httpd-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jack L. Stone" <>
Subject Re: [users@httpd] Apache has FrontPage Server Installation
Date Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:12:38 GMT
At 05:47 PM 9.17.2003 +0200, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 08:58:40 -0500, Jack L. Stone wrote:
>> countries with 60,000 readers. Without FP we would have to add more
>> people to do the same enourmous amount of work for the layout of
>> text and graphics.
>This is quite a bit off topic, but your making me curious. What is it that
would need so much more if you used another similar tool, like DreamWeaver
for example, instead of FrontPage?

Nothing. It's just that we have mastered FrontPage and can do it in our
sleep. To change would not accomplish anything at this junction. In fact,
we have resisted upgrading from FP98 to FP2K, etc because after trying
FP2K, we didn't see any more benefits from what we have.

>(Of course I realize it could mean a lot of work to change now, but you
did check the competition before deciding FrontPage is the only tool that
can handle the job, right?)

Absolutely. We looked at them all that was available in 1997 and
investigated those since, including Dreamweaver (I have a copy on one
workstation, but is unused). We had already been using PageMaker since
1988. Now PageMaker is involved again on some articles where we use
strictly PDFs because of all the complicated math symbols that do not work
in HTML without a lot of extra work to make them into graphics. We use
PageMaker 100% on our book layouts for printers and for PDF versions that
make the books also available on CDs and downloads.

In fact, we we started, everything was HTML... now about 1/2 - 2/3rds of
the articles are PDFs and the rest HTML. But, that change has been gradual
and we understand PDFing. Eventually, I suspect that all of the article
will be PDFS, but with the "frontends" and intros as html. I foresee HTML
as eventually becoming about 10-20% versus 100% at the beginning.

I do indeed agree that FP is an admin's pain in the butt on UNIX that we
use on all of our servers. But, it does work. So day we probably won't use
FP as we continue to evolve in our publishing technology.

>This is somewhat releveant here. In my expereience there are tools other
thamn FrontPage that offers the same advantages but less of the drawbacks.
DreamWeaver is one. It has a WYSIWYG editor but also a code view and IIRC
it lets you author with more common dynamic stuff (PHP, standard CGI etc)
instead of proprietary solutions. A tool with the same editing/building
philosophy as FrontPage but based on common standards would be easier to
use with Apache as the chosen server.
>Jonas Eckerman,
>The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
>See <URL:> for more info.
>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>   "   from the digest:
>For additional commands, e-mail:

Best regards,
Jack L. Stone,

SageOne Net

The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
   "   from the digest:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message