Re: [cobalt-developers] Frontpage 2002 ext on a RaQ2

[Regis <crescen7@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Matthew Nuzum wrote:

> > > Hi kal
> > > Yep cobalt should be one the case, i have lost about 10 would-be
> > customers
> > > already, so i hope that they come up with something soon. Frontpage
> is a
> > > headache and slow, but there is a lot of people that use it,
> > > steve
> > >
> >
> > We regret that FPX2002 isn't up to the quality level required by
> > production patches.
> >
> > We'll integrate the newer FrontPage extensions as soon as possible
> when
> > the stability approaches that of 2000.  ...Not to say that 2000 was
> > flawless but it is better than 2002 in our development labs.
> >
> >
> >       -- Will
> >
> > > At 10:23 AM 11/2/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> > >
> > > >There is a huge number of people using 2002. In fact, many hosts
> make
> > money
> > > >out of this since people just tend to like to hear there is a
> support
> > for
> > > >this widely used Software. Therefore, I believe Cobalt should have
> had
> > it
> > > >right away!! unless they are experiencing some difficulties with it
> > since
> > > >FPage extensions usually a headache.
> > > >
> > > >Most people on this list says if 2002 is tried to be installed then
> it
> > might
> > > >very well break the GUI, and make a lot of MESS.
>
> Hey!  I've compiled FP 2002 on a Raq2.  But trust me, you won't be able
> to use it.  MS distributes the apache patch in source form, but the rest
> of the support files in binary form.
>
> Well, guess what!  The binaries are ix86, not mips.  Therefore compiling
> on the cobalt Raq2 is a waste of effort.
>
> I'm working on getting them to install on a Raq3, but it requires a lot
> of effort, and once done, I do fully expect the gui to be in-effective
> at enabling the new FP2002 extensions on a site.
>
> On top of that, as far as I can tell, an fp2002 site cannot use FTP to
> upload files.  It will be a choice of FP2002 or FTP.  To soften the
> blow, I will be able to enable webdav (on a Raq3 only, not a Raq4, it
> has a broken expat).
>
> I just got my new Raq3i in the mail today, so I can start testing.  Of
> course, now I just need FP 2002.
>
> I guess if you want the Raq2 DSO file for FP2002, I'd be happy to send
> it.  It's compiled for Apache 1.3.20
>
> Matthew Nuzum
> 5`//337-31337
>
> followers.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> cobalt-developers mailing list
> cobalt-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://list.cobalt.com/mailman/listinfo/cobalt-developers

Frontpage 2002 extensions don't work that well on Windows servers either.
Many of the Windows Server IPP's charge extra for 2002 extensions because
they require so much work.  FTP really didn't work well for FP 2000 either.
Sometimes you could get away with it, but in general if you ftp'd to a
extension enabled site it would break the extensions and they'd have to be
reinstalled.

As stated previously, FP2002 doesn't require 2002 extensions except for
using the few obscure features that were added in FP2002.   I'd estimate
more than 90% of the FP2002 users will not be inconvenienced by using FP2000
extensions.

RM