I'm a real numpty when it comes to websites....

[ninjabeaver]

I can't believe no-one has mentioned Macromedia, I personally can't live without Dreamweaver, freehand, fireworks and flash!

 

I'm with you on that one.

[intrigue]

I wouldn't recommend IIS if your planning to hook it up to the internet though.

for what reason?

No offence or anything but you can argue linux is better and yeah it probably is but then as 99.9% of my work is windows based its more of a hassle then anything to learn linux just so i can use it as a webserver.

 

As long as your firewall is setup correctly theres no reason why you cant use Windows and IIS for such a simple site. Infact theres no reason you cant use it for a dynamic site such as asp or the .NET framework.

 

personally i think the quote above is far too much a sweeping statement.

.matt

[webman]

I wouldn't recommend IIS if your planning to hook it up to the internet though.

for what reason?

 

Because it is inherently insecure. Even worse if it's not in a DMZ. Once your IIS server on our internal network is compromised it could mean more problems for your other servers; more so on Windows/IIS.

 

I can't believe no-one has mentioned Macromedia, I personally can't live without Dreamweaver, freehand, fireworks and flash!

 

Dreamweaver: Bad, non-standard code. And as soon as you start editing the code by hand it decides to change it to it's own way of doing things; and pretty soon, the "all-singing all-dancing What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get" program turns out to be "What You See Isn't Necessarrily What You Get".

[intrigue]

I wouldn't recommend IIS if your planning to hook it up to the internet though.

for what reason?

 

Because it is inherently insecure. Even worse if it's not in a DMZ. Once your IIS server on our internal network is compromised it could mean more problems for your other servers; more so on Windows/IIS.

 

I can't believe no-one has mentioned Macromedia, I personally can't live without Dreamweaver, freehand, fireworks and flash!

 

Dreamweaver: Bad, non-standard code. And as soon as you start editing the code by hand it decides to change it to it's own way of doing things; and pretty soon, the "all-singing all-dancing What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get" program turns out to be "What You See Isn't Necessarrily What You Get".

Bad non standard code? As far as im aware dreamweaver conforms to XHTML standards which a lot of others dont do or maybe thats dreamweaver 7 - 8 at least.

 

I think the thing people are forgetting here is that indiegirl has said that she is basically a newbie at webdesign and therefore with that in mind why is everyone suggesting more advanced ideas such as linux and in the above case saying that dreamweaver is not a good idea.

 

We switched from frontpage to macromedia studio last year and have had no complaints (but they why would you complain when you have been previously using frontpage haha).

IIS is simple and can be setup within minutes compared to getting a seperate box for linux, havign to install it and then go through the learning curve with linux when already your jumping into webdesign

Why try and learn too much when you can be quick and simple.

If security is that much of an issue make the IIS server not part of your network and use it as a seperate box so if its compromised then its just the stuff on that box that has a problem.

far more simpler then using any LAMP setup (Linux Apache mySQL PHP)

.matt

[DMcCoy]

I wouldn't recommend IIS if your planning to hook it up to the internet though.

for what reason?

 

Because it is inherently insecure. Even worse if it's not in a DMZ. Once your IIS server on our internal network is compromised it could mean more problems for your other servers; more so on Windows/IIS.

 

I can't believe no-one has mentioned Macromedia, I personally can't live without Dreamweaver, freehand, fireworks and flash!

 

Dreamweaver: Bad, non-standard code. And as soon as you start editing the code by hand it decides to change it to it's own way of doing things; and pretty soon, the "all-singing all-dancing What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get" program turns out to be "What You See Isn't Necessarrily What You Get".

 

IIS is much better than it was, I ran our website with it for 2 years. Version 6 though, I wouldn't do the same with 5.

 

Dreamweaver has the same problem as all web editors, as far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as wysiwyg for web pages. Exact positioning is always going to cause big problems. I had to resort to tables, I would have loved to do our site template as all css, but it wasn't possible. As nasty as they are, tables nearly always work in all browsers in the right way, and in the end a site that works is what we are aiming for.

[webman]

non standard code? As far as im aware dreamweaver conforms to XHTML standards which a lot of others dont do or maybe thats dreamweaver 7 - 8 at least.

 

I think the thing people are forgetting here is that indiegirl has said that she is basically a newbie at webdesign and therefore with that in mind why is everyone suggesting more advanced ideas such as linux and in the above case saying that dreamweaver is not a good idea.

 

We switched from frontpage to macromedia studio last year and have had no complaints (but they why would you complain when you have been previously using frontpage haha).

IIS is simple and can be setup within minutes compared to getting a seperate box for linux, havign to install it and then go through the learning curve with linux when already your jumping into webdesign

Why try and learn too much when you can be quick and simple.

If security is that much of an issue make the IIS server not part of your network and use it as a seperate box so if its compromised then its just the stuff on that box that has a problem.

far more simpler then using any LAMP setup (Linux Apache mySQL PHP)

.matt

 

But indiegirl did say she has had previous Unix experience/training so Linux wouldn't be that much of a problem; and it's not that hard to install LAMP anyway.

 

My point aobut dreamweaver is that it is a GUI for webpages - and that's all it is. You can only do what the GUI allows you to do, and that's not everything - there's much more you can do in say, Notepad, than you can with Dreamweaver. Yes, Notepad may be slower, but still... The last I heard Dreamweaver didn't produce W3C-standard code, but that may have changed.

 

If you are to go down the CMS route, it's still not perfect by far - you're still limited in some respects to what it allows you to do - that's why there are many to choose from - each to their own. But it's a great tool for schools to use - individal departments (for example) can log in via a web interface and make changes to their heart's content.

 

And don't even dream of doing server-side coding in dreamweaver 8O

[intrigue]

I wouldn't recommend IIS if your planning to hook it up to the internet though.

for what reason?

 

Because it is inherently insecure. Even worse if it's not in a DMZ. Once your IIS server on our internal network is compromised it could mean more problems for your other servers; more so on Windows/IIS.

 

I can't believe no-one has mentioned Macromedia, I personally can't live without Dreamweaver, freehand, fireworks and flash!

 

Dreamweaver: Bad, non-standard code. And as soon as you start editing the code by hand it decides to change it to it's own way of doing things; and pretty soon, the "all-singing all-dancing What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get" program turns out to be "What You See Isn't Necessarrily What You Get".

 

IIS is much better than it was, I ran our website with it for 2 years. Version 6 though, I wouldn't do the same with 5.

 

Dreamweaver has the same problem as all web editors, as far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as wysiwyg for web pages. Exact positioning is always going to cause big problems. I had to restort to tables, I would have loved to do our site template as all css, but it wasn't possible. As nasty as they are, tables nearly always work in all browsers in the right way, and in the end a site that works is what we are aiming for.

 

yeah i have to agree the CSS support is not great when you view it in the preview window. But then you can always launch the preview externally.

I think CSS and the absolute positioning and stuff is not really going to be an issue here though as with any beginner web designer there is bound to be mistakes and unless indiegirl is amazing at design, theres bound to be some ugly looking stuff but this is where the learnign curve takes over, as the more you do it the more you realise whats right or wrong.

 

I looked at some old asp i did and indeed some old php (really old) and i can see straight away things that i think.

oh my god how can you have been so stupid.

but its all part of the fun of webdesign.

 

Oh and indiegirl i might have a few ebooks for you if you want them.

just shoot me a pm

.matt

[intrigue]

apologies webman i didnt see the linux thing. i might be a little slack when reading peoples posts and im the first to admit it.

 

As for the LAMP thing ill actually take that back as im sure the XML course i went on previously there was a windows based LAMP setup (obviously without the linux bit haha) called XAMPP http://sourceforge.net/projects/xampp/

that might be of use as an alternative apache based webserver as ts dead easy to setup too.

 

Anyways yeah sorry webman if you think im getting uptight about it as reading it back it seems i may have sounded like that.

.matt

[webman]

apologies webman i didnt see the linux thing. i might be a little slack when reading peoples posts and im the first to admit it.

 

As for the LAMP thing ill actually take that back as im sure the XML course i went on previously there was a windows based LAMP setup (obviously without the linux bit haha) called XAMPP http://sourceforge.net/projects/xampp/

that might be of use as an alternative apache based webserver as ts dead easy to setup too.

 

Anyways yeah sorry webman if you think im getting uptight about it as reading it back it seems i may have sounded like that.

.matt

 

No problem intrigue.. I originally posted without checking who I was logged in as (using boss's machine ). But yeah, there's just so many ways of doing the same thing, horses for courses, or whatever they say. One method is good for one person while not for another. The best way to find the best option is to try them all and make a decision

[StewartKnight]

I think those who are rubbishing Dreamweaver, probably don't know it that well. There is a good reason why it's so expensive, and why it is the most popular web design tool!

 

I've edited code in dreamweaver, and never had it go wrong, add to that the rest of the studio package, and you've got an alarming amount of power. I'm sure you could code a website in notepad, but it would take a lot longer than using dreamweaver. Plus can you write "flash" in notepad. I bet you can, but heck... would you want to!!

 

At my last school, the 6th form came up with a fantastic wesite that allowed you to book tickets for a concert, using IIS and Dreamweaver, so if 6th formers can do it, I'm sure server side codeing in Dreamweaver isn't that hard!

[intrigue]

oh i see who's the other suer you was posting as then?

And yeah thats definatly the way things are done, i remember (here it comes) when dreamweaver was at version 3 and thing like HotMetal Pro and Hotdog where competing to be leaders in the field, frontpage 98 was pretty shit too and i even remember using the frontpage componants(extensions or whatever) in a site i made (shock horror).

 

I think i settled on dreamweaver because like visual studio it has intellisense so i dont have to remember all the tags. Yes it makes me somewhat lazy but its handy i dont really use the WYSIWYG editor as i mainly work in code view because of the ASP etc.

.matt

[DMcCoy]

I think those who are rubbishing Dreamweaver, probably don't know it that well. There is a good reason why it's so expensive, and why it is the most popular web design tool!

 

I've edited code in dreamweaver, and never had it go wrong, add to that the rest of the studio package, and you've got an alarming amount of power. I'm sure you could code a website in notepad, but it would take a lot longer than using dreamweaver. Plus can you write "flash" in notepad. I bet you can, but heck... would you want to!!

 

At my last school, the 6th form came up with a fantastic wesite that allowed you to book tickets for a concert, using IIS and Dreamweaver, so if 6th formers can do it, I'm sure server side codeing in Dreamweaver isn't that hard!

 

I wasn't complaing about dreamweaver btw, more a rant on xhtml, html and css

 

However I do loath flash, almost as much as real. I hate sites with flash navigation.

[intrigue]

I think those who are rubbishing Dreamweaver, probably don't know it that well. There is a good reason why it's so expensive, and why it is the most popular web design tool!

 

I've edited code in dreamweaver, and never had it go wrong, add to that the rest of the studio package, and you've got an alarming amount of power. I'm sure you could code a website in notepad, but it would take a lot longer than using dreamweaver. Plus can you write "flash" in notepad. I bet you can, but heck... would you want to!!

 

At my last school, the 6th form came up with a fantastic wesite that allowed you to book tickets for a concert, using IIS and Dreamweaver, so if 6th formers can do it, I'm sure server side codeing in Dreamweaver isn't that hard!

your right stewart and like i said the intellisense is great server side wise.

Probably not worth it witht he .NET framework especially when you have visual studio which is better in that sense but as for ASP, PHP and HTML oh and CSS, its definatly worth the cost.

 

HOWEVER. as ADOBE have now taken over macromedia we will see how things continue.

If you like Flash by the way then you might wanna check out what ytou can do with FLEX another macromedia thing which is immense. anyways i wont go into that.

.matt

[StewartKnight]

Actually I hate flash, but then I haven't had time, or seen a decent book about action scripting!

[webman]

I personally can't stand flash either. It's good for cartoons and gimmicky things like that, but for whole sites its useless. I like my scrollbars and copyable text etc. Plus you immediately exclude a large percentage of visitors if you don't have an alternaive text-only/HTML version of the site.

 

The way I see it is why pay for software (macromedia) that will be more of a hindrance than a help and not let me do what I want to do.

 

Intrigue: Originally posted as "bossman".. but as soon as I realised I deleted the post & logged in as myself

[browolf]

Because it is inherently insecure. Even worse if it's not in a DMZ. Once your IIS server on our internal network is compromised it could mean more problems for your other servers; more so on Windows/IIS.

 

 

 

so which is worse: an insecure linux box or a insecure windows box?

[palmer_eldritch]

Well, to keep the lid off the can of worms for a bit longer - I use DW all the time for web design / development and think it's great, on the whole. However, I stay away from most of the 'features' for setting up database connections and the like because the code you get is pretty nasty IMHO. 4guysfrom rolla, webmonkey and devshed have some good guides about the dynamic stuff.

[intrigue]

I think those who are rubbishing Dreamweaver, probably don't know it that well. There is a good reason why it's so expensive, and why it is the most popular web design tool!

 

I've edited code in dreamweaver, and never had it go wrong, add to that the rest of the studio package, and you've got an alarming amount of power. I'm sure you could code a website in notepad, but it would take a lot longer than using dreamweaver. Plus can you write "flash" in notepad. I bet you can, but heck... would you want to!!

 

At my last school, the 6th form came up with a fantastic wesite that allowed you to book tickets for a concert, using IIS and Dreamweaver, so if 6th formers can do it, I'm sure server side codeing in Dreamweaver isn't that hard!

 

I wasn't complaing about dreamweaver btw, more a rant on xhtml, html and css

 

However I do loath flash, almost as much as real. I hate sites with flash navigation.

 

bad flash is annoying just like any frontpage extensions.

but some flash is good like this site i was given a link to yesterday.

link

yeah well its a good example of good flash haha.

.matt

[Geoff]

so which is worse: an insecure linux box or a insecure windows box?

 

Insecure windows machines last around 7 minutes on the internet. Insecure Linux machines last about 3 months. But why choose? Insecure machines are bad full stop.

[StewartKnight]

A very uplifting flash experience intrigue!!!

[palmer_eldritch]

Insecure windows machines last around 7 minutes on the internet. Insecure Linux machines last about 3 months.

Unless you're running Mandrake 8 - had one of those last half-an-hour before it was brought down.

[intrigue]

A very uplifting flash experience intrigue!!!

Yes it brought a lot to my attention also and now i can make informed decisions on people i see in train stations.

8O

.matt

[palmer_eldritch]

:idea:

[webman]

Unless you're running Mandrake 8.

 

Circa 2000/2001? There's really no reason not to upgrade linux versions - but with Windows/IIS updates are dictated by one company who may or may not release a patch and may or may not decide to support it after 5 yars. For some reason this is turning into a Linux vs. Windows thread :?

[palmer_eldritch]

Yes, it was a few years ago now - forgot to mention that! Blame intrigue for kicking off the MS / *nix argument. Some people have no thread discipline

All he needs to do is mention Apple and he's covered pretty much every major IT schism there is.