Re: What's wrong with Dia the way it is?

[Ron Wilson via dia-list]

Where I work, Di is very usable on both MS Windows and Linux.

We currently have only 2 significant usage issues:

1. No way to set default text properties. For text objects, the work-around
is easy. For objects with "text fields", like UML shapes, this is more work.

2. The UML Transition shape has a text field with no text properties. This
effectively makes diagrams non-portable between computers.

(Yes, I know, we could just label shapes using text objects and group text
with the shape, but this makes generating code from diagrams more complex.
Also, it introduces another source of potential errors.)

While we can live with those problems, they often require extra work when
someone edits another person's diagram.

(We do make fixes to most of the open source tools we use and have
attempted to make fixes to Dia. But our area of expertise is
electro-mechanical systems, not desktop computer applications and we have
very little time available to make more than simple fixes to the open
source tools we do use.)

Still, we are happy with Dia and hope it can be updated to Gtk3/Gtk4, and,
hopefully, continue to have a small resource footprint.

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM  wrote:

>
> From: Steve Litt 
> Subject: What's wrong with Dia the way it is?
>
> What's wrong with Dia just the way it is? It works. It's exportable
> into Inkscape for conversion to SVG.
>
> Sure, I have a few qualms with the way Dia works, mainly having to do
> with the relationship between text and shapes, but perhaps some good
> workaround documentation would settle that. I'd love to have
> Visio-quality diagram components, and perhaps if somebody writes some
> docs on how to make your own components with the connection points
> *you* want, that will be solved. Plus the fact that if everyone
> authoring new components puts them together in an online hierarchical
> library, perhaps with keyword search, our diagrams could start to rival
> those of visio users.
>
> If some of the libraries used by Dia are in the process of being
> deprecated, then those certainly must be replaced by their successors.
> But other than that, why the emphasis on maintenance? Sometimes
> something's so good it needs no more maintenance (fetchmail is one
> example).
>
> Right now Dia works for people on all sorts of computers. It's very
> DIYable. My experience has been that in many cases, people in a hurry
> to "improve" software end up making it into a buggy, DIY-not-allowed
> monolithic entanglement.
>
> SteveT
>
> Steve Litt
> December 2018 featured book: Rapid Learning for the 21st Century
> http://www.troubleshooters.com/rl21
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 17:38:05 +
> From: Zander Brown 
> To: discussions about usage and development of dia
> 
> Subject: Re: Hello Everyone
> Message-ID:
> <
> lnxp265mb074554ac9ccf61b8f60489c5dc...@lnxp265mb0745.gbrp265.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Wed, 2018-12-05 at 12:16 -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 22:24:58 +
> > Alexander Brown  wrote:
> >
> > > Whilst I am a member of the GNOME Foundation and would like to see
> > > Dia
> > > modernised I recognise the fact Dia is very much a cross platform
> > > application and therefore has a sort of 'special status' within the
> > > GNOME Project and have no intention of breaking KDE/macOS/Windows
> > > compatibility
> >
> > And are you going to guarantee Dia's continued useability for those
> > of
> > us who run sans-systemd distros? This is an important question
> > because
> > Gnome itself no longer runs without systemd as its PID1 and early
> > boot
> > library.
>
> I find it highly unlikely that our main dependencies (Gtk, GLib) will
> ever become dependent on systemd and cannot foresee any reason at all
> for Dia to depend on systemd itself
>
> As I've stated I'm committed to maintaining support for macOS & Windows
> neither of which use systemd so yes I have every intention of
> supporting Dia on 'sans-systemd distros'
>
> Hopefully that resolves your concerns
>
> >
> > SteveT
> >
> > Steve Litt
> > December 2018 featured book: Rapid Learning for the 21st Century
> >
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.troubleshooters.com%2Frl21data=02%7C01%7C%7C07df255358994c7bab4808d65ad595dc%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636796270721383503sdata=d7tPMY61Avm7lyuBT5d0Gfqy1pLpQ6w%2BM0vGNE75s4Y%3Dreserved=0
> > ___
> > dia-list mailing list
> > dia-list@gnome.org
> >
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.gnome.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fdia-listdata=02%7C01%7C%7C07df255358994c7bab4808d65ad595dc%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636796270721383503sdata=wSB4dqUb1%2BGztp4o1FsM67uRgmVX02X%2FwgQZSZ5g8e4%3Dreserved=0
> > FAQ at
> >
> 

Re: What's wrong with Dia the way it is?

[Michael Ross via dia-list]

I agree Steve.

Hans worked very hard to keep Dia like this. I can continue with the
current version of Dia - it is always available.  If it strays too much and
it doesn't suit me I will simply stop using newer releases.  Dia has
already lasted far longer than other programs I use for nearly 20 years
now. Still runs well with 32bit OS.  I anticipate being disappointed by a
new generation of developers tweaking it into an unusable (for me) form.
Everything is impermanent.

Mike

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:34 PM Steve Litt 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> What's wrong with Dia just the way it is? It works. It's exportable
> into Inkscape for conversion to SVG.
>
> Sure, I have a few qualms with the way Dia works, mainly having to do
> with the relationship between text and shapes, but perhaps some good
> workaround documentation would settle that. I'd love to have
> Visio-quality diagram components, and perhaps if somebody writes some
> docs on how to make your own components with the connection points
> *you* want, that will be solved. Plus the fact that if everyone
> authoring new components puts them together in an online hierarchical
> library, perhaps with keyword search, our diagrams could start to rival
> those of visio users.
>
> If some of the libraries used by Dia are in the process of being
> deprecated, then those certainly must be replaced by their successors.
> But other than that, why the emphasis on maintenance? Sometimes
> something's so good it needs no more maintenance (fetchmail is one
> example).
>
> Right now Dia works for people on all sorts of computers. It's very
> DIYable. My experience has been that in many cases, people in a hurry
> to "improve" software end up making it into a buggy, DIY-not-allowed
> monolithic entanglement.
>
> SteveT
>
> Steve Litt
> December 2018 featured book: Rapid Learning for the 21st Century
> http://www.troubleshooters.com/rl21
> ___
> dia-list mailing list
> dia-list@gnome.org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/dia-list
> FAQ at http://live.gnome.org/Dia/Faq
> Main page at http://live.gnome.org/Dia
>
>

-- 
Michael E. Ross
(919) 585-6737 Land
(919) 901-2805 Cell and Text
(919) 576-0824  Tablet,
Google Phone and Text
___
dia-list mailing list
dia-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/dia-list
FAQ at http://live.gnome.org/Dia/Faq
Main page at http://live.gnome.org/Dia

Re: What's wrong with Dia the way it is?

[Edheldil]

On 05/12/2018 18.32, Steve Litt wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> What's wrong with Dia just the way it is? It works. It's exportable
> into Inkscape for conversion to SVG. 

Hi, all,

Though I like Dia (*), there are (many) places where it's sorely
lacking. My biggest peeves are:

  * Shapes rotation - you can't rotate shapes in 90 degrees increments,
not speaking of free rotation.

  * Gradients are not there either.

  * Ad-hoc adding or moving connection points.

And there are others that can be worked around or that i can live without.

If Dia now approaches obsolescence due to unsupported libraries, either
we port it to the new ones, or it will disappear.


Edheldil


Btw, there still exists a "central" repository for Dia shapes -
http://dia-installer.de . Sadly, its maintainer, Steffen Macke, died
several years ago and I doubt anyone still manages it.

(*) I know Dia for quite a long time and made some  (not so great)
shapes for it as well, so my criticism is not really meant in the bad
vein. I also understand that if anybody wants changes and features, it's
up to him to make them, because there's nobody employed to do work on Dia.




>
> Sure, I have a few qualms with the way Dia works, mainly having to do
> with the relationship between text and shapes, but perhaps some good
> workaround documentation would settle that. I'd love to have
> Visio-quality diagram components, and perhaps if somebody writes some
> docs on how to make your own components with the connection points
> *you* want, that will be solved. Plus the fact that if everyone
> authoring new components puts them together in an online hierarchical
> library, perhaps with keyword search, our diagrams could start to rival
> those of visio users.
>
> If some of the libraries used by Dia are in the process of being
> deprecated, then those certainly must be replaced by their successors.
> But other than that, why the emphasis on maintenance? Sometimes
> something's so good it needs no more maintenance (fetchmail is one
> example).
>
> Right now Dia works for people on all sorts of computers. It's very
> DIYable. My experience has been that in many cases, people in a hurry
> to "improve" software end up making it into a buggy, DIY-not-allowed
> monolithic entanglement.
>
> SteveT
>
> Steve Litt 
> December 2018 featured book: Rapid Learning for the 21st Century
> http://www.troubleshooters.com/rl21
> ___
> dia-list mailing list
> dia-list@gnome.org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/dia-list
> FAQ at http://live.gnome.org/Dia/Faq
> Main page at http://live.gnome.org/Dia
>

___
dia-list mailing list
dia-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/dia-list
FAQ at http://live.gnome.org/Dia/Faq
Main page at http://live.gnome.org/Dia

Re: What's wrong with Dia the way it is?

[Andrey Repin via dia-list]

Greetings, Steve Litt!

> What's wrong with Dia just the way it is? It works. It's exportable
> into Inkscape for conversion to SVG. 

"It works" is the most you can say about it.
When you start to actually USE it, you immediately discover different small
annoyances, the more - the deeper you dive.
Even its SVG export (which is supposed to be its primary use outside itself)
is a dirty mess.

> Sure, I have a few qualms with the way Dia works, mainly having to do
> with the relationship between text and shapes, but perhaps some good
> workaround documentation would settle that.

We'd all (I think I can safely say that) would prefer to have a program where
you don't have to use workarounds for things you do daily.

> I'd love to have Visio-quality diagram components,

It's largely possible already, you can design any types of shapes.
But the in-program treatment is a little bit lacking, and you won't see the
results until export.

> and perhaps if somebody writes some docs on how to make your own components
> with the connection points *you* want, that will be solved.

Basically - SVG.
All high-quality shapes are hand-made.

> Plus the fact that if everyone authoring new components puts them together
> in an online hierarchical library, perhaps with keyword search, our diagrams
> could start to rival those of visio users.

That's a separate project, and, by the way, such a repository exists (or it
was, at one point).

> If some of the libraries used by Dia are in the process of being
> deprecated, then those certainly must be replaced by their successors.
> But other than that, why the emphasis on maintenance?

Replacing the whole program UI is not a fingersnap activity.
And THAT is what needs a replacement, as the UI library used by Dia is not
supported for a decade.

> Sometimes something's so good it needs no more maintenance (fetchmail is one
> example).

Even fetchmail requires regular maintenance, as new protocols take place.

> Right now Dia works for people on all sorts of computers.

Barely works. For me at least.

> It's very DIYable. My experience has been that in many cases, people in a
> hurry to "improve" software end up making it into a buggy, DIY-not-allowed
> monolithic entanglement.

It would require to rewrite Dia entirely to rip out things that build it. I
doubt anybody want to take on such task.


-- 
With best regards,
Andrey Repin
Thursday, December 6, 2018 3:32:42

Sorry for my terrible english...

___
dia-list mailing list
dia-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/dia-list
FAQ at http://live.gnome.org/Dia/Faq
Main page at http://live.gnome.org/Dia

Re: What's wrong with Dia the way it is?

[Thomas Harding]

Le 5 décembre 2018 18:32:47 GMT+01:00, Steve Litt  a 
écrit :

>What's wrong with Dia just the way it is? It works. It's exportable
>into Inkscape for conversion to SVG. 

Good point, but that also means to repeatidly rewrites by hand the diagram 
shapes and so on.

An UNIX way would be to implement a "Dia import" plugin for Inkscape.

>Sure, I have a few qualms with the way Dia works, mainly having to do
>with the relationship between text and shapes, but perhaps some good
>workaround documentation would settle that. I'd love to have
>Visio-quality diagram components, and perhaps if somebody writes some
>docs on how to make your own components with the connection points
>*you* want, that will be solved. 

/think the connection points would embed nodes like "special" scripts (as an 
array), next endpoint, former endpoint, (last) relation with endpoint.

We can imagine a typical scripts collection (encoded strings can embed 
anything, such as Python). All scripts would have an id on diagram, but 
moreover a "name" and "version" you can refer, and especially having a "local" 
scheme if customized.

One thing impairing shapes development is that anything dynamic involves C.

I think the used shapes would be embedded as "not visible" in a properties 
path, 
then the rendered shapes on diagram would use xml id / path. So, scripts would 
control how to add/delete/modify a node  and its properties, and what to pass 
to parent node. That needs shapes to be rewritten really consistent regarding 
xml.


>Plus the fact that if everyone
>authoring new components puts them together in an online hierarchical
>library, perhaps with keyword search, our diagrams could start to rival
>those of visio users.

There were attempts to create shapes libraries (actually, they are), but the 
only way to get a consistent collection would be a branch in Dia git for that, 
with a QA process (such as bug reports).
/plus a document oriented database (json is back in discussion) (because it is 
fast enough), read-only for end-users.




>
>If some of the libraries used by Dia are in the process of being
>deprecated, then those certainly must be replaced by their successors.
>But other than that, why the emphasis on maintenance? Sometimes
>something's so good it needs no more maintenance (fetchmail is one
>example).
>
>Right now Dia works for people on all sorts of computers. It's very
>DIYable. My experience has been that in many cases, people in a hurry
>to "improve" software end up making it into a buggy, DIY-not-allowed
>monolithic entanglement.
>
>SteveT
>
>Steve Litt 
>December 2018 featured book: Rapid Learning for the 21st Century
>http://www.troubleshooters.com/rl21
>___
>dia-list mailing list
>dia-list@gnome.org
>https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/dia-list
>FAQ at http://live.gnome.org/Dia/Faq
>Main page at http://live.gnome.org/Dia

-- 
Je suis née pour partager, non la haine, mais l'amour.
Sophocle, /Antigone, 442 av. JC
___
dia-list mailing list
dia-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/dia-list
FAQ at http://live.gnome.org/Dia/Faq
Main page at http://live.gnome.org/Dia

Re: What's wrong with Dia the way it is?

[rhkramer--- via dia-list]

+1 (from an occasional user)

On Wednesday, December 05, 2018 12:32:47 PM Steve Litt wrote:
> What's wrong with Dia just the way it is? It works. It's exportable
> into Inkscape for conversion to SVG.
> 
> Sure, I have a few qualms with the way Dia works, mainly having to do
> with the relationship between text and shapes, but perhaps some good
> workaround documentation would settle that. I'd love to have
> Visio-quality diagram components, and perhaps if somebody writes some
> docs on how to make your own components with the connection points
> *you* want, that will be solved. Plus the fact that if everyone
> authoring new components puts them together in an online hierarchical
> library, perhaps with keyword search, our diagrams could start to rival
> those of visio users.
> 
> If some of the libraries used by Dia are in the process of being
> deprecated, then those certainly must be replaced by their successors.
> But other than that, why the emphasis on maintenance? Sometimes
> something's so good it needs no more maintenance (fetchmail is one
> example).
> 
> Right now Dia works for people on all sorts of computers. It's very
> DIYable. My experience has been that in many cases, people in a hurry
> to "improve" software end up making it into a buggy, DIY-not-allowed
> monolithic entanglement.
> 
> SteveT
> 
> Steve Litt
> December 2018 featured book: Rapid Learning for the 21st Century
> http://www.troubleshooters.com/rl21
> ___
> dia-list mailing list
> dia-list@gnome.org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/dia-list
> FAQ at http://live.gnome.org/Dia/Faq
> Main page at http://live.gnome.org/Dia
___
dia-list mailing list
dia-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/dia-list
FAQ at http://live.gnome.org/Dia/Faq
Main page at http://live.gnome.org/Dia