Linux website building software

[fmctm1sw]

I'm finally at the point where I am going to start a website. I decided to host it myself for control and "self-education" purposes. I have a loose grasp of a lot of concepts rights now, I know what I need to do. I plan on using apache and setting up virtual hosting as well. In the interest of staying warez free (and not buying more copies of XP), I decided to load linux on an old box I got laying around. I have a good understanding of unix command line stuff but I'm real hazy on what I can do as far as making web pages with it. My first notion was to make web pages on my XP PC with something like Publisher and transfer them to the linux box. That thought was quickly dashed when I realized that the file systems are incompatible. NTFS for XP and (???) for linux. What's out there for linux as far as making web pages go? This is all about a month off since I'm in the middle of a move. Any advice appreciated...

[Abbadon]

The file system has nothing to do, you can transfer your files through FTP from your XP machine to Linux.

I am not aware of a good package for webpage creation in Linux, all of the so called experts out there tell me that Dreamweaver is the best.

[lordsmurf]

http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxoffice/supported_apps/
Should run FrontPage or Dreamweaver.
None of it is free.

Freeware tends to not be as good for Web design software
http://www.linuxsoft.cz/en/sw_detail.php?id_item=175
http://www.developershome.com/webBuilding/freeWebEditors.asp

You can maybe use Wine for the WinOS software on Linux. Maybe.

Linux is really not a designer platform.

[SatStorm]

Linux is what windows 95 os2 use to be right now.

[tekkieman]

Ignoring the linux naysayers for the moment, in linux, you may want to look at nvu, bluefish, quanta, or screem for web development. While FrontPage and Dreamweaver will produce fine web sites, the sites they produce are bloated with extra crap and rarely fully W3C compliant. Their sole purpose is to let people not experienced in building sites build sites.

There are full (free) distrobutions for LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySQL, Php), to enable everything you need for your site. Abbadon is quite correct, the filesystem won't make a difference, you can produce the files anywhere and either FTP them to the web server, or directly copy them (Linux is quite capable of connecting to Windows machines and reading FAT or NTFS-formated drives (Funny, I don't remember 95 doing that, or even XP).

[lordsmurf]

Linux is what windows 95 os2 use to be right now.

Ah much as that might get the Linux crowd up in arms, it's true!

Linux is a command-line OS, and some of those GUIs that get slapped on top of them can really drag down systems. It's a lot like Win95 was sometimes. The look and feel of some of those GUIs can be pretty primitive looking, very basic, a la Win95.

I have nothing against Linux. I still try to use it. I get better each time.

[tekkieman]

Somebody (who doesn't use it) always has to start the war! The people who complain about the command line in linux seem to not understand that the power is in the command line. It allows you to do things the pretty GUIs never will.

On the other hand, those "primitive" looking GUIs already have the features Windows is still trying to get working in Vista (and without having to buy all new hardware to do it)

Don't like something in the command line in linux? Well, there's already a GUI for it somewhere, but if you don't like it, build your own. There are basically drag-and drop tools to build your own UIs. Perhaps that's why a few may look less than polished, but also remember that somebody did the work for you, gave it to you for free, and gave you the means to change anything about it that you don't like.

If you can barely manage to drive your mouse around your mousepad without crashing it, then I suggest you stick with Windows. It's very good at telling you where you will go today...

[lordsmurf]

Who's complaining about command-line? I still use DOS and I have to code a lot of ASP in notepad. Most of my Linux needs actually involve command-line Linux.

Let's not stray too much from the original question...

There are not many Linux options for Web design software. What does exist tends to be Windows software run in WinOS emulation of some sort.

Linux has it's uses, but I don't think this is one of them, so you won't get very far. The OS has really not "come of age" yet, in terms of some things. Web design is one of several. The GUI was just an off-hand comment, a related issue that also has not come of age. Linux has a distinct advantage over Windows, in terms of footprint on the CPU and other resources, as well as the open-source nature, but lots of common tasks you can do easily in Windows, even Mac OS, is more cumbersome or limited in Linux distros. Web design is one of them.

Good luck, fmctm1sw, but I doubt you'll get very far.

[tekkieman]

Let's not stray too much from the original question...

Actually, I haven't strayed from the original question. The OP has made it clear in the very first post that he intends to use linux. Trying to convince him otherwise is a disservice to his wants and needs.

The OP has stated linux will be used so as to not have to pay $200 for an inferior, insecure OS. As I am not a zealot, I will freely admit that Windows can be made somewhat secure, after you spend the additional money to provide software to prevent viruses, malware, and spyware, and you must spend the money to do that since:

Freeware tends to not be as good

As for web design software, I have already provided the OP with several choices. These are real linux apps. Why do you think they don't exist? Because you don't see them on a store shelf with a >$200 price tag on them? Or just not really familiar with linux? To make a correction to your statement:

What does exist tends to be Windows software run in WinOS emulation of some sort

For those who don't know, don't understand, or have no real experience with the subject, WINE, Crossover,etc. are not emulators. They work by providing a full set of Windows system libraries to enable them to run Windows apps. My WINE installation uses my real existing Windows dlls on my NTFS partition. You can't call it emulation unless you call XP Pro emulation. They use the same dlls!!!!.

Back to the UI statement:

The GUI was just an off-hand comment, a related issue that also has not come of age

If this is true, why is Microsoft working so hard to duplicate the features of the UI already available in linux (e.g. 3ddesktop, XGL and compiz)?

[lordsmurf]

I actually installed nvu and quanta. I think they suck. It's more for developers, not much in the way of design.

I'm also tired of hearing things like "W3C compliant". Quite a few Internet consortium/organization "rules" are so backwards that we'd never have sites with streaming video or DHTML or any number of modern conveniences. Not compliant? Oh well. IE and Firefox can display them accurately, so who cares?

I think Wine can be considered emulation because there is still a lot of Windows software that simply does not run in it. If you want a free alternate OS that can run Windows software, I'd skip Linux and go with ReactOS. Emulation has a pretty wide definition.

Everybody is always copying everybody else's GUI features. For example, KDE copied the Start button and Start menu structure. That still does not discount the other shortcomings in appearance and resource-hogging.

My favorite Web design software is MS Frontpage 2000 and notepad. MS Office was $20 on a student discount quite some years ago. It's almost the same as free, as far as I'm concerned.

I suggest the original poster install everything you have suggested, but don't go in thinking it's a replacement for Dreamweaver or any number of designer-friendly software.

[tekkieman]

I actually installed nvu and quanta. I think they suck. It's more for developers, not much in the way of design.

Then perhaps web site development should be left to developers. Not everyone who can spasm their index finger on a mouse is a "'puter expert", and not everyone who can drag and drop little icons on a form is a developer. Development tools are made for developers, so if they don't earn someone's stamp of approval who is not a developer, well, then so be it.

I'm also tired of hearing things like "W3C compliant". Quite a few Internet consortium/organization "rules" are so backwards that we'd never have sites with streaming video or DHTML or any number of modern conveniences. Not compliant? Oh well. IE and Firefox can display them accurately, so who cares?

Who cares? Well, I would think the commitees who define the standards care. That's why they create standards. The users who rely on things being in their proper format care. You most certainly can have any modern convenience and still follow the rules that you helped to define. It is when people alter the rules to suit their own ends that the confusion and incompatibility begins. Firefox displays them accurately? Not in the beginning! The biggest early complaint about Firefox was its inability to dosplay them properly. Why? Because they were not developed to the agreed upon standard. They were created be people who sacraficed the standard for "ease of creation" To use one of your own expressions, it is the "one-click wonder" software packages that let's anyone who can steer the mouse fancy themselves a developer.

Everybody is always copying everybody else's GUI features. For example, KDE copied the Start button and Start menu structure.

Agreed. But the question I would ask is would they bother to copy something if they believe it to be inferior? Well, yes. At least in the case of KDE copying the start button. But then again, they needed something to appease the mass of Windows users looking to defect that weren't willing to learn to use something different. Now at least they have something they recognize. However, KDE is but one of the choices for a desktop environment in linux. There are others, and they don't copy they start button. So it sounds like we at least agree that Vista seeks to copy desktop GUI features already available in a different OS.

That still does not discount the other shortcomings in appearance and resource-hogging.

Which I will be happy to discuss at length with you. Would you like me to start a new thread in the linux forum where we can discuss this? I won't mind a bit, especially since linux is well known for not consuming near the amount of resources as Windows, so I would like to hear what resource issues you're having.

My favorite Web design software is MS Frontpage 2000 and notepad. MS Office was $20 on a student discount quite some years ago. It's almost the same as free, as far as I'm concerned.

Then it can't be any good since it's "as good as free". That is what you said, right? Frankly, I agree with you. FrontPage is an excellent tool for non-developers to be able to develop an attractive, functional website. My particular issue(s) with it (and Dreamweaver as well) is the amount of bloat added to the code to accomplish the same task. Here is a good example: For NAB, we were tasked to create a simple web page that would open multiple instances of a media player object, passing it the URL to the MMS server. Our corporate web designer uses Dreamweaver for all corporate pages. While his implementation provided the requested functionality, it was seven pages long, compared to the same functionality I created in a page and a half in a free text editor. Both met the demands of the task, one just added a significant amount of bloat to the process. This is part of the difference between "designing" and "developing". I would not suggest that a good designer is capable of developing a good site any more than I would suggest a developer is capable of designing a good site. They are different tasks entirely. If you are a designer, and you want to create the product yourself, then yes, a designer based tool would likely work best for you. If you want to develop a site, then I would suggest a developer tool. Since you have already said that the examples of tools I provided are developer tools, then I submit that the are excellent choices for the task.

I suggest the original poster install everything you have suggested, but don't go in thinking it's a replacement for Dreamweaver or any number of designer-friendly software.

Agreed. It would be silly to make a decision without having actually tried it.

[Garibaldi]

Also another honorable mention. CoffeeCup HTML Editor has a linux version (4.1?) as well as I believe can be run via WINE. Do you know what WINE stands for? WINE = Wine Is Not an Emulator