Den 12-08-2012 18:27, Archie Arevalo skrev:

Dear Alexandre Prokoudine and all those who appreciate GIMP,

GIMP is a great tool. It is not that hard to adapt to the changes made in 2.8. It is easy to reform habits if the community would just stop yapping about it and instead do something about it themselves.

You hard work are tremendously appreciated by many of us, and we trust that you will continue to pursue the goals you have set out.

More power to GIMP development and developers.

With much respect,

Archie Arevalo

PCLinuxOS user

P.S. This email is not butt licking but just a change from all the complaints I keep getting on my inbox. ;D

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

I'm in on this one - I just persuaded a friend who just started photographing to use the GIMP 2.8 for editing. He's not used to free software, and was very astonished (typical win-user), that he could get all this for free.

Keep up the good work - and thanks a lot

Mogens Jæger

Suse Factory user

While we are at it I would like to give my thanks as well.

I am a 3D\2D digital artist and I have been using Gimp for close to a decade now. I have loved and preferred it ever since I started. And I have encouraged those around me to try it out, if not make it a replacement for some more expensive photo manipulation programs they are currently using. 9 times out of 10 Gimp is able to do what they need to do professionally.

And even with some of the disputed changes in 2.8, it still holds its ground as my top application for my work, and for others that I know.

The changes that have been made, in some ways have slowed me down initially, but, in the long run, it has sped things up. (Especially when I am doing any sort of 3D texturing). And after about a week of adapting to the changes, there is no way I can go back to 2.6. It is a much more pleasant experience than it already was. This is usually how any learning experience for any kind of topic plays out, at least for me.

On behalf of those I know, that appreciate this program, and the great piece of software that it is, and for myself, we thank all the developers for their hard work. We understand that it isn't easy to put together and maintain a program like this. But you all are doing a great job. Keep it up.

Will Thorup

http://www.williamthorup.com/

On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 09:27:36AM -0700, Archie Arevalo wrote:

Dear Alexandre Prokoudine and all those who appreciate GIMP,

GIMP is a great tool. It is not that hard to adapt to the changes made in 2.8. It is easy to reform habits if the community would just stop yapping about it and instead do something about it themselves.

You hard work are tremendously appreciated by many of us, and we trust that you will continue to pursue the goals you have set out.

More power to GIMP development and developers.

Agreed +100 One thing sure in life is constant change. If software isn't evolving then it's not improving.

At 1st I disliked the new behaviour too, but have come to do it naturally and without fuss once I understood the reasons. Hell Photoshop wants folks to save as .PSD too for the same reasons.

From: linux.archie@gmail.com
To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 09:27:36 -0700 Subject: [Gimp-user] GIMP is GREAT!

Dear Alexandre Prokoudine and all those who appreciate GIMP,
GIMP
is a great tool. It is not that hard to adapt to the changes made in 2.8. It is easy to reform habits if the community would just stop yapping about it and instead do something about it themselves.

For me the Save/Export distinction is not that much of an issue on a practical level (I just have some conceptual disagreements about its implementation), the bigger fish is not being able to spontaneously adjust my brush dynamics like we could in 2.6. For which I simply created one brush preset (named Adjustable), and removed the reference to the default dynamics folder completely. If I need other presets I will derive them from that.

-- Stratadrake strata_ranger@hotmail.com
--------------------
Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth.

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Stephen Allen wrote:

On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 09:27:36AM -0700, Archie Arevalo wrote:

Dear Alexandre Prokoudine and all those who appreciate GIMP,

GIMP is a great tool. It is not that hard to adapt to the changes made in 2.8. It is easy to reform habits if the community would just stop yapping about it and instead do something about it themselves.

You hard work are tremendously appreciated by many of us, and we trust that you will continue to pursue the goals you have set out.

More power to GIMP development and developers.

Agreed +100 One thing sure in life is constant change. If software isn't evolving then it's not improving.

Thanks a lot, folks :)

Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org

On 08/13/2012 08:12 AM, Stephen Allen wrote:

On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 09:27:36AM -0700, Archie Arevalo wrote:

More power to GIMP development and developers.

Agreed +100 One thing sure in life is constant change. If software isn't evolving then it's not improving.

If the GIMP is not evolving, it is not carrying its users forward in the direction of improved photo and graphics editing capabilities. Tools and their users co-evolve.

Some people's least favorite bit of GIMP 2.8, the new default to save as XCF, is a step in the direction of supporting rational document control for image files. I have been "doing things that way by hand" for a long time so it does not bother me at all - in fact it simplifies my workflow just a little.

:o)

Steve

Many people do not need the default to be XCF. The people who do, are the least likely to make the mistake of not saving their work which is given as the reason for the new default behavior.

On 8/13/2012 12:49 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:

On 08/13/2012 08:12 AM, Stephen Allen wrote:

On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 09:27:36AM -0700, Archie Arevalo wrote:

More power to GIMP development and developers.

Agreed +100 One thing sure in life is constant change. If software isn't evolving then it's not improving.

If the GIMP is not evolving, it is not carrying its users forward in the direction of improved photo and graphics editing capabilities. Tools and their users co-evolve.

Some people's least favorite bit of GIMP 2.8, the new default to save as XCF, is a step in the direction of supporting rational document control for image files. I have been "doing things that way by hand" for a long time so it does not bother me at all - in fact it simplifies my workflow just a little.

:o)

Steve

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

OK. It's been talked to death.

As one of the silent majority who are extremely happy with GIMP and the behavior in latest version, I vote we let this topic drop and ignore further posts on the subject.

We've heard it all, ad nauseam.

Stuart

-----Original Message----- From: gimp-user-list-bounces@gnome.org [mailto:gimp-user-list-bounces@gnome.org] On Behalf Of Ken Warner Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 3:10 PM To: Steve Kinney
Cc: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP is GREAT!

Many people do not need the default to be XCF. The people who do, are the least likely to make the mistake of not saving their work which is given as the reason for the new default behavior.

On 8/13/2012 12:49 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:

On 08/13/2012 08:12 AM, Stephen Allen wrote:

On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 09:27:36AM -0700, Archie Arevalo wrote:

More power to GIMP development and developers.

Agreed +100 One thing sure in life is constant change. If software isn't evolving then it's not improving.

If the GIMP is not evolving, it is not carrying its users forward in the direction of improved photo and graphics editing capabilities. Tools and their users co-evolve.

Some people's least favorite bit of GIMP 2.8, the new default to save as XCF, is a step in the direction of supporting rational document control for image files. I have been "doing things that way by hand" for a long time so it does not bother me at all - in fact it simplifies my workflow just a little.

:o)

Steve

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

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 4:30 AM, Rauh, Stuart wrote:

OK. It's been talked to death.

As one of the silent majority who are extremely happy with GIMP and the behavior in latest version, I vote we let this topic drop and ignore further posts on the subject.

We've heard it all, ad nauseam.

Stuart

I applaud this, but believe that unless the silent speak up at least briefly, the conversation will be dominated by those with complaints (a few of whom also lack some level of decency). One of the most powerful FUD weapons used by naysayers is always that the 'silent majority' are in support of them and just couldn't be bothered to make their complaints known.

On 08/13/2012 10:30 PM, Rauh, Stuart wrote:

As one of the silent majority who are extremely happy with GIMP and the behavior in latest version,

Hi
1) it's not because people are silent they approve...

2)I'm not complaining about Gimp, Gimp is a very good software. I'm just saying the new Gimp-2.8 behavior (concerning save and save as ) is an error. This error takes away Gimp-2.8 of the world of the professionals. It's always the professionals who pull tools upward and not amateurs... Example : Ph$$op was created for professional photographers and with professional photographers.

Regards Maderios

PS: sorry for my bad english, I'm french

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:24 PM, maderios wrote:

2)I'm not complaining about Gimp, Gimp is a very good software. I'm just saying the new Gimp-2.8 behavior (concerning save and save as ) is an error. This error takes away Gimp-2.8 of the world of the professionals.

Except professionals tend to like this change, but yeah, what do we know? :)

It's always the professionals who pull tools upward and not amateurs... Example : Ph$$op was created for professional photographers and with professional photographers.

Um, no. It wasn't :)

http://photoshopnews.com/feature-stories/photoshop-profile-thomas-john-knoll-10/

Now, what happened later is a whole different story.

PS: sorry for my bad english, I'm french

No need to be sorry about that. Your English is fine.

Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org

On 08/14/2012 01:39 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:24 PM, maderios wrote:

2)I'm not complaining about Gimp, Gimp is a very good software. I'm just saying the new Gimp-2.8 behavior (concerning save and save as ) is an error. This error takes away Gimp-2.8 of the world of the professionals.

Except professionals tend to like this change, but yeah, what do we know? :)

It's always the professionals who pull tools upward and not amateurs... Example : Ph$$op was created for professional photographers and with professional photographers.

Um, no. It wasn't :)

Hi Alexandre

Really ? In 1987, "digital photography" didn't exist... We (photographers) were using color slides, and the contrast was a big problem... Easier with negative but useless for commercial use. Then, 1990 years, some colleagues began using P$$op for editing and archiving their photos. It was the beginning.....

"Thomas renamed his program Photoshop and worked out a short-term deal with scanner manufacturer Barneyscan to distribute copies of the program with a slide scanner"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop#Early_history

Regards Maderios

PS:
I used Cinepaint in the past
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CinePaint http://www.cinepaint.org/
http://www.cinepaint.org/more/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/cinepaint/files/CinePaint/

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 7:16 PM, maderios wrote:

Hi Alexandre

Really ? In 1987, "digital photography" didn't exist... We (photographers) were using color slides, and the contrast was a big problem... Easier with negative but useless for commercial use. Then, 1990 years, some colleagues began using P$$op for editing and archiving their photos. It was the beginning.....

"Thomas renamed his program Photoshop and worked out a short-term deal with scanner manufacturer Barneyscan to distribute copies of the program with a slide scanner"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop#Early_history

Your ability to open and read WIkipedia is commendable, but I strongly suggest that you read the full history that I linked to :) Photographers weren't the reason to create Photoshop. It came next.

Now, as for GIMP, we did work with professional photographers and we are going to work with them in the future.

I understand that you are unwilling to read whatever links I throw at you, but maybe this time it's going to work? Here are raw evaluation notes from 2006 usability study:

http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/Evaluation_Notes_-_Photo_Realistic

PS:
I used Cinepaint in the past

Very well :) I just hope we are not having a "who started doing computer graphics earlier" contest 'round here. Not that I didn't have fond memories of using a light pen around 1986 :)

Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org

On 08/14/2012 05:31 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 7:16 PM, maderios wrote:

Hi Alexandre

Really ? In 1987, "digital photography" didn't exist... We (photographers) were using color slides, and the contrast was a big problem... Easier with negative but useless for commercial use. Then, 1990 years, some colleagues began using P$$op for editing and archiving their photos. It was the beginning.....

"Thomas renamed his program Photoshop and worked out a short-term deal with scanner manufacturer Barneyscan to distribute copies of the program with a slide scanner"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop#Early_history

Your ability to open and read WIkipedia is commendable, but I strongly suggest that you read the full history that I linked to :) Photographers weren't the reason to create Photoshop. It came next.

Thanks for the link
The first reason was professionnal, not amateur (like Gimp) then, soon, professional photography editing.
Recently, amateur people discovered and started using pho$$op. To improve Gimp, developpers should listen to professional people. It's a chance....

About democracy and Gnu/Linux software developpement: http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2012/08/msg00844.html

Regards Maderios

Von: Alexandre Prokoudine
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 7:16 PM, maderios wrote:

Both of you,

may I suggest that you move your private conversation to private mail? In my opinion, there's no further insight that can be gained for the other readers, although the quite civilized discussion is certainly worthwhile by itself.

Thanks, Michael

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Michael Schumacher wrote:

may I suggest that you move your private conversation to private mail?

If it was a private conversation, I wouldn't be maintaining it :)

But yes, I agree. This is just tiresome. EOT for me.

Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org

Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:24:58 +0200 From: maderios@gmail.com
To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP is GREAT!

PS: sorry for my bad english, I'm french

Don't worry about that, the worst English always comes from native speakers who are just too lazy to use even their own tongue properly :P

-- Stratadrake strata_ranger@hotmail.com
--------------------
Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth.

On 08/14/2012 07:05 PM, Michael Schumacher wrote:

Von: Alexandre Prokoudine
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 7:16 PM, maderios wrote:

Both of you,

may I suggest that you move your private conversation to private mail? In my opinion, there's no further insight that can be gained for the other readers, although the quite civilized discussion is certainly worthwhile by itself.

Hi Michael

We're talking about Gimp in the gimp-user-list. Absolutely "normal"

Best regards Maderios

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:16:24PM +0200, maderios wrote:

Hi Alexandre

Really ? In 1987, "digital photography" didn't exist... We (photographers) were using color slides, and the contrast was a big problem... Easier with negative but useless for commercial use. Then, 1990 years, some colleagues began using P$$op for editing and archiving their photos. It was the beginning.....

"Thomas renamed his program Photoshop and worked out a short-term deal with scanner manufacturer Barneyscan to distribute copies of the program with a slide scanner"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop#Early_history

It was used in the printing industry, PrePress long before Photographers started using it. That was what kept us busy in the scanning department during the late 80s & 90s.

Really Wikipedia is a great resource, however it's not definitive. If you go to about Photoshop you'll still see the Knoll name in the credits, so I'll take the originators word over Wikipedia, thank-you very much.