Frontpage plugin for FTP

[Deb]

Another site owner brought this lil gadget to my attention and I was curious if any of you that do have Frontpage think it is a helpful tool.

http://www.kissfp.com/ KISSfp 2.1 facilitates uploading of FrontPage-based Web sites to Web hosts without MS Server Extensions by FTP. It saves space on your Web host by selecting just the files required. Does anyone use it? Would anyone with Frontpage care to download it and check it out and let us know what you think?

I don't have Frontpage installed anymore but if it turns out to be a helpful tool I would certainly want to add it to the Aota pages and Resources area..

Let me know
Thanks
Deb

[Charles Capps]

*major big @#$%ing HISS!!!*
FRONTPAGE SUCKS.[nbsp][nbsp]*ahem*

Wouldn't this thing somehow screw up the current system?[nbsp][nbsp]I'm sure it would, it's done for MICROSOFT compatibility.[nbsp][nbsp]Please, Terra, save us and tell us that it WILL mess things up!![nbsp][nbsp]*LOL*
------------------
"Okay, so I'm not "SANE" so to speak, but uh... I'm the lovable kind of psycho"
http://solareclipse.net/

[Justin]

Hey, Charles - what this program does is make a copy of the Front Page "web" that is upload ready. It removes all of the wierd folders it creates, and removes the odd comments it adds to the code...

I have never used FP myself, but I had to move a site created with it - it makes all these directories like /_vti and stuff like that... wierd... and I don't see their use, either...

So this proggy is really made just for people on FQ and other servers that do not support FP's "extentions", and don't need the extra baggage. It doesn't upload for you, just makes a copy on your hard drive that is ready for upload via FTP.

------------------
Justin Nelson
FutureQuest Support
[This message has been edited by Justin (edited 06-07-99)]

[Deb]

Irregardless of the personal views.. I do know many many people are utilizing Frontpage to get their sites on-line (it helped me put some sites together in the past)... I also know all those extra files that are only useful if the extensions are available are 'wasting' space the site owner could be using for more content.

I'm hoping someone who does use Frontpage could offer some feedback as to how well (or not) this program seems to work?

If it can help improve the final product and ease the work load for the site owner.. I'm all for it..

Anyone had the chance to try it yet?

Deb

[Ron]

Deb, I downloaded the program earlier today, but it will likely be a few days before I have the opportunity to actually use it.

I've used FP for quite a while. It's a mediocre page editor, at best, but as long as you know it's oddities and can tweak the code it works fine. And it's worth it, because it's a dynamite site manager. I can drag and drop files, or directories, all day and never have to worry about adjusting links. FP does it for me (though not always as quickly as I'd like). It also supports the equivalent of SSI's "include" functionality, but without slowing page loads (since the include is done before the page is uploaded to the server.

I have not used the FP Publish facility for a very long time. I publish to my local drive, delete the spurious directories, then use standard FTP to move the files to the server. One of the reasons for those directories, BTW, is to help FP track changes in your web site - so it only moves files that have been altered and thus need to be moved (and that only works when the FP extensions are enabled). Trouble is, FP spends so much time talking to its server counterpart and comparing pages, that a large site (about 6,000 pages in my case) will virtually always time-out. So I stopped using the Publish feature a long time before I ever moved to FQ.

I will try out this particular FTP utility the next time I update my site, Deb. Then, I'll post here...

HTH

Ron
[This message has been edited by Ron (edited 06-08-99)]

[kteicher]

I have uploaded my site via FP in the past and it only created one odd directory which is tiny.[nbsp][nbsp]I think it keeps track of you "to-do" list.[nbsp][nbsp]Most of the wierd directories aren't created unless you try to use some of the FP features that require the extensions, then you get many strange directories.[nbsp][nbsp]The bottom line is (assuming you don't use any FP features that require extensions) is that it is FASTER AND EASIER to upload your site to a host that DOES NOT support the extensions.[nbsp][nbsp]Hosts with the extensions installed do all sort of directory downloads, etc. that slow the process down.[nbsp][nbsp]With everything there is a down side, if you delete a file from your FP site the file will NOT be deleted from the host automatically unless extensions are installed.[nbsp][nbsp]Having used FP for a couple of years I prefer NON-FP EXTENSIONED hosts![nbsp][nbsp]The kissftp program also strips out the wierd comments that FP can add to a html page, but those are fairly minor.[nbsp][nbsp](I find it amusing that kissftp ADDS comments to your html if you use their less expensive "lite" version and not the "pro" version).[nbsp][nbsp]

[lisa]

I would like to know where to download this program, and I would also like to know if it would work with Page Mill?[nbsp][nbsp]I have not yet been able to fully understand the FTP, and any help would be appreciated. Thanks,Lisa

[rennhack]

I have used Frontpage for about three years.[nbsp][nbsp]I started using kissfp around the same time.[nbsp][nbsp]If you use frontpage, and do not use a server with fp extentions, it is a must.[nbsp][nbsp]I acheive a copmression ration of about 30%.

[0degree]

Although Dreamweaver is a much more powerful editor than FP, I always struggle with Macromedia's interface. Therefore, I am stuck with FP instead and that's what I've been using since version 97. It has many faults but it can achieve the end result I'm looking for. One thing I used to always struggle with are all those wierd directories FP creates. FP will insert these sub-directories into every single directory the user creates. It can be very annoying since this process increases the number of files, overall web size, and the complexity of the directory structure.

However, as uninviting as this feature is, it can be easily avoided. When starting to create a new website:

1. Create the directory structure (how you want it to be on the server) on your local hard disk first. E.g. c:\my_website\; c:\my_website\images\; c:\my_website\contacts\; ...etc.

2. Make sure the above mentioned directory structure is not inside the "My Webs" directory that FP creates at the time of installation.

3. Start FP and then select File->New->Page (never New Web).

4. After you have finished creating the new page, select File->Save As and save your file in the appropriate directory created in step 1.

5. Once all your directories are filled with their appropriate files (e.g. HTML, image, and/or text files), start using your FTP program to upload the directory structure along with all files within.

As long as you don't use any of the following, FP will act like a normal editor in the sense that it doesn't interfere and add its components:
"New Web", "Open Web", and saving files in the "My Webs" directory.

When creating your website in this manner, FP will not insert any of its wierd *_vti* subdirectories or other similar ones. Please also remember that you will not be able to use any of FP's web components (FP extensions). Furthermore, you will lose the use of FP's View Pane located on the left side. Since I don't use ANY of FP's components (I incorporate them manually through downloaded/created scripts), this is the perfect way for me to use FP w/o its extra features. These features are useless to me especially when considering FQ does not support FP Extensions.

I would love to try out kissftp and tell you, Deb, how it is. However, I don't encounter any of the problems it claims it can fix. Sorry!:\

I hope all FP users will benefit from this.

Tony.
- Never try opening a .php file using FP, notepad will take over!

[ISCNetworking]

I downloaded the program and it did get rid of the crazy files associated with FrontPage. I have FP 2002 (You can download it at Microsoft Office - FrontPage (http://office.microsoft.com/frontpage/) ). FP 2002 works wonders for the web designer but it also creates wierd directories. Most of the directories are tiny but do help your site with the way it works. I will agree with 0degree that Dreamweaver is a much powerful editor than FP. Macromedia's interfaces are hard but are better to work with. Microsoft concentrates too hard on the interface and not the quality in mind of the website designer. Macromedia's interface in Flash is harder to use than CoffeeCup's FireStarter but Flash works better. The FTP services in FP don't work as well as you just uploading your site using a FTP program like CuteFTP or WinFTP. I will have to say that.

I would tell you.... Microsoft FP is coming to Windows CE.