Website Creation Tools

[kilowatt]

Originally posted by BSDimwit

My one gripe with MacOS X is the way they handle configuration. Unless you are in Single user mode, most of the /etc files are useless and a unix hacker now has to learn the netinfo manager and defaults command stuff to be proficient at admining the machine.... unnecessary in my honest opinion. when BSD already had well defined means of doing all the necessary admin stuff. Just my 2 cents.

BSDimwit

We're both coming from the same corner BSDimwit, although I haven't been with FreeBSD as long as you have.

NetInfo is just for that - multi-user unix.

You see, netinfo is actually more than just password and nfs information - its an entire database framework. I was working on porting it to FreeBSD, but it requires so many macosx-specific files.

Basically, instead of editing differently-formatted /etc files, you edit a central database, which can be on any computer, with rather standard formats.

Take adding users, for example.

On linux, and most other unix-like os's, you edit /etc/passwd, and then re-hash them into master.passwd or shadow.passwd.

With each unix, its a bit different.

But, every netinfo-friendly OS, its the same. Make an entry in /locations/users. Set the shell, gid, uid, and leave the password blank.

easy!

Adding hosts, editing NFS exports/imports, hard disk mounts, services, apple talk, etc. Its all in one place.

One of the things I don't like about linux and FreeBSD (although I much prefer FreeBSD over linux) is its lack of organization. Nobody can ever give me a straight answer for why some programs go in /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, /usr/local/bin, /usr/local/sbin, /opt/*/bin, etc etc. Its the same deal with config files to me.

Thats why I like netinfo. Its one service, for many services. Restarting netinfo changes the config for mountd, apple talk, and several other things. so you don't have to restart them individually. Think inetd on steroids.

All in all, I think netinfo is a good step towards making UNIX sane enough for businesses and major software creators like Adobe.

[LAdesign]

Originally posted by chenly
LADesign, I've used Dreamweaver 4--are we on the same planet? It's absolutely horrendous. Different strokes, I guess.

Everyone has there own preferences... i'm not sure what or what you mean? I'm not using DW4, same interface but supports more.

However i am running in twinview at 1600 by 1200... i think you need it if your working on huge rich media ecommerce sites. Great money tho

[BSDimwit]

Kilowatt,

Thanks for the reply. I hadn't really thought about the netinfo stuff that way before, granted I am really new to macos X(few weeks) so I will try to keep an open mind about it.

As for the directory structure...

/bin contains very basic command binaries like ls cat etc... basic stuff that you would need to do anything if only your / partition were mounted.

/sbin contains system binaries, and daemons that are part of the base install necessary to control the way the system is running... like route, dump, mount etc... again, if only the / partition were mounted -

/etc - well we know what this is for.... system level configuration files

/usr/bin - This contains the more fun and usable tools and utilities that make running unix fun and powerful

/usr/sbin - This contains the more fun and usable tools/daemons that make running unix fun and powerful as root Basically, you average user won't be executing commands out of here, primarily root will... not to say that they can't, its generally a matter normal use versus admin use.

/usr/local/bin - Userland programs, stuff that doesn't come with unix by default but is installed later on... Netscape, BitchX, and the like... (the reason you booted this computer in the first place)

/usr/local/sbin - programs and daemons that are installed after the fact, but are still generally controlled by root... apachectl, snmpd...

/usr/local/etc - config files for all the stuff installed in /usr/local/bin or /usr/local/sbin some of the startup scripts /usr/local/sbin daemons

As for LINUX.... I loaded it once a year or so ago, but its hardware configuration was sufficienly different that I got frustrated and went back to FreeBSD. I mean when you get used to compiling your own kernel to get any hardware working(sound cards, nic cards, etc) you have no idea where to look when you get into Linux's way of doing things(I had no books or documentation... just a friends Mandrake CD). Looking back, Linux is better at somethings than BSD flavors are, but when you are used to something its hard to force yourself to change when there is really no compelling reason to.

Overall, FreeBSD is more stable whereas Linux has way more commercial support and software available. Everyone writes for Linux whereas FreeBSD has its ports collection... but where was it ported from...hmm I wonder. My one major grip with FreeBSD is that a newbie would have definate troubles getting it installed easily. This in turn scares them away and into the arms of Red Hat or Mandrake. Overall I feel FreeBSD is a better OS than any linux flavor out there, but that doesn't mean Linux sucks by any means. FreeBSD has had the benefit of a long history, give Linux that long and there is no telling what it would have been if it were as old.

Yikes, I wrote a book...thanks for the insight everyone.

[anitahill]

I have used GoLive for years, and am now in the process of learning DreamWeaver CS3, since Adobe is supposedly going to discontinue GoLive. I am a part time site builder, and have built plenty.

I am finding some of DreamWeaver's interface a little odd, and actually it is doing plenty of crashing and exhibiting strange behavior. In GoLive I could click on the words for a link, and unlink it in one fell swoop -- I may be missing something, but every time I try that in DW I have to go into code view and remove the <a href=""></a> by hand.

I am rather fond of GoLive still, and sure would love to see it continue, but the word is that it will not, so I am trying to stay current. I can see some interesting things in DW, and I believe the JavaScript is probably more clean, but I am not a JavaScripter.

And yup, I am a die hard Mac user.

[aled]

GoLive 9 is such a disaster. It keeps re-writing stuff that you've hand coded if you even dare to switch to design view to make a simple tweak.

I tried to use Dreamweaver CS3 for a while, that's such a disaster too, file management is rubbish.

So I've switched to a new editor and it's much better and a lot cheaper. No bloat.

http://www.panic.com/coda/

[Natobasso]

I think that instead of saying "Don't use MS Word!" you should say "Don't use MS Anything!". Trust me. Word is not the only Office app to save as HTML. Excel does the same, and it is the same gnarly, ugly, proprietary code. PowerPoint, IIRC, is worse.

Actually you might change your mind if you used Visual Studio. The express versions are free and kick butt. This from a die-hard mac user (since 1983!)

I recommend just using Text edit in text only mode and write you code by hand. Do your css like this too and you'll have full control over your websites.

[Natobasso]

I have used GoLive for years, and am now in the process of learning DreamWeaver CS3, since Adobe is supposedly going to discontinue GoLive. I am a part time site builder, and have built plenty.

I am finding some of DreamWeaver's interface a little odd, and actually it is doing plenty of crashing and exhibiting strange behavior. In GoLive I could click on the words for a link, and unlink it in one fell swoop -- I may be missing something, but every time I try that in DW I have to go into code view and remove the <a href=""></a> by hand.

I am rather fond of GoLive still, and sure would love to see it continue, but the word is that it will not, so I am trying to stay current. I can see some interesting things in DW, and I believe the JavaScript is probably more clean, but I am not a JavaScripter.

And yup, I am a die hard Mac user.

Use www.dynamicdrive.com for javascript. So sweet!