1 2 3 4 5 Previous Next 807 Replies Latest reply on Aug 13, 2015 6:54 AM by bistrophile Go to original post
      • 80. Re: Revive GoLive - Interested Parties Only
        Basil - S Level 1

        My pleasure ...

         

        Some thoughts.

         

        Mmm, Adobe should not be threatened if GoLive were to be revived, they hold a huge market share of the editing environment as it is - so it would be pertinent to free GoLive code, make it open source, so that like minded people can develop it to their liking.

         

        I've a small business, employ 6 people and have 7 licenses for GoLive.  Believe me there are many people like me the world over who use GoLive as their principal editor.  Adobe does not realize the damage it has done to several small companies' economic situation by disontinueing software as in the case of GoLive.

         

        I say, either revive the program (which I think is wishful thinking), or free the code, let us few miserable wretches develop it to our liking and use it :-)

         

        Incorporating key features into Dreamweaver would also work I suppose; although agreements, licenses and so on would probably come in the way.

         

        Either way would be cool, but the world of software and the economics that drives it is much more complex than that; agreements, licenses and so on are major obstacles - but something needs to done - even if it's just let people know that there still is interest in GoLive !!

         

        Thanks

         

        All the best to all ....

         

        Basil

        • 81. Re: Revive GoLive - Interested Parties Only
          Level 5

          Basil - S wrote:

           

          ...or free the code, let us few miserable wretches develop it to our liking and use it :-)

           

          Incorporating key features into Dreamweaver would also work I suppose; although agreements, licenses and so on would probably come in the way.

          Why is there such an obscene vacancy of logic here? These two sentences totally disagree with each other. No software developer is going to find a market for those that suffer from schizophrenia or delusions.

           

          If any of us are familiar with Adobe for at least one year of their history, we know that they develop and acquire technology (ie: software patents) and do not give it away. That is why Adobe and Macromedia were suing each other for a decade. If you are a software developer, you are not going to let your valuable assets just slip away. Adobe is not going to release GoLive code to the public or to a competitor. Why would you give your customers an option to go elsewhere?

           

          And if Adobe owns both DW and GL, what agreements and license issues would come in the way? Adobe can do whatever it wants with its own code.

           

          These two quoted senteces are total nonsense. The first sentence (correctly) notes that Adobe owns the code and would have the right to free it (if it wanted) - - - while the second sentence seems to (incorrectly) indicate that Adobe does not own code and would have license issues with blending features of its own apps.

           

          GoLive was Adobe's 'professional web design program' but the people here seem to be advocating for a casual web design program that is not intended for intelligent users. That's just an observation based on everyone's posts here. Someone is welcome to prove this assumption wrong by introducing some intelligence to this thread.

          • 82. Re: Revive GoLive - Interested Parties Only
            Buzzingbee

            Golive was not a program for unintelligent users. It was a program designed for designers as opposed to Dreamweaver – Webmaster's favorite since the beginning–who created 90% of the horrible sites in the Internet: "Webmaster Specials".

             

            The problem I had with Dreamweaver  from the beginning was that it wasn't Adobe logic. I started with Adobe in 1988. I consider myself an Adobe baby. I started with Photoshop 1, Premier 1, Streamline, etc. There had always been a logic of user-friendly first in all their software. In 2003, while working for a company with 10 programmers, I was forced to use Dreamweaver because the programmers loved it. They loved it because they all thought they were designers... but their main thing was code. I didn't want to know code (I am not talking about html... I started using text edit for my editor in 1994), I am talking jsp and php. That was great for them. But the Dreamweaver environment was something that us designers used at work  because they had to, while using Golive at home for our own sites. That was how it was until we had no choice but to go wioth DW.

             

            Now I use both programs simultanioulsy. I have no choice...

            • I manage all my sites through Golive. I like the little bug that shows me the broken links. That is a major detail for me.
            • When I double click on a folder, I want to go inside of that folder... This is particluarly helpful when you are working with an umbrella site that has several smaller sites that also contain index files in them.
            • I like the  GL CSS editor much better.
            • I like the way Golive worked with layers
            • I liked the GL layer timeline
            • I liked the GL Actions panel much better
            • I liked that I didn't have to type in http:// for every URL and Mailto for email addresses – GL  would fill that for you. When you are working in on address listings with hundreds of listings... that came in handy. If DW does this I have not been able to find it.
            • I liked the separate folders to keep all my documents together (templates, smart objects, etc... specially the site trash. I liked having the site trash together with the site. You never know when you need to pull that file back out.

             

            I use Dreamweaver for a few things, then take my site in Dreamweaver to change the code before I give it to programmers who cringe at my mention of GL.

             

            If Adobe added some of these small, but useful, details to DW, I would be perfectly happy with DW. I understand that it is a very powerful program. I get that. But, I just want to design... I don't want to do all those other things. I have hired code monkeys to do that for me for 17 years now, I have no desire to do it myself.

             

            So... DW wins... it would just be nice to have these little details added to it for the pleasure of Adobe's LONG TIME LOYAL clients

            • 83. Re: Revive GoLive - Interested Parties Only
              Basil - S Level 1

              Hi,

               

              Cyberstudio, the old name for GoLive if I remember correctly, was first developed by a German company who sold the software to Adobe.  I know about these kind of agreements, I develop software.  If I sell my software to someone, it becomes binding for a very long time, ownership and usage to third parties is binding for a very long time - that's what I'm talking about .. as to been unintellegent .... well, who knows ....

               

              LOL

               

              Basil

              • 84. Re: Revive GoLive - Interested Parties Only
                Buzzingbee Level 1

                I knew about yberstudio... When I started using it that was the name. But, one of the things I liked about it was that it was very Adobe-like. That is why I was so happy when Adobe bought it.

                • 85. Re: Revive GoLive - Interested Parties Only
                  camper92663

                  I suppose obscene logic precludes any requirement to speak civilly? I'll wager you are not a teacher.. unless of course you have tenure to cover your aggressive demeanor.

                  All that behind let's see where we agree and disagree and see if I can teach nicely here.

                  We agree that Adobe would never under any circumstance bring back GL. Not only would it water down market share identification it would be prohibitively costly to keep two complete support divisions running. I am thinking there may be another reason  but I cant prove it: It may have been also that the low level architecture of Dream Weaver was less crowded and more open to future technologies. Just an educated guess on my part because having been in the programming world for forty years I have noted that the easier the high level interface is to use the more cluttered the lower and mid-level code becomes. Object oriented programming leads to the insertion of complete algorithms that have ten times the functionality required simply because it is already compiled and waiting for parameters to be passed. So it is inserted if only to pass one parameter in and one out. I have heard from programmers that GL low level code is very cluttered.

                  As far as using GL, as I posted once I will use it as long as it does what I need. I have four educational web sites now and they all make a fine stipend for me every month so there is no reason to change. In fact I don’t know why this thread was started in that regard. If you have GL and it works why switch? I have GL and Photoshop and Premier on a computer to my left running under XP and it shall forever be so because I Ghost the entire drive twice a week so I can move everything bit by bit to a different drive should my computer crash.

                  • 86. Re: Revive GoLive - Interested Parties Only
                    LUH3417

                    Marian, would it be illogical since (A) GoLive is dead and (B) Adobe has made no clear public statement to the effect that they are building a hybrid GL/DW app to suggest going open source with GL? After all, it is theirs to do with as they will. They could choose either course.

                     

                    Basil just presented 2 scenarios - possible paths - that would work for him. I fail to see the illogic in presenting 2 paths. Would you be willing to further expand your thoughts?

                    • 87. Re: Revive GoLive - Interested Parties Only
                      Level 5

                      Basil - S wrote:

                       

                      Cyberstudio, the old name for GoLive if I remember correctly, was first developed by a German company who sold the software to Adobe.  I know about these kind of agreements, I develop software.  If I sell my software to someone, it becomes binding for a very long time, ownership and usage to third parties is binding for a very long time - that's what I'm talking about .. as to been unintellegent ....

                      So if you know about these kinds of agreements and think Adobe does not fully control the code, why did you propose the silly idea of Adobe releasing code?  

                       

                      Actually, Adobe did not license the software from the creator. Adobe acquired the full assets of the company. So they do not need to go back to the creating company to ask permission for anything.

                       

                      camper92663 wrote:

                       

                      We agree that Adobe would never under any circumstance bring back GL.

                      I'm pretty sure everyone agrees to that. Even Linda has noted that.

                       

                      Personally, I find it most uncivil and abusive that Linda started this impotent poll as it distracts folks from reality and from discussing how to move on (or hold on to the version that they have).   We each have our own perception of 'uncivil'.

                      • 88. Re: Revive GoLive - Interested Parties Only
                        Level 5

                        LUH3417 wrote:

                         

                        Marian, would it be illogical since (A) GoLive is dead and (B) Adobe has made no clear public statement to the effect that they are building a hybrid GL/DW app to suggest going open source with GL? After all, it is theirs to do with as they will. They could choose either course.

                         

                        Basil just presented 2 scenarios - possible paths - that would work for him. I fail to see the illogic in presenting 2 paths. Would you be willing to further expand your thoughts?

                        Basil's 2 options or paths conflicted with each other. The only thing he was nearly correct on was that Adobe owns GoLive and could release the code as open source if it wanted.

                         

                        How much alcohol must one intake to come to the belief that Adobe, a company concerned about profit and sustainability, will ever release GoLive freely to the public (GPL) and as a product that will compete with their current commercial product?

                        • 89. Re: Revive GoLive - Interested Parties Only
                          Level 5

                          pachi1 wrote:

                           

                          Golive was not a program for unintelligent users. It was a program designed for designers as opposed to Dreamweaver – Webmaster's favorite since the beginning–who created 90% of the horrible sites in the Internet: "Webmaster Specials".

                           

                          ...

                          I just want to design... I don't want to do all those other things. I have hired code monkeys to do that for me for 17 years now, I have no desire to do it myself.

                          Dreamweaver was created for designers just as much as GoLive. GoLive users who are being told to upgrade to Dreamweaver by Adobe are missing the full picture. In the Macromedia web development mindset, Fireworks did much of the design work. Adobe should not be marketing a move from GoLive to Dreamweaver. Adobe should be marketing a move from GoLive to Dreamweaver and Fireworks.

                           

                          But we're not bound by using only Adobe apps. The web design market has grown well and there are plenty of options available to us.

                          • 90.