That's why I love FP also. I build minisites all the time, with FP I can get one done in a few hours.
Almost all of the coding I do is manual. But when I'm going to need a large or complicated table, I'll open up fp, whip out a table, turn to html view, cut the table code and go back to my text editor and paste it where I want it. It saves a ton of time writing out all of the <tr>, <td> and other tags.
Last time I used that POS known as FP, when you published a site, it tried to d/l and "publish" the binaries in cgi-bin and some other stuff the host had in the web dir. That was irritating. But I don't know how many of you are on unix/linux boxes, but if you saw how FP has to be installed on a linux box with apache, or if you tried to do it... you would see why it is a joke. (Like I said, precompiled SUID binary... accessible from the web... it's ludicrous.) There's a million ways to "publish" a website... http probably being the absolute worst. At least dreamweaver (iirc) as ftp/sftp built in. Perhaps the newer FP does too. Chachi, You are correct it is very fast to make the changes right on your server with ssh and vim, or whatever editor your like. They seem to be missing the point, that say, you want to change your index.php you cp it to index.new.php make the changes, test it out, cp index.php index.php.old copy new over current, very simple, no need to reupload every. single. time. So much easier than "publish web" nonsense. BTW, does FP do syntax highlighting for perl/php/html/css/js/etc... ?
Tables are a breeze in front page. Saves lots of time. Originally Posted by nddb BTW, does FP do syntax highlighting for perl/php/html/css/js/etc... ? What do you mean syntax hightlighting? This is an option for colors tools page options color coding tab options to change colors are: normal text tags attribute names attribute values comments scripts And you can change the hyperlinks colors page properties and tab to background
I am on a Linux/Apache server. Doesn't seem to present any problems for me. Not true. FP does do syntax highlighting for html. css, and js. And yes... if you want them, there are "plugins" for PHP.
It works (if you coddle it, and abuse your system to make it work)... it's just a foolish way of doing things. Plus it requires an suid binary, for which no source is provided, by good old MS (or their "partners") and they don't exactly have a good security track record. What is the point of posting to a non-existant binary in some obscure folder (_vti_bin or some nonsense) letting apache intercept the request and send it to an MS-written, sourceless, suid binary for processing ... such a long, insecure, non-sensical process for what could be easily replaced with an ftp upload, or better yet, let's just not send everything in plaintext and use sftp (like dreamweaver can). ALSO, Linux FP extensions are pretty retarded, they can't follow includes in httpd.conf. So, if you are including your virthost files into httpd.conf to keep the whole thing manageable, you are screwed. Not to mention the latest ones out when I installed couldn't even read an apache2 httpd.conf file correctly, crapped out because it didn't understand some different directives. Also, suexec will not allow suid binaries to run, so there you go... have to punch a hole in the security of your box just so people can use FP. If you are chroot'ing virtualhosts then you are doubly screwed because it's calling an suid binary from like /usr/frontpage/ which is faaar outside the document root, yet another hole. It's just another MS invented stupid standard, that they push on the world, people suck it up, and it becomes so common place that you have to support it... no matter how much of a joke it is. If someone wanted to say "I use FP for a WYSIWYG editor and upload through FTP"... then fine, as a WYSIWYG editor it's not the worst you could find.. but this publishing of "webs" through http and creating a subdir in every dir (_vti_crap) is just absurd.
1. you can use FTP either in FP or a third-party FTP utility if you don't want or need the FP extensions, but using FTP can corrupt the FP extensions 2. publishing via FP using http works just fine 3. publishing via http to a Linux server with FP extensions installed works just fine 4. the _vti folders are used for site maintenance, to track which files need updating. They take up very little space and don't interfere with anything else on the site. Problem? None. Don't like it? Don't use it. Offering hosting and don't like it? Don't offer that feature to your clients. Are your clients asking for that feature? Tell them to buy their hosting from someone else. Or... Give it to them and quit bitching about anything being "forced on you".
I know it can... thanks for pointing out another reason why it sucks. If uploading a file to a site with ftp "corrupts" the site, then there is a serious problem with the way the site is being managed. SERIOUS. I didn't say it didn't work... after one gets done letting users have access to a suid binary. But just because something "works" doesn't mean it's the best, or even a mediocre way of doing things. I assert that it is almost always in plaintext as well, which should be a no-no by now. Did you read the post I just wrote? I'm not going to repeat all the problems with FP extensions. do you have chroot web spaces? do you use suexec? do you use includes in httpd.conf? do you use apache2? Because it doesn't work with any single one of those scenarios, in my experience. Unless they've come great leaps and bounds since I last installed it. (which wasn't terribly long ago.) It's an unnecessary annoyance. You know, files have timestamps. And rsync is fast for any file that it would be a burden to upload repeatedly. I've never had to make a special directory to keep track of what files were newer and what needed to be updated. Like I said, a very simple way to not upload at all, is edit the files on the server, or rsync them if you are terribly concerned with which files need updating, rsync will tell you extremely fast which files need updating and only transfer the changed block of the file, doesn't even have to send the entire file each time. Believe you me... I don't and I don't. It's the militants who demand it, and proclaim how glorious it is that are the problem. A lot of companies write really crappy software, but people seem to have a real affinity for picking up MS's garbage. That is why you have to support it. And when I say "have to" I don't mean you'll be shot if you don't it's recommended. It's a piece of crap, but some people like it, and some people use it. That's fine with me... just don't tell me how great it is, because it's not. I'm not telling you not to use it. I'm just pointing out its' many and various deficiencies. That seems to offend you... don't like it... ignore it. Two can play that game.
That's just silly. If you allow FP to manage the site the way it's designed to manage the site, there are no problems at all. If you try to make it do something it's not designed to do or something which bypasses the way it's designed to do it's job, it won't work properly. How is that any different from any other piece opf software?
Because, all you have to do is upload a file over an fp uploaded file (iirc), and it breaks it. I don't know of any other file transfer software that INSISTS you only put files up one way. I can put files up with ftp, sftp, upload form, smb... they aren't mutually exclusive, why is FP? If your management software can't handle an FTP upload, it's got issues. You can design software that breaks at the drop of a hat and say "Well, you didn't use it within specs!" That doesn't mean it's good, or shouldn't have better error handling. Imagine if you could only check your KWT stats with one browser, and one day you open up firefox and go to check your stats, and they are all corrupt. So you say "Hey, DP, my stats are gone!?" I guess he could just say "sorry, it wasn't designed to handle different browsers, you broke it." No, it would be poorly written software. I forgot to mention this : When you use the linux fp installer, it WILL overwrite your apache binary, so if you compiled a custom one, get ready to get it overwritten and have to compile again. Because you have to run the script to finish installing fp extensions, but then you need to compile FP extensions in the apache binary later anyway along with your custom stuff, because the dynamic module does not work well. Did you actually install apache and fp extensions? Try apache w/suexec (comes with it) and frontpage extensions some day, then come back and tell me how good FP is.
GREAT QUOTE!!!!! minstrel "Are your clients asking for that feature? Tell them to buy their hosting from someone else. Or... Give it to them and quit bitching about anything being "forced on you"." The problem is the people who support frontpage don't use frontpage. And they seem to try to mess it up at every chance. FTP is only for serve side files such as htaccess and so on. To edit frontpage or create = you use frontpage to publish or edit it. Also these Hosting companies that support frontpage extensions only do that. And when they look or edit your site, they are using other softwares, ftping up, and server side editing, F's up Frontpage and the extensions. So part of the problem of FP sites being corrupted is the hosting companies and their employees. nddb do you use frontpage? Yes or no? And if it were not for MICROSOFT FrontPage you would not have other editors out there. Such as dreamweaver and other cheat html products. Just as Unix Linux users would not have free copies of GUI software’s – think it’s gui right - that they don't have to buy, because of the rest of the pioneers out there creating new products for them to copy and give to Unix Linux users for free. So I guess " we the people " who pay for software give y'all a path to FREE STUFF!
No, it's because FP is a piece of server side software that does not work well. I already said I don't. I have extension installed... I don't use them. Others do. vi was around long before frontpage, prolly before MS. Frontpage is no pioneer product. MS has nothing to do with linux users getting free products. Unix and Minix have been around longer, even apple's first OS if you want to attribute origins to someone, apple is before MS. Plus... I don't use GUI in linux. Windows or OS X is better for GUI. You don't even need gui in linux... unless you play games and such, which I don't. You pay for ease of use and a load of security holes. That is what you paid for. The open source community existed before frontpage. You are very mistaken. LOL... hahaha. That's funny, I never had to use frontpage, sftp has always worked for me, to upload any file. And I've never needed FP as an editor either. It's amazing that any webpages get made or uploaded without FrontPage according to you guys. Might need to broaden your horizons a little bit. But none of this changes the facts I have posted about FP. Look up suid binaries and why they are stupid. Anything that runs as root is a liability. An suid binary is an even bigger liability, especially when web access is given to it. Not to mention, the whole concept of FP extensions is very, very stupid. If you guys actually compiled and installed apache and FP extensions with a modicum of security (chroot, suexec) and understood at least minimally how these things work, I'd put more weight to your opinion. If someone could come in here and say "the sourceless FP ext suid binary is safe because..." that'd be fine. I wish someone would prove me wrong, I don't even like running the crap, but I've got a couple people who use it... But you shouldn't have to butcher your security and your daemons to support what SHOULD BE a client side piece of software. MS is all about making what should be client side, server side. So they can claim reasons why you should use their homegrown server side products. They do it constantly, slightly break standards, so only their stuff supports it. They visit the standard developments meetings just to hear about the new standards and ways to "tweak" (read : break) them before they even come out. As web developers you should see this constantly. Why is IE always the outside when it comes to what html/css works with browsers? Firefox, konq, safari.. etc etc... all very similar, almost identical in their parsing, IE is the one that is always different, the exceptions always have to be made. It's just their business model. I dislike it, and I especially dislike FP.
Is that the reason it took 1/2 a day yesterday and this morning to get my extensions installed without any updates? I guess because our current support team hates the product. Y'all get paid to do it right. So why bitch? It's your job and in your job description when you took the job. So why do hosting companies support Frontpage as part of their service but don't want to? Now hostcentric.com was great before BIZLAND.com take over. And the current host we have seems to hate frontpage and supporting it. But the sales team is doing there best to help, i guess they want customers and that is why they are in business for commerce, not for personal grudges or for the hate of 1 product = MS Frontpage. And even seem to have their employees posting on here instead of working on support tickets. So far i think i found 2. Anything else nddb? Or do you think you need to back to work? Oh yah if my site does not work today who should i blame? Microsoft Frontpage or the server side support people? nddb Look at the apple boy above. Mac sucked the that is why Microsoft prevailed and a apple is still behind. And the title for this forum was? Something about Frontpage something you don't use but love to bitch about. Like i said the users for FRONTPAGE you publish our work. So yes for someone that does not use frontpage all other options are avail to you. Y'all i guess we look at the fourms nddb post to and for the products he uses and go bitch about something we don't use too. What do y'all think?
I've spent a number of years as a production manager at a hosting company that offers FP hosting... and i can tell you that yes, it is VERY particular. FTP, for example, doesn't break it per-se... but it CAN very easily. you won't break frontpage web JUST by uploading a file, but there are many instances where a user CAN totally @#$% up their own pages using ftp. I can't count the number of times i've had to pull someone's website off of our backup server because suddenly this- or that- feature doesn't work. Secondly, the _vti folders are an ABSOLUTE NIGHTMARE. sure, they seem harmless. but from a system administrative perspective, they're a disaster. Basically, if your customer puts a _vti in your server via FTP and then asks you to install FP extensions, forget about it. when you go to IIS, it will report that FP extensions are already there, even though you never installed them, basically because your IIS sees the _vti folders. so what do you do? delete all of the _vti folders (from all subfolders) and fire up IIS and see if it works now. (don't forget to cross your fingers) there are other nasty things users can do via ftp, for example databases, global.asa, FP generated include pages, page borders, themes, etc... its a mess. this is just the beginning... believe me i've seen it all. I'm a die-hard dreamweaver fan now in my own personal preferences for development, i switched teams 7 months ago and never looked back I have always STRONGLY discouraged the use of FTP and FP extensions on the same site. it IS a real problem. Great tool for the inexperienced (and the seasoned pro alike) but you have to know your software's limitations in order to use them effectively, and FTP is definitely Frontpage's weakness. I'm not saying Dreamweaver is perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but comparitively, I like it ALOT better... for one the code is much cleaner, the GUI is more intuitive, (for me) and the remote file management is definitely on par with the convenience of frontpage's FP server extensions WITHOUT the drawbacks of the problems mentioned here. It manages to use FTP exactly like FP extensions from the user end (in terms of preserving site-wide link structure, working "live", maintaining consistent page styling, etc...) also, Dreamweaver has a killer CSS editor, a feature that FP is very weak on. That's my 2 cents, and i'm stickin to it. VG
Like i said if you use FTP with a FrontPage web it's only for server side files. Or you will corrupt it. But our current support team does not use FrontPage and edits FrontPage in other editors and puts it back, which f's it up. But they don't get that part yet. Also our fp extensions kept disappearing. Any idea on how that would occur? I think it's an employee personal issue.
Funny how vectorgraphx newby logs on after i mess with nddb for a frontpage issue, and gets all the way back to what page 6 / 7 to say stuff about frontpage but does not use it now. Any how he looks like a cute little gator.
I don't have a "personal" grudge. It's not like frontpage molested my dog. It's just crappy. And I'm just saying : it's a piece of crap. Not really, i share this server with a few friends. I don't get paid to do it, I just get to host my stuff along with some others. Since I don't get paid, does that give me a right to bitch? Since getting paid removes that right? I'd rather have a customer who knows what they are doing and knows what they are talking about. Like I said... let me know when you guys even know how server-side FP works. Do you know how to use arin? Do you know how to see what server I am on? Do I really "work" for a hosting company? Me and a few friends host people... people we know. Sometimes they pay, sometimes they don't. It's not like I'm tech support for some huge hosting company, I don't even get paid, as I said. So, I have no idea what you are talking about... not to mention, I am working, installing light fixtures and faucets. I guess if I come across a faucet that leaks and is a cheap piece of junk out of the box, I should just shutup and let it leak all over the floor... crap is crap, no matter who makes it. It depends on what is broken. But if it's frontpage extensions, I'd suggest you adjust your attitude before talking to tech support, it might not be their fault at all. Apple is only behind because of the same people who love frontpage. "IT'S MICROSOFT IT MUST BE GOOD, AOL DIALUP IS FAAAAST." I doubt you've seen OS X, probably the best operating system out at the moment, all things considered. Be my guest, but I have installed frontpage extension on a linux server, and I do know exactly how it works, and I also know it's a piece my friend. And it's not like I just came to this forum to talk about FP, I've been here for a while. This thread is just something I happen to have a lot of experience with. You can "publish" your work any number of faster, smarter, more secure ways. If you could learn to do more than click the "PUT SITE ON INTERNET" button.