Slashdot Mirror
Dreamweaver MX, Flash MX With CrossOver Office
AstroDrabb writes "It seems that CodeWeavers' CrossOver Office 2.1 now supports Dreamweaver MX and Flash MX. So for those who have been waiting to ditch MS Windows because of these two apps, now is your chance. The announcement from CodeWeavers can be found here
and the changelog can be found here.
The list of supported applications is also getting pretty impressive."
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.
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.
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!?"
Some smaller developers may well take up the older versions under linux - certainly there could be benefits for testing on a local machine that's already running Apache, PHP & mysql, but bigger developers will want latest releases to stay up to date in the marketplace.
Mostly people who commission corporate websites are impressed by aesthetics, and are not informed enough by the designers of what is functionally possible, to increase the companies trade. You're right it is lame but it's lameness on the side of the designers, because rather than design a site that is functional, quickly loaded and informative, they go the way of bells and whistles because they think it 'looks good'.
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
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!
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.
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.
From here.
-- Help Digitise the Public Domain at DP.
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.
It sounds like whoever is using Dreamweaver has two problems:
... and tell DW exactly which one you wanted the class on.
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
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.