to a client I don't know well, I'll always do a "wow! look at that!" pitch. It wins more work.
Re:all good but... by Jameth · 2003-10-27 23:10 · Score: 1

The difference between this and vmware/bochs/plex86 is that it isn't running through an emulator, so it runs helluva fast. I use an older version of CrossoverOffice for MS Office, and I can tell you that it does outpace the windows version.

If you use a virtual machine or an emulator, it bogs down the system a lot more. In addition to the app itself running slower, the emulator/vm is also running with its own separate memory footprint.
Re:all good but... by quadelirus · 2003-10-28 00:45 · Score: 1

I agree. That's why my company (who use macromedia products) generally contract out a graphics designer so we can work on the functionality. Dreamweaver MX 2004 gives an almost Borland JBuilder like IDE for programming many different languages. Our sites have the aesthetics, but the functionality is our chief concern, and we have our clients trust in that. Flash is nice because it allows creation of custom rather than native interfaces for an application and is getting to be quite powerful as a scripting environ. I am so glad that CodeWeavers has done this, I may finally be able to use linux at work!
Re:all good but... by Spoing · 2003-10-28 01:28 · Score: 1

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'.
I've heard it called "pretty", specifically meaning slick, polished, simplistic and not at all geeky or technical.
I've had 2 projects killed because lack of an immediately visible "pretty" interface. That one could be added is considered a downside...since it was not "pretty" to begin with.
I no longer do demos or show anything off unless I've first made it "pretty" and I definately avoid the mention that it required any effort to make it "pretty".
I understand "pretty" now; it is an attempt by upper management to see something quickly and decide if it is well designed and thought out. If it does not look "pretty" it is probably not well designed.
Unfortunately, this benchmark kills off many good projects that are indeed well thought out and do have good interfaces...but by default do not. Along those lines, the program Double Choco Latte almost never entered trial use here because of it's name. The saving grace is that it is both "pretty" (with a minor tweak), and well designed, and can be referred to as "DCL" making it sound less goofy though unfortunately more techy.
Personally, I'm an ubergeek, and the more technical the better. I hate programs that attempt to think for me and do not follow even my dumbest commands. Upper management does not think like this...untill they run into problems that "pretty" often does not cover.
Rule: People and the market demands what they think they need before they think it over, and not what is ideally suited for the task that they need to do, so they end up with what they really do not need. The market demands crap, and we give the market what they ask for.

--
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Re:all good but... by pmz · 2003-10-28 05:38 · Score: 1

they go the way of bells and whistles because they think it 'looks good'.

And it works just fine on their Fast Ethernet LAN with only two hops to the webserver...

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Re:all good but... by itsari · 2003-10-28 13:24 · Score: 1

I'd like to see the whole MX suite in crossover. Better yet I'd like to see native Flash authoring tools in Linux. Like that's going to happen. When's the last time Macromedia released a Shockwave Flash plugin for Linux?
Re:all good but... by johnnyb · 2003-10-29 03:16 · Score: 1

" not to put down their achievement, but how is this any functionally different than running said applications in vmware/bochs/plex86?"

Because with vmware/bochs/plex86 you need to install a full copy of Windows. Codeweavers does not require a Windows license or any Windows software.

--
Engineering and the Ultimate

Hold your horses about switching by Heartz · 2003-10-27 21:51 · Score: 5, Informative

Both of the apps only have a bronze medal From the crossover site :

Bronze Medal The bronze is awarded to applications that install and run, and that can accomplish some portion of their fundamental mission. However, bronze applications generally have enough bugs that we recommend that our customers not depend on their functionality. The most important aspect of a bronze application is that CodeWeavers makes a firm commitment to bring all bronze applications to the silver level in future releases of CrossOver.

You can't have that if you want to switch and are highly dependant on it. Users will just get frustrated. Both of the apps only have a bronze medal

Re:Hold your horses about switching by c0d39uru · 2003-10-27 21:55 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Yeah, so it'll be just like running Flash MX on Mac OS X (or maybe better) :-D

--
--#!
Re:Hold your horses about switching by StingRay02 · 2003-10-27 22:11 · Score: 1

Come now.... I've had that "pleasure"..... It's an experience I'd rather not relive....
Of course, this is just another example of the "Ship it anyway!" mentality that's running rampant among developers and publishers. "Why bother making it work to begin with? Market it to the moon, make it sell well and we can just PATCH it later!"
Is there any way to revolt against an industry...?
Re:Hold your horses about switching by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-27 22:17 · Score: -1

It's dependEnt, Homer.
Re:Hold your horses about switching by c0d39uru · 2003-10-27 22:20 · Score: 1

The problem is that they don't patch it later. A full year after MM Studio MX came out (9/03), MM had not released ANY patches or fixes to their apalling excuse for Production software (this shit was barely beta). And then they have the balls to release a new verion of the software and charge you $500 for an upgrade. And from what I hear, its no better. ... The world's going to hell. I'm glad I'm getting out of the web-media business.

--
--#!
Re:Hold your horses about switching by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-27 23:48 · Score: 0

yeah, I know what you mean, I'm stuck in it.

Although sometimes it brings along really exciting things (like certain projects, also Linux for me).
Re:Hold your horses about switching by Jonathan+Platt · 2003-10-28 00:15 · Score: 1

I'm sure this information came out months ago. I remember seeing it all on Xandros. Any way, I'm still waiting for golive, not a fan of either Flash or Dreamweaver. Most flash stuff these days just looks korny.

--

VENI, VIDI, VICI, DIXI
Re:Hold your horses about switching by jeremy_white · 2003-10-28 00:26 · Score: 5, Informative

We have a policy to always start an application at Bronze level.
We know the reality of Wine - it can be very promising, but fail in important ways. So, we try to help our customers be cautious in their adoption. For example, Photoshop, which actually is one of the very best performing applications in CrossOver (it is in heavy use to make major motion pictures), started at Bronze, and is now only at Silver.
With that said, we have found Dreamweaver to be very complete, with only a few remaining bugs. And we have yet to find a bug in Flash... (but we didn't try as hard there).
Cheers,
Jeremy White CEO CodeWeavers
Re:Hold your horses about switching by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 00:33 · Score: 0

well I've run Dreamweaver since version 4 under Crossover (LONG before they even certified it bronze) and you could use it heavily. it did have quirks though but these went away when the newer Dreamweaver switched from it's pretty non-standard windowing.

I use it all the time. it is the only windows app I still run.
Re:Hold your horses about switching by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 01:40 · Score: -1

I've been using both for months and neither of them has crashed once.
Re:Hold your horses about switching by oneself · 2003-10-28 03:20 · Score: 1

I little off topic, but I've always wanted to ask this question. There are a lot of MS apps ported to Mac OSX, which we all know is a version of FreeBSD. Wouldn't it be easier to write an OSX emulator, rather than a Windows emulator?

This way you'd get the bulk of MS apps--MS Office, EI, Photoshop, and so on.

What do you think, am I off base here?
Re:Hold your horses about switching by smack_attack · 2003-10-28 03:28 · Score: 1

The MX 2004 suite has switched back to funky windowing. It's cool and useful, but could pose problems under this environment.

--

Hammer of Truth
Re:Hold your horses about switching by mjprobst · 2003-10-28 03:39 · Score: 1

In my daily work I've found Dreamweaver MX to be quite buggy and unstable even running natively on Windows, and I still manage to "depend" on in meaning that it's the first application I reach for. Of course, productive work on websites doesn't depend on using such a tool, and if it fails I can always use a vi-alike.
Re:Hold your horses about switching by O · 2003-10-28 04:25 · Score: 1

What do you think, am I off base here?
Yes, I think you are. You're completely forgetting that OSX applications run on the PowerPC architecture, and OSX is not a version of FreeBSD. Yes, a lot of the underlying UNIX utilities are from FreeBSD, but the kernel is not, nor is the graphics framework. In addition, most of the MS apps are not written like UNIX applications but instead are written like old Mac applications. I forget what this is called, but I believe it's the one that's not called Cocoa.

--

1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21 -- Mathematics is the Language of Nature.
Re:Hold your horses about switching by DeltaSigma · 2003-10-28 05:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

I downloaded your trial yesterday and noticed that things earlier reported to not work at all, very much did work, with little/no difficulty. I've been mighty impressed and intend to buy a license as soon as I've got the hardware to run it. (PS7 via Crossover on a PII 450 just isn't as smooth as one would like it to be.)
Re:Hold your horses about switching by SquadBoy · 2003-10-28 09:31 · Score: 1

Port iTunes. :)

On a serious note is there anyway to request applications?

Thanks

--

Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
Re:Hold your horses about switching by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 12:00 · Score: 0

DreamWeaver MX is a buggy ass piece of shit on Windows as it is... If Codeweavers can make it run stably on Linux, they have done a lot more than achieving equality! It would be a damn near miracle!

IE by MooCows · 2003-10-27 21:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

Running Internet Explorer on Linux?
That's pretty impressive/terrifying indeed.

--
The path I walk alone is endlessly long.
30 minutes by bike, 15 by bus.

Re:IE by DerPflanz · 2003-10-27 22:16 · Score: 1

Not necessarily terrifying. There are a lot of pages (for example banks) that only work on IE. When you have to boot up Windows (and thus have a copy installed) /just/ for making some money transactions, having it run on Linux is quite nice to have.

Must note by the way that it still is a workaround. Sites should work in all (modern) browsers. The site of my bank seems to work okay with Mozilla, so I am fine there.

--
-- The Internet is a too slow way of doing things, you'd never do without it.
Re:IE by IamTheRealMike · 2003-10-27 22:33 · Score: 1

Most people go "oooh what's the point in that, stupid Wine developers", but actually we put quite a bit of effort into making IE run correctly because so many other programs rely on it (or rather, its components) being there and functioning.
NB: I don't work for CodeWeavers, but if you can get it to install IE works pretty well on WineHQ. Suitable for light browsing certainly.
Re:IE by peterprior · 2003-10-27 22:37 · Score: 1

even windows update works due to the ~/.crossover/fake_windows stuff :)

See This screenshot and This one
Re:IE by MooCows · 2003-10-27 22:40 · Score: 1

So does Wine support ActiveX then?
IIRC IE is an ActiveX component, which the 'iexplore.exe' simply loads.
I'm not sure 'cause I've never had the pleasure to work directly with it.

--
The path I walk alone is endlessly long.
30 minutes by bike, 15 by bus.
Re:IE by MooCows · 2003-10-27 22:44 · Score: 0

Never mind .. of course it does ...

--
The path I walk alone is endlessly long.
30 minutes by bike, 15 by bus.
Re:IE by ajs318 · 2003-10-27 23:33 · Score: 0, Troll
There are a lot of pages (for example banks) that only work on IE.
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.
1. To pay in a cheque through the hole-in-the-wall.
2. 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.
--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Re:IE by WWWWolf · 2003-10-27 23:50 · Score: 1

Running Internet Explorer on Linux?
That's pretty impressive/terrifying indeed.

Indeed. IE runs (or at least used to run, can't seem to run it with current build) rather effortlessly with WINE.
I couldn't believe my eyes first. I asked it to run iexplore.exe and the damn thing did just that. The only problem was that it always complained about content ratings when starting up (Nothing serious), some toolbar buttons were all black outlines, and the managed window didn't have minimize button, which looked pretty ridiculous. But it worked otherwise just fine!
This was IE 5.something and IE 6, from Windows 98SE. I guess MS has funny ideas of "tight OS integration" =)
Re:IE by hughk · 2003-10-27 23:50 · Score: 1

In other countries, it is the norm to pay by direct transfer to the recipients account. With a cheque, you have two pieces of paper to track, whilst with a transfer you only have one, and as you normally give it to your bank, they can be responsible authenticating it.
For Internet banking, this can work well. However, in addition to your password (PIN), you have a list of per transaction authentication numbers (TANs). Having access to a PIN doesn't get you much (other than a balance and a statement). Having a TAN block gives you the full ability to make transfers up to a preagreed limit. Oh, and my bank does support Mozilla as well as IE so Internet banking from Linux works fine.
You may have no interest in Internet banking, but others are very interested.

--
See my journal, I write things there
Re:IE by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-27 23:59 · Score: 0

yeah, plus when I ran the Dreamweaver Ultradev 4 installer, it actually succeeded in handling an installer within this installer!

Yesterday, I installed Dreamweaver Ultradev 4, Flash MX, Photoshop 6 and Adobe Pagemaker 6 with Crossvover Office. Photoshop runs great, pagemaker seems a bit problematic. Dreamweaver and Flash: not yet tested them enough, but they seem usable.

Of course this is exciting news. I wonder why anyone who doesn't feel that way cares to react anyway.
Re:IE by stealthv · 2003-10-28 00:00 · Score: 1

For an opposite view, I never go to my bank at all. My wage is directly deposited, checks are sent via mail and payments are made through the web site. I generally use a credit card over cash so I rarely need an ATM (aka hole-in-the-wall).
Re:IE by nacturation · 2003-10-28 00:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Re:IE by IamTheRealMike · 2003-10-28 01:46 · Score: 1

I couldn't believe my eyes first. I asked it to run iexplore.exe and the damn thing did just that. The only problem was that it always complained about content ratings when starting up (Nothing serious), some toolbar buttons were all black outlines, and the managed window didn't have minimize button, which looked pretty ridiculous. But it worked otherwise just fine!
Indeed it does, and it can render even complex web pages. Here it shows the Adobe SVG plugin, as you can see it renders correctly and the issue with the ratings doesn't occur. Here it is viewing microsoft.com
I guess MS has funny ideas of "tight OS integration" =)
Well, you can install IE just like an update to Windows 95 or 98. IE is undoubtably integrated though - many apps expect it to be there and won't run if it isn't.
Re:IE by Archie+Steel · 2003-10-28 02:28 · Score: 0

Bill comes in the mail, I go online and pay it.

Ha! You call that Internet Banking? My bills come directly through the Internet! :-)

--

Reminder: find a new sig
Re:IE by greenskyx · 2003-10-28 04:06 · Score: 1

Actually you can't run IE on Linux. That's because IE isn't a product anymore, it's actually an operating system (IE == Windows). You'll have to get VMWARE to run Windows on Linux... sorry...
p.s. just kidding eh
Re:IE by the_crowbar · 2003-10-28 06:29 · Score: 1

My bank had online billpay and banking that worked fine from Mozilla (since 1.0.x or so). Recently they merged with a much larger bank and have integrated their online services. Now Mozilla works to access my account and see my balance, but I am unable to actually submit a payment. To get to the point, I am looking into other banks because they are unwilling to even consider fixing the "upgrade."

So, what bank do you know works with Mozilla, or Konq?

Thanks,
the_crowbar

--
Have you read the Moderator Guidelines
Re:IE by crisco · 2003-10-28 07:04 · Score: 1

Running various flavors of IE under Wine would probably drive as many web developers to Linux as having Flash and Dreamweaver running. Very common question on web development mailing lists is "how can I test my page in old versions of IE?". Right now the best solution is to have VMware or VirtualPC booting up various flavors of IE. A Free solution that also offers the opportunity to duplicate the server environment (Apache+PHP+MySQL or some such thing) would be a great web development platform.

--
Bleh!
Re:IE by FryGuy1013 · 2003-10-28 07:31 · Score: 1

So, what bank do you know works with Mozilla, or Konq?

I use Safe Credit Union. It's really nice if you're in the Sacramento, California area (I think they're most of Northern California actually).

--
bananas like monkeys.
Re:IE by FryGuy1013 · 2003-10-28 07:34 · Score: 1

If your bank doesn't offer this, maybe you should look around for a new bank?

My employment doesn't support Direct Deposit. Should I find a new job? I hate going to the bank.

--
bananas like monkeys.
Re:IE by nacturation · 2003-10-28 07:39 · Score: 1

My employment doesn't support Direct Deposit. Should I find a new job? I hate going to the bank.

Oh, definitely! Maybe try working for the bank. ;-)

--
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Re:IE by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 08:08 · Score: 0

..... or robbing it .....
Re:IE by the_crowbar · 2003-10-29 03:40 · Score: 1

Thanks for the info. I am on the other side of the continent though. If I ever move to Cali I will keep that in mind.

the_crowbar

--
Have you read the Moderator Guidelines

Mod parent troll by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-27 21:56 · Score: 0, Interesting

you're the most horrible troll on slashdot. Not even original.

excellent - but note it's only bronze support by alexander+m · 2003-10-27 21:57 · Score: 2, Redundant

along with photoshop, macromedia products have been the most requested for codeweavers support, bar none, so this is excellent news... (btw, all you dreamweaver-bashers; yes, flash is often a bad idea, but no dreamweaver doesn't produce bloated code unless you have no idea what you're doing ;-) )

however, note that dreamweaver/flash are only at 'bronze medal' status

bronze applications generally have enough bugs that we recommend that our customers not depend on their functionality.

still good, as they promise to bring all bronze apps up to silver in future versions, but don't all you web designers delete that windows partition quite yet ;)

Re:excellent - but note it's only bronze support by justsomebody · 2003-10-28 01:00 · Score: 1

you should read before you post, and here is a nice explanation of bronze medal

http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8 38 13&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&tid=126&tid=152&tid= 163&tid=185&mode=thread&pid=7326814#732720 0

--
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
Re:excellent - but note it's only bronze support by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 02:51 · Score: 0

You start your post with an attack, but you don't use capital letters and you don't even know how to make a link. For some reason this kind of comment really ticks me off. Then after pasting your link back together, I find it agrees with the parent comment. What's your big problem?
Re:excellent - but note it's only bronze support by vjmurphy · 2003-10-28 03:49 · Score: 1

" but no dreamweaver doesn't produce bloated code unless you have no idea what you're doing ;-) )"

Ah, therein lies the rub: those who use Dreamweaver are usually the type that indeed has no idea what they are doing, thus the bloated code.

I know of few Web developers who use Dreamweaver (well, Web developers worth crap, that is) as their primary tool. At least MX let's you code in a non-WYSIWYG manner more easily, but the software itself is bloated, not terribly user-friendly, and expensive.

--
Vincent J. Murphy
Spandex Justice

Just as they release by Albanach · 2003-10-27 21:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

Dreamweaver and Flash MX 2004, we can run the previous version on Linux. These are big commercial apps - their availability on Linux would be a great boost to the OS, but only if they arrive with Macromedia support.

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.

Re:Just as they release by Azghoul · 2003-10-28 00:48 · Score: 1

And what, exactly, do the 2004 versions of these web-design behemoths do that earlier versions can't... that web designers NEED?

"Stay up to date in the marketplace" is about the weakest reason I've seen anywhere. That's like saying "Let's jump on .Net because it's new, even though Java works great for us".

The idea that the latest, shiny app must get used is indicative, to me anyway, of the immature nature of the web design industry. Gandalf's Theory (the one about breaking shit for the sake of it = stupid :)) doesn't apply here, I guess, thank the gods for more mature industries where you can learn a tech and not worry about it for a few years...

But I am curious: What's so great about the 2004 versions?
Re:Just as they release by jallen02 · 2003-10-28 01:00 · Score: 1

Flash 2004, FINALLY untying Flash "movies" from the ungodly timeline method.

More VB like.. more software developer friendly.. less learning curve for software developers to use it for "Rich Media" applications.

Jeremy
Re:Just as they release by illusion_2K · 2003-10-28 02:07 · Score: 1

I don't know about Flash, but I use Dreamweaver a lot for the web-related aspects of my job (mostly building ColdFusion apps) and I can tell you firsthand that there aren't that many big differences between Dreamweaver MX and 2004. Other than the CSS improvements (which, honestly are quite nice) I'd say that there are few big reasons to upgrade. Macromedia has a page with the changes here.

At least for me this is A-OK
Re:Just as they release by keeranh · 2003-10-28 02:40 · Score: 1

Any development company that jumps to the latest products such as Flash/DW are asking for trouble. It's highly unlikely that the larger companies will invest in multiple licences for these versions so soon, especially since they offer so little to the developer. As far as Flash MX 2004 is concerned, around 70% of the flash developers I know can't stand it due to UI bugs and general loss in performance.
Re:Just as they release by axlrosen · 2003-10-28 03:03 · Score: 1

Dreamweaver MX 2004 supports CSS layout, that's the big one that I know about.
Re:Just as they release by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 03:41 · Score: 0

It looks damn near identical to a product called Altio I was looking at last year. Definitely a step in the right direction for Rich Media or RIA applications, or whatever they're called this week.
Re:Just as they release by HiThere · 2003-10-28 13:25 · Score: 1

One thing that's so great about the 2004 versions is that you can buy them.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

impressive list? by Grummet · 2003-10-27 21:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

I dunno - the list of supported apps includes a lot of "known to not work" apps in it.

call me stupid, but, if they don't work how the heck
can you say they are supported?

looks like somebody was just trying to fluff up the list so they could get attention.

ttwisi

- jeff -

Re:impressive list? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-27 22:17 · Score: 0

I think it comes under their truth in advertising policy. But I can't check because it's slashdotted...
Re:impressive list? by janeil · 2003-10-28 09:36 · Score: 1

Man, exactly. This "supported apps" page looks very suspiciously like an attempt to mislead the too-casual shopper: there's six pages of lists of apps, and every page begins with "The following applications are supported by CrossOver Office. Click Here to read about how our medal system works." Of course the casual viewer doesn't care about medals, and the first page has all gold and silver medals. But by the 4th page, all but one of the apps, and of course all of the remaining 2 pages, have received the coveted "Known not to run" medal, or worse! (Cool award, I say.) Interesting how blurred the text on those medals is, at my normal font size!
If you do check the medal description, basically only the gold apps really run well enough to use regularly, at least as I understand it. Silver means "significant bugs", bronze means not dependable. There is, though, the promise to raise any bronze and silver medals up, though.
Codeweavers sound like good guys and all, with a cool product, and even if they are ultimately very up-front with the status of "supported apps", these pages are a little misleading.

Wow! by gazbo · 2003-10-27 22:05 · Score: 0, Funny

So for those who have been waiting to ditch MS Windows because of these two apps, now is your chance.

See the hoardes of people lining up.

Re:Wow! by Gramie2 · 2003-10-28 01:00 · Score: 0

Were you hoarding hordes of people as they whored?
Re:Wow! by gazbo · 2003-10-28 01:17 · Score: 0

Gazbo accepts this subtle criticism and promises to try harder next time.
Re:Wow! by FyRE666 · 2003-10-28 08:23 · Score: 1

See the hoardes of people lining up.

Well I don't know about anyone else, but I'll be in the queue. I've been sending mail to Macromedia for YEARS asking about Linux versions of their apps (and yes, I'd gladly pay to convert). Once Fireworks and PS are there, I'll be ditching my last Windows machine here.

Sure, it won't apply to everyone, but web developers, writing apps to run on Linux servers must see the obvious benefits here!

--
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.

Good, I suppose by unoengborg · 2003-10-27 22:10 · Score: 5, Interesting

I don't know if this is god or bad.

It's good as it allows people to use a popular windows app in Linux x86. But it's bad because now there is less pressure on Macromedia to develop a native port or for somebody else to write a free Dreamweaver killer.

I personally would have preferred if some good programer had enhanced Mozilla composer to the same level of feature richnes as the Macromedia suite. That way not only x86 Linux users would have a content development tool but also users of other Linux platforms would have a good content development tool. Not to mention that it would also likely have run on Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, MacOS-X and windows.

--
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER

Re:Good, I suppose by IamTheRealMike · 2003-10-27 22:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's good as it allows people to use a popular windows app in Linux x86. But it's bad because now there is less pressure on Macromedia to develop a native port or for somebody else to write a free Dreamweaver killer.
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.
Re:Good, I suppose by Afrosheen · 2003-10-27 22:50 · Score: 1

5 or 10% would be pushing our luck?! Please don't tell that to all the Mac users out there. I think their ever-shrinking 5% demographic would be shocked to find no Macromedia apps. I remember using Photoshop 4 for Unix on some SGI hardware a long time ago..now THAT'S a niche market if I ever saw one.

Not real sure if Adobe even makes Photoshop for Unix anymore. Basically, a group of folks have to get together and use their buying power to influence a port. If there were enough people lined up to buy Macromedia Studio 2004 for Linux that it would balance out Macromedia's dev costs, I'm sure they'd do it.

Maybe someone needs to start a real petition. It's about time for Linux to move from the desktop/server image to the production/artist image. We need more apps to create with.
Re:Good, I suppose by unoengborg · 2003-10-27 23:30 · Score: 1

Well, there are other dreamweaver killers in the workings check out Kafka (http://kafka.kde.org/mailinglist.htm)
The project is still in very early stages, but give it a year or two.

And I also think that you overestimate the cost of making a Dreamweaver port to Linux. Large parts of Dreamweaver is written in Javascript. They still need to port rendering engines and such though.

Porting to Linux would be beneficial to Macromedia as they by doing so would get the foothold in a new and growing market.

--
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
Re:Good, I suppose by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-27 23:50 · Score: 0

They still need to port rendering engines and such though.

They use Opera for rendering their pages, so that won't be a problem as Opera is ported to Linux, MacOS, BSD, Symbian and Windows.
Re:Good, I suppose by rjamestaylor · 2003-10-27 23:58 · Score: 2, Funny
- I personally would have preferred if some good programer had enhanced Mozilla composer to the same level of feature richnes as the Macromedia suite.
I believe there is a project to extend Notepad.exe to match MacroMedia's Dreamweaver feature for feature....
And there's a project to make Honda Accords match the new Hummer H2's with slight modifications.
--
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Re:Good, I suppose by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 00:46 · Score: 0

Lindows is paying Daniel Glazman to develop composer into a more fully developed HTML authoring tool. You can find prerelease versions of composer++ here.
Re:Good, I suppose by Spoing · 2003-10-28 01:07 · Score: 1

5 or 10% would be pushing our luck?! Please don't tell that to all the Mac users out there. I think their ever-shrinking 5% demographic would be shocked to find no Macromedia apps. I remember using Photoshop 4 for Unix on some SGI hardware a long time ago..now THAT'S a niche market if I ever saw one.
I could be wrong, though I'd expect that if Linux and MacOS had the same market share, and Macromedia supported both equally, it would still mean more sales of Macromedia products to Mac users vs. Linux users.
That said, quite a few web designers use Linux or even BSD on the server side, even if they test the client end using IE.

--
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Re:Good, I suppose by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 01:09 · Score: 0

Its not all the acedemic when you take a look at the History of OS/2. They had great emulation to run windows apps and then Windows 95 came out and it was all over. I wonder how many Longhorn programers Microsoft has working on throwing a wrench in Codeweavers support.
Re:Good, I suppose by Spoing · 2003-10-28 01:10 · Score: 0

The mailing list looks dead. Are you sure that this is an active project?

--
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Re:Good, I suppose by NamShubCMX · 2003-10-28 01:39 · Score: 1

It's been integrated in Quanta, which is *very* active. Try the latest from HEAD and be amazed. I think some important features will be missing for 3.2 (KDE is already in feature freeze I believe) but give it less than a year and it's better than dreamweaver!
It's already better in many case...

--
We've always been at war with Eurasia.
Re:Good, I suppose by DarkSarin · 2003-10-28 01:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

I have to say that Quanta is a robust enough program for those who understand code. That said, I find some things about it VERY annoying. One is browser selection. Certain presumptions are made about which browser one is using, and there is not an OBVIOUS way to switch things around.

When I first started learning html, I heavily resisted Dreamweaver, but then I got a job where it was available, so I started learning it. For a long time after that I moved backward in understanding.

It was only when I ditched the WYSIWYG part and moved to the code editor that I really began to understand CSS, HTML and even PHP.

Quanta is nearly perfect for those who are accustomed to working in code view. It needs somewhat better project management, and when using it I really miss the FTP client that Dreamweaver includes.

I do not miss dreamweaver's tendency to break custom HTML/CSS (although I haven't tried the latest version). If you leave code view and edit something in DW, you may well break previous (well written) code.

Now, if we can get the majority of people to code standards, instead of for IE, I will be happy.

--
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
Re:Good, I suppose by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 02:03 · Score: 1, Insightful

You really expect linux people to pay $400-$900 for a piece of software? Free as in beer, remember!

Though the mac might only have 5% of the market, the mac people are used to paying high prices for everything already ;-) And linux people are used to paying *nothing* (as a rule) 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...
Re:Good, I suppose by Clovert+Agent · 2003-10-28 02:06 · Score: 1

I use CrossOver Office to run Outlook. I'd rather run Evolution or KMail, but:
- I need to work with .pst files, and the importers I've used are crap. Well - actually not that bad, but just not good/consistent/easy enough.
- I need to talk to Exchange servers, and CrossOver is cheaper than Ximian Connector. Only a little, but if I had 1000 seats to consider, it'd be a factor.

For all I'd rather be using free/OSS tools for the job, CrossOver is doing a great job helping me bridge the gap. Go CodeWeavers!
Re:Good, I suppose by Pfhreakaz0id · 2003-10-28 02:21 · Score: 1

They use Opera for rendering their pages, so that won't be a problem as Opera is ported to Linux, MacOS, BSD, Symbian and Windows.

A web-design app that uses a browser used by 1% of the broswing public? Where do I sign up?

--
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
Re:Good, I suppose by Man_Holmes · 2003-10-28 03:48 · Score: 1

Macromedia supports Apple which only has 2% of the desktop.

Lots of us have been pressing Macromedia to bring these products to Linux. This puts more not less pressure on them to do it.

We're going to do some experimentation right away with Codeweaver and MX 2004. This has been the only thing holding us back at my company from moving completely to Linux. We spend the majority of our day in Macromedia Studio.

Man Holmes
Re:Good, I suppose by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 04:13 · Score: 0

you mean Photoshop 3. A true piece of shit and thanks for nothing adobe.

Well the same people who need Maya and Houdini and video editors on Linux need Photoshop on Linux.

Adobe doesn't port NOT because there is no market for their apps on Linux.

I'll leave you to ponder why they might be extra stubborn beyond a straight forward market rationale, sort of the way Dell never uses AMD cpus, particularly since the Adobe employees are interested in doing the port.

Hint: it rhymes with Tribes.
Re:Good, I suppose by jonnyfivealive · 2003-10-28 04:29 · Score: 1

isnt the macromedia suite written in java since MX? i dont know crap about graphics in java, but doesnt that make it closer to platform-independent?

--
i sell illegal drugs
Re:Good, I suppose by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 05:34 · Score: 0

WHat a maroon. Most mac users who don't have a vital business interest in using a *legal* copy of Adobe software SIMPLY STEAL IT FROM HOTLINE SERVERS.

Adobe knows mac users are stealing their software. And the windows users too. You might have "overlooked" it, but they KNOW it.

Win and Mac users typically have thousands of dollars more "free as in stolen beer" software than Linux users. Adobe products, MS stuff, Macromedia stuff, Corel -- it's the proprietary platform folks who are the pirates, not the Linux and BSD users.

Linux users who have a need for Adobe products already pay THOUSANDS per copy for Maya and Houdini and softimage XSI and Shake, etc.

Adobe has OTHER REASONS for not doing Linux ports of their products.
Re:Good, I suppose by cpeterso · 2003-10-28 09:35 · Score: 1

no. Cold Fusion MX was rewritten in Java (from C++), but Dreamweaver MX and Flash MX are still C++ apps.

--
cpeterso

We really need a Dreamweaver under GNU/Linux !!! by xcomm · 2003-10-27 22:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

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!

Dreamweaver MX has been running under Wine before by joost.be · 2003-10-27 22:23 · Score: 2, Informative

I can't recall exactly when, but I remember setting up dreamweaver MX under Wine a while ago (let's say about a year). It is listed in the Wine Application DB, It worked pretty well back then, the only problem was that it crashed when you used the color selection box. I no longer use it now, I've come to my senses and use VIM.

Quanta Plus, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-27 22:31 · Score: 0

Maybe you should check out Quanta Plus. (Yeah, site is ugly... it works great, though.) I've seen a lot of people say things like "Quanta Plus allowed me to switch to Linux!" Oh, and it got that Star Trek guy, that everybody(?) likes, to be able to dump Windows.

Re:Quanta Plus, anyone? by hendridm · 2003-10-28 03:43 · Score: 1

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Quanta isn't a WYSIWYG editor like FrontPage and Dreamweaver.

*blah blah* real developers use notepad *blah blah*

I like FrontPage/DW because I can throw together some complex tables and throw some images in quicker than typing it in Notepad. Obviously, I have to use Notepad (or something similar) to clean up the resulting code and make it compliant, but for me, I've still found a time savings in the end. In my mind, it would be like POV Ray developers calling users of Photoshop wusses.

Thank you, Jeremy and team, for all your hard work on the project. The addition of a decent WYSIWYG editor for Linux is greatly welcome. I'm a FrontPage man myself, but I'd glady switch so not to be dependent on the MS machine anymore.

Re:We really need a Dreamweaver under GNU/Linux !! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-27 22:32 · Score: 1, Informative

What about this?.

CodeWeavers Staff speak at SCALE by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-27 22:32 · Score: 0

Jeremy White, CEO of CodeWeavers and crossover / wine developer, will be speaking at SCALE about this very subject: the latest developments in WINE! Want a free pass to the expo floor? Input the promo code "free" on our registration page.

Some people dropped Windows long ago by foniksonik · 2003-10-27 22:46 · Score: 1

and bought a Mac... and never looked back, but it's nice to hear that support for these useful tools is coming for the alt-OS X86 crowd.

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.

Re:Some people dropped Windows long ago by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 03:59 · Score: 0

Fag...

"I don't know what these popups are I keep hearing about. Ever since I switch to Firebird blah blah blah"

"I don't know what these worms are I keep hearing about, ever since I rolled me own with Gentoo blah blah blah"

I guess it's good to know the homosexual crowd has an operating system they can feel comfortable with.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO UPGRADE TO QUICKTIME PRO??
Re:Some people dropped Windows long ago by foniksonik · 2003-11-06 22:06 · Score: 1

Actually I used mlmac via eDonkey to get a QT Pro serial number for free, so I don't get those and never have since 1994, back when I used hotline to get my warez....

yep no worms, no popups ever. I've never experienced a virus. I've never worried about being hacked, never. Now I run a firewall, I mean my mac has a locked down firewall with a check box to turn it on... ;-p now I could get crazy and run a nice ipfw with a very extensive conf file and then run some good ol' ipconf for spam control, etc. but instead I have an intelligent mail program and perfectly serviceable firewall withput the need to read a bunch of man pages.... speaking of faggy... man pages, heheheheh

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.

Cygwin by barcodez · 2003-10-27 22:49 · Score: 1

Does it support Cygwin?

--

----

Re:Cygwin by lukew · 2003-10-28 03:43 · Score: 1

LOL.

Seems strange by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-27 23:06 · Score: 0

That there is a lot of Microsoft Front Page 2003 Adverts on this article

I am psychic. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-27 23:14 · Score: -1, Offtopic

As proof, I will read the mind of one of the people reading this post.
I know that your birthday is July 17.
Your hair is brown. You have recently been thinking about exercise, and I sense something near you..something blue. You know what I refer to.
Reply, and know of my awesome powers.

Re:We really need a Dreamweaver under GNU/Linux !! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-27 23:25 · Score: -1, Troll

WARNING! Parent contains a goatse.cx redirect, do not click! Mod down as troll!

I'll wait for the next version of Quanta Plus by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-27 23:38 · Score: 0

which is purportedly going to have WYSIWYG support. Give me a native app any day, I've never been able to get anything running under Wine to the standard where I can use it in a production environment. Plus I'd just much rather not have any software designed for Windows on my box. :)

An extended version of Mozilla Composer could be good too if anyone would code it.

Supported = stable? by nurb432 · 2003-10-27 23:48 · Score: 1

Does 'supported' to them mean as stable as on native windows? Or do i have to expect increased peroidic crashes..

This isnt accpetable in business ( though how microsoft gets away with it, ill never understand. )

Hmm... where is the demo, or bit torrent to try it out for myself with MY applications? Or do they just expect me to take a leap of faith?

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Re:Supported = stable? by tlwillia · 2003-10-28 02:52 · Score: 1

I have been using Crossover Office and Plugin for 6 months without any problems. I have to run Lotus Notes for my work email as well as the occasional foray into Word, Excel and Powerpoint for attachments that don't quite look right in OpenOffice. I even use Internet Explorer for one of our this-only-works-with-Explorer web based apps. These apps (with the exception of Java based pages in Explorer) work extremely well and they are very stable. If anything weird happens, they have "Reset Crossover Office" and "Simulate Windows Reboot" that will usually take care of things.

I went to their site and downloaded a trial (http://www.codeweavers.com/site/products/) of both Office and Plugin before I bought the product. I used it for a month without any pressure from them at all. It works well for me but that isn't the case for everyone. In those cases, it's nice to see that the Codeweavers team is willing to work with users and refund money if you aren't satisfied. That was a big factor in my decision to buy.
Re:Supported = stable? by HermanZA · 2003-10-28 08:46 · Score: 1

You'll have to try an application and see for yourself. I'm using QuickBooks on CrossOver for my business accounting and it is rock solid. So, it works very well, when it works.

Lotus Notes for Linux... when ? by Erik_ · 2003-10-27 23:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's a shame that we need to use tools like CrossOver Office 2.1 to support the Lotus Notes R5 client under Linux. With a company like IBM pushing Linux, it seems to me that getting a Notes client would be the obvious choise... (Lotus Domino servers already run on Linux).

Re:Lotus Notes for Linux... when ? by AaronLawrence · 2003-10-28 01:28 · Score: 1

Especially since most of Notes seems to do it's own rendering/controls. You can hardly find a native element of the UI anywhere. When they dropped OS/2 client support I thought this would be because they would move to lots of "cool" Win32 elements. It would make some sense since their own controls are fairly hideous... but no. They just did a whole lot more custom controls.

--
For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
Re:Lotus Notes for Linux... when ? by brighton · 2003-10-28 06:30 · Score: 1

I read somewhere on the Lotus Developer Domain message boards that in fact IBM *is* planning on releasing some new os-independent uberplatform for all their Lotus Applications, including Notes and the horribly out-of-date SmartSuite. (and b/c of this IBM is not disclosing to Codeweavers some knowledge they need in order to add Notes 6 support). And Actually, Domino 6.5 is touting support for linux-based web browsers (well, Mozilla really) to connect to iNotes .
Re:Lotus Notes for Linux... when ? by bogie · 2003-10-28 06:34 · Score: 1

Obviously IBM doesn't see a market for Linux desktops running Notes yet. If they did or their clients were requesting anything but servers, I'm sure things would be different. Unfortunately your just going to have to wait until Linux starts showing up on more corporte desktops.

--
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Re:Lotus Notes for Linux... when ? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 08:44 · Score: 0

The current version (Notes 6.5) lets you run a Notes client via a browser, including on Linux. See here.
Re:Lotus Notes for Linux... when ? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 12:22 · Score: 0

Well IBM is claiming "Linux support" for clients in that Inotes (web browser interface for Notes) now supports Mozilla
Re:Lotus Notes for Linux... when ? by Erik_ · 2003-10-29 02:36 · Score: 1

There is also a upcoming 6.5 Java Client coming, but with Inotes, I can't localy replicate the information.

HEY MANDRAKE BASHING APPLE ZEALOTS! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-27 23:55 · Score: -1

Y0UR 0PERAT1NG SYSTEM FRYS CD-R0MS T00!

Re:HEY MANDRAKE BASHING APPLE ZEALOTS! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 04:02 · Score: 0

+1 Insightful. This place is turning into Mac Addict. Is there a way we can segregate the gay homosexuals from the rest of us? Perhaps they need a new domain. Slashgay.org or something. They can give it a pretty polished look and have random, untitled icons on a bar at the bottom of the screen that are meaningless to anyone who isn't in "the know" or doesn't wear tight leather pants to the grocery store.

What about IE 6.0 by yusufg · 2003-10-27 23:58 · Score: 1

Any idea when IE 6.0 will be supported by CodeWeavers ?

Re:What about IE 6.0 by gimpimp · 2003-10-28 00:09 · Score: 0, Troll

who cares? mozilla is better anyway!

--
i wish i was but oh well
Re:What about IE 6.0 by sigmaIII · 2003-10-28 00:10 · Score: 1

IE6 does work but its not exactly what I would call stable (difficult to tell if its IE or Wine thats to blame)
Re:What about IE 6.0 by Archie+Steel · 2003-10-28 03:17 · Score: 1

I've installed IE 6.0 under Crossover Office and it runs fine.

--

Reminder: find a new sig
Re:What about IE 6.0 by the_mad_poster · 2003-10-28 03:40 · Score: 1

Umm... All the people who develop websites in Dreamweaver MX and need to test them on IE. The poster never said he/she was actually going to use it...

--
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Re:What about IE 6.0 by pair-a-noyd · 2003-10-28 03:43 · Score: 1

Never I hope.
Why in gods name would anyone want to run IE on Linux?

If you like it that much either use vmware or just use Windows.

IE offers nothing that you can't get/do with any myriad of Linux browsers, take your pick.
Re:What about IE 6.0 by jonnyfivealive · 2003-10-28 04:37 · Score: 1

i sure hope that is a joke... why in hell would you want ie at all, much less in linux?

--
i sell illegal drugs
Re:What about IE 6.0 by pyite · 2003-10-28 10:01 · Score: 1

It's kind of funny really, because it seems a lot of people who *need* to test their stuff on IE give no concern to testing their crap (yes, utter crap) on other (read: better) browsers. As an anecdote, I installed Mac OS 10.3 on my mom's iBook the other day. I converted her from Internet Explorer to Safari with two clicks. I clicked the IE button and then the Safari button. Even though Safari started later, it came up first. She was convinced. Even simple users can appreciate things like this. They just need to be shown.

--
"Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman
Re:What about IE 6.0 by johnnyb · 2003-10-29 03:25 · Score: 1

It matters for developers wanting to test in multiple platforms. This way you don't have to purchase a Windows license to use it. With vmware you would have to pay a Windows license.

--
Engineering and the Ultimate
Re:What about IE 6.0 by pair-a-noyd · 2003-10-29 04:53 · Score: 1

I see said the blind man to the deaf woman on the telephone.

However.

If you are using IE, that means you still have to have a copy of Windows, it won't run stand alone will it?

I don't know but I've never tried to run IE as a stand alone app sans windows. I can't imagine that they would develop and application of any kind that could possibly be run on a competing OS..
Re:What about IE 6.0 by johnnyb · 2003-10-29 07:08 · Score: 1

"If you are using IE, that means you still have to have a copy of Windows, it won't run stand alone will it?"

Yes, it will under wine. You DO NOT need a copy of Windows. It works just like the rest of the MS Office Suite.

Microsoft isn't developing for Linux, Codeweavers (along with other folks with wine) is developing an implementation of the Windows API that runs on Linux, so applications don't even know they are on a different operating system.

--
Engineering and the Ultimate

On 'trendy' lower case tags. by jonathan_ingram · 2003-10-27 23:58 · Score: 5, Informative

4.2. Element and attribute names must be in lower case

XHTML documents must use lower case for all HTML element and attribute names. This difference is necessary because XML is case-sensitive e.g. <li> and <LI> are different tags.

From here.

--
-- Help Digitise the Public Domain at DP.

Re:On 'trendy' lower case tags. by ajs318 · 2003-10-28 00:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

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!
Re:On 'trendy' lower case tags. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 01:04 · Score: -1

I could spot japanese even easier on an english page, does that mean we should change the standard tags to japanese? I can't think of a good reason not to, japanese is a beautiful language. I have to admit more people read/write chinese though, so maybe that's a good middle ground.
Re:On 'trendy' lower case tags. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 01:19 · Score: 1, Insightful

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.
Re:On 'trendy' lower case tags. by DeltaSigma · 2003-10-28 04:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
Re:On 'trendy' lower case tags. by Mode0x13 · 2003-10-28 09:09 · Score: -1

Yes.

It does.

Now go back to masturating in the corner, you ass-faced, piece of crap, poop-for-brains, anti-person.
Re:On 'trendy' lower case tags. by Doomdark · 2003-10-28 13:45 · Score: 1

The tags are first and foremost a mnemonic for humans {otherwise they would be like \x1b[1m and \x1b[m},
Yes, and no. They are both compromise between human and machine readability (as in humans write, machines read and use), and to work around historical problems with transmitting anything beyond 7-bit ascii over network. Tags are text-encoding for structured documents; letters being used as opposed to other delimiters so even EBCDIC could be used (back in SGML days this was important... not as much these days).
Now, there is one very good point in trying to get rid of case-insensitivity. With 7-bit Ascii case insensitivity is easy. With unicode it's a royal pain, bloats code that handles tag parsing, and gives very little in the end. This same discussion was going in java developer circles a while back; there were people who were adamant case-sensitivity is idiotic, but also that anyone using "weird" characters (instead of ascii, which is not even enough to represent all english text... old english has 2 more letters than 7-bit ascii has) was an idiot. Why? "everyone knows it's better" seemingly being the strongest argument. :-)
So first and foremost battle between case sensitivity and insensitivity seems to be based on personal preferences; whether it should be easy by sloppy humans to create, or simple and efficient for machines to use. Since HTML (and XML markup languages even more) is IMO mostly for machine consumption, I'd prefer just going to case-sensitivity.

--
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes

Better choices by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 00:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

Look at how viruses spread. Then compare to flash. If one additional box had been included on the popup that asks you if you want to install flash, that says, no, and don't ask me again (instead of asking every time your mouse passes over an imbedded flash file), it wouldn't have spread so far so fast.

Flash is simply an animated gif enhancement for viewing more annoying banner ads. And for locking out users from web sites designed by designers that think it is more important to show off their flash programming skills than capturing a greater percentage of users through a more user-friendly site for the business or individual that the site is promoting.

As for Dreamweaver, regardless of the naysayers, it's bloated, not stable, and it still is not fully w3c compliant, even if you do know what you are doing. There is still non-compliant code that is inserted into source code, regardless of the settings.

For those who aren't chained to cold fusion, a better, more w3c compliant, and freer solution (as in freedom, and as in beer) is Quanta+. While wysiwyg is not in the stable release, it is in the cvs tree, and will launch when the new kde launches very shortly (check the mailing list for more updated info on the feature). And the other features are numerous, but the support for xml, and other technologies is all there. And the response from developers on the mailing list is fantastic, in features, in bug fixes, in help, and in just about everything else. I once thought I couldn't leave windows solely because of Dreamweaver, but Quanta+ enabled me to move to a much more stable and less restrictive operating system.

Sun, Adobe, and Macromedia, among other proprietary companies are the old guard. And they are the future SCO's of the tech world. The future is gpl'd source code for all applications. The rest of the world has already realized this, small businesses are catching on fast, and anyone looking to stay competitive and productive needs to admit this to themselves or they will be left behind, just like Sun, Adobe, and Macromedia.

Watch what happens to Sun in the next 18-24 months. Adobe and Macromedia will follow the same path shortly thereafter, maybe sooner.

And Oracle is not far behind...

Re:Better choices by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 00:37 · Score: 0

That is total BS. Quanta is in no way a replacement for Dreamweaver. Ignore the facts all you want, but truth is truth.
Re:Better choices by jonatanw · 2003-10-28 00:58 · Score: 1

there is nothing wrong with flash itself, it's the people who use it that are misusing it. If you use flash the right way (yes i also hate these "designer" sites) you will end up with less CPU-occupying sites.. The usability factor is especially apparent when collecting information from the visitors. ..
Re:Better choices by codell · 2003-10-28 02:19 · Score: 1

You, sir, are full of it. I edit code with Dreamweaver every day, and find it perfectly stable and, if used properly, compliant. Let me guess: you're a Quanta+ developer. I would love to see OSS catch on in a big way but the truth is: in the business world it's like trying to sell a new car without a warranty.
Re:Better choices by Aquitaine · 2003-10-28 02:23 · Score: 1

Parent says:

--
As for Dreamweaver, regardless of the naysayers, it's bloated, not stable, and it still is not fully w3c compliant, even if you do know what you are doing. There is still non-compliant code that is inserted into source code, regardless of the settings.
--

I work for a shop that specializes in web accessibility and usability. How, exactly, does Dreamweaver 'insert' things into the source code, regardless of the settings? I code in Dreamweaver. I don't use design mode and I only tinker with a couple settings. I don't remember the last time Dreamweaver inserted code into anything I did without my asking it to.

Coldfusion, however, is guilty of doing this; notably tags like that will create tags and then not close them, so your page won't validate, but there are plenty of ways around that.

When you say Dreamweaver isn't w3c compliant, do you mean the WCAG Authoring Tool Guidelines? If so, it's worth mentioning that No web authoring tool satisfies all ATAG standards -- not Dreamweaver and not Quanta.

So in response, we do know what we're doing when it comes to accessibility standards, and Dreamweaver works wonderfully for what we do. The 'rest of the world' has not realized anything about the companies you made, and your comparison between Sun, Adobe, Macromedia and SCO is unsupported.

-Aquitaine
Re:Better choices by unoengborg · 2003-10-28 03:50 · Score: 1

Read any EUALAs of propriatory software lately?

I think your "selling a car without a warrenty" analogy fits better to propriatory software.

Free software is more like getting a new car for free including the factory needed to build the next model. But as you say some PHBs havn't got that yet. But they will, or they will end up as just PHs.

--
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
Re:Better choices by FullCircle · 2003-10-28 05:17 · Score: 1

What part of graphic design is it that OSS developers can't understand?

Let me quote the wysiwyg link you provided:
"Even in WYSIWYG mode we will still be entering text into the editor with an editing rule set"

Typing is NOT the best way to create everything!

OSS dev: "I think I'll go type up a painting..."

I give up!

--
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison

OpenOffice.org Reader - please!! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 00:09 · Score: 0

Could someone point me to the download for OpenOffice.org Reader (readonly version of OO.org Writer, similar to MS Word Reader) for Windows for reading Word files. I can't download the whole of OO.org (70 MB plus) due to bandwidth restrictions here, so a smaller version should be helpful. Sorry to be (almost) offtopic :-). Please correct me if such a read-only version doesn't exist. Thanks.

Re:OpenOffice.org Reader - please!! by HermanZA · 2003-10-28 08:49 · Score: 1

I don't know of an OOo reader - 70MB is small enough, but MS and Corel have readers for download on their sites. So, just get a reader from MS.

Its getting there... by andih8u · 2003-10-28 00:11 · Score: 1

Its good to see CodeWeavers adding more application support to their product. I've used it for a bit but had a lot of trouble with applications simply vanishing (I assume they crashed) while working with them, or just had very slow performance. Its fun to play around with, but I'd be hung from the nearest rafter if I tried instituting this in a corporate environment.

--

slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots

unbelievable by pguerra1 · 2003-10-28 00:15 · Score: 1

Just downloaded the beta -- worked great and now I can write my coldfusion code on my linux laptop at home!

--

"And I for one welcome our new insect overlords."

Why crossover only works on the converted: by mumblestheclown · 2003-10-28 00:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

Option 1:

Linux - say, $50
Crossover Office - $59.99
MS-Office - $400

Option 2:

WinXP Home Edition - $120
MS-Office - $400

is this worth a saving of $10 (~2%) ? Or even $60 (~12%) given that, whatever you say about MS, Office (and all the other applications) are highly more likely to work better on XP than any emulated environment?

Maybe for some corporate customers, but I doubt it. Even as a small business owner, I wouldnt take the risk.

Re:Why crossover only works on the converted: by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 00:40 · Score: 1, Insightful

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.
Re:Why crossover only works on the converted: by gatzke · 2003-10-28 00:50 · Score: 2, Informative

Option 3:

Cheapbytes Linux $3
OpenOffice FREE

Option 4:
For those that only have to read email attachments, just use Crossover plugin with the free word viewer and free excel viewer.

Other options, win4lin, vmware. I have used both vmware and crossover and I have always been quite happy.

Linux is about choice and freedom.
Re:Why crossover only works on the converted: by cruachan · 2003-10-28 00:58 · Score: 1

...and your $10 or $20 dissapears in the cost of the first support call.
Re:Why crossover only works on the converted: by fleabag · 2003-10-28 03:24 · Score: 1

You hit the nail on the head with "corporate users" - and I think this is where they are really aiming.

Our current position at work is:

- 10,000 desktops at a large number of locations, all running Win 2K + Office. They are a pain to admin, and cause havoc by needing 100 Mb service packs to be delivered across our very thin WAN.

- 7,000 of those desktops could be converted to Linux + Openoffice with no loss of productivity. We've done the analysis (they write simple letters, look at simple spreadsheets and go corporate websites that work with Mozilla)

- The remaining 3000 will be harder, but I guess that 2500 of them will convert with some pain - e.g. running Citrix servers to deliver applications that currently rely on ActiveX

- There will be 500 users left over who really use Office. There are lots of them in Fianance - 20 Mb spreadsheets with thousands of lines of code. Absolutley impossible on Open Office at the moment.

So our maths turns out like this:

7000 x $80 For Sun Java Desktop + Openoffice
2500 x $80 + a bunch of pain setting up Citrix sever farms
500 x Office licences + Crossover licences

If you view Crossover as a bridge, rather than a platform, it starts to make sense. At this scale, it will be worth running to get rid of the Win2K build fun and games.

We are trialling Sun JDS at the moment (it doesn't have all of the flashy toys, but it will be supported for 7 years, and it works), and Crossover. So far so good. We aim to have a viable (and formally piloted) strategy by the time our enterprise licence negotiations come up in 2005.
Re:Why crossover only works on the converted: by spasm · 2003-10-28 10:10 · Score: 1

The point of crossover is the same as the point of cygwin.

I use linux because the core tools to do my job are only available (or work best) under linux. I use crossover so I can use some essentially peripheral tools so far only available under windows without having to screw around with dual boot or keeping a spare box around. And I'm certainly not going to bend over backwards to migrate to windows and work out how to kludge/emulate/port my work tools just so I can run windows.

For someone whose core toolset is only available (or works best) under windows, I'd also suspect they aren't going to migrate just because more of their core toolset can now be kludged into working under linux.

The great work crossover does will not cause anyone to migrate; it'll only reduce the need to dual boot or keep a spare windows box for non-core functions among those of us who have long sicne migrated. Which is a worthy and useful end in itself.

And the point is?? by cardpuncher · 2003-10-28 00:22 · Score: 1

Suppose I was buying a new computer on which I wished to run a wide variety of Windows applications. I could buy an OS-free PC, install Linux and then work out how to install Crossover Office in order to be able to run "most" of the functionality of a small number of applications. For only slightly more than the cost of a Crossover license and at considerably less trouble, I could buy an OEM edition of Windows and have access to a complete range of fully-supported Windows applications on my new PC and some reasonable level of commitment to keep them working.

Or, perhaps I buy a PC with Windows and an OEM version of Office pre-installed and save some time and money.

There are some niche applications for this product, but if you want to run a lot of Windows applications, running Windows seems like a more obvious way of doing it...

Legends and truth about Dreamweaver and Flash by Qbertino · 2003-10-28 00:26 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Two years ago I made a bet with a friend that Macromedia would release at least
one member of the dreamteam for linux. Obviously I lost the bet and now owe him
an icecream (cream, sauce and crunchy topping and all).
But I didn't lose because linux hasn't gained importance as I thought it would
have. On the contrary. Linux did gain importance, only macromedia has lost it. The
dot-bomb is long ago, all those wannabe dreamweaver-clickers are flipping burgers,
browsers actually support css now - a thing _nobody_ _ever_
thought would happen 3 years ago - and content management is the *only* way to
go for webstuff today, rendering dreamweavers impressive template engine
pointless. Impressive still, but yet pointless anyway.
As someone who has been doing web and internet design and programming
professionally for quite some time now I'd like to get some things straight in
the pro and con macromedia dreamteam flamewar:
1.) In the days when css was synonym for the crappiest implementation of
cross-plattform standards ever, Flash was the *only* way to make a good visual
appearance and be truly cross plattform. In fact, you'd be more compatible and
accessible with Flash than with anything beyond "table" and "href". That has
changed since then, with the appearance of NS 6.1 came a whole bunch of browsers
that manage css in a way that is fairly acceptable. Flash isn't needed for
professional design anymore. And since the macromedia people are the biggest
idiots in the entire universe when it come to building usable programming
plattforms and put an exceptional effort into keeping Flash MX and the
ActionScript object model just as crappy as ever one can almost rest ashure
that Flash will eventually fade into oblivion, just as Director is
(Praise the Lord!) doing now.
2.) Back in the we-don't-give-a-f*ck-about-webstandards time Dreamweaver was the
_only_ tool that would make webdevelopement possible. And I'm talking about real
webdevelopement - a concept argueably only grasped by the slashdot crowd on very
rare occasions. Actually Dreamweaver was the tool that would make sites
accessable for Linux. Nobody would handcode anything for NS 4.7, trust me on
that one. And dreamweaver still has features that strike an unexpierienced DW
user (read: less that 1 and a half years of DW usage) as perfect. Think of the
drag linking, it's ability to *not* touch hand edited code what so ever and the
template engine that was the only way to go when dynamic web application stuff
wasn't available. Yet most of these things are taken care of by the bazillion
server side technologies (and PHP CMSes) out there, so I - and all other
professionals I know of - haven't been using DW for 2 years or more.
Summary:
Flash and DW are both impressive apps (exclude anything that has to do with
programming in Flash/AS) - no matter what VI zealot keeps bullshitting about on /. -
but the bottom line is that they've both had their great time and it's doubtable if it will ever come back.
They've been outrun by JMF (that programming think that macromedia horribly failed at), OSS Content Management Systems and by
editors that blast DW/Homesite to chunky
kibbles.

--
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca

Re:Legends and truth about Dreamweaver and Flash by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 01:31 · Score: 0

Macromedia.....Flash.....in their hardware and software incarnations all they do is either spy
on consumers or try to interfere actively in their
lives. The sooner they go broke or get prosecuted
for stalking or privacy invasion the better.
Personally I liked the old .vdo standard for
web video. With .vdo one could even produce it
herself or himself. Not so with macromedia. And
just about every other website I visit, like
startrek's official site, they want to push thie
known web spy and romote admin trojan on you.
It is now up to version 7. V7 knows how to get
windows internet explorer to not be able to stop
when the stop button is pushed. The only safe
way to surf startrek these days is now to use
Mozilla 1.5 or use Konqueror or Amaya. Prefer
Amaya but this laptop's wi fi card is one of
those new ones made to microsoft's standard
mantra....'stuff isnt done til linux wont run!'
Come to think of it they have done this to
LG cdrom drives as well.
Re:Legends and truth about Dreamweaver and Flash by LoneGunner · 2003-10-28 02:30 · Score: 1

I don't use Dreamweaver any longer, for the simple fact i code just as fast or faster by hand with a text editor. But it is the tool i suggest to everyone else when they are designing web pages. Out of all the WYSIWYG editors, Dreamweaver has been at the top for years, and still is. It's the most compliant, produces code that is less bloated than anything else, and doesn't screw up my hand coded pages. No other editor I know of can do that. As far as flash goes, I never considered it to have a language of its own until flash 5, that's when it began to be usable for web applications. Flash MX furthered the standard, and even more was possible, but it still had its limitations. Now with the newest MX 2004, flash has become a very good development tool. With webservice calls built in, xml objects, and form objects, it has finally switched from being an animation tool, to a web development tool. Almost everyone associates flash with short little animations, or annoying ads, but no one has seen the true capabilities of flash yet because there are not many people that use it as a development tool. The majority of people who use flash are designers, not programmers. There is at least one shopping cart where the entire GUI is in flash, and it works great. I myself have written web based graphing applications for oil companies, because they needed something they could print out from the data they receive instead of paying someone to draw it by hand and make copies for everyone else. Flash still has a ways to go before it can be used for mainstream web applications, but it's not far off at the moment.
Re:Legends and truth about Dreamweaver and Flash by Wolfier · 2003-10-28 03:49 · Score: 1

>but no one has seen the true capabilities of flash
>yet

Fear the power of Flash!!

http://www.deanliou.com/WinRG/WinRG.htm
Re:Legends and truth about Dreamweaver and Flash by Man_Holmes · 2003-10-28 04:28 · Score: 1

There are sites like the Watergate hotel's reservation system that show the potential with Flash. But it is still damnably difficult for non-designers.

The answer is a product Macromedia has under development called Royale. Royale will allow developers to create Flash apps entirely in a code editor. It's been referred to as Flash for programmers.

Even noted Macromedia critic (and dot net apologist) Jesse Ezell has nice things to say about Royale.

You can read the Royale FAQ here

Macromedia will show Royale for the first time in public at their developers convention in late November.

Man Holmes

pateNTdead eyecon0meter is OS independent by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 00:31 · Score: -1, Offtopic

planet sized population rescue network debut (Score:-1, Troll)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 27, @04:09PM (#7322036)
just kidding. the creator's been at this stuff for quite a while already. just now, the georgewellian fuddite corepirate nazi execrable, has driven the newclear powers into crisis mode, with all of their greed/fear based misdeeds. so get ready to see the light.

mynuts won: more free kode?

Still no good by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 00:43 · Score: 0

Great, now you can develop webpages in linux (and really, what was stopping you before? there are a bazillion text editors for linux), but big deal since you still need to test them in Internet Explorer. Sure you could install it in a virtual machine, but then, you're running windows, and why not just run it in the first place?

Linux is still losing the desktop war, badly. Lack of applications that users want is hurting more than anything, with lack of ease of use pulling a fast second. Granted, it's better than it was, but it's still far from being competative. Already I can feel the burning eyes of hate on me. Oh well.

Also, learning how X treats submitted patches and updates (see the recent slashdot article about cygwin and X) makes me think there is almost no point in it being opensource, since the main benefits which should be derived from it being open are being stifled by the people who maintain the source. It's no wonder X is still way behind it's competition. How long has X been around? Even OSX (which i'm not overly fond of either) is vastly superior.

Windows might be closed, and it might go against the grain and ideology of most slashdot users, but on the desktop, it gets the job done, and then some. I for one am not going to wait for linux to become like Windows, when i can just run Windows right now.

Instead of trying to write something that emulates Windows, convince developers that it is actually somehow worthwhile for them to port their applications to linux. If linux does indeed have all these development advantages that people claim it does (more developers, more people patching flaws, etc) then why is there no software on par with dreamweaver available for it that runs nativly without the use of some compatibility/emulation layer?

Re:Still no good by codepunk · 2003-10-28 02:40 · Score: 1

Don't tell the school I converted last week that Linux is loosing the desktop war badly. You are going to see fast desktop penetration at the corporate and business level first. X Windows thin client mode is making this happen. The war is far from over my friend.

--

Got Code?

WYSIWYG web dev'ing on Linux by sirReal.83. · 2003-10-28 00:49 · Score: 0

there are good things about this. now pro web designers can pay a few extra dollars to be able to make sites on linux without wading through (as much) code.
there are bad things, too. this could subtract from the urgent need for an open source WYSIWYG web composer (there may be one or two but forgive me for preferring Dreamweaver).
i love Dreamweaver, but as a college student I don't really have money to be burnt on software. this is one of the many reasons i switched to linux. because of that switch i was able to stop pirating massive amounts of software.
this would tempt me to start again, but i don't have a clue where to find warez for linux, and i'm glad.

Re:WYSIWYG web dev'ing on Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 01:02 · Score: -1, Troll

Then learn to code sites instead of letting dreamweaver generate crappy code for you. It's not nearly as hard as you think.
Re:WYSIWYG web dev'ing on Linux by sirReal.83. · 2003-10-28 02:21 · Score: 0

been there, done that, got the t-shirt. it's just much easier to lay things out visually when you're actually trying to make a site look good. it's worth the effort of going through and cleaning up the code after the fact.

why don't you post a link to a site you made while not posting as AC? i hate this bullshit flamebait.

Random comments on this by heironymouscoward · 2003-10-28 01:01 · Score: 1

1. CrossoverOffice is significant because it allows migration of even dedicated Windows users, people who are inevitably tied to specific applications rather than the OS as such.

2. There is a Linux distro, Xandros, that comes with CrossoverOffice as a preinstalled component (at least in the deluxe Xandros). The combined package is cheaper than the two apart.

3. It becomes possible with this to create enterprise packages consisting of a bootable Linux CD with all the applications the users need, and all their data on network drives. Take random PC, insert USB identity module (/home on flash drive) boot from CD, and work.

This last one is IMHO a killer application since it removes the entire PC administration burden from large businesses.

CrossoverOffice is a significant product, a key part of Linux's inexorable drive to eliminating all other OSes from the commodity IT market.

My prediction: by end-2006, in three years' time, Windows will be in a significant minority position and Linux will be preinstalled on most or all PCs sold to home and business. Microsoft will either have embraced this and discovered a whole universe of new Office licensees, or will suffer a crash much like IBM suffered in the face of the PC's original success.

--
Ceci n'est pas une signature

Re:Random comments on this by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 01:06 · Score: -1

....

hahahahhaha
Re:Random comments on this by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 01:18 · Score: -1, Flamebait

1. CrossoverOffice is significant because it allows migration of even dedicated Windows users, people who are inevitably tied to specific applications rather than the OS as such.

Wrong, it does nothing for migration. Running a few office applications does not constitute migration

2. There is a Linux distro, Xandros, that comes with CrossoverOffice as a preinstalled component (at least in the deluxe Xandros). The combined package is cheaper than the two apart.

Mkay, i'll concede this point

3. It becomes possible with this to create enterprise packages consisting of a bootable Linux CD with all the applications the users need, and all their data on network drives. Take random PC, insert USB identity module (/home on flash drive) boot from CD, and work.

right, and who wants to pack around a CD with their applications? Sorry bub, but i use more applications than can fit on a CD. What am i supposed to do, boot a new CD every time I want a different set of programs? yuck.

Your prediction is laughable at best because by 2006 there will be a new version of windows which will still be way ahead of linux in every way on the desktop. Linux is a dinosaur for destop applications. It's slow, unstable, unreliable, inconsistant and clumsy. Mstly because of X. Linux _still_ does not compare to windows. By 2006 the only place linux will be predominantly is in the server market, and hopefully they will lose that to BSD variants. BSD is far more worthy, and capable of being a server than linux ever was, and possibly ever will be.

You remind me of a technologist that told me in 1994 that we'd all be using flying cars by 2003. He was a moron, and so are you.
Re:Random comments on this by Spoing · 2003-10-28 02:26 · Score: 1

3. It becomes possible with this to create enterprise packages consisting of a bootable Linux CD with all the applications the users need, and all their data on network drives. Take random PC, insert USB identity module (/home on flash drive) boot from CD, and work.
While I personally appreciate putting /home on a flash drive for programs like Knoppix, it would be better to follow the traditional method on a network; mount /home/user_name from a server. No keys to loose, the storage is cheaper and much larger, and it all gets backed up nightly (if you are an admin with even a little good sense). My prediction: by end-2006, in three years' time, Windows will be in a significant minority position and Linux will be preinstalled on most or all PCs sold to home and business. Microsoft will either have embraced this and discovered a whole universe of new Office licensees, or will suffer a crash much like IBM suffered in the face of the PC's original success.
Now I know that you aren't being serious....

--
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Re:Random comments on this by heironymouscoward · 2003-10-28 06:36 · Score: 1

It's slow, unstable, unreliable, inconsistant and clumsy...

You really _must_ upgrade from that 1996 Slackware install you're using. And to be technically accurate, Linux is faster, more stable, more reliable, more consistent, and more elegant... but wait, you're trolling me! Sorry, I didn't get it. I'm just a poor moron.

By the way, the insistence of people like you that Linux is full of crap is one of the reasons that it will wipe Windows off the IT landscape faster than a bottle of industrial cleaner. You simply have no idea what you're facing, do you?

--
Ceci n'est pas une signature

America Online? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 01:04 · Score: -1

Is there way to run America Online on Linux?

Legends and truth about Dreamweaver and Flash-XSP. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 01:12 · Score: 0

You forgot cocoon and XSP, and what that means for building a cross-device website. There's also SMIL and SVG along with the other XML technologies, and what that means for getting rid of Flash.

Visual Interdev by mrd_yaddayadda · 2003-10-28 01:23 · Score: 1

If I could get Interdev to run and be able to interface properly to FPSE enabled webservers on linux I'd be happy.

This is one of my big stumbling blocks to moving to linux...

Debuning Legends and truth by setmajer · 2003-10-28 01:26 · Score: 1

browsers actually support css now - a thing _nobody_ _ever_ thought would happen 3 years ago

He's a nobody, she's a nobody, wouldn't you like to be a nobody too?

In the days when css was synonym for the crappiest implementation of cross-plattform standards ever,

History lesson: the CSS recommendation we all know and love started life as a proposal to the W3C by Microsoft Corporation. In about the same time frame, Netscape Communications made their own proposal: JavaScript StyleSheets (JSSS). MS naturally implemented their own proposal, NS implemented theirs. Shortly before Navigator 4 was to be released, the W3C settled on CSS and JSSS became roadkill. NS hastily retrofitted Navigator to translate CSS rules into JSSS rules that their style engine could understand, but of course the capabilities of the two technologies were different and so the result was less than whelming. Point: CSS suffered not because of a lousy cross-platform implementation, but because Navigator never did grok CSS; it just translated it (badly) into JSSS.

Flash was the *only* way to make a good visual appearance and be truly cross plattform. In fact, you'd be more compatible and accessible with Flash than with anything beyond "table" and "href".

Oh dear.

Setting aside questions of taste (and grammar) inherent in the 'good visual appearance' portion, 'truly' cross-plaftorm compatible' is a load of horse manure. A great many browsers/platforms didn't support Flash until well after the advent of Netscape 6.2. Many still don't. And as far as accessibility goes, ever try to access even most recent Flash movies with a screen reader? Rotsa ruck.

That has changed since then, with the appearance of NS 6.1 came a whole bunch of browsers that manage css in a way that is fairly acceptable.

Any 6.x version of NS you care to name was released weeks or months after the corresponding Mozilla version. IE 5/Macintosh offered far and away the best CSS support of any browser when it was released in '00--well ahead of NS 6.0. While it may be a bit dodgy by today's standards, even the original release of IE 5 for Mac is better than even the latest IE 6/Win.

Likewise, Opera 4.x sported a very solid CSS implementation--better than IE 5.x/Win, at least, and arguably on a par with IE 6/Win. That browser was out well before even IE 5/Mac.

Netscape 6.2 was a pretty good browser, particularly from a standards perspective, but it hardly broke new ground in that area.

Back in the we-don't-give-a-f*ck-about-webstandards time Dreamweaver was the _only_ tool that would make webdevelopement possible.

Bullshit. I've been doing web sites since 1996 for large and smal companies (Kaplan, Inc., APBnews.com [if anyone remembers them], GovWorks.com, Eureka-GGN CTW and Insignia Financial Group, to name a few). I've not used Dreamweaver for any of those clients. Not one.

Nobody would handcode anything for NS 4.7, trust me on that one.

Hi, I'm nobody.

Matter of fact, I did several sites for Aktion Mensch (3rd most recognized brand in Germany) that used CSS for layout and had to look 'right' in NN4.x. I did 'em by hand.

no matter what VI zealot keeps bullshitting about on /.

Vi? Never touch the damned thing. Used BBEdit and HomeSite or HTMLKit mostly.

--

Re:Debuning Legends and truth by AkaXakA · 2003-10-28 05:37 · Score: 1

Hi, I'm nobody.

Me too =)

Let me just add that actually practicly ALL (prof) sites were handcoded before NS 4.7...

And VI, ha ! Notepad, sure, Gedit or whatnot, but no Vi (or Emacs) for that matter was necessary.

As the parent poster, I too have been developing websites since 1996 BY HAND, and since 1994 with good ol' Netscape Composer. (version 3 Gold, if anyone cares)

Mental illness alert! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 01:36 · Score: -1

Anger problem in parent post.

My main concern by jd · 2003-10-28 01:38 · Score: 1

Is that they use Tcl/Tk. Hey, it's a neat widget set, but I've not been seeing a hugely stable API for it, and it's a rather Motif-ish system. It also lacks some of the capabilities of more modern toolkits.

Tcl/Tk is great for whipping up a GUI-based application or applet, and it works fine in most academic or scientific environs, because you don't need fancy features but you do often want a solid, blocky, clearly-visible system.

They claim to support the Office 2000 features, and I've no reason to doubt them, so they've presumably been doing some serious work outside of the Tcl scripting language. OLE2 in Tcl would be frightening, for example.

The use of Wine is presumably to provide a lot of the capabilities of Windows. However, many of these can now be found in purely native Linux toolkits. As such, Wine is unnecessary overhead. Office apps are notoriously heavyweight, so excess is really not a good idea.

Having said all that, the concept of a power app is a good one, and all power to Codeweavers for the work they've done. If it inspires other app writers for Linux to go the extra mile, then it'll be worth every byte.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)

Re:My main concern by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 04:23 · Score: 1, Informative

What in the name of fuck are you talking about?

Do you seriously think that they are using Tcl/Tk to draw the widgets of Windows apps running under Wine? It was used for the configuration tool and nothing else (and I'm not even sure about that these days).

That's one serious fucking misapprehension you're labouring under.

My daughter disagrees by mccalli · 2003-10-28 01:46 · Score: 1

Flash is simply an animated gif enhancement for viewing more annoying banner ads.

My 21 month old daughter would disagree with you. For her, Flash is a way of watching Pingu the penguin jump across the ice flow, doing jigsaws online and learning letters from the Play with Clay Disney site. (Sorry no links - I'm at work and am not bringing those animations up now).

Flash can be used for more than ads. Personally I block Flash ads under Windows by using Firebird with the Flash Click to Run extension, and under OS X by using Safari with the Pith Helmet plug-in. Never see Flash ads, but I still use Flash content an awful lot.

Put it this way - you wouldn't call GIF a virus just because it can be used to show annoying ads, would you? No - it's just a viewing mechanism for an image and perhaps simple animation. Flash also is simply a viewing mechanism, purely in and of itself it is not a problem.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:We really need a Dreamweaver under GNU/Linux !! by bobajobrob · 2003-10-28 01:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Is this a "Good Thing" by Skraut · 2003-10-28 02:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

As a professional web deveolper, and self confessed Linux junkie, I just have to ask myself, is this a good thing?

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.

Re:Is this a "Good Thing" by SQLz · 2003-10-28 03:40 · Score: 1

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?
What incentive did they have to port before it ran on Wine? None. So we haven't really changed anything besides the fact it now runs on Linux.

good css editor for linux? by rjnagle · 2003-10-28 02:05 · Score: 1

This announcement is excellent news, but as I do more coding, html editors seem less important than css editors.

Does anyone know good style editors for linux?

I've been using Top Style on Windows as well as Mozilla plugins like editcss. (I think Morphon has a (free) css editor, but I can't remember how well it's integrated into its xml editor.

--
Robert Nagle, Idiotprogrammer, Houston

Great news for teachers by sneakcjj · 2003-10-28 02:11 · Score: 1

Sketchpad is an application my wife (a high school teacher) uses ALL the time.

Now if Grade Machine worked under Wine...

BSD support? How long? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 02:14 · Score: -1

Well. I hope wine/cw will be able to support BSD systems. They will see the performance difference!!

Why Use Dreamweaver? by Slurms · 2003-10-28 02:18 · Score: 1

Ok, here's a question.

Until relatively recently I was a windows client programmer, and worked with HTML etc only occasionally. Several times now, I've had a chance to start completely new website projects from scratch. Each time I've thought I'd give Dreamweaver a try and I have eventually always dumped it and used a cgi script to dynamically generate pages with Perl or PHP.

Once I'm past the prototyping phase, it seems easier to use Javascript and Perl (or something) to build dynamic pages rather than code static pages with Dreamweaver. (Besides I make better HTML than it does anyway! --- yeah right)

I'm wondering what boat I'm missing about Dreamweaver and similar sorts of tools. What should I be using them for? Is it a coincedence that my projects tend to involve content that changes frequently, and it would work better for content that is more constant?

--

-----
Pretty Bad Privacy (PBP) Public Key
6

Re:Why Use Dreamweaver? by jotux · 2003-10-28 04:34 · Score: 1

your not missing much. Just about the only thing I use dreamweaver for is the visual layout of the page, after that I close it and edit the code manually.

I find that most tools that are supposed to help you do everything are only good for about 1% of the actual work. But they're very good at that 1%!
Re:Why Use Dreamweaver? by entartete · 2003-10-28 07:05 · Score: 1

you can use it to make your php scripts that generate dynamic pages. using it to write static html for you is a waste of what it can do.
Re:Why Use Dreamweaver? by mjpg · 2003-10-28 07:09 · Score: 1

I'm a web developer spending about half my time on database/dynamic sites and half on brochureware small sites.
For small sites that change slowly, I find the combination of Dreamweaver library and Templates and its site management functions a quick way to run a site.
Furthermore, the extensions feature adds functions that can speed up coding (example - menus on pages that link to anchors on the page and converting addresses to links).
If you want really compliant code, then some work under Dreamweaver's bonnet (you can edit all the automatically added code) and a little hand-coding of Templates usually sorts things out.

Re:We really need a Dreamweaver under GNU/Linux !! by IANAAC · 2003-10-28 02:26 · Score: 1

I really think this (or something like it) will come to Linux. I use CrossOver Office (and Plugin) from time to time, but much less so than I used to. I originally got it to run Office apps (and occasionally IE because of the way we have an Oracle web app coded). Not so any more. Now I'm much more comfortable with OpenOffice 1.1 (and love that I can export to PDF). And mozilla 1.4 now does everytnig I need it to. No more inconsistencies to worry about, not to mention the added benefits such as pop-up blocking that you don't get with IE. My point, I guess, is that it probably won't be Dreamweaver, but eventually there will be something that will be quite usable. I wonder what Codeweavers' business plan will be when everyone decides they don't need Office or Photoshop.

Codeweavers vs Wine by bear_phillips · 2003-10-28 02:54 · Score: 1

Can someone explain the difference between the wine from winehq and the codeweavers product? Is codeweavers a fork of wine? Or is it more of branded version of wine like netscape/mozilla?

--
http://www.windmeadow.com/

Re:Codeweavers vs Wine by bigjnsa500 · 2003-10-28 03:00 · Score: 1

Its a commercial version of WINE. Very similar to WineX (the gaming version of WINE).

--
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.

what about mac? by rollthelosindice · 2003-10-28 03:00 · Score: 1

Has anyone pointed out that both of these apps run great on OS X? I don't need to ditch windows, or use codeweaver. I just click the icon in the dock.

Re:what about mac? by RzUpAnmsCwrds · 2003-10-28 18:20 · Score: 1

Has anyone pointed out that both of these apps run great on Windows XP? I don't need to buy a Mac, or use codeweaver. I just click the icon in the taskbar.

Must have product by bigjnsa500 · 2003-10-28 03:06 · Score: 1

Having been a user of both CrossOver Office and CrossOver Plugin for quite some time now, these 2 products IMHO are must haves if you Linux guys/gals do any kind of Windows/Linux.

In my case, Office comes in handy when other researchers send me Excel spreadsheets with macros. OOO and StarOffice simple do not support Excel macros. The other case is for PeopleSoft. PeopleSoft uses the Microshaft java VM and simple will not work correctly with Sun's java and other browsers. Office offers me a choice to install IE 6. In this case, I don't have to dual boot Windows or have an open VMware windows install to use our PeopleSoft programs

Plugin comes in handy for personal surfing use by letting me see (on the web) information I can't see because its either in a plugin that is not Linux supported or will never be supported in Linux, i.e. Quicktime.

And yes you can setup mplayer to play Quicktime/ASF streams, but I simply don't have the time and energy. Install the Plugin package, install Quicktime program, bingo, I see videos.

--
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.

Native IE6/Win needed for testing by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 03:07 · Score: 0

If you're doing serious web development you need all the major browsers and platforms for testing. That means:

Mozilla/Linux
Mozilla/Win XP

IE5/Win 98,ME
IE6/Win XP

Opera/Win

IE5.1/Mac OS9
IE5.2/Mac OSX
Safari/Mac OSX

IE6 emulation in CrossOver is still flaky and I wouldn't trust an emulation layer that doesn't use native system calls anyway with a browser like IE which relies on these so heavily. The only reliable way to test an OS-specific browser like IE is to test on its native platform.

Ditching Windows simply isn't an option while IE/Win commands around 95% of the market. Emulation layers are no substitute for testing on native platforms.

Oracle vs mysql vs postgresql by Stone316 · 2003-10-28 03:08 · Score: 1

First of all, let me say i'm a DBA. Second, let me say that I haven't seen too many databases that couldn't run on opensource databases like mysql and postgresql. Most apps only require the basic's and mysql/postgresql has them covered.

I think its too early to predict the demise of companies like Oracle, MS's SQL Server and IBM's DB2. For the forseeable future (I hate to say 'always') there will be a market for high end databases for mission critical apps like banks and other financial systems. And there will always be companies than feel 'safer' with the support offered by said companies. Its easier (CYA) to blame an Oracle or a Microsoft than an opensource solution. Who do you point a finger at if postgresql crashes (not saying it will, just an example) and your company fails to meet quarter end? I know who your boss will be pointing his finger at....

One thing I don't understand is why more people are opting for mysql over postgresql. I looked into both for a small home project about 6 months ago and postgresql was the clear leader. Mysql was missing some key features that I think alot of apps use or it would be at least an inconvience to get around.

I also think, most people, like myself are sick of 'leasing' software and tired of upgrading every couple of years. Really, what does the latest and greatest MS Word do that I couldn't do in WP 5.1? :)

L8r

--
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."

Re:Oracle vs mysql vs postgresql by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 04:52 · Score: 0

One thing I don't understand is why more people are opting for mysql over postgresql

I have the same question, but the answer is clear. I'm not a dba, but I've read the documentation (all that's available) for both mysql, and postgres. And I've downloaded and printed the postgres docs/book. And I wasted money on the MySQL book (the one with the red/beige color called MySQL)

imho, postgres is the superior db. But where is postgres? Are they making ridiculous money and therefore don't care about presence?

MySQL is everywhere on the web. Yet there are various issues with it, where imho, postgres would be the better choice. I won't get into issues here because it always degenerates into a mine is better than yours argument. I've looked at both, and made my decision. Yet, where is postgres?

I don't see postgres joining forces with other companies for development. I don't see postgres partnering with major commercial tech companies. I do see MySQL making regular, frequent announcements of their partnerships and joint development with other major commercial firms.

Then I look at what's on the web. Where do I get current documentation on modperl/postgres? Where do I get current documentation in database-based web sites using postgres? How-to's for postgres web sites? How-to's for postgres to OpenOffice connectivity? How-to's for...

Everywhere I look, it's MySQL, MySQL, MySQL.

I knew that to start, I didn't need a database that supported transactions/row-level locking and other advanced features. But I also knew that if my plans succeeded, I would need this for the future. And I wouldn't want to change from one db to another after already developing in one. And if I did switch, I'd rather go postgres to mysql, rather than the other way around, because of postgres's more sql compliant features. But as time progresses, MySQL is rapidly catching up.

Back to the original question. Why? If I take a look at the juggernaut of GNU/Linux and the GPL, and the snowball of the development efforts behind it, you can make a direct comparison of GNU/Linux to proprietary (windows, sun, sco, macromedia, adobe), and MySQL to Postgres.

Does Postgres have a Manhattan project in the works? Are they going to announce fantastic new features/capabilities next month/quarter/year? it won't matter. MySQL is in everyone's face, MySQL is making deals with the big enterprise tech companies, and MySQL has the attention of everyone. Postgres can come out with a db that is an order of magnitude better/faster/more stable than everyone, but it won't matter. They can shout their news, but no one will be listening to them. Everyone's attention will be focused on Marten Mickos and MySQL.

OS/2 may have been better than windows, but they didn't survive.

Postgres may be better than MySQL, especially for banks and enterprise and transaction type needs, but it looks like Postgres can't get traction or mindshare, and this spells doom for a db that I wish would actually succeed.

I hope I'm wrong.

And I hope I see a half dozen postgres/modperl books hit the shelves soon. And more how-to's/documentation. But I'm not holding my breath anymore. And unfortunately, I'm going to force myself to use MySQL.

I think its too early to predict the demise of companies like Oracle, MS's SQL Server and IBM's DB2. For the forseeable future (I hate to say 'always') there will be a market for high end databases for mission critical apps like banks and other financial systems. And there will always be companies than feel 'safer' with the support offered by said companies. Its easier (CYA) to blame an Oracle or a Microsoft than an opensource solution. Who do you point a finger at if postgresql crashes (not saying it will, just an example) and your company fails to meet quarter end? I know who your boss will be pointing his finger at....

You need to wake up and smell the java...there is a fund
Re:Oracle vs mysql vs postgresql by Stone316 · 2003-10-28 07:07 · Score: 1

Yikes, thats a long follow up. In general I agree with almost everything you said, but as you state, your not a DBA. There is a market for a high end databases and advanced features that opensource is years away from solving. (In the database arena anyways..) Sure,t here are alot of apps that would run great on mysql or postgresql.
Also, in terms of support, its not an issue of suing someone if something blows up. Its about covering your ass. Yes, its all in the mind but its easier to blame the problem on a bug in Oracle than one in postgresql. When your working with mission critical databases, you don't want to be the fall guy, trust me.

--
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
Re:Oracle vs mysql vs postgresql by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 21:22 · Score: 0

So your experience is that Oracle fixes all bugs within minutes of your bringing it to their attention, and Postgres waits until the next dot release...

Interesting...

Can you post the contact info for Oracle for the sole employee there who offers you this service?

Maybe you have the situation reversed?
Re:Oracle vs mysql vs postgresql by Stone316 · 2003-10-30 04:42 · Score: 1

Your still missing the point and its obvious you don't have much real world experience in this area. Also, you can't compare how long it takes postgresql to Oracle in the time it takes to come out with a fix without knowing their testing procedures.
If you had much experience in the real world you would understand what i'm trying to say. Yeah, i'd love to use more opensource, GPL'd software but I love having a job that much more. More and more so in the corporate IT world its about covering your ass because there are plenty of people out there that like making others look bad. And its getting worse day by day. 5 years ago I didn't see nearly as much internal finger pointing as I do now.
But hey, go ahead, choose what you want but becareful it doesn't bite you in the ass. But hey, at least i'm brave enough not to post anonymously.
And as for bugs in Oracle (core rdbms).. I don't recall any incidents in the past 6 years that were show stoppers and I had to install an emergency patch. And I have worked with _alot_ of large database infrastructures. If it is a critical bug, you can be sure there are people working behind the scenes 24x7 to get it resolved and put out a once off patch. I don't have any production experience with postgresql so I can't comment there.

--
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."

Great News by coryrauch · 2003-10-28 03:16 · Score: 1

This is great news, but I'm still stuck until Fireworks MX will run under Linux. I was able to get Dreamweaver MX and Flash MX to run under Wine to some success. But both where some what unstable (Enough to be unusable) and looking at the bronze rating it was given, Codeweaver states not to "depend" on a program with this rating, so I will wait a little more... Fireworks on the other hand, I never could get running. And searching the web could never find anyone that got it running under wine. Codeweaver if you are listening. Most developers/designers who use Dreamweaver or Flash also use Fireworks, and it would be great if you could work to get that working too.

Day Late, Dollar Short by Arbogast_II · 2003-10-28 03:25 · Score: 1

I like my Linux computers. But, Flash MX is the OLD version of Flash. Flash MX 2004 is the current version. If you are platform agnostic, and committed to writing the best code possible, why would you do this???

Use Windows for Windows apps, Linux for Linux Apps.

--

HenryJamesFeltus.com

Adobe Framemaker? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 03:29 · Score: 0

What about Adobe Framemaker? I will buy a CrossOver Office license when I can run both Framemaker 7 and Dreamweaver MX.

Refunds = Good by nurb432 · 2003-10-28 03:38 · Score: 1

that's a big point in their favor. as I really don't want egg on my face when our apps don't work and i spent $$ for 'beta stuff'. We have some non-standard custom apps that are critical to business

Didn't know they had a download a demo available ( I asked them long ago and got what amounted to an inquisition and lost interest at that point ) but ill check it out and give it a whirl on our apps.

Though, not having access support is still a major thorn.. and no, we cant just 'switch to PHP and MYSQL' as many suggest, unless they want to do all the users work for free.. Access is SIMPLE and easy, even for an end user, to get something useable. Not great, but useable.. ( though I'm waiting anxiously for Kexi.. it might be one of the last pieces that are holding us back )

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Re:Refunds = Good by Haeleth · 2003-10-28 12:36 · Score: 1

> Though, not having access support is still a major thorn...

Eh? I looked at their page not ten minutes ago and it said Access 2000 was supported.

Interesting, what kind of "switch" would that be?? by GNUALMAFUERTE · 2003-10-28 04:18 · Score: 1

I mean, you are switching from an unstable, propietary shit from microsoft in which you run propietary software from macromedia, to an unstable and propietary shit from Crossover in wich you run propietary software from macromedia??
If you want to switch to GNU, then run Free Software, if you just care about performance, then you are forgeting the free of speech part, and getting it more like in free beer (and if you are going to need shit like crossover, it will even be worse in performance, not to mention completely unethical, since Crossover is no more that Wine with a few stupid patches).

P.S: Don't get ofended, but it should be just vi, and if you want, you can add a few pngs to your webpage. If you feel like filing the allready messed up web with more flash shit, you really deserve to be stock at windoze95.

--
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?

What about 2004? by bonch · 2003-10-28 04:21 · Score: 1

It says Flash MX and Dreamweaver MX, but the 2004 versions were recently released. Does it work with Dreamweaver MX 2004?

plex86 is out by kulpinator · 2003-10-28 05:10 · Score: 1

how is this any functionally different than running said applications in . . . plex86?

Plex86 is a very lightweight VM designed for running Linux only as a guest OS; this won't help you with Windows programs obviously (unless you use it just to isolate CW or Wine -- you still need one though). Plus you need a copy of Windows to run inside the other VMs anyway -- there's a significant performance loss too.

--
Karma: Positive (mostly due to rash moderations)

Fireworks. Fireworks. Fireworks. by namespan · 2003-10-28 05:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

In fact, I'd say Fireworks is *more* important than Dreamweaver on Linux -- certainly it would be to me. Because the strength of Dreamweaver centers around two things: (1) It makes it easy to design/edit web pages when you don't know HTML and (2) It makes it easy to futz about with design before you've settled on one.

Thing is, for most Linux users, #1 isn't going to be much of an issue. And #2 is better done in a graphics program suited to it. Which is exactly what Fireworks is. It's *much* better than Photoshop, because of the wide variety of vector oriented tools, better slicing facilities, all while having a good set of raster/bitmap tools and effects as well.

I'd also imagine this wouldn't be too hard for Macromedia. Their products seem to give the impression of a unified underlying toolset/library, though I couldn't speak authoritatively to that.

--
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.

Re:Fireworks. Fireworks. Fireworks. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 11:29 · Score: 0

"Because the strength of Dreamweaver centers around two things: (1) It makes it easy to design/edit web pages when you don't know HTML"

Actually I'd say it makes it easy to design/edit web pages especially if you know HTML. It remains one of the most flexible web authoring tools around.
Re:Fireworks. Fireworks. Fireworks. by greymond · 2003-10-28 11:51 · Score: 1

Fireworks is alright, but doesn't compete with Photoshop, it comptetes with Imageready which is great.

Also on a side personal note - I don't like seeing Vector tools in web programs, nothing on the web is going to be Vectorized, it may "look" like it is, but if it's in jpg, png, or gif format it's not (flash is the exception)

If I want to create Vector graphics for Print i'll use Illustrator which IMO is better than Freehand as well.

For the record Dreamweaver rocks the hell out of any other wysiwyg program available, especially Adobe's GoLive which sucks donkey ballz.

--
Ave Molech Setting
Re:Fireworks. Fireworks. Fireworks. by namespan · 2003-10-28 15:00 · Score: 1

Also on a side personal note - I don't like seeing Vector tools in web programs, nothing on the web is going to be Vectorized

While that's true, for some things it's much, much easier to work with vector objects than photoshop layers. Fireworks hits the sweet spot between a raster and vector tool, and then makes it extremely easy to take the combination to web-ready graphics. Illustrator and Photoshop together are overkill (and clumsy to go back and forth between); either one alone is not enough.

--
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.

Cross-Over by JoeGuitar · 2003-10-28 06:12 · Score: 1

Now that these two apps are supported, ill contemplate the switch over. The reasons that i havent gone to linux is because the lack of support for games, and the lack of support for dreamweaver. Gaming is my biggest computer use, but i do use dreamweaver for coding html. Its a good prog b/c it does all of the "bitch work" of coding. I can code a lot faster with dreamweaver than with text editor. I tried the wysiwyg part of dreamweaver, and i wasnt too impressed. The css support isnt that great.
Oh yeah, i dont like windows at all, i cant wait until linux supports more games.

Why ditch Windows? by thegent · 2003-10-28 06:21 · Score: 1

This seems to be the same kind of discussion as the Canadian company which manufactured the layer for win32 drivers to work under Linux.
Given that I call myself a supporter of open source why would I pay a 3rd party to use closed-source plugin for closed-source applications on an open source platform?

It smells hypocrisy and the crossover folks should bankrupt.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2003-10-28 06:36 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slightly OT: How good is Access under Crossover? by WoTG · 2003-10-28 06:46 · Score: 1

Excellent news on Dreamweaver.

My question is how good is Access nowadays under Crossover. I see on the list that it can open the sample .mdb file, but I want to know if ODBC works. (It would seem to be a rather hard thing to do, but then again, so is WINE!) This is particularly important for a lot of companies that have software packages from vendors that use Access as a front end to a bigger DB.

Crossover:Linux - Classic:Mac OSX by theolein · 2003-10-28 07:00 · Score: 1

I see this as an excellent effort to help the spread of Linux in corporate and industry environments. No, some of these apps have missing functionality and the range is limited, but this is almsot exactly what Mac users went through for around two and a half years before Macromedia, Adobe and Quark ported the major applications. Up until then quite a lot had to done in the Classic Mac OS9 environment running in OSX as a process, and a lot of the applications weren't perfect. There were some crashes and some things that didn't work any more but the admittedly loyal mac users put up with this because no one wants to dual boot all the time and they didn't want to forgo the advantages of OSX.

Crossover Office brings that very same functionality to Linux. It means that large corporations with loads of Office 2000 Licences and knowledge who are tired of Microsoft highjacking fees and changing licencing can use their legacy documents along with all the macros and VBA add-ons that they have on a platform that they can better control and customise, which is more secure (no VBA virus is going to trash their Linux system even if it trashes the Office installation) and far cheaper to maintain and purchase. The advantages are enormous. And Munich obviously knew this, since this is what they are doing.

Equally web designers who want to design with powerful tools and test on the end users platform no longer have to have two platforms or dual boot in order to serve on the same platform that their site will finally be hosted on.

Even all those movie studios who use Linux and Cinepaint will appreciate being able to use Photoshop as well.

I see advantages and good times ahead for codeweavers.

Macromedia by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 07:59 · Score: 0

Dreamweaver MX

Flash MX

...and then there are the other 99.9% by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 08:44 · Score: 0

"Many professional web developers and designers choose not to use an application like dreamweaver"

And then there's Dreamweaver for the other 99.9%

Re:We really need a Dreamweaver under GNU/Linux !! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 09:38 · Score: 0

What's so difficult about using CSS, javascript, and html? You can still write brain-damaged web pages that work with IE bugs...er, features and once you start the code ports to the next version and you start to get a really good template base. I have written very little new code in the last year as a full-time web developer, instead reusing old stuff. If you're worried about the extra time, it is much faster to write in CSS/javascript/html than it is to write in flash, especially when you know enough CSS to not need a copy of the specs for each property.

You can have dreamweaver, I'll take a copy of Vi, CW Wine, IE, Mozilla, and Konqueror. I'll also save a few hundred bucks.

what about wine? by Aeonsfx · 2003-10-28 10:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

From what I understand, regular Wine seems work with just about any standard application. I've played around with it for some time, and almost everything works, *assuming* the registry is configured correctly. Most strange glitches in Wine just go away if you fine tune your configuration.

I've used Wine for many obscure applications, including: Nero, PowerDesk, LC2 Assembler/Simulator, and ePSXe. All applications worked with varying degrees of glitches, but I think if I extracted the registry entries from windows natively, most of those issues would not be present.

I'm not certain if Crossover Office this has any direct relation to the regular Wine codebase, but to me it sounds like a "Wine plus support" release.

Documentation is another story. Frank's Wine Corner is a good start though. Among other things, he documents how to get Office 2000 and Baldur's Gate working. Also, I found a howto for Photoshop, which I've heard works quite well. When I get around to it, I would like to start a similar howto site with full registry tweak details.

--Tim

Re:what about wine? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 12:06 · Score: 0

yes, Crossover Office is just a commercialized version of Wine. They do employ several of the lead Wine developers. Also, they do a lot of work with corporations using winelibs to help them port their in-house custom apps.

Jeremy White, with the Spatula, under the table! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 11:33 · Score: 0

Get a Clue(TM), you scrape gum for a living; it's just metaphorical gum in computer software. Win32 is that gum you are scraping at, and all you shithead Wine/WineX/Codeweaver fuckfaces just take that already-chewed gum and stick it under the Unix table for others to look upon. We don't like you fucktards doing that sort of work as it only ammends the problem without actualy fixing the problem. Make software for Unix: WE DON'T WANT WIN32 ON UNIX. We need Unix on Unix, or Unix on Linux for that matter.

Even Theo Duh Rat understands this concept. Go RTFM for POSIX!

HALLELUJAH! by greymond · 2003-10-28 11:38 · Score: 1

HALLELUJAH!
HH-AA-LL-EE-LL-UU-JJ-AA-HH

Finally, Now I have no reason to use Windows anymore and can switch too...oooh hay look at Panther that's pretty cool and already runs everything Windows does...

Sorry Redhat guess your gonna have to be pretier and as useful as OS X now....

--
Ave Molech Setting

Re:Dreamweaver MX has been running under Wine befo by Haeleth · 2003-10-28 12:34 · Score: 1

> I've come to my senses and use VIM.

I've converted to Catholicism and worship Buddha.

This Is good News for me by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 13:14 · Score: 0

Not all of us are Average joe users some of us are content creators... Most of my webdev currently happens under Linux sometimes its PHP, sometimes Python sometimes Perl sometimes just static sites. Sometimes Flash is the best tool for the job - Being able to use Flash without rebooting would be a huge plus for me. (as would running IE for testing)...

I think that this is a positive step. It becomes possible to use flash - some web design companies will do this if there turns out to be an advantage to doing so then more users will come - These users will start demanding the same standard of support as users of other platforms thus Macromedia will feel more pressure to do a native port.

If on the other hand OS tools can offer the Functionality I need to get the job done I wont hesitate to use them

Hey FuckNut.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 13:29 · Score: 0

Pull your head out of your ass for just a sec ... ooohh wait, you probably don't even have a job so that means your heads been up there so fucking long you can't break the crustation weld from your shit hole.

Got contribute to OpenOffice and make it work 100% with MS file formats before complaining about someone who is "making shit happen". The business market needs CrossOver to ease the transition for many "business" users that have to run MS fucking word to edit company documenta and no OpenOffice is not 100% there and never will be(wish that wasn't the case, it would be a miracle)...

So, shut the fuck up and keep your head up your ass til you get a clue and a job :) .. ya penis-licking-pole-smoker

Bug in Quanta!! Careful. by Daengbo · 2003-10-28 14:17 · Score: 1

And there's apparently a major bug in version 3.1, too. I used it for the first time a on someone's recommendation. I usually use Bluefish.
I decided to add my files under a new project, followed a wizard, and clicked "Add File." After I had selected everything, I realized that some were folders and there was actually a button "Add Folders." So, wanting to be carefull, I clicked "Clear List," and a notification window appeared for a split second, saying "Deleting..." My heart dropped, and, sure enough, all the previously written files that I wanted to add were gone.
I had backups from three weeks before, but this is certainly an undesired behavior. (Yes, I'm going to make a bug report today)

--
Put identity in the browser.

Re:Bug in Quanta!! Careful. by Sivaram_Velauthapill · 2003-10-28 18:53 · Score: 1

wow..that's some crazy stuff... I use Quanta once ina a while but haven't seen any SERIOUS bugs like that... I've never heard of Bluefish but I'll check it out. I'm not a web developer so I don't really care what happens with my data :)

Sivaram Velauthapillai

--
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)

my favorite foo bar by buttahead · 2003-10-28 16:40 · Score: 1

Apple iTunes
iTunes currently does not work in CrossOver Office.
found at page 5 of the SUPPORTED apps section

and then there are the other 99.9%-Outsourced. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-28 17:22 · Score: 0

"And then there's Dreamweaver for the other 99.9%"

Those got moved to India.

ITYM Carbon. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-02 02:33 · Score: 0

Slashdot Mirror

Dreamweaver MX, Flash MX With CrossOver Office

333 comments