[thelist] PWS - Take II

[Chris Lott]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I don't see any need for a rant :)

With due respect, I don't think my point was clear. I think Apache is
EASIER to maintain and less demanding of system resources. It is just as
easy to install (it has a Windows installer, after all) and it is more
versatile for development, which is what I was orienting my comments
toward. I don't think it is beyond the pale for ANYONE who will be expected
to publish web pages of any kind to be pointed to a download and run a
Windows installer. Of course if you choose a wrong option when you are
installing, things might not work. The same is true of any program,
including office.

As I said, if one or the other of any of the web servers meets your needs
and/or is already running, then by all means use it! And if your mind is
already made up, I wonder where the question has any relevance?

As for FrontPage-- as I also said, I am not averse to GUI tools. In all
honesty, though, I am not sure why FrontPage would be considered any better
than using Word's save to HTML. If ALL you are after is ease of use, not
the ability to grow further and do more with the web beyond the immediate
assignment, if it really doesn't matter that the code is horrible, if the
pages are just one-offs that won't be maintained-- why teach any web editor
at all? Just use the HTML features in the common programs. FrontPage is not
a bit better than these methods, so if you want to save the world from one,
you should probably save it from the other too.

But if you are going to use a GUI tool, at least use one that promotes
better code, while also being easy to use (and the results of which will be
more likely to work properly across web servers).

c

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt - KeyID: 0x51046CFD - http://www.chrislott.org/geek/pgp/

iQA/AwUBPHnTJNaLYehRBGz9EQLBHwCg974mNJyS9Ji5P18l2n8Y6lNIgBoAoMm8
YjeCFtEqCY85bNjAwg3EtslV
=qkwY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----