Linked by Adam S on Tue 26th Aug 2008 13:10 UTC, submitted by linuxlinks
Features, Office Periodically, there's a review of text editors for a particular platform. Linuxlinks' latest post is pretty thorough though, covering 21 different Linux/Unix text editors. "In many users' eyes, a text editor should be lean and mean, fast to start up and shut down, without fancy splash screens or a graphical user interface. The choice of editor has long stirred up strong emotions. [...] To provide an insight into the quality of software that is available, we have compiled a list of 21 high quality Linux text editors. There's a mix of graphical and console based applications included.
Thread beginning with comment 327947
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Cons?
by WorknMan on Tue 26th Aug 2008 14:19 UTC in reply to "Cons?"
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

I recently tried Kompozer on Windows, and this program is ass. Even for a price tag of free, it still isn't worth it. The very fact that many of the 'Linux alternatives to Windows' lists have this as an alternative to Dreamweaver is the very reason why I don't take any of these lists seriously.

Then again, I guess REAL html developers use vi ;)

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 1

RE[2]: Cons?
by KAMiKAZOW on Tue 26th Aug 2008 19:42 in reply to "RE: Cons?"
KAMiKAZOW Member since:
2005-07-06

Kompozer is just a stand-alone version of an old version of Mozilla Composer. If anybody wants such a program for Linux, I strongly suggest the latest SeaMonkey release. Its composer is not stand-alone but at least updated frequently.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 3

RE[2]: Cons?
by Havin_it on Wed 27th Aug 2008 14:19 in reply to "RE: Cons?"
Havin_it Member since:
2006-03-10

I'm quite surprised by that comparison being made. Kompozer (I take it this is what used to be called N|VU?) has not 1% of the power of Dreamweaver, and any list that suggests this is the closest you can get to it on Linux is undermining the OS's credibility for web designers/developers.

I only used it or Bluefish for short periods, so feel free to disagree with this, but I choose Quanta+ as the nearest rival to DW. It still lacks a lot of the polish of Dreamweaver, but the UI is sanely organised and (as we expect from any KDE app) insanely tweakable so you can get it just right for your workflow. Project organisation features are well implemented, and the ability to work transparently on remote files (good old KIOslaves) is very neat and means you needn't have a whole copy of the project files on your local machine.

Extensibility is something that could be worked on a bit, to get nearer Dreamweaver's standard. The foundation is there: modules like KFileReplace, Kompare, KLinkStatus and KXSLDebug can be slotted-in, and AFAIK a simple API exists for integrating other external apps in this manner, and there's massive potential for workflow automation and GUI extension using Kommander scripts, but sadly there are virtually no scripts available that I know of. I'd love to see a well-stocked and well-publicised 'Quanta scripts' repository on kde-apps.org, hooked into a KHotNewStuff applet within the program, as seen in Amarok and Superkaramba.

Quanta is already a killer app for me, but it would have broader appeal if it had its own extension community (even commercial as well as OSS) like Dreamweaver has.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2

RE[3]: Cons?
by WorknMan on Wed 27th Aug 2008 17:39 in reply to "RE[2]: Cons?"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

I only used it or Bluefish for short periods, so feel free to disagree with this, but I choose Quanta+ as the nearest rival to DW.


AFAIK, Quanta+ is not a WYSIWYG editor. If that is the case, then you're really comparing apples to oranges.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2