[Wolves] Web Site

[Peter Cannon]

On Wednesday 23 February 2005 10:30, Stuart Langridge wrote:

> On 23/2/2005, "Peter Cannon" <peter at cannon-linux.co.uk> wrote:
> >I have an idea for having a search field on my site where someone types in
> > a question say "How do I do an NFS mount" and it returns all the
> > references it finds to key words such as NFS & Mount I think it will need
> > a database which will take up too much room, its a pity that I cant use a
> > sort of harvester to collect the info from other sites.
>
> Er, Google, surely? Google is very good at this sort of thing.

Yes, but this would display say five or six sites output in one place maybe it 
could learn and right the stuff to a wiki.

What I always find a pain is a lot of arseholes put tags on their sites that 
say they have the answer when they don't plus you have to keep going back to 
the google page and then selecting the next link.

If you had something along the fedora archives you could just select the ones 
you wanted from a main viewing page. Like I said I'm not in competition and 
I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel I just want to do it my way rather than 
accept whats on offer.

> That's why it's invalid, then. This is why I asked for a review; if Nvu
> is unable to create a site of the simplicity of the one that you've
> done so far then it's completely useless. What I don't understand is
> whether Nvu is really that useless, and why you think it would take
> three months to create a site with it.

Whats invalid?

I don't make knee jerk decisions I have had a total of 7 hours exposure to Nvu 
consisting of 40 minutes here and 20 minutes there, my approach is very 
simplistic I create a box or boxes stick a picture in write some text change 
the background so on and so forth

I've used Frontpage for about 5 years, not every day and generally its to 
produce my spam, oops I mean mail shots.

It may be because I know (sort of) Frontpage that I think its better I don't 
think Nvu produces "Duff code" its just, at the moment, I don't think its 
'Novice' user friendly. You will probably be able to use it without a 
problem.

> Yes. People who understand technical details of HTML are emphatically not
> the target audience for Nvu, because they won't be using Nvu; they'll
> be hand-cutting their HTML in Bluefish. Nvu is designed for people who
> want to create sites and couldn't care less about technical details.
> That's why a review from me would be useless and a review from you
> wouldn't be.

Yeah I thought Bluefish was crap! now when I say crap I mean its not novice 
user friendly its probably very good but I haven't the skills to drive it.

> >One other weird issue having reworked it, Nvu, it seems, does not like
> > .bmp images this is why I pulled the site I re-did the affected images in
> > Gimp and saved them as .png Nvu was a lot happier and so was the site.
>
> This is because you shouldn't use .bmp files. Graphics for the web
> should be gif, png, or jpg. Stick with those three and you can't go
> wrong.

I hate jpg the minute you re-save an image it gets crud all over it the image 
looks smudged or dirty. To be honest it wasn't until I got involved in Linux 
I came across .png I suppose I must have seen them before and not noticed.

Because I'm a moron I thought "ah Frontpage ain't gonna like .png I'll convert 
them" just shows what a Muppet I am.


-- 
Regards,
Peter Cannon.
peter at cannon-linux.freeserve.co.uk
Fedora Core 3 & Suse Pro 9.2

"There is every excuse for not knowing
there is no excuse for not asking"
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/wolves/attachments/20050223/03e11caf/attachment.bin