2003 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice AwardsThis forum is for the 2003 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards.
You can now vote for your favorite products of 2003. This is your chance to be heard!
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
View Poll Results: Web Development Editor of the Year
My point is.. I don't care how fast and optimized your parser is. I'm not gonna use quanta if it depends on 50 megs of KDE so all that nice optimization is completely irrelevant to me.
Cool. It's not like I'm losing sales over it. I used to do heavy professional development with nothing more than EPM on OS/2. All I wanted was something that would make me really fast... Then I ended up developing on an OSS program... Then I found myself on a crusade for GPL software... Then I got religion when the righteous brotherhood of the W3C enforcers sat me down and preached that not one page that failed to validate should be left on the internet with metadata from my app. (Oops!) Thus enlightened I forged on to leave the valley of the sabretoothed HTML beast and vowed never again to be beholden to any one DTD... And now I find out that my libraries are a blight on the hard drives of the faithful. Why? How could I have been so foolish to be taken in by these sirens with their pretty widgets?
Anyway most people seem to put a priority on intuitive performance. The relative cost of aquiring it is of no consequence given the value of their time, and especially when Dreamweaver is $500 and many people tell me they prefer Quanta. The important thing is that you have what you want... whatever that is, because I only know what you don't want. Enjoy it.
Originally posted by sequitur I know you've given me an incentive not to but that wouldn't be nice. It's a double entendre, which is why I didn't want to go there. "small drive" == cramped for space on your hard disk and "skinny pipe" != "fat pipe" would be a slow internet connection. This was a speculation prior to your offering a more detailed explanation.
I'm aware of what both terms mean and the double entendre - I wasn't - and am not - aware of what your intention was in raising the issue. I have a 25 MHz 486SX and a P100 that are disconnected from the net and would be running a 2200bps modem and a 56K if they were, and I have an i686 with 40 gigs that is DSL-capable and an Athlon XP with 35 gigs that is on DSL. So what? And if the entendre was the point then, in all honesty, I'd call that pretty pathetic.
if you feel Mozilla Firebird is a dog than so is Quanta. However we're not done optimizing it yet so it will be faster come release time.
No, I dislike Linternet Explorer - I love mozilla, though.
Originally posted by The Noid My point is.. I don't care how fast and optimized your parser is. I'm not gonna use quanta if it depends on 50 megs of KDE so all that nice optimization is completely irrelevant to me.
Don't care the depedencies. Just upgrade your KDE to 3.1 and you will get Quenta automatically. Coz Quanta is integrated into KDE 3.1
I've just registered on this site as the discussion about Quanta got so heated, that I can't stay so quiet in the background...
1. "This is not a Quanta mailing list". Right, but it's a forum about voting for the best web development editor, and Quanta is one of the nominates. Which was is better: to say that "hey, I voted this, I voted that" or talk in detail about the nominated applications, showing what's good or bad in them? Not trolling, but showing facts.
2. "Quanta uses KDE libraries". Yes it does, and Eric explained well, why is it so. Because of reusable component, because of great framework, because it takes a lot of things down from our shoulders and thus Quanta can progress in its own area (web development) rather than trying to reimplement everything from a single dialog to http/ftp access, editor, HTML rendering or so. So yes, it uses the KDE libraries. I would not chose anything inferior if I'm not forced to.
3. "The requirements are big (50MB)." In case of distributions, yes, it is big. But if you take the time and don't want a bloated KDE libraries, you can strip them down. Compile from sources. Disable arts support (Quanta does not need arts!), disable libmad support. If you teak it more, you can disable even more things from the kde libraries. Not that I say this is a good thing, but I say that the requirements can be stripped down. weblint is also only an optional requirement.
4. Quanta is a GUI applications. Thus it needs dialogs, help system, grahpical editor. Why should we only provide only a man page? If you don't need a GUI app, don't use it. Fire up an xterm and run your favourie console mode editor there. Or just don't run X. It will save you a lot of memory and disk space. Nobody forces you to use Quanta or any other GUI application.
5. Disk space: my whole and full KDE installation is 370MB, but it includes really everything from KDE and some extra KDE applications. And also API documentation (110MB) and developer things. I'm sure that another 40MB-50MB can be stripped down for a regular user (not a developer). Quanta takes 6MB. Mozilla takes 25MB. XFree86 takes about 80MB if I count the installed Xfree86* packages, but /usr/X11 is 178MB. My X server uses 280MB of memory. Looking at the latter figures, +50MB doesn't seem so much.
6. Slow startup: naturally it's slow as the libraries must be loaded. Plain X apps are not slow, because X is already in the memory. Anything that uses not already loaded libraries is slower to start. But is a web editor something that you start and quit, start and quit? Those N seconds from your life shouldn't really matter. Again, you're not forced to use it. console apps usually start faster.
7. Memory usage: yes, it's using memory, maybe even more than expected, but we are constantly trying to improve this situation as well as the speed of the application. If you are low on memory, frist thing to do is to quit X.
Anyway, the conclusion is: if you don't like the requirements, don't use it. If you don't like Quanta, don't use it. But if you have not used it, didn't know it, don't criticize it. If you don't like the direction where Linux is going, stop using Linux. Or ignore those parts that bother you. There is a lot of things to choice from. Nobody is forcing you, unlike MS does in many cases (because they are in a monpol situation). Think positive and don't be against something, but support something. Be it GNOME, vim, Bluefish or whatever. If they are good for you, support them. But this doesn't mean that the rest is evil and cannot be good for others. And this is even true for MS and Windows. It's good for many peoples. It's not good for me, so I don't use it. If somebody comes here I show the strengths of my choice. I only get mad about other products if they really do something stupid (like last time Word for my wife printed only garbage until I restarted it...)
I especially like Bluefish, now that project management is working consistently in Version 0.12. I keep trying to like Quanta and Screem, but Quanta seems to insist on formatting lines its way, not mine, and Screem just keeps crashing. I can't say I miss previewing in the app, since I'd rather see it in an actual browser window. Besides, Quanta won't display .php pages, and that's kind of required.
Still, the best editing environment is whatever works best for you. My favorite combo is Bluefish and a handful of browsers: Moz, Firebird, Opera, Konq, links and even Exploder. If you're developing stuff to be seen by the masses, you've gotta test in everything. CSS makes it easier, Great Ghu be praised!
Just to clarify for the misinformed members. Those who are referring to plain type text editors as their choice to do web page design and coding are not realizing what this poll is about.
Yes you can use vi, pico or whatever text editor you want to code html, etc. These are great editors for typing, editing anything that is text based. That is why they are called text editors.
This poll is geared towards the best app that is or was designed to assist in web page creation.
Example: vi doesn't come equipped with tools to place html tags and such in the page your creating, editing.
bluefish and quanta and all the others mentioned do. That's their purpose. They're not simply text editors, they were only designed to assist in coding web pages, etc.
I hope that clears things up in why we have an text editor poll and a web design app poll...