search

xournalpp / xournalpp

Xournal++ is a handwriting notetaking software with PDF annotation support. Written in C++ with GTK3, supporting Linux (e.g. Ubuntu, Debian, Arch, SUSE), macOS and Windows 10. Supports pen input from devices such as Wacom Tablets.
https://xournalpp.github.io
GNU General Public License v2.0
11.17k stars 799 forks source link

Promoting xournalpp #2045

Open matzebond opened 4 years ago

matzebond commented 4 years ago

Linux users should not have to search too hard for a great pen based note-taking app.

In this issue we collect some ideas for generating publicity and growing the userbase of xournalpp.

what you can do now (even if you are newcomer):

if you have a little but more energy:

Other ideas:

rolandlo commented 4 years ago

Hi Matthias

All your ideas sound pretty good to me. Let me add some more ideas:

Best wishes, Roland

Technius commented 4 years ago

In my opinion, the top priority is getting an official website up (e.g. xournalpp.github.io) and then filling out the user guide so we can address discoverability.

pktiuk commented 4 years ago

Yes, visibility is a problem, I was looking for an app to easily make notes on my PDF-s since several months and I couldn't find anything else than Foxit Reader (which is not very good on linux) and I have found it two days ago accidentally. I was looking for it mainly by typing: making notes on PDF etc. and by checking alternatives to onenote on alternativeto.net and I haven't found it there.

Moreover I couldn't find any comparison of xournal and xournal++ (It would be nice to have it described in README, which would be more readable with table of contents), currently I just assume xournal++ is alive fork of dead xournal. Moreover I have to mention, that in terms of availability on linux there is no xournal++ in debian repository, but there is old xournal. Many people on Debians and Ubuntu will just choose old xournal, because they can instal it much easier. On top of that .deb on release site doesn't work on Ubuntu 20.04, so I had to download flatpak package.

In my opinion, the top priority is getting an official website up (e.g. xournalpp.github.io) and then filling out the user guide so we can address discoverability.

I think for now simple docsify site would be enough for basic instructions and informations.

Technius commented 4 years ago

Moreover I couldn't find any comparison of xournal and xournal++ (It would be nice to have it described in README, which would be more readable with table of contents), currently I just assume xournal++ is alive fork of fead xournal.

This is a good point--we'll have to keep this in mind when we make the website.

Moreover I have to mention, that in terms of availability on linux there is no xournal++ in debian repository, but there is old xournal. Many people on Debians and Ubuntu wij just choose old xournal, because they can instal it much easier. On top of that .deb on release site doesn't work on Ubuntu 20.04, so I had to download flatpak package.

There's a Debian maintainer in the community working on this, but I don't know what the current status is. But we definitely need improvement here...it's just that it's hard to get around to doing given our limited time and resources.

In my opinion, the top priority is getting an official website up (e.g. xournalpp.github.io) and then filling out the user guide so we can address discoverability.

I think for now simple docsify site would be enough for basic instructions and informations.

I'm personally of the opinion that simple websites, like documentation sites, should only use pure HTML/CSS. We've been considering setting up a very simple website based on https://www.mkdocs.org/ or https://readthedocs.org/. Should be trivial with GitHub pages and GitHub actions.

matzebond commented 4 years ago

I created a draft Wikipedia page and added Xournalpp to Comparison of note-taking software. I would also like to help with a website. mkdocs or readthedocs sound good to me but GitHub actions give me headaches so maybe some one else should do setup :-|

There's a Debian maintainer in the community working on this, but I don't know what the current status is.

From what I have read it's a rather long process to get into the Debian repo.

rolandlo commented 4 years ago

Good job with the wiki page @matzebond! One minor thing: infinity pages are not yet implemented. So you may want to delete the phrase "and infinity mode" from the wiki page.

pktiuk commented 4 years ago

@matzebond I think it would be good to add an icon of app and example screen from app window to this site on Wikipedia. It would be more attractive for people who are visualizers like me :smile:

You could get inspiration from LibreOffice Wikipedia page

matzebond commented 4 years ago

I removed "and infinity mode" but hopefully I can add it again soon :-) I also added the icon and screenshot from the readme. Looks much better now :+1:

pktiuk commented 4 years ago

From what I have read it's a rather long process to get into the Debian repo.

It takes longer than I expected. :hourglass_flowing_sand: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=927076 But on the other side xournalpp still doesn't have working .deb package. When we will have, then we could inform about it there.

daholzfeind commented 4 years ago

I'm personally of the opinion that simple websites, like documentation sites, should only use pure HTML/CSS. We've been considering setting up a very simple website based on https://www.mkdocs.org/ or https://readthedocs.org/. Should be trivial with GitHub pages and GitHub actions.

On the one hand maybe Jekyll (https://jekyllrb.com/) is a good solution for this purposes.

On the other hand, if you only want a website with just docs, Sphinx (https://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/master/) would be a good choice.

Both solutions will be generate a website out of pure markdown files.

rolandlo commented 4 years ago

Thanks for your suggestions @daholzfeind. The Jekyll website showcases some pretty nice examples ob websites created with Jekyll. A website of that kind would surely attract more people using xournalpp. The creation of websites with Jekyll doesn't look too complicated, so all in all it would be my favorite choice from all suggestions so far.

daholzfeind commented 4 years ago

@rolandlo Maybe I can help, creating the website. Should I open a Follow Up Issue/PR?

rolandlo commented 4 years ago

@daholzfeind You are very welcome to help with the website. Just go ahead creating a PR, so we can see how a xournalpp website with Jerkyll might look like and discuss (in a follow up issue) pros and cons of your solution with regards to potential solutions using other website creaters. I must add that I can only express my own opinion and am not aware of considerations made by @Technius and other core devs.

Technius commented 4 years ago

@daholzfeind @rolandlo I have set up the website repository on https://github.com/xournalpp/xournalpp.github.io. It uses MkDocs to reduce the barrier to entry, and it autodeploys whenever the default branch (site) is updated. Feel free to submit PRs to improve the website.

Edit: to elaborate on why I went with MkDocs: I don't like the rst syntax, and Sphinx is very complex and difficult to set up properly. Jekyll is not as convenient to install (requires Ruby, which people would have to go out of their way to install). MkDocs only needs Python (available on many computers), and it also includes a nice search feature out-of-the-box, which would be great for the user guide. It also uses Markdown, making it very easy for non-technical people to contribute documentation.

matzebond commented 4 years ago

My Wikipedia article was rejected for now. I think they want more sources. I will add the article @rolandlo posted .

@Technius I thanks for setting up the website. I will also add it to the article. Hope I can help with some content PRs soonish.

rolandlo commented 4 years ago

@matzebond The OMG article and a review in the Linux User magazine (in German) are already included on the wikipedia draft page. Two more independent references would be: this Ubuntuhandbook post (in English) and this Linux Bibel review (in German). You better check carefully, if the references qualify as "independent reliable sources" (with a reputation for fact-checking and oversight), before submitting the draft again. You may want to ask for live help from experienced editors to determine that. Also note that website citations should have a date when the website was accessed, and a translation of the title should be included (as described on this site).

pktiuk commented 4 years ago

It would be good to add Xournal++ to sourceforge.net and edit site of original Xournal, which is still quite popular there (about 11.000 downloads in April).

matzebond commented 4 years ago

With some help of the community the Wikipedia article was improved and submitted again. I think we still might not have enough "secondary" sources but lets see. @rolandlo I thinks those blog posts are not suitable for Wikipedia because the are "self-published sources"

rolandlo commented 4 years ago

Ok, let's see if the improved article is accepted. It definitively looks quite a bit more professional now. A side note: The French Ubuntu documentation has recently updated its entry on Xournal by replacing Xournal with Xournal++, see this link.

rolandlo commented 4 years ago

@matzebond What about this softpedia review? Looks like a reliable source, worth of inclusion in the wikipedia article, doesn't it?

rolandlo commented 4 years ago

@matzebond Another reliable source (although in German) might be the Chip.de article on "software needed in home office", where xournal/xournalpp took second place right after LibreOffice.

rolandlo commented 4 years ago

@matzebond Another source which might be considered as "reliable", is the Linux Uprising article

pktiuk commented 4 years ago

@matzebond I think you should edit your first message to make it more informative for new people in this thread You should split these points with ideas to three categories:

what you can do now (even if you are newcomer)

Checklist with things to do (with checkboxes- things which can be easily marked as "done" ):

Other ideas:

It would be nice to add link (where such al link exists) to every of these points (it would make it easier to navigate and check progress)

matzebond commented 4 years ago

@pktiuk the first post should be more overviewy now :)

@rolandlo thanks for all the links. I would like to wait for the decision before working further on the article. I for my part have seen worse software articles on Wikipedia.

pktiuk commented 4 years ago

I think, that adding xournalpp to Debian repositories should have it's own issue, so I have created it. https://github.com/xournalpp/xournalpp/issues/2148

rolandlo commented 3 years ago

@matzebond You have probably noticed that the wikipedia article has been rejected again (3 months ago). The reviewer comments:

articles about how to use the app do not establish notability. Source must be independent, secondary sources that give significant attention to the subject.

I don't quite get what they expect. Let me mention nevertheless, that the well known Chip.de regards Xournal++ highly, see this article and that one and the one I mentioned in a previous post.

matzebond commented 3 years ago

@rolandlo Yes I noticed. The rejection was harsh and it feels like xournalpp would only become an "established" software project in the eyes of Wikipedia, if the NewYork Times writes a 5-page article about it...

rolandlo commented 3 years ago

What about trying the German version then? Seems like they have a bit lower requirements. There is already an article about Xournal (without any references except the user manual and the website of Xournal++)

matzebond commented 3 years ago

Sound like a good idea. I will look into creating a draft for the German Wikipedia and hopefully this will also make acceptance of the English version more likely.

Roland Lötscher notifications@github.com writes:

What about trying the German version then? Seems like they have a bit lower requirements. There is already an article about Xournal (without any references except the user manual and the website of Xournal++)

rolandlo commented 3 years ago

By the way I think we should call our application Xournal++ on Wikipedia (not Xournalpp) and refer to xournalpp as the package name.

barak commented 3 years ago

I've whipped the Debian packaging into shape, see https://bugs.debian.org/956272 and branch debian in https://github.com/barak/xournalpp, will upload into Debian shortly. The last sticking point was getting debian/copyright correct for all the misc bits and bobs. I hope I have it correct enough for the Debian ftpmasters to accept the package. But, I would appreciate it if someone more familiar with things could give it a once-over and correct any errors. The providence of the various SVG files was particularly difficult to trace. And that one hashing include file from boost: who actually wrote that? And when?

Pull requests against debian/copyright on my branch are particularly welcome!

rolandlo commented 3 years ago

@barak Thank you for your efforts. About the copyright: In #2148 I have tried to collect all information on the files that had a "God knows" mark previously. Only for two icons (snapping.svg and grid_snapping.svg added by @morrolinux) I didn't get an answer. The hashing include file from boost was added by @Febbe in https://github.com/xournalpp/xournalpp/commit/f4e4fcff86611e76a391f41900199a7bd58a14e5. It's a shortened version of the original file, it seems (compare https://www.geometrictools.com/GTE/Mathematics/HashCombine.h).

I think the list of Xournal++ team members should include my name (and Email address roland_loetscher@hotmail.com), since it is included in the About dialog for version 1.0.20 (to which I have contributed).

barak commented 3 years ago

@rolandlo Thanks, that's fantastic. I was unaware of #2148, would have commented there if I'd known. Will shift this discussion over.

I've already uploaded to Debian (freeze is already underway, so in a bit of a rush to slip it in) so these debian/copyright fixes will go into the next upload.

As a general comment, because the file isn't functional, transcription errors etc can easily slip in. Especially if it's me doing the editing based on my rushed interpretation of comments by other people. Pull requests or patches or whatever avoid this...

matzebond commented 3 years ago

I have translated the Wikipedia article for the german Wiki. There is no draft process but they still want some changes ("Wikifizieren") otherwise the article might get deleted. There is now also an entry in Wikidata so at some point it should be enough evidence for accepting into the english Wiki.

sven-frotscher commented 3 years ago

As for sources meeting Wikipedia's notability criteria, I learned about this project from a German Linux magazine. When I find the real thing and not a stripped down online version (which sadly does not contain the article of interest), I can provide more info, perhaps even a scan of the article.

rolandlo commented 3 years ago

@sven-frotscher Isn't this the same as this article, which is already referenced on the Wikipedia page?

sven-frotscher commented 3 years ago

@rolandlo You're right, my bad. I cleaned up the citation on the Wiki page a bit (because the article has a German title).

rolandlo commented 3 years ago

The German wiki page on Xournal++ is a bit outdated, since it claims that 1.0.18 is the latest version. Would someone be willing to update it to the newly released version 1.1.0 / 1.1.0-hotfix-1?

matzebond commented 3 years ago

Done :)

rolandlo commented 3 years ago

Thanks @matzebond It would be nice, if the icon and screenshot were updated as well. Compare flathub. The icon and screenshots are available in the repo.

matzebond commented 3 years ago

@rolandlo could you please specify the copyright (ideally CC BY-SA 4.0) of https://github.com/xournalpp/xournalpp-examples then I can import the images to wikimedia.

rolandlo commented 3 years ago

@matzebond I have added the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license to the xournalpp-examples repo, see https://github.com/xournalpp/xournalpp-examples

matzebond commented 3 years ago

Thanks. The german wikipedia page now shows the new logo and picture. Btw the english wiki draft page got deleted because it was stale for 6 months. We could request an undeletion but I am currently not interested in improving and re-resubmitting it.

Fatih20 commented 3 years ago
lrusso96 commented 2 years ago

@matzebond there is also an article on it.wikipedia.