Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[jfrazierjr]

 Matthew Miller  wrote: 
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 02:43:12PM +0100, Simon Budig wrote:
> > What would you say to
> > 
> >"We did it this way for reasons x, y, and z, but we recognize that
> >what you're asking isn't like the broken spacebar comic. You have
> >options a and b now, and we're thinking about some even better
> >approaches in the future, but we won't revert to the old behaviour."
> > 
> > Because this is what we said in the past. Over and over again.
> 
> I would say: okay, cool. But that's not what I've been seeing. It's largely
> along the lines of "you just don't understand that your way causes data
> loss". 

Well.. that is a part of it, but it really stops short of the entire point, 
which is not "you just don't understand that your way causes data loss", but 
more like "there are many things in GIMP currently that cause data loss.  We
are working over the next few releases to change this model such that data 
loss will never be part of the expected workflow.  The change to the save vs.
export file handling is just one step in many toward this goal.   We won't 
totally stop you from losing data if you really want to, but we will keep 
anyone from doing it accidental".  

Also, please remember that big part of the tone of many around here is that
it keeps coming up and in some cases, the same people continually repeat their
arguments and some who are just plain rude about it(calling someone working
for free on a program you use "stupid" is generally not a way to endear them 
to your opinion..not saying *you* have but a few people have said such 
things and even far worse)  I don't know if you have kids or not, but it's 
kind of like being on a road trip and the kid saying "are we there yet dad?"
The first few times(hopefully), you are nice, but after the kid asks for the
50th time, you feel like breaking something.


> And Overwrite is pretty close, but it doesn't mark images as clean, so I 
> get confused about what I've saved already. 

But see, that's because it's not supposed to.  Again, you have to remember 
that as of 2.8, any image pulled into Gimp is NO LONGER a .jpeg or .png or 
whatever, it's a Gimp image(xcf).  You can verify this by looking at the 
filename in the titlebar which has the (imported) "modifier" beside it.  
This shows up for non GIMP file formats and is your cue that you are working
on a non native file format(also notice that it goes away once you save to a 
Gimp file format, as well as the overwrite flag.) This is the whole point 
in that going forward, it is expected that you work in a non destructive 
methodology.  Another thing to remember is that you are using a plugin to
try to get around a behavior that was built in and it's never going to be 
able to override all of the default functionality(yet another reason I 
suggest people just bite the bullet and change their thought processes).

Anyway...
Joe



___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Øyvind Kolås]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Matthew Miller  wrote:
>> This is also the reason that core GIMP contributors consider this
>> discussion to already be done and dealt with before it flared up and
>> trolls are keeping it artificially alive. The self selected beta
>> testers that are willing to use the development version and work out
>> problems during active development have a larger influence on
>> decisions. These are also the users it makes most sense for the
>> developers to spend their volunteered time communicating with – since
>> these users directly contribute to finding bugs and potential problems
>> early.
>
> That doesn't appear to have been the case here. I brought this up during the
> 2.7.x development series, and was told that it had already been decided.

During the 2.7.x development a lot of changes were done to both the
specification and implementation of the new way of dealing with save
and export based on feedback from gimpers that were using the
development version. The reactions to; and eventual acceptance from
most; made core contributors aware that there would be a shit-storm –
and that just like for the avantgarde, the general masses are likely
to embrace the new way in the end. In particular knowing that these
are necessary reorganization to enable even more powerful ways of
working in the future.

/Ø
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Matthew Miller]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 09:47:46PM +0800, Øyvind Kolås wrote:
> When such changes have landed in a stable release; there has been a
> quite long period of feedback from the users that follow development
> more closely than the users that only use stable versions of GIMP.

So, that's me, for example.

> This is also the reason that core GIMP contributors consider this
> discussion to already be done and dealt with before it flared up and
> trolls are keeping it artificially alive. The self selected beta
> testers that are willing to use the development version and work out
> problems during active development have a larger influence on
> decisions. These are also the users it makes most sense for the
> developers to spend their volunteered time communicating with – since
> these users directly contribute to finding bugs and potential problems
> early.

That doesn't appear to have been the case here. I brought this up during the
2.7.x development series, and was told that it had already been decided.




-- 
Matthew Miller   mat...@mattdm.org  
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Matthew Miller]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 02:43:12PM +0100, Simon Budig wrote:
> What would you say to
> 
>"We did it this way for reasons x, y, and z, but we recognize that
>what you're asking isn't like the broken spacebar comic. You have
>options a and b now, and we're thinking about some even better
>approaches in the future, but we won't revert to the old behaviour."
> 
> Because this is what we said in the past. Over and over again.

I would say: okay, cool. But that's not what I've been seeing. It's largely
along the lines of "you just don't understand that your way causes data
loss". 

The current "options a and b" have a lot of rough edges. The Export Clean
script makes the UI have even more cluttered "save" options, and it doesn't
re-prompt for JPEG options, which I very much want it to do. And Overwrite
is pretty close, but it doesn't mark images as clean, so I get confused
about what I've saved already. I can live with those things, but I hate to
have to explain them to other people.

So, sure. I'd also like to hear more about the ideas for better approaches
in the future. 




-- 
Matthew Miller   mat...@mattdm.org  
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Simon Budig]

Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
> It seems better to say "We did it this way for reasons x, y, and
> z, but we recognize that what you're asking isn't like the broken spacebar
> comic. You have options a and b now, and we're thinking about some even
> better approaches in the future."

What would you say to

   "We did it this way for reasons x, y, and z, but we recognize that
   what you're asking isn't like the broken spacebar comic. You have
   options a and b now, and we're thinking about some even better
   approaches in the future, but we won't revert to the old behaviour."

Because this is what we said in the past. Over and over again.

Bye,
Simon

-- 
  si...@budig.de  http://simon.budig.de/
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Øyvind Kolås]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Matthew Miller  wrote:
> Someone a while ago had the suggestion of building "sidecar" files with the
> entire undo history of an image. As storage space continues to increase,
> that sounds like a very promising path providing best of all worlds.

Part of the reason for this change, is to align the current UI with
such capabilities that GIMP eventually will gain as part of the
ongoing GEGL integration effort. As already mentioned many times in
this thread and through the last decade; GIMP is moving towards a
non-destructive editing mindset – interactions designers/architects
involved, core developers and well informed users that closely have
been following the development over the last decade are aware of this.

When such changes have landed in a stable release; there has been a
quite long period of feedback from the users that follow development
more closely than the users that only use stable versions of GIMP.
This is also the reason that core GIMP contributors consider this
discussion to already be done and dealt with before it flared up and
trolls are keeping it artificially alive. The self selected beta
testers that are willing to use the development version and work out
problems during active development have a larger influence on
decisions. These are also the users it makes most sense for the
developers to spend their volunteered time communicating with – since
these users directly contribute to finding bugs and potential problems
early.

/Ø
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[maderios]

On 02/20/2013 01:26 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 09:47:10PM +0800, Oon-Ee Ng wrote:

I don't use the word flippantly, but it seems odd to me how many users seem
to feel devs owe them something (explanations, time, respect). Where's that
entitlement come from?


In open source, developers and users should be on the same side. Many times,
there is some "flow" between the two groups. With commercial software, the
relationship is explicitly one of commerce and market dynamics. With open
source, when functional at least, the whole community is important.

So, while you certainly get a number of obnoxious people with an
over-wrought sense of entitlement, not all feedback along these lines is
that way. I share what I think not because I can't work around it, but
because the new "enforced" workflow is more difficult for me and I think
more difficult for others, to the detriment of the software as a whole. I
don't presume any right to demand anything, but designers and developers who
don't listen to their engaged, active, and concerned users are missing
something valuable. If the same thing keeps coming up over and over again to
the point where everyone is tired of it and very frustrated, maybe it's time
to step back and rethink a little bit.

Someone a while ago had the suggestion of building "sidecar" files with the
entire undo history of an image. As storage space continues to increase,
that sounds like a very promising path providing best of all worlds.

I mean, sure, the developers are perfectly fine in saying "no, we're gonna
do it this way", but it's also short-sighted to say "and stop giving
feedback". It seems better to say "We did it this way for reasons x, y, and
z, but we recognize that what you're asking isn't like the broken spacebar
comic. You have options a and b now, and we're thinking about some even
better approaches in the future."

That's not a sign of weakness.



I completely agree with your comment

--
Maderios
"Art is meant to disturb. Science reassures."
"L'art est fait pour troubler. La science rassure" (Georges Braque)

___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Matthew Miller]

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 09:47:10PM +0800, Oon-Ee Ng wrote:
> I don't use the word flippantly, but it seems odd to me how many users seem
> to feel devs owe them something (explanations, time, respect). Where's that
> entitlement come from?

In open source, developers and users should be on the same side. Many times,
there is some "flow" between the two groups. With commercial software, the
relationship is explicitly one of commerce and market dynamics. With open
source, when functional at least, the whole community is important.

So, while you certainly get a number of obnoxious people with an
over-wrought sense of entitlement, not all feedback along these lines is
that way. I share what I think not because I can't work around it, but
because the new "enforced" workflow is more difficult for me and I think
more difficult for others, to the detriment of the software as a whole. I
don't presume any right to demand anything, but designers and developers who
don't listen to their engaged, active, and concerned users are missing
something valuable. If the same thing keeps coming up over and over again to
the point where everyone is tired of it and very frustrated, maybe it's time
to step back and rethink a little bit.

Someone a while ago had the suggestion of building "sidecar" files with the
entire undo history of an image. As storage space continues to increase,
that sounds like a very promising path providing best of all worlds.

I mean, sure, the developers are perfectly fine in saying "no, we're gonna
do it this way", but it's also short-sighted to say "and stop giving
feedback". It seems better to say "We did it this way for reasons x, y, and
z, but we recognize that what you're asking isn't like the broken spacebar
comic. You have options a and b now, and we're thinking about some even
better approaches in the future."

That's not a sign of weakness.

-- 
Matthew Miller   mat...@mattdm.org  
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[jfrazierjr]

 Kevin Brubeck Unhammer  wrote: 
> Burlen Loring  writes:
> 
> > I'm sure the author(s) feels that it's the best thing since sliced
> > bread, however, differentiating between save and export in newer gimp
> > is a ridiculous waste of time. it's so annoying and in efficient that
> > I feel the need to chime in against it and strongly hope  this change
> > will be reversed in a future release.
> 
> The GIMP developers have stated that they are not reverting the change.
> Your options are:
> 
> 1) learn the new way
> 
> 2) use this plugin which implements the old way within GIMP:
>http://www.shallowsky.com/software/gimp-save/
> 
> 3) use the GIMP fork GIMB which reverts the change completely:
>https://github.com/mardy/gimb
> 


And hope that nothing changes in the Gimp core that breaks #1 with each 
release(which I would absolutely love to happen each release just for the 
damned irony of it) and/or that the original plugin author will continue to 
support any such changes until the end of time(or someone else will).   Ditto 
#3...  

I find it's just much easier to adapt rather than rely on someone else to 
continue doing something out of the goodness of their heart until the end of 
time(and if they don't, then I have to adapt anyway... so why the hell not just 
bite the bullet sooner vs later...)








___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Oon-Ee Ng]

On Feb 19, 2013 7:31 PM, "Matthew Miller"  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:54:41AM +0100, Daniel Hornung wrote:
> > I can't believe this was not brought up by someone already...
> > https://xkcd.com/1172/
>
> So, okay: should the response to that person be:
>
>  - You should get longer fingers
>
> or:
>
>  - Okay, so you won't be able to do that anymore, but here's how to
>remap keys in a supported way which will get you want you want
>

Or

No, that's not supported anymore.

I don't use the word flippantly, but it seems odd to me how many users seem
to feel devs owe them something (explanations, time, respect). Where's that
entitlement come from?
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Matthew Miller]

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:54:41AM +0100, Daniel Hornung wrote:
> I can't believe this was not brought up by someone already...
> https://xkcd.com/1172/

So, okay: should the response to that person be:

 - You should get longer fingers

or:

 - Okay, so you won't be able to do that anymore, but here's how to
   remap keys in a supported way which will get you want you want

?


-- 
Matthew Miller   mat...@mattdm.org  
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Psiweapon]

lmao

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Alexandre Prokoudine <
alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 3:54 AM, Daniel Hornung wrote:
> > I can't believe this was not brought up by someone already...
> >
> > https://xkcd.com/1172/
> >
> > (Or my mail search function is broken, which is possible)
>
> It is broken.
>
> Alexandre Prokoudine
> http://libregraphicsworld.org
> ___
> gimp-user-list mailing list
> gimp-user-list@gnome.org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
>
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Alexandre Prokoudine]

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 3:54 AM, Daniel Hornung wrote:
> I can't believe this was not brought up by someone already...
>
> https://xkcd.com/1172/
>
> (Or my mail search function is broken, which is possible)

It is broken.

Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Daniel Hornung]

I can't believe this was not brought up by someone already...

https://xkcd.com/1172/

(Or my mail search function is broken, which is possible)

--
Mein öffentlicher Schlüssel / My public key: 4096R/600ACB3B 2012-04-01
Fingerabdruck / Fingerprint:
9902 575B B9A0 C339 CFDF  250B 9267 CA6B 600A CB3B
Runterladen z.B. bei/ Get it e.g. from:
pgp.mit.edu, subkeys.pgp.net, pgp.uni-mainz.de, pool.sks-keyservers.net, ...

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Patrick Shanahan]

* Noel Stoutenburg  [02-18-13 14:03]:
> Christen Anderson wrote:
> >It would be interesting to know how many list messages by Maderios are on
> >this old, worn-out topic.
> The first post I have from Maderios happens to be on this topic in August,
> 2012. Since then, he has made 91 posts, which on a cursory review, most, if
> not all, seem to be on this topic.

One on 30 Nov was about scanners  :^)

-- 
(paka)Patrick Shanahan   Plainfield, Indiana, USA  HOG # US1244711
http://wahoo.no-ip.orgPhoto Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
http://en.opensuse.org   openSUSE Community Member
Registered Linux User #207535@ http://linuxcounter.net
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[bruno]

  

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:26:37 -0700, Christen Anderson wrote: 

> It
would be interesting to know how many list messages by Maderios are on
this old, worn-out topic. Please, everyone, complaining is getting you
nowhere and is annoying the rest of us who actually have more productive
things to do. Surely there's a way to block certain email addresses from
posting on the list again?!!
> 
> For the record, I'm not 100% happy
with the change either, but I understand the devs point of view and,
since the software is free and much better than Photoshop, I'm willing
to live with a little bit of inconvenience.
> 
> ~Christen

Christen,
the first msg I found dates back from 11-aug-2012. Its been almost eight
months of complaining and getting nowhere. 


https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-August/msg00061.html


I searched "maderios
site:https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/"; at google, and
here's the result, you can see for yourself:

https://www.google.com/search?q=maderios+site:https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/&hl=pt&client=firefox-a&hs=ubC&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:pt-BR:official&ei=b3kiUcyYE5Sy8QTgsoCQAQ&start=130&sa=N&filter=0&biw=1440&bih=786

To
be honest, not all messages relate to this issue. Some of them are
constructive. But maderios seem to have taken this specific issue very
personally,
despite the numerous alternatives people have given to solve
the "problem".

I'm amazed at how much time and energy people here are
willing to devote to replying to a troll. 
  ___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Liam R E Quin]

On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 10:34 -0600, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
> Sorry, madeiros, but when you write
> 
> maderios wrote:
>  > When you edit many kinds of files, jpeg, png, xcf, tiff, gif, etc...,
>  > you can't spend your time to watch and remember which kind of file
>  > you're working on.
> 
> I'm not buying in. Knowing what the final result will be used for is a 
> critical part of the work flow from the beginning, and to a large degree 
> this influences the decision as to the kind of file one is working on. 
+1

If someone is paying me $150 for a high-quality stock image I don't want
to send them a low-quality JPEG by mistake, and if I sent them a GIF
that would be the end of my credibility for that publisher / film
studio / whatever!

If I open an indexed image I need to know whether to change it to RGB to
work on it.

Knowing your tools *is* part of professional workflow.


-- 
Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml

___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Noel Stoutenburg]

Christen Anderson wrote:
It would be interesting to know how many list messages by Maderios are 
on this old, worn-out topic.
The first post I have from Maderios happens to be on this topic in 
August, 2012. Since then, he has made 91 posts, which on a cursory 
review, most, if not all, seem to be on this topic.


ns


___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Christen Anderson]

It would be interesting to know how many list messages by Maderios are 
on this old, worn-out topic. Please, everyone, complaining is getting 
you nowhere and is annoying the rest of us who actually have more 
productive things to do. Surely there's a way to block certain email 
addresses from posting on the list again?!!


For the record, I'm not 100% happy with the change either, but I 
understand the devs point of view and, since the software is free and 
much better than Photoshop, I'm willing to live with a little bit of 
inconvenience.


~Christen

On 2/18/2013 9:08 AM, maderios wrote:

On 02/18/2013 04:45 PM, Michael Schumacher wrote:

Von: maderios 



3) These developers have created gimp according to their own practice.


Have a look at http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/GIMP_UI_Redesign

While I wouldn't say that the team are no developers, they probably 
aren't by your definition.


Your problem is that this team managed to convince the developers (by 
your definition) to implement their plans. And apparently those are 
spreading to other software.



These guys are "architects", they don't need Gimp...
No artists, photographers, designers.
Photoshop was made for professional photographers
That's the difference.
Photoshop / Saving images
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/photoshop/cs/using/WSfd1234e1c4b69f30ea53e41001031ab64-7783a.html 



Regards




--
Behind the Feather Curtain 
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Noel Stoutenburg]

Sorry, madeiros, but when you write

maderios wrote:
> When you edit many kinds of files, jpeg, png, xcf, tiff, gif, etc...,
> you can't spend your time to watch and remember which kind of file
> you're working on.

I'm not buying in. Knowing what the final result will be used for is a 
critical part of the work flow from the beginning, and to a large degree 
this influences the decision as to the kind of file one is working on. 
To say one cannot spend time to watch and remember what kind of file one 
is working on, is /exactly/ the same as an automobile mechanic claiming 
to bes too busy to remember whether the current work is on a Volkswagen, 
or on a Mercedes, or a translator claiming to be too busy to remember 
whether the target language is Spanish or Korean. Or a woodworker 
claiming to be too busy to know whether the work at hand is being 
constructed in Cherry wood or in Teak.


Because of the different characteristics of the different file formats, 
knowing what use will be made of the final product is a critical 
requirement for the workflow, and I would suggest that forgetting the 
about the use of the final result during the workflow at any point 
before it is delivered is someone who has not yet progressed beyond the 
apprentice stage.


ns


___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Michael Schumacher]

> Von: maderios 

> On 02/18/2013 04:45 PM, Michael Schumacher wrote:
> >> Von: maderios 
> >
> >> 3) These developers have created gimp according to their own practice.
> >
> > Have a look at http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/GIMP_UI_Redesign
> >
> > While I wouldn't say that the team are no developers, they probably
> aren't by your definition.
> >
> > Your problem is that this team managed to convince the developers (by
> your definition) to implement their plans. And apparently those are spreading
> to other software.
> >

> These guys are "architects", they don't need Gimp...

They are interaction architects and usability consultants. Their expertise is 
to decide how software (and other things) is supposed to look, feel and work.

I, for one, agree with their approach.


Regards,
Michael
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Olivier]

2013/2/18 maderios :
> On 02/18/2013 04:45 PM, Michael Schumacher wrote:
>>>
>>> Von: maderios 
>>
>>
>>> 3) These developers have created gimp according to their own practice.
>>
>>
>> Have a look at http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/GIMP_UI_Redesign
>>
>> While I wouldn't say that the team are no developers, they probably aren't
>> by your definition.
>>
>> Your problem is that this team managed to convince the developers (by your
>> definition) to implement their plans. And apparently those are spreading to
>> other software.
>>
> These guys are "architects", they don't need Gimp...
> No artists, photographers, designers.
> Photoshop was made for professional photographers
> That's the difference.
> Photoshop / Saving images
> http://help.adobe.com/en_US/photoshop/cs/using/WSfd1234e1c4b69f30ea53e41001031ab64-7783a.html

Then please use Photoshop and leave us alone!

Puisque Photoshop est parfait, pourquoi vouloir que GIMP n'en soit
qu'une pâle imitation ? (Since Photoshop is perfect, why do you want
GIMP to be only a poor imitation?)

Olivier Lecarme
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Alexandre Prokoudine]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:08 PM, maderios wrote:

> These guys are "architects", they don't need Gimp...
> No artists, photographers, designers.
> Photoshop was made for professional photographers
> That's the difference.

It's been pointed out on a number of occasions that the usability team
works with end-users just like usability team at Adobe does.

The fact that you choose to ignore this information doesn't magically
make this not happen either :)

Please stick to boring facts.

Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[maderios]

On 02/18/2013 04:45 PM, Michael Schumacher wrote:

Von: maderios 



3) These developers have created gimp according to their own practice.


Have a look at http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/GIMP_UI_Redesign

While I wouldn't say that the team are no developers, they probably aren't by 
your definition.

Your problem is that this team managed to convince the developers (by your 
definition) to implement their plans. And apparently those are spreading to 
other software.


These guys are "architects", they don't need Gimp...
No artists, photographers, designers.
Photoshop was made for professional photographers
That's the difference.
Photoshop / Saving images
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/photoshop/cs/using/WSfd1234e1c4b69f30ea53e41001031ab64-7783a.html

Regards

--
Maderios
"Art is meant to disturb. Science reassures."
"L'art est fait pour troubler. La science rassure" (Georges Braque)

___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Michael Schumacher]

> Von: maderios 

> 3) These developers have created gimp according to their own practice.

Have a look at http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/GIMP_UI_Redesign

While I wouldn't say that the team are no developers, they probably aren't by 
your definition.

Your problem is that this team managed to convince the developers (by your 
definition) to implement their plans. And apparently those are spreading to 
other software.

Regards,
Michael
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Alexandre Prokoudine]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 7:13 PM, maderios wrote:

>> Assign Ctrl+S to the save/export clean (python plugin), and you have a
>> single option. End of problem.
>
> Done since a long time

And so the problem is...?

Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[maderios]

On 02/18/2013 03:45 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 6:35 PM, maderios wrote:


I use everyday "save-export-clean.py" plugin. Its' different from gimp-2.6
and other image editors like Krita, Digikam Showfoto, etc.. behavior. It
becomes complicated because you get 5 options :
- save
- save as
- export
- save/export clean (python plugin)
- save for web


Assign Ctrl+S to the save/export clean (python plugin), and you have a
single option. End of problem.

Done since a long time
When you edit many kinds of files, jpeg, png, xcf, tiff, gif, etc..., 
you can't spend your time to watch and remember which kind of file 
you're working on. This is the difference between amateur and 
professional/hard user work



--
Maderios
"Art is meant to disturb. Science reassures."
"L'art est fait pour troubler. La science rassure" (Georges Braque)

___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Alexandre Prokoudine]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Cristian Secară wrote:
> În data de Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:45:55 +0400, Alexandre Prokoudine a
> scris:
>
>> Assign Ctrl+S to the save/export clean (python plugin), [...]
>> End of problem.
>
> It is not end of problem: the python plugin is not translated, so it
> does not offer a unitary experience for non-english users :p

Unlike scripts in Scheme, Python plug-ins can be localized. Send your
patch and translation to Akkana :)

Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Cristian Secară]

În data de Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:45:55 +0400, Alexandre Prokoudine a
scris:

> Assign Ctrl+S to the save/export clean (python plugin), [...]
> End of problem.

It is not end of problem: the python plugin is not translated, so it
does not offer a unitary experience for non-english users :p

Cristi

-- 
Cristian Secară
http://www.secarica.ro
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[maderios]

On 02/18/2013 09:37 AM, Kevin Brubeck Unhammer wrote:

Burlen Loring  writes:


I'm sure the author(s) feels that it's the best thing since sliced
bread, however, differentiating between save and export in newer gimp
is a ridiculous waste of time. it's so annoying and in efficient that
I feel the need to chime in against it and strongly hope  this change
will be reversed in a future release.


The GIMP developers have stated that they are not reverting the change.


Hi
1) We can suppose developers spend their precious time to code,  not to 
create/edit images
2) Even if developers create images, these developers are amateurs, not 
professionals: they edit some photos, they do not need to save time like 
professionals.

3) These developers have created gimp according to their own practice.
4) These developers do not want to see what is happening elsewhere,  in 
the professional world, it is a mistake...

--
Maderios
"Art is meant to disturb. Science reassures."
"L'art est fait pour troubler. La science rassure" (Georges Braque)

___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Alexandre Prokoudine]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 6:35 PM, maderios wrote:

> I use everyday "save-export-clean.py" plugin. Its' different from gimp-2.6
> and other image editors like Krita, Digikam Showfoto, etc.. behavior. It
> becomes complicated because you get 5 options :
> - save
> - save as
> - export
> - save/export clean (python plugin)
> - save for web

Assign Ctrl+S to the save/export clean (python plugin), and you have a
single option. End of problem.

Of course, that would also involve stopping to be complainypants, so
hey, just ignore the advice :)

Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[maderios]

On 02/18/2013 02:09 AM, Oon-Ee Ng wrote:

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Jeffery Small  wrote:

When a major UI change like this is contemplated, why would it not be
implemented as a configuration switch which can be turned on/off on the
Preferences menu?  In this particular case, a simple switch could reverse
the Save and Export functions.  In the default mode, it would operate just



There has probably been 1000 times more effort expended writing about this
change than would have been spent implementing my suggestion above.  That's
something worth thinking about.


This applies to both sides of the discussion. Except one side wants
the old behaviour kept and one doesn't. Whose responsibility is it,
then? What do Alexandre and the rest of the devs actually owe users in
an open-source project? Particularly years after the change was first
mooted and discussed.

There are ALREADY plugins for those who want the old behaviour back
(not that I've used them). While I can understand the fly-by posts by
ignorant rant-ers (happens everywhere), I do not understand long-term
readers of this ML continuing this discussion. Someone has already
'fixed' what you believe is broken


Hi
I use everyday "save-export-clean.py" plugin. Its' different from 
gimp-2.6 and other image editors like Krita, Digikam Showfoto, etc.. 
behavior. It becomes complicated because you get 5 options :

- save
- save as
- export
- save/export clean (python plugin)
- save for web
http://www.gimpusers.com/forums/gimp-user/14746-a-plug-in-for-those-who-still-don-t-like-the-new-save-export
I do not understand myself why users (who use Gimp everyday, 
professional or not) opinion is not taken. Developers could give two 
options in the configuration: 2.6 OR 2.8 "save / save as" behavior. 
Gimp-2.6 behavior is not "old": it's the "standard" available in Krita, 
Digikam Showfoto, Libreoffice, Phot$op, most text editors, etc...


--
Maderios
"Art is meant to disturb. Science reassures."
"L'art est fait pour troubler. La science rassure" (Georges Braque)

___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Alexandre Prokoudine]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Psiweapon wrote:

> My main problem with the export faith is that now, one does not simply
> overwrite into a PNG image after enabling transparency.

Could you please elaborate on that? Ideally, in a bug report to
bugzilla.gnome.org.

May the glorious Sikking emanate His usability love upon you.

Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Psiweapon]

Heh, I've mostly adapted to the "new ways" - PRAISE BE TO OUR
SAVIOR THE EXPORT COMMAND! I AM NO LONGER A HEATHEN
BROTHERS! but it's still *very fun *to see this "Smug Developers Vs.
The Stupid Backlash that Wouldn't Die" movie franchise unfold in
countless installments.

My main problem with the export faith is that now, one does not simply
overwrite into a PNG image after enabling transparency. But what can
I do, if I'm just a body among the ignorant, unwashed masses, upon
which the glory of the Gimp shines, without ever being able to completely
grasp its radiant holyness? PRAISE BE TO THE EXPORT COMMAND!
FOR IT IS CODED THAT THROUGH THE EXPORT COMMAND IS THE
PATH TO ENLIGHTENMENT, SALVATION AND PHOTO EDITING!

I have been proven willing to use the holy export command, and thus
worthy of the heavenly gift that main branch Gimp is!

But to lose patience against a powerless, trickling ragtag bunch of
trolls, not only ignorant and unwashed but UNFAITHFUL, and in ill
will refusing to accept the good news and renewing ways of the HOLY
EXPORT COMMAND? That sure is a sign of a faltering faith.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Kevin Brubeck Unhammer
wrote:

> Burlen Loring  writes:
>
> > I'm sure the author(s) feels that it's the best thing since sliced
> > bread, however, differentiating between save and export in newer gimp
> > is a ridiculous waste of time. it's so annoying and in efficient that
> > I feel the need to chime in against it and strongly hope  this change
> > will be reversed in a future release.
>
> The GIMP developers have stated that they are not reverting the change.
> Your options are:
>
> 1) learn the new way
>
> 2) use this plugin which implements the old way within GIMP:
>http://www.shallowsky.com/software/gimp-save/
>
> 3) use the GIMP fork GIMB which reverts the change completely:
>https://github.com/mardy/gimb
>
>
>
> --
> Kevin Brubeck Unhammer
>
> GPG: 0x766AC60C
>
> ___
> gimp-user-list mailing list
> gimp-user-list@gnome.org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
>
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[R Kimber]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:37:25 +0100
Kevin Brubeck Unhammer wrote:

> 2) use this plugin which implements the old way within GIMP:
>http://www.shallowsky.com/software/gimp-save/
> 
> 3) use the GIMP fork GIMB which reverts the change completely:
>https://github.com/mardy/gimb

... but if so don't try to use Audacity  ;-)

- Richard.
-- 
Richard Kimber
Political Science Resources
http://www.PoliticsResources.net/
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Kevin Brubeck Unhammer]

Burlen Loring  writes:

> I'm sure the author(s) feels that it's the best thing since sliced
> bread, however, differentiating between save and export in newer gimp
> is a ridiculous waste of time. it's so annoying and in efficient that
> I feel the need to chime in against it and strongly hope  this change
> will be reversed in a future release.

The GIMP developers have stated that they are not reverting the change.
Your options are:

1) learn the new way

2) use this plugin which implements the old way within GIMP:
   http://www.shallowsky.com/software/gimp-save/

3) use the GIMP fork GIMB which reverts the change completely:
   https://github.com/mardy/gimb



-- 
Kevin Brubeck Unhammer

GPG: 0x766AC60C

___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Alexandre Prokoudine]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 6:49 AM, Daniel Hauck wrote:

>> I have certain doubts that you understand the point of free (as in
>> speech) software. The reason for my doubts is because you keep talking
>> about the character of the giver.
>>
>> The giver/taker dichotomy is, frankly, artificial. GIMP isn't a
>> commercial software project. For one, we don't rely on "the customer
>> is always right" rule. If you judge us, we are allowed to judge you
>> back, except it's neither constructive nor fun.
>>
>> Cheers are motivational, but so are technical challenges, and we
>> currently have tons of the latter and a good supply of the former.
>>
>> Eventually all currently existing software will become obsolete, and
>> GIMP is no exception. The sooner it happens, the sooner the team will
>> have more spare time for families, friends, and various hobbies. We'll
>> probably even start giving away free hugs instead of free software.
>> My, my -- what a horrible perspective :)
>
>
> The giver/taker dichotomy is not artificial.  It is more than human, in
> fact.  It is quite animal in nature.  As an "aspi" myself, I recognize that
> it is inherently tempting to seek to discard things which are "not
> necessary."  But to suggest that giver-taker relationships are artificial?
> No.  Giver-taker, teacher-learner are animal relationships and one which is
> especially developed among humans.

Either I failed to explain, or you didn't get it. What I meant to say
is that the same person can be both a giver and a taker. You seem to
be attempting to suggest that it isn't so.

Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Alexandre Prokoudine]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Richard Gitschlag wrote:

>> >> In the nearly 10 years of using the gimp I can't think of a single time
>> >> where this would be useful. I've never had a problem differentiating
>> >> between xcf and other formats. That use case is covered quite nicely by
>> >> "save a copy".
>>
>> >But it isn't :)
>
> Anyone remember my (somewhat controversial) suggestion way back to merge
> "save a copy" with "export" since the only (user-visible) difference between
> them is the target file format?

"Save a copy" is for revisions of XCF.

Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Richard Gitschlag]

> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 03:55:04 +0100
> From: si...@budig.de
> To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
> Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save
> 
> Daniel Hauck (dan...@yacg.com) wrote:
> > "Owe"?  Therein lies a kind of perspective concern.  It's not a
> > question of what is owed, but is what is wanted.  The response to
> > something which is wanted is what matters here.
> 
> Wanted by whom? We had lots of users here expressing their desire in a
> tone which clearly showed that they think they can demand from "the
> developers" to implement the features they want. They seem to think that
> they can threaten us with a switch to photoshop. [*]
> 
> > The change is viewed by many as unwelcome.  The responses to their
> > wants are unkind and devoid of understanding.

Can I play the "links or it didn't happen" card?  Sometimes a few URL's can go 
a long way in stifling objections.

> And to be specific regarding export-vs-save:
> 
> ...
>
> And it is about a tiny change in the menus. Nobody seems to care about
> the important stuff...

2.8's Save/export spec is, objectively speaking, a "breaking change" as it does 
limit the functionality of a previous command (even though the previous 
functionality still exists, just under a different command), and in this case 
it's an operation which is very strongly entrenched into any user's peculiar 
workflow.

> To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
> From: j...@cjsa.com
> Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 23:16:40 +
> Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save
> 
> Alexandre Prokoudine  writes:
> 
> >On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Burlen Loring wrote:
> 
> >> In the nearly 10 years of using the gimp I can't think of a single time
> >> where this would be useful. I've never had a problem differentiating
> >> between xcf and other formats. That use case is covered quite nicely by
> >> "save a copy".
> 
> >But it isn't :)

Anyone remember my (somewhat controversial) suggestion way back to merge "save 
a copy" with "export" since the only (user-visible) difference between them is 
the target file format?


-- Stratadrake
strata_ran...@hotmail.com

Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth.

  ___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Simon Budig]

Daniel Hauck (dan...@yacg.com) wrote:
> "Owe"?  Therein lies a kind of perspective concern.  It's not a
> question of what is owed, but is what is wanted.  The response to
> something which is wanted is what matters here.

Wanted by whom? We had lots of users here expressing their desire in a
tone which clearly showed that they think they can demand from "the
developers" to implement the features they want. They seem to think that
they can threaten us with a switch to photoshop. [*]

> The change is viewed by many as unwelcome.  The responses to their
> wants are unkind and devoid of understanding.

I said it earlier and will repeat it gladly again. Developers of free
software are selfish bastards. And yes, that includes me.

I work with free software, because I get a glimpse in relatively big
working things. There are interesting problems inside and I don't have
to sign stupid NDAs to get access to the source. I have the freedom to
modify the program to *my* needs. And I am happy if these needs are the
same as from other people and I can discuss interesting issues with
them, giving me satisfaction on an intellectual level.

It is not interesting to me, to maximize the number of users. There is a
certain reputation to be earned if I can claim that I work on the GIMP,
but this doesn't really grow with the number of users. In fact, more
users means more stupid discussions about uninteresting topics.

And to be specific regarding export-vs-save:

It was a highly interesting process to watch peter come up with the
specification, find its problems, and tweak it. I wasn't really involved
directly, but seeing Peters approach to these design things is
fascinating. I might disagree with his solution, but I clearly see its
solid reasoning.

And then there is this clear and straightforward concept, which still
might have little bugs or issues that needs to be adressed. And it meets
this incredibly loud, uninformed and unkind response when people
suddenly realize, that following a development process might *gasp*
actually involve changes.

And it is about a tiny change in the menus. Nobody seems to care about
the important stuff...

And the always-repeated suggestion is to introduce a configuration
option (which for some reason is perceived as being simple), which would
just kill the straightforwardness and clarity, will introduce badly
tested codepaths and give a lot of headache to people following
tutorials that happen to have the "other" option enabled.

What is it again, that a selfish bastard developer like me would gain
from implementing this? I'd do something I am convinced is the wrong
thing. And I'd feel dirty for implementing a compromise I regard as
stupid. I don't think this is going to happen...

Bye,
Simon


[*] ...which is hilarious. While I don't really know it, Photoshop seems
to be a great piece of software and I have a lot of respect for the work
the developers do. If you're going to be happy with photoshop, then
please go on and use it. But please - regardless of GIMP or Photoshop -
respect the licenses attached.

-- 
  si...@budig.de  http://simon.budig.de/
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Daniel Hauck]

On 02/17/2013 09:27 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 5:36 AM, Daniel Hauck wrote:


For now, there is no alternative to GiMP.

Krita is a very nice alternative for a number of use cases.


But if one were to appear, can
you imagine what factors might come into play when people decide what to
use?  GiMP doesn't exist entirely because of the developers.  No question
that the developers create, maintain and push it forward -- it couldn't
happen without it.  But the cheering crowds have value as well.  Without
users expressing their needs and wishes, projects get lost and forgotten...
and without the cheering crowd, developers also lose interest.

No one "owes" kindness and consideration to anyone else.  But that doesn't
mean they aren't important.  And it reflects well on the character of the
giver.

I have certain doubts that you understand the point of free (as in
speech) software. The reason for my doubts is because you keep talking
about the character of the giver.

The giver/taker dichotomy is, frankly, artificial. GIMP isn't a
commercial software project. For one, we don't rely on "the customer
is always right" rule. If you judge us, we are allowed to judge you
back, except it's neither constructive nor fun.

Cheers are motivational, but so are technical challenges, and we
currently have tons of the latter and a good supply of the former.

Eventually all currently existing software will become obsolete, and
GIMP is no exception. The sooner it happens, the sooner the team will
have more spare time for families, friends, and various hobbies. We'll
probably even start giving away free hugs instead of free software.
My, my -- what a horrible perspective :)


The giver/taker dichotomy is not artificial.  It is more than human, in 
fact.  It is quite animal in nature.  As an "aspi" myself, I recognize 
that it is inherently tempting to seek to discard things which are "not 
necessary."  But to suggest that giver-taker relationships are 
artificial?  No.  Giver-taker, teacher-learner are animal relationships 
and one which is especially developed among humans.



___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Steve Kinney]

On 02/17/2013 09:27 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:

> Eventually all currently existing software will become obsolete, and
> GIMP is no exception. 

I have to question that.  Free Software is a very valuable community
toolbox.  A project as large and complex as the GIMP represents tens
of thousands of man-hours of work that are not likely to be thrown
away.  The GIMP will will mutate and evolve, fork and re-fork, but I
seriously doubt that it will ever become obsolete.  "Descendants of
the GIMP will go to the stars with us" - if the humans last that long.

Even if users occasionally have to re-learn a few deeply ingrained,
reflexive keyboard shortcuts.

:o)

Steve


___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Alexandre Prokoudine]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 5:36 AM, Daniel Hauck wrote:

> For now, there is no alternative to GiMP.

Krita is a very nice alternative for a number of use cases.

> But if one were to appear, can
> you imagine what factors might come into play when people decide what to
> use?  GiMP doesn't exist entirely because of the developers.  No question
> that the developers create, maintain and push it forward -- it couldn't
> happen without it.  But the cheering crowds have value as well.  Without
> users expressing their needs and wishes, projects get lost and forgotten...
> and without the cheering crowd, developers also lose interest.
>
> No one "owes" kindness and consideration to anyone else.  But that doesn't
> mean they aren't important.  And it reflects well on the character of the
> giver.

I have certain doubts that you understand the point of free (as in
speech) software. The reason for my doubts is because you keep talking
about the character of the giver.

The giver/taker dichotomy is, frankly, artificial. GIMP isn't a
commercial software project. For one, we don't rely on "the customer
is always right" rule. If you judge us, we are allowed to judge you
back, except it's neither constructive nor fun.

Cheers are motivational, but so are technical challenges, and we
currently have tons of the latter and a good supply of the former.

Eventually all currently existing software will become obsolete, and
GIMP is no exception. The sooner it happens, the sooner the team will
have more spare time for families, friends, and various hobbies. We'll
probably even start giving away free hugs instead of free software.
My, my -- what a horrible perspective :)

Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Daniel Hauck]

On 02/17/2013 08:09 PM, Oon-Ee Ng wrote:

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Jeffery Small  wrote:

When a major UI change like this is contemplated, why would it not be
implemented as a configuration switch which can be turned on/off on the
Preferences menu?  In this particular case, a simple switch could reverse
the Save and Export functions.  In the default mode, it would operate just



There has probably been 1000 times more effort expended writing about this
change than would have been spent implementing my suggestion above.  That's
something worth thinking about.

This applies to both sides of the discussion. Except one side wants
the old behaviour kept and one doesn't. Whose responsibility is it,
then? What do Alexandre and the rest of the devs actually owe users in
an open-source project? Particularly years after the change was first
mooted and discussed.

There are ALREADY plugins for those who want the old behaviour back
(not that I've used them). While I can understand the fly-by posts by
ignorant rant-ers (happens everywhere), I do not understand long-term
readers of this ML continuing this discussion. Someone has already
'fixed' what you believe is broken
"Owe"?  Therein lies a kind of perspective concern.  It's not a question 
of what is owed, but is what is wanted.  The response to something which 
is wanted is what matters here.


The change is viewed by many as unwelcome.  The responses to their wants 
are unkind and devoid of understanding.


I'm okay with cold, straight answers.  I often resort to answers which 
are empty of kindness and consideration.  But over the years, it is 
often helpful to diffuse problems with a bit of kindness and generosity.


No one owes anyone kindness and generosity.  These are bits of character 
and personality owned by the giver.  If a person chooses to ignore the 
value of kindness and generosity, it is their choice, but it is one with 
long-term effects in that people will tend to perceive them as negative 
and/or difficult to work with.


For now, there is no alternative to GiMP.  But if one were to appear, 
can you imagine what factors might come into play when people decide 
what to use?  GiMP doesn't exist entirely because of the developers.  No 
question that the developers create, maintain and push it forward -- it 
couldn't happen without it.  But the cheering crowds have value as 
well.  Without users expressing their needs and wishes, projects get 
lost and forgotten... and without the cheering crowd, developers also 
lose interest.


No one "owes" kindness and consideration to anyone else.  But that 
doesn't mean they aren't important.  And it reflects well on the 
character of the giver.


___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Oon-Ee Ng]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Jeffery Small  wrote:
> When a major UI change like this is contemplated, why would it not be
> implemented as a configuration switch which can be turned on/off on the
> Preferences menu?  In this particular case, a simple switch could reverse
> the Save and Export functions.  In the default mode, it would operate just

> There has probably been 1000 times more effort expended writing about this
> change than would have been spent implementing my suggestion above.  That's
> something worth thinking about.

This applies to both sides of the discussion. Except one side wants
the old behaviour kept and one doesn't. Whose responsibility is it,
then? What do Alexandre and the rest of the devs actually owe users in
an open-source project? Particularly years after the change was first
mooted and discussed.

There are ALREADY plugins for those who want the old behaviour back
(not that I've used them). While I can understand the fly-by posts by
ignorant rant-ers (happens everywhere), I do not understand long-term
readers of this ML continuing this discussion. Someone has already
'fixed' what you believe is broken
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Daniel Hauck]

On 02/17/2013 07:21 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 3:16 AM, Jeffery Small wrote:


In the nearly 10 years of using the gimp I can't think of a single time
where this would be useful. I've never had a problem differentiating
between xcf and other formats. That use case is covered quite nicely by
"save a copy".

But it isn't :)

Alexandre:

I understand the logic behind this change, I agree it is a change but not
broken, and I can get used to it well as anyone.  But in your responses
over the past year, you have demonstrated a real disregard for the work
flow of a large number of people who have been using GIMP for a very long
time, many of which may never care to use the xcf format.  What I find
so mysterious is not only the willingness, but the apparent disregard
for other viewpoints that the design team has exhibited, by shoving this
change down the throats of so many people who clearly do not like it.  This
I-know-what's-best-for-you", one-size-fits-all attitude is the sort of
approach that is currently tearing the world apart in the political and
social realm, and it really chafes to see it migrate into the technical
world as well.

When a major UI change like this is contemplated, why would it not be
implemented as a configuration switch which can be turned on/off on the
Preferences menu?  In this particular case, a simple switch could reverse
the Save and Export functions.  In the default mode, it would operate just
as GIMP 2.8 does, and with a flick of a preference, Save would save in the
current native format as 2.6 does, while Export could be identical to Save
As -- or, since it is a new feature, it could simply always save in xcf
format without troubling anyone.  Then everyone would have been happy.

Currently, I use GIMP on two platforms.  I'm currently stuck with 2.6 on my
Solaris system and use 2.8 on Linux.  I do use and save in the xcf format,
but I also do a huge amount of one-shot editing of jpeg files.  Because
of this UI change, I have to remember which machine I am on in order to
know what a Save ( Control-S has a LOT of muscle-memory associated with it)
is going to do.  If I had a preference option as described above, I would
probably make 2.8 operate like 2.6 until I was able to use 2.8 everywhere,
and then I would switch over to the new model and enjoy it going forward.
But I don't have that choice.

There has probably been 1000 times more effort expended writing about this
change than would have been spent implementing my suggestion above.  That's
something worth thinking about.

I'm trying to be helpful here, not angry or insulting.  I love GIMP and
I have tremendous appreciation and respect for you and everyone else who
contributes to the ongoing development, and I extend my thanks for all you
do, including responding to irate users like me on this and other forums.
I hope you take these comments in the positive spirit I intend them.

"This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."

That's what the license says, and you accepted it. If you disagree
with the license, you shouldn't be using GIMP in the first place.

Sorry about being so blunt, but even my patience has a limit.

We've already covered every angle of this controversion, replied all
the possible questions and suggestions, most of them -- in multiple
variations. Yes, that includes your suggestions above.

People didn't join this project to spend their time juggling same
words again and again. This is why you don't hear much (if anything at
all) regarding this controversion from other team members. And this is
why you re not going to hear much about that from me.

All the answers have been given. If you disagree with our decision,
and existing workarounds do not work for you, the most sensible thing
to do would be to either revert to GIMP 2.6, use existing forks, or
stop using GIMP altogether.
Major changes are disheartening and often even painful, disorienting and 
painful.


I too have argued against the forced change.  Sometimes this approach 
works.  Sometimes it is met with uncalculated resistance. I'm something 
of an old-timer in that I remember clearly when "MS Windows" was still 
being debated.  Many people preferred the elementary nature of DOS and 
saw Windows as a waste of memory and processor resources for what 
amounted to "a fancy menu system."  In the end, the GUI won out though 
many people still cling to the CLI remembering the good old days.


We also have other examples of major change in GNOME/Fedora and in 
Ubuntu.  That change is still being fiercely rejected after how many 
years?  It's difficult to say what the outcomes of these issues will be, 
but there is/was some sort of addon or something for GiMP that would 
restore the old behavior.  Check the lists for more information if you 
desire it for your more consistent workflow.


My fight 

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Alexandre Prokoudine]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 3:16 AM, Jeffery Small wrote:

>>> In the nearly 10 years of using the gimp I can't think of a single time
>>> where this would be useful. I've never had a problem differentiating
>>> between xcf and other formats. That use case is covered quite nicely by
>>> "save a copy".
>
>>But it isn't :)
>
> Alexandre:
>
> I understand the logic behind this change, I agree it is a change but not
> broken, and I can get used to it well as anyone.  But in your responses
> over the past year, you have demonstrated a real disregard for the work
> flow of a large number of people who have been using GIMP for a very long
> time, many of which may never care to use the xcf format.  What I find
> so mysterious is not only the willingness, but the apparent disregard
> for other viewpoints that the design team has exhibited, by shoving this
> change down the throats of so many people who clearly do not like it.  This
> I-know-what's-best-for-you", one-size-fits-all attitude is the sort of
> approach that is currently tearing the world apart in the political and
> social realm, and it really chafes to see it migrate into the technical
> world as well.
>
> When a major UI change like this is contemplated, why would it not be
> implemented as a configuration switch which can be turned on/off on the
> Preferences menu?  In this particular case, a simple switch could reverse
> the Save and Export functions.  In the default mode, it would operate just
> as GIMP 2.8 does, and with a flick of a preference, Save would save in the
> current native format as 2.6 does, while Export could be identical to Save
> As -- or, since it is a new feature, it could simply always save in xcf
> format without troubling anyone.  Then everyone would have been happy.
>
> Currently, I use GIMP on two platforms.  I'm currently stuck with 2.6 on my
> Solaris system and use 2.8 on Linux.  I do use and save in the xcf format,
> but I also do a huge amount of one-shot editing of jpeg files.  Because
> of this UI change, I have to remember which machine I am on in order to
> know what a Save ( Control-S has a LOT of muscle-memory associated with it)
> is going to do.  If I had a preference option as described above, I would
> probably make 2.8 operate like 2.6 until I was able to use 2.8 everywhere,
> and then I would switch over to the new model and enjoy it going forward.
> But I don't have that choice.
>
> There has probably been 1000 times more effort expended writing about this
> change than would have been spent implementing my suggestion above.  That's
> something worth thinking about.
>
> I'm trying to be helpful here, not angry or insulting.  I love GIMP and
> I have tremendous appreciation and respect for you and everyone else who
> contributes to the ongoing development, and I extend my thanks for all you
> do, including responding to irate users like me on this and other forums.
> I hope you take these comments in the positive spirit I intend them.

"This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."

That's what the license says, and you accepted it. If you disagree
with the license, you shouldn't be using GIMP in the first place.

Sorry about being so blunt, but even my patience has a limit.

We've already covered every angle of this controversion, replied all
the possible questions and suggestions, most of them -- in multiple
variations. Yes, that includes your suggestions above.

People didn't join this project to spend their time juggling same
words again and again. This is why you don't hear much (if anything at
all) regarding this controversion from other team members. And this is
why you re not going to hear much about that from me.

All the answers have been given. If you disagree with our decision,
and existing workarounds do not work for you, the most sensible thing
to do would be to either revert to GIMP 2.6, use existing forks, or
stop using GIMP altogether.

Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Jeffery Small]

Alexandre Prokoudine  writes:

>On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Burlen Loring wrote:

>> In the nearly 10 years of using the gimp I can't think of a single time
>> where this would be useful. I've never had a problem differentiating
>> between xcf and other formats. That use case is covered quite nicely by
>> "save a copy".

>But it isn't :)

Alexandre:

I understand the logic behind this change, I agree it is a change but not
broken, and I can get used to it well as anyone.  But in your responses
over the past year, you have demonstrated a real disregard for the work
flow of a large number of people who have been using GIMP for a very long
time, many of which may never care to use the xcf format.  What I find
so mysterious is not only the willingness, but the apparent disregard
for other viewpoints that the design team has exhibited, by shoving this
change down the throats of so many people who clearly do not like it.  This
I-know-what's-best-for-you", one-size-fits-all attitude is the sort of
approach that is currently tearing the world apart in the political and
social realm, and it really chafes to see it migrate into the technical
world as well.

When a major UI change like this is contemplated, why would it not be
implemented as a configuration switch which can be turned on/off on the
Preferences menu?  In this particular case, a simple switch could reverse
the Save and Export functions.  In the default mode, it would operate just
as GIMP 2.8 does, and with a flick of a preference, Save would save in the
current native format as 2.6 does, while Export could be identical to Save
As -- or, since it is a new feature, it could simply always save in xcf
format without troubling anyone.  Then everyone would have been happy.

Currently, I use GIMP on two platforms.  I'm currently stuck with 2.6 on my
Solaris system and use 2.8 on Linux.  I do use and save in the xcf format,
but I also do a huge amount of one-shot editing of jpeg files.  Because
of this UI change, I have to remember which machine I am on in order to
know what a Save ( Control-S has a LOT of muscle-memory associated with it)
is going to do.  If I had a preference option as described above, I would
probably make 2.8 operate like 2.6 until I was able to use 2.8 everywhere,
and then I would switch over to the new model and enjoy it going forward.
But I don't have that choice.

There has probably been 1000 times more effort expended writing about this
change than would have been spent implementing my suggestion above.  That's
something worth thinking about.

I'm trying to be helpful here, not angry or insulting.  I love GIMP and
I have tremendous appreciation and respect for you and everyone else who
contributes to the ongoing development, and I extend my thanks for all you
do, including responding to irate users like me on this and other forums.
I hope you take these comments in the positive spirit I intend them.

Regards,
-- 
C. Jeffery Small
j...@cjsa.com

___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Kasim Ahmic]

I hate to be "that guy" but this will most likely never change. I don't want to 
say I hate that feature but it did cause quite the inconvenience for me when it 
first came out. Over time, I got used to it and now, it's second nature for me 
to click Export instead of Save when I need to export an image to 
PNG/TIFF/JPG/GIF rather than save it to an XCF. It makes sense when you think 
about it.

Sent from my iPod

On Feb 17, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Burlen Loring  wrote:

> I'm sure the author(s) feels that it's the best thing since sliced bread, 
> however, differentiating between save and export in newer gimp is a 
> ridiculous waste of time. it's so annoying and in efficient that I feel the 
> need to chime in against it and strongly hope  this change will be reversed 
> in a future release.
> 
> In the nearly 10 years of using the gimp I can't think of a single time where 
> this would be useful. I've never had a problem differentiating between xcf 
> and other formats. That use case is covered quite nicely by "save a copy".
> 
> If it's not broken...
> 
> ___
> gimp-user-list mailing list
> gimp-user-list@gnome.org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Alexandre Prokoudine]

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Burlen Loring wrote:

> In the nearly 10 years of using the gimp I can't think of a single time
> where this would be useful. I've never had a problem differentiating between
> xcf and other formats. That use case is covered quite nicely by "save a
> copy".

But it isn't :)

Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list

[Gimp-user] export vs save

[Burlen Loring]

I'm sure the author(s) feels that it's the best thing since sliced 
bread, however, differentiating between save and export in newer gimp is 
a ridiculous waste of time. it's so annoying and in efficient that I 
feel the need to chime in against it and strongly hope  this change will 
be reversed in a future release.


In the nearly 10 years of using the gimp I can't think of a single time 
where this would be useful. I've never had a problem differentiating 
between xcf and other formats. That use case is covered quite nicely by 
"save a copy".


If it's not broken...

___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list