Slashdot Mirror
Lindows Announces Nvu - Frontpage For Linux?
CmdrStone writes "Michael Robertson, the Lindows founder, has announced in his 'Michael's Minute' newsletter that Lindows has started the creation of a Frontpage-type program for Linux, called Nvu." Nvu promises to be "...a complete Web Authoring System for Linux Desktop users to rival programs like FrontPage and Dreamweaver", is "100% open source", and will be free to download when it launches.
The fact that it's built from the Mozilla code base is encouraging...
Unfortunately (according to the FAQ), it won't be available until the first quarter of 2004
You wouldn't think the guy who was able to combine "The instability of Windows, with the complexity of Linux"(or was it the other way...) would be able to even have any ground on which to speak of Linux. Lindows has not been all it was once hyped up to be, and this guy isn't a Linux guru. Bah, he has no place to talk.
it will be more like dreamweaver, and less like frontpage. I can handle a tool that takes out a lot of the headaches from doing rollovers, adding scripting, and flash files. Dreamweaver was always great at that (I haven't messed with web design in a few years). But if anyone tries something as stupid as frontpage extensions, I hope the whole community laughs in thier face. From what I've seen from him, he is not stupid, just trying to make it easier for non-tech geeks to get away from windows, and this could be a good thing. I have had many people tell me one of the reasons for shying away from linux is (besides lack of cutting edge games) no easy wysiwyg html editors. Not everyone wants to lookn at the code. Granted, even when I used to use dreamweaver, the code always got cleaned up in homesite or notepad (thank god I use linux now) before it ever saw the net. This should work out to be a good move.
> People actually use those things?
> I thought every self-respecting geek just used text editors.
You just answered your own question. Nvu is for people, not geeks.
The unofficial
Same ol' from Robertson and co, take an existing open source project, change a few graphics, and call it a revolutionary new product which will change the world.
Guy's got balls, I'll give him that.
I congratulate the lindows team for launching this project.. clearly not aimed a linux geeks, but for the average lindows user. Those who use vi or emacs wont be using lindows anyway... thank you lindows for making linux more accessable to those who are fed up with windows
xmlns:w="ur n:schemas-nvu-com:nvu:editor"w 3.org/TR/REC-html40">
> f gte mso 9]><xml>w serLevel>
xmlns="http://www.
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<meta name=ProgId content=Nvu.Document>
<meta name=Generator content="Nvu 1.0">
<meta name=Originator content="Nvu 1.0">
<link rel=File-List href="hello_html_files">
<title>Slashdot Comment</title>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:DocumentProperties>
<o:Author>AC</o:Author>
<o:LastAuthor>AC</o:LastAuthor>
<o:Revision>1</o:Revision>
<o:TotalTime>1</o:TotalTime>
<o:Created>2003-10-30T03:05:00Z</o:Created&g t;
<o:LastSaved>2003-10-30T03:06:00Z</o:LastSaved>
<o:Pages>1</o:Pages>
<o:Characters>5</o:Characters>
<o:Lines>1</o:Lines>
<o:Paragraphs>1</o:Paragraphs>
<o:CharactersWithSpaces>5</o:CharactersWithSpaces
<o:Version>10.2625</o:Version>
</o:DocumentProperties>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[i
<w:NvuDocument>
<w:GrammarState>Clean</w:GrammarState>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:Bro
</w:WordDocument>
</xml>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US style='tab-interval:.5in'>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=NvuoNormal>Like frontpage, huh?</p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
The thing is just a rerelease of mozilla composer man.
You can start using it way before 2004, go to mozilla.org and download it today!
Emacs can work as a text editor? How do I enable that feature?
Wow, I should not post when knackered.
is a Quickbooks replacement. Give me that and I could have every office in town running Linux. I mean, with it you can have a $25,000/year secretary do your accounting instead of a $60,000+ CPA (at least for small to mid-sized businesses). That's the killer app Linux is missing.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
atleast it will put out compliant HTML code. One more incentive to get people to switch.
With web management. So, the editor may be Moz Composer, but some new stuff is on it.
I know there are a lot of geeks out there who will blast this effort as unnecessary--they are the same people who believe the best HTML editor is really a text-editor with an HTML quick-reference sheet handy... These are some of the very same people who loathe the idea of ANYTHING that might pollute the open source world with Windows-like things--in short: anything that infringes on their idea of Unix-like purity. Sure, I too can edit HTML myself if I really wanted to.
However, I think this effort is a HUGE leap forward, not only because it is all open source, but because it is one more tool in the open source arsenal that can be used to fight back at the Microsoft camp.
The fact of the matter is, there are a LOT of people out there for whom FrontPage is absolutely indispensible. These are some of the same people who will be asking a very pointed and straightforward question about migrating to Linux: "Will Linux run something like Microsoft Office?" Just as we need an Office suite like OpenOffice or StarOffice, I think it is high time we had a complete website authoring tool. People from all walks of life, both those in the professional world as well as those doing it just as a hobby, could benefit.
Indeed yes. A good dreamweaver clone is something I've been missing from Linux. Personally, I'm an XEmacs fan myself, but I really do like using something like Dreamweaver for composing HTML. Yes, I can type it all out from scratch in a text editor but it's much faster to tweak it and make it look good using a WYSIWYG editor. Most text editors don't show you how your text looks with the images, for example, or how the layout will look. Used properly, something like Dreamweaver makes your pages much more fluid; you can drag and drop elements around till things look right without having to worry about whether you've forgotten to cut and paste a closing tag. You can highlight an entire column of a table and apply a CSS style to it, etc. Yes, you could do it all in a text editor, but which is faster?
I mean, sure, I could always just write assembly or even raw machine code instead of using a compiler. But do I really want to?
It's all a matter of using the right tool for the right job.
Jesus, there's less than a hundred posts and there are already people trying to act cool and knowledgeble by saying that they do all of their HTML coding in vi and Emacs. Good for you. No wonder your web pages look like shit. Have you take a look at www.gnu.org lately? Lots of great info, but it's uglier than sin. People who design great looking websites usually do a quick layout in Dreamweaver, and then finetune the HTML in vi, Emacs, BBEdit, etc. Best of both worlds.
WYSIWYG HTML editors are very useful to get most of your interface done FAST ; then, you can change some details with your favorite text editor.
Furthermore, writing accuented text in plain HTML is such a pain in the ass it's not even funny. You have to type stuff like "é" instead of a sole key on a French keyboard ( I'm French-speaking ), and since most languages have non-standard - according to English, that is... - characters and that these are very common in text for some languages, I think such a feature is essential to a top notch international HTML editor.
I don't care much about vi and Emacs fanboys in here arguing how lame WYSIWYG editors are, the fact remains the same : these can do the bulk of some work fast, easily and effectively, and details can then be reworked in HTML mode as needed. Get the memo : knowing HTML doesn't make you 1337.
Waiting for the flames...
United States of America, good ol' backers of world peace.
Wow. How do you get your head through doors?
Emacs (or vi, for the enlightened) is fine if you do little bitty websites. It's even fine if you want to php your website. But if you are only one of several people who provide content, a large number of whom are (*gasp*) writers or graphic designers by trade, and think that PHP is what ravers use to stay up all night long, Emacs and vi won't cut it. Now, this is a development. Not as big of a development as when it is actually ready, but still a development.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
ctrl-meta-c k meta-p 1 1 ctrl-v shake it all about, you do the hockey pokey and turn yourself around. AFAIK that's what it's all about.
snot....
...
/snot....
SQL-Ledger is a double entry accounting system. Accounting data is stored in a SQL Server, for the display any text or GUI browser can be used. The entire system is linked through a chart of accounts. Each item in inventory is linked to revenue, expense, inventory and tax accounts. When you sell and purchase goods and services the accounts are automatically updated.
With the assembly feature you can build manufactured goods from parts, services and assemblies. When you sell assemblies all the accounts linked to the individual parts, services and assemblies are updated and stock levels adjusted accordingly. If any item belonging to an assembly is changed all assemblies are updated as well.
Invoices, Packing List, Income Statement, Balance Sheet, Sales and Purchase Order, Statements, Receipts and Checks are generated from templates and may be changed to suit your needs. Templates are provided in html and tex format. The tex templates are processed with latex to produce postscript and PDF documents and can be sent to a printer, displayed in a PDF viewer or sent out via email
SQL-Ledger can be used on any UNIX, Mac OS X and Windows computer. The application is written in Perl, developed on FreeBSD and Linux with Galeon, Konqueror, Netscape, Lynx, Links, W3M, Voyager, Explorer to render the display, Apache, thttpd, boa to communicate between the server and the browser, and PostgreSQL, Oracle, or DB2 to store accounting data.
BlueFish has occupied this space for quite some time. The spin is vintage Michael Roberson of course. We've been here before, people. He's an early adopter with a megaphone that's twice the size of yours. After all, HE KNEW ABOUT MP3 BEFORE YOU DID.
There are times I'd really wish that the tech media would genuinely research the subject matter instead of just amplifying hype. Hard-working, often-silent open source incumbent projects deserve nothing less.
http://tinyurl.com/4ny52
Free to download, cool. That's nice.
But will it run on anything other than Lindows? Considering Lindows costs money, saying that Nvu is free to download and neglecting to mention that it only runs on Lindows wouldn't be something I'd put past Robertson.
It's like how MS offers IE 'free to download' (or used to) but it only runs on Windows - big deal, you have to buy Windows to get it.
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
I was just talking to my father about html editors. He is taking an HTML web clas in florida which is spending more time teaching him front page rather than teaching him HTML. I was explaining to him that Netscape/Mozilla's editor produce some of the best code, but was a pain to use whereas Frontpage, MS Office and Dreamweaver are absolute nightmares on the code (looks like ppl on crack and just learning how to code did it). What he wants is a nice simple easy to use editor for doing a web site, so thanx.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
- Lindows.com is *paying* a developer to continue working on a current OSS product, Mozilla, which in turn will add to their product
- nvu claims to be fully open source, which they seem to have every intention of following up on.
- Lindows.com is paying.
This is a case of lindows putting their money where their mouth is. They're contributing to open source, while also trying to differentiate themselves in the market. Let's give em a chance here.Not a joke. I actually prefer Vim to anything.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
Indeed the "Publish Settings" dialog shown in this image sitemanager.jpg still has the Mozilla icon on it.
--Murray Barton
Actually, although Front Page sucks, DreamWeaver is a great tool. For setting up a fairly complex page, it helps to have a UI like this -- you can have the HTML view in one pane and the (approximate) browser view in another pane. DreamWeaver is very standards-compliant (in my experience, although I definately only use a small subset of the full features).
:-).
The biggest feature I use is the style-sheet support, actually. Helps to click through a few menus to build up the correct CSS for "white text in Arial 10 pt with 5 pixels padding left and 10 pixels padding top" -- I don't have to wrack my brain to recall the right syntax for something I don't have to use a lot. I'm reworking a pretty large site right now (166 JSP pages), and being able to use this is helping a lot in removing all the old tags and putting in nice stylesheet directives.
So yeah, this self-respecting geek uses it. One of the few Windows-based tools I really like. Mind you, the only other editor I use is vi (even on Windows), so it all balances out
It's a strange world -- let's keep it that way
Bluefish
Screem
Quanta
The GPL does not require your software to be free to download. It just requires you to include the source code along with the compiled binaries if you do provide the software to someone for free or for money.
Of coruse, anyone who pays for it can subsequently give out the code for free, should they choose to do so.
I smell a bad egg...
The FAQ says Nvu will be "covered under the MPL".
Mozilla is tri-licensed MPL/GPL/LGPL, so the user chooses which license they wish to use the software under.
Lindows.com can't alter the licensing situation of existing mozilla code, but if they only make their improvements available under the MPL - it will be Free Software, but the mozilla folks won't be able to merge improvements into the mozilla codebase.
So basically, Lindows.com are fulfilling the bare minimum legal requirement, and purposely blocking cooperation (so they can have the best version).
Either that or the FAQ is wrong, but Lindows.com have a shakey record in terms of community spirit.
Ciaran O'Riordan
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
The Mozilla/Netscape Composer module is a solid tool for non-techies to create and maintain web pages. If Nvu keeps that going, while the Mozilla crew focus instead on the browser and mail client, that's a Good Thing.
...for BBEdit. Because It Doesn't Suck. Someone needs to build a workalike for BBEdit that runs on Linux, because Bluefish, Quanta and Screem all are wannabe HomeSite clones. I mean, HomeSite is nice, but BBEdit just...rocks, y'know?
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
The biggest thing missing from Mozilla Composer is the ability to create form elements... why, oh why, haven't they added this feature?
How complex a website?
Maybe because I've got a full life and a lot more things to do with my time.
I can do straight HTML. But if I'm doing a big site, it is much more efficient to do it in WYSIWYG, get it done, and go on and have time with my friends.
But the point was not whether or not your nephew could do it (I'm assuming, since he is such a good example, that his sites include CSS and javascript controlled menus -- right?), but that there are many people who have good reasons for doing web sites but don't have time to learn HTML.
It seems to be the general geek opinion, though, that anything less than "what I use as a geek" is inferior and those using something else that is easier shouldn't be doing anything in computers.
This is a great improvement of free web authoring tools, but today most websites do not consist of static pages. This worries me as this tool doesn't seam to handle that.
To be a Frontpage/Dreamweaver killer it need to handle database driven websites in a simple fashion. It also need to handle serverside scripting like jsp/php.
Anyway it's a start.
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
Consistent if you are only developing for Internet Explorer or Netscape/Mozilla exclusively. Once you want your page to look good on both browsers you need to have a browser 'discovery' query that then points to a particular set of CSS files...
I haven't had the time to finish one up, but I have been on again and mostly off again developing a web-site and while it works and looks nice in Explorer, the text is cut-off in Netscape/Mozilla, I have no idea what it would look like under opera and I know that it won't work nicely in Lynx or Links, since it uses DHTML for some limited 'pop' with some menus...
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
I think I've looked at Bluefish before.
:-)
There are several great editors out there and Bluefish certainly stands near the top but...
where is the site manager like you'd find in Dreamweaver or (shudder) Frontpage?
Sorry, I love Linux and all other FLOSS. I use OpenOffice.org wherever possible. I browse and do email with Mozilla... I advocate as much as possible but until there is a high quality web authoring tool which also has a site editor, the only way you'll get me to give up Dreamweaver is by prying it out of my cold dead hand.
But I have hope - the tide of Open Source is rising faster and faster!
obviously Dell and AOL/Time Warner need CPAs. Medium sized (100 or so employees) buisnesses don't. I know of several that are doing exactly what I'm talking about. Accounting is basically a repetitive task that's only difficult because of the sheer number of laws, rules and computations involved. Quickbooks automates all that, reducing acounting to data entry.
As for a secretary being terrified of Linux, what makes you think they're not terrified of Windows. I once had to fix a computer where they only thing wrong was the secretary clicking 'cancel' when I.E. asked them if they wanted to leave a secure web site (they're homepage was a secure site, they couldn't get to any other site because they'd click cancel every time the dialog popped up). Computers are just tools to most people. Very expensive tools they're afraid of breaking. Heck, if anything Linux could finally put a stop to this nonsensical fear:
Me: This is your new computer.
Secretary: It looks complicated...
Me: Don't worry, you can't break anything. It won't let you.
Once people get used to computers they can't break the fear will evaporate and they'll start reading dialog boxes instead of panicing and clicking 'cancel'.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I use Vim for just about anything involving editing text. I'm a web developer so I started off with Allaire Homesite, then moved to ColdFusion Studio, then Dreamweaver when CF Studio was discontinued. After about 3 months using Dreamweaver, I switched to a Windows build of gVim and I'm very happy with it.
But you have to admit that Vim is definitely not for everyone. You wouldn't give it to your average business user -- or even to a HTML newbie. It's not only the unusual keyboard shortcuts and the RegExp-driven text find / replace that make it totally unusable for a non-geek, but Vim is still a primarily text-based app that doesn't even offer code hinting.
These days, HTML is commonly used in a typical business. If Linux wants to make it to the business desktop, it is important to have a good quality WYSIWYG HTML editor to give to those who can barely use a word processor, and those who just want to make quick edits without having to learn HTML. Face it, not everyone wants to do that.
And for the people who do know HTML (like myself), their life would become much easier if the people who don't could give them a simple HTML page instead of a horrible MS Word doc that's impossible to automatically convert to anything resembling sane, semantically correct HTML.
No flame intended, just wanted to point out that this project is not such a bad idea after all.
I signed up for a
Speaking as someone who never really learned a lot of HTML, yet who has built quite a few web sites using WYSIWYG tools (plus some editing of the generated code to clean it up or fix little things, a bit of "cut and paste" javascript, and so on) -- I have to say I always *liked* FrontPage.
Granted, the extensions are a big problem - but I think mostly because of their poor implementation, as opposed to in concept. (It seems to me that "WebDav" is trying to be a standardized version of the same basic idea, these days.)
The biggest reason I think FrontPage is so widely disliked is the tendency for people to use the built-in "themes", which were generally rather gaudy, and always immediately obvious when they're used. (By contrast, Adobe GoLive comes with 5 or 6 sample sites that people often build new pages from as templates, but they're more "professional" looking and tasteful - so the results are better.)
IMHO, there's really no reason, nowdays, why it shouldn't be pretty much "point and click" to add such common elements as a response form to email or even online checkout via PayPal, and even features like text inside graphical buttons should be generated "on the fly", if needed.
It amazes me that even today, some people have 4 or 5 programs they go between to get a basic site put together - and they *still* usually have to tie it all together with some handwritten HTML in a text editor. (Perhaps even more amazing, some of these same people will tell you it's somehow better and more efficient than having all of these features rolled up into a user-friendly tool. Go figure....)
Frontpage is great for what it is, which is a dumbed down web development tool. That's not meant to call someone dumb for using it, but it is what it is. It allows novices to easily create (generally bad) web content. I won't argue that doing it the handwritten way is more efficient, but it usually is better if you actually look at the content produced. Most WYSIWYG editors add a lot of uncessary tags into what they produce which just results in larger pages which isn't a desireable effect for a web page. That's something you generally don't see with pages handwritten by somebody that has a clue.
I'm all for user-friendly tools, but generally, people have their reasons for not using the ones that are available.
- b
You should take a closer look at the toolbar on screenshot available at http://nvu.com/screenshots.html
Daniel Glazman
For the mozilla folk to accept code into their tree, it has to use the standard mozilla tri-license.
Lindows could release their enhancements under the tri-license, but instead they have decided to only release them under the MPL, therefore blocking the mozilla crew from benefitting from the Lindows enhancements.
Yes, it's all legal. But it's a sub-optimal contribution from Lindows.com, when an optimal contribution would cost them zero extra.
Ciaran O'Riordan
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
And this dialog has the Netscape logo.
Lindows will be releasing it under the Mozilla license. And, they've contracted a ex-Netscape employee (Daniel Glazman) to be the lead developer.
Read here for more and past information:
Lindows.com Announces Mozilla-Based Nvu...
Lindows.com Contracts Daniel Glazman to Develop...
Daniel Glazman Starting Company to Develop Composer
When creating a new web design app, the phrase "like Frontpage" should never be used.
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
"Syntax highlighting with support for ColdFusion, XML, PHP, SQL, Python, Perl, DTML - Zope, C++ and HTML, with more to come"
You're right, of course. I should have been more specific in my previous post.
For some reason, whenever Michael Robertson does something with Linux/Lindows/whatever there are posts like the one I was replying to that say he is not going to supply source or that he has some nefarious scheme to become the next Bill Gates by using Linux or some other GPL software so it seems that every time there is a Lindows story on Slashdot, I have to remind someone that GPL still applies.
The BOFH's who populate Slashdot for some reason think that Michael Robertson's attempts to make a grandma-friendly distro and then market it to ordinary humans rather than uber-geeks is an affront to common decency.
I think he's on the right track, and should be getting some props around here for his efforts. LindowsOS is aggressively pursuing the home desktop market; no other distro is even trying.
Send lawyers, guns, and money. Dad, get me out of this.
Wouldn't that make it a perfect drop-in replacement for Frontpage?
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
I can understand your frustration, but as a graphics guy and a web designer, I would like to defend the "text editor" approach. When I lay out a site, I do it in Photoshop with each element on a layer, then I export the layers as individual graphics. For more complex, chopped up graphics I use ImageReady. Once the graphics are done, however, it's hand coding all the way. Why? I have a few reasons.
1.) WYSIWYG editors do things without telling me what they are doing. This is both the WYSIWYG editor's greatest strength and weakness. If I build a page in Dreamweaver, I find that it's nearly impossible to edit the output by hand because I don't know how Dreamweaver chose to do what I told it to do. Did it align that image by making it float or by using absolute positioning? Is the text in a bold tag, a strong tag, or a span tag with a style on it? I can't find things in the document because I didn't put them there in the first place. This is problematic when I want to edit something quickly and can't figure out how the page is put together.
2.) Everyone has a text editor, and most people have ftp programs. If I'm on my boss's computer showing her a page I designed, she's likeley to say something like "can we move that image about 10 pixels to the left?" If I made the file by hand, it's a simple matter to ftp to the site, edit the file in a text editor, and save it. If it's a Dreamweaver file, I either have to go back to my computer and launch Dreamweaver or edit the file by hand, which is a PITA for the reasons described in reason #1.
3.) WYSIWYG editors give you a false sense of security. The document looks great inside Dreamweaver, so it must be fine, right? Wrong! Sometimes pages that look perfectly fine in your WYSIWYG editor will bomb on you when you display them in a browser. In order to get consistency across all browsers, an editor would have to design its pages to suit the lowest common denominator in browsers. Instead, they aim for the latest and greatest browsers because they can make prettier pages that way. By writing pages by hand, you get a feel for what works and what doesn't across various browsers. You get a "style" of building pages in which you gradually learn how to code for your intended audience's technology and still incorporate the types of design elements that you want.
4.) Filesize is not important in Quark, but it is in HTML. Your Photoshop, Quark, Word, GIMP, OpenOffice, and Kontour files don't need to have streamlined code. They can put whatever they want "behind the scenes" as long as it looks right in the end. With web files, they need to be as small as possible. There are still people using dial-up. No program has yet come up with a way to automatically generate perfectly streamlined HTML. It's possible they never will. If I have to clean the code that comes out of Dreamweaver, I'm not really saving that much time.
5.) WYSIWYG editors make people think that designing for the web is the same as designing for print. This is a big one, and it sounds like the parent poster has become frustrated (and for good reason) with the fact that the two design paradigms are not the same. "Things need to be perfectly aligned"? Tough. They may line up 90% of the time, but somebody is going to get a crappy version of your page unless you design for flexibility instead of perfection. People want to see your text at various sizes, they'll shrink their windows down or blow them up to enormous sizes, and just about anything they do that doesn't match your computer's settings when you designed it will make your page look dumb. Only Flash pages come close to perfectly scalable web pages, and Flash comes with it's own set of problems.
I don't have animosity toward WYSIWYG HTML editors, but I have yet to find one without the problems I named. The only animosity I have comes from frustration with people who have succumbed to reason number 5. Too many people don't understand that by using the "professional" web editor, they make their pages look more amateur unless they really know what they are doing.
I wish that my inferiority complex were as good as yours.
-RenderHead