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

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

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
jeff@cjsa.com

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

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 is over -- I'll just use what I have available to me and move on. At the end of the day, it's the results we want, not details like "save vs export." I still hold my position is right but it's not worth the fight and in time, it won't be hard to get used to... except for the fact that, like another commenter, we have to use both 2.6.x and 2.8.x. (GNOME did the user community a very bad disservice when it adopted the use of GTK libraries. It seemed like a great idea at the time, but when the requirements of GNOME and GiMP differ, a problem arises which cannot be easily remedied. It's not GiMP's fault -- it's GNOME's. GNOME developers refuse to see the problem... ironically, the same developers are the ones behind Redhat Enterprise Linux which is stuck in the very same version of GNOME which prevents them from using the newest versions of GiMP. They know the cause yet refuse to fix it.)

There is no alternative to GiMP. It isn't likely to be forked over an issue like this. So after weighing the possibilities and probabilities, it should be easy to see. I hope we can all drop the controversy and move on.

Still, it would be nice if a "2.6.x behavior mode" were available.

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....

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.

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

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

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.

Daniel Hauck (daniel@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.

simon@budig.de              http://simon.budig.de/

Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 03:55:04 +0100 From: simon@budig.de
To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

Daniel Hauck (daniel@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: jeff@cjsa.com
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 23:16:40 +0000 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_ranger@hotmail.com
--------------------
Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth.

=

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

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

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

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/

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

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

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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

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 ple imitation ? (Since Photoshop is perfect, why do you want GIMP to be only a poor imitation?)

Olivier Lecarme

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

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

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 

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

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.

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

Is it time to have Import for non-xcf files?

How about * File->Open filters to *.xcf* by default; attempting to open a non-xcf file brings up a message, "myfile.jpg is not an XCF file. Would you like to import it?"
* File->Import behaves as "open as layers" today, unless the image is not dirty, in which case the first opened file replaces the background layer; Open as Layers is removed. * File->Maderios behaves as "open" but when you press Ok it uninstalls GIMP. :-)

The distinction is then that you're editing a gimp-native file, and the other image files opened and closed, loaded and exported, are like the shuttles surrounding the mother-ship.

But maybe this belongs on the brainstorm wiki or something.

Liam

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

On 02/18/2013 11:15 AM, Liam R E Quin wrote:

* File->Maderios behaves as "open" but when you press Ok it uninstalls GIMP.:-)

+1.5

* 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.org        Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
http://en.opensuse.org                           openSUSE Community Member
Registered Linux User #207535                    @ http://linuxcounter.net

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Liam R E Quin wrote:

* File->Open filters to *.xcf* by default; attempting to open a non-xcf file brings up a message, "myfile.jpg is not an XCF file. Would you like to import it?"

Current File-Open makes sense as it is, at least to me. After a CTRL-O I don't want to have to reset the filter every time, or see a dialog every time. Just treat it like an import - no need to add a dialog (this covers right-click 'Edit with GIMP' also - would we have to add another action: 'Import into GIMP' to skip the dialog? yuck.).

As for File->Import, I don't understand why it would ever replace anything - much less why the clean/dirty flag would be the toggle. Maybe I'm missing something.

Chris

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, ...

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

lmao

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Alexandre Prokoudine < alexandre.prokoudine@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

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 4:06 AM, Chris Mohler wrote:

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Liam R E Quin wrote:

* File->Open filters to *.xcf* by default; attempting to open a non-xcf file brings up a message, "myfile.jpg is not an XCF file. Would you like to import it?"

Current File-Open makes sense as it is, at least to me. After a CTRL-O I don't want to have to reset the filter every time, or see a dialog every time. Just treat it like an import - no need to add a dialog (this covers right-click 'Edit with GIMP' also - would we have to add another action: 'Import into GIMP' to skip the dialog? yuck.).

As for File->Import, I don't understand why it would ever replace anything - much less why the clean/dirty flag would be the toggle. Maybe I'm missing something.

We could end up in a scenario where Open means open as a new document, the current behavior, while import _could_ be what today is called "Open as Layer(s)" and will insert the imported file in the current composition. ;)

/

The future is already here. It's just not very evenly distributed
                                                 -- William Gibson

On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 14:06 -0600, Chris Mohler wrote:

Current File-Open makes sense as it is, at least to me.

File->Save made sense to people too.

But if GIMP is an XCF editor that can only save xcf files, being able to open non-xcf files is an obvious bug, a hole in the metaphor. It should only open xcf files. Non-GIMP files are "imported" to emphasize the data loss and that they are not primary.

As for File->Import, I don't understand why it would ever replace anything - much less why the clean/dirty flag would be the toggle. Maybe I'm missing something.

Or I wasn't clear, I think. It's not really clean vs. dirty, but whether the canvas is new and unused and empty. E.g. try this in a word processor: open the program and you get a blank canvas into which you can type right away; open a file and it replaces that blank canvas.

This is actually a separate issue from open/import really.

Liam

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

From: liam@holoweb.net
To: cr33dog@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 22:09:30 -0500 CC: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] import vs open

Or I wasn't clear, I think. It's not really clean vs. dirty, but whether the canvas is new and unused and empty. E.g. try this in a word processor: open the program and you get a blank canvas into which you can type right away; open a file and it replaces that blank canvas.

This is actually a separate issue from open/import really.

Liam

. . . which is also behavior that varies between individual products. Comparing the few word processors I have on hand, I get:

MS WordPad: Only allows one window per application instance. If you want multiple windows you have to start it multiple times. (Not a problem - lightweight, shares the system clipboard)

MS Works 4.5: MDI application that displays one child window per file opened, and never replaces one window with another. (Comparable to GIMP)

MS Word 2003: Opens a blank window by default. If no changes are made to the blank document then opening a file will replace it, otherwise it opens in a separate window.

MS Works 8: Aside from having a separate task launcher for accessing its WP, spreadsheet, etc, it has the same behavior as Word 2003.

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

On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 19:56 -0800, Richard Gitschlag wrote:

. . . which is also behavior that varies between individual products.

Right.

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

On 02/18/2013 10:09 PM, Liam R E Quin wrote:

On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 14:06 -0600, Chris Mohler wrote:

Current File-Open makes sense as it is, at least to me.

File->Save made sense to people too.

But if GIMP is an XCF editor that can only save xcf files, being able to open non-xcf files is an obvious bug, a hole in the metaphor. It should only open xcf files. Non-GIMP files are "imported" to emphasize the data loss and that they are not primary.

That was my argument as well. In fact, and I'm not sure if they fixed this yet, but in 2.8.0, when you do the Save As... you could still see image files such as JPG and PNG, just not save in those formats. And of course if you manually typed it in, it would stop and say "you can't do that."

That Save/Save As has been established since the creation of the the "standard GUI behaviors" is not relevant to the developers. "It's not professional" despite the fact that the most professional tools out there still do it this way.

In any case, #1 it's hard to care about this any more... it doesn't matter THAT much. I can still use it and I just have to remember this trifling detail every time I want to save the same JPG that I just opened. #2 it will not change. It has been stated repeatedly. They would rather end the project than change this. It's the most important detail of the whole program.

There needs to be an FAQ about GiMP which covers this topic and all arguments to date. I too say, let it go.

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           mattdm@mattdm.org          

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Daniel Hauck wrote:

There needs to be an FAQ about GiMP which covers this topic and all arguments to date. I too say, let it go.

WIP

Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org

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?

On 02/19/2013 10:59 AM, Daniel Hauck wrote:

On 02/18/2013 10:09 PM, Liam R E Quin wrote:

On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 14:06 -0600, Chris Mohler wrote:

Current File-Open makes sense as it is, at least to me.

File->Save made sense to people too.

But if GIMP is an XCF editor that can only save xcf files, being able to open non-xcf files is an obvious bug, a hole in the metaphor. It should only open xcf files. Non-GIMP files are "imported" to emphasize the data loss and that they are not primary.

That was my argument as well. In fact, and I'm not sure if they fixed this yet, but in 2.8.0, when you do the Save As... you could still see image files such as JPG and PNG, just not save in those formats. And of course if you manually typed it in, it would stop and say "you can't do that."

That Save/Save As has been established since the creation of the the "standard GUI behaviors" is not relevant to the developers. "It's not professional" despite the fact that the most professional tools out there still do it this way.

In any case, #1 it's hard to care about this any more... it doesn't matter THAT much. I can still use it and I just have to remember this

All this scares the professional users. Now, the objective of Gimp seems to stay in the fields of amateur and therefore to delegate the role of single photo$hop image editor for professionals. This is a questionable approach.... It's not a good choice. From historical point of view, these are professionals who improve the software, not the fans. Example, the "devil", Photo$hop ... Greetings

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

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Daniel Hauck wrote:

That Save/Save As has been established since the creation of the the "standard GUI behaviors" is not relevant to the developers. "It's not professional" despite the fact that the most professional tools out there still do it this way.

In a parallel universe? Maybe.

Please discuss myths elsewhere.

Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org

Now, the objective of Gimp seems to stay in the fields of amateur and therefore to delegate the role of single photo$hop image editor for professionals.

BS! I would posit that amateurs invoke DESTRUCTIVE editing techniques(because they don't know any better) while professionals do the strive for the NON-DESTRUCTIVE techniques(or should).

One of the main feature goals of Gimp is to get to a point, over the next several release versions, of non destructive editing. This save/export feature change is but one step in a series of releases to enforce this philosophy(as much as possible.) You STILL have the option of destroying the original image file, but now you are forced to provide your consent by performing an explicit "export" as opposed to the previous "open", "edit", "save" in prior versions. You may be a "professional", but even professional's are human and make mistakes. While I am not a "professional", I have made plenty of mistakes which destroyed the original image(though most of the time in a recoverable way..but not always), this new workflow totally prevents this as an accident and this is a good thing. As a potential client, knowing what I know right now, I would NEVER, EVER, EVER work with any "professional" who overwrites the original image file with his edits... no matter how good he/she thi nk they are they are human and it's a hell of a lot easier to NOT destroy the original than it is to fix it after its been damaged.

Since I and a few others have noted this previously, could you please signal that you understand the reasoning? I don't expect you to necessarily accept it to be accurately reflect your opinions on the matter or that you agree, only that you *understand*.

---- 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...)

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:34 AM, wrote:

Since I and a few others have noted this previously, could you please signal that you understand the reasoning? I don't expect you to necessarily accept it to be accurately reflect your opinions on the matter or that you agree, only that you *understand*.

I think its you who doesn't understand his reasoning. 'Professional' in maderios' dictionary is 'the way I work'.

From the start of GIMP 2.8 there are rumors about Save vs. Export. It is a change with the past, but that has happened more times by changing versions.
The first version of the GIMP that i started (i believe 1.2) came up with a single toolbox and nothing more. And i survived all the changes that came after that. To make the changes more visible for the users is it possible to add to the various Save options
in the File Menu that this will happen in XCF format? For overwriting the original file there is already the option Overwrite ......
For saving with another name the export option can be used. I hope that this suggestion stops the endless discussion about this change.

Siem Korteweg.

"s.kortenweg" writes:

From the start of GIMP 2.8 there are rumors about Save vs. Export. It is a change with the past, but that has happened more times by changing versions.
The first version of the GIMP that i started (i believe 1.2) came up with a single toolbox and nothing more.  And i survived all the changes that came after that. To make the changes more visible for the users is it possible to add to the various Save options
in the File Menu that this will happen in XCF format?

As in:

---------------------- | File |
|--------------------|
| New image |
| ... |
|--------------------|
| Save to XCF |
| Save to XCF as ... |
| ... |

?

On 20-02-13 12:55, Kevin Brubeck Unhammer wrote:

"s.kortenweg" writes:

From the start of GIMP 2.8 there are rumors about Save vs. Export. It is a change with the past, but that has happened more times by changing versions.
The first version of the GIMP that i started (i believe 1.2) came up with a single toolbox and nothing more. And i survived all the changes that came after that. To make the changes more visible for the users is it possible to add to the various Save options
in the File Menu that this will happen in XCF format?

As in:

---------------------- | File |
|--------------------|
| New image |
| ... |
|--------------------|
| Save to XCF |
| Save to XCF as ... |
| ... |

?

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

Indeed.

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           mattdm@mattdm.org          

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)

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.

/

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           mattdm@mattdm.org          

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.

/

All the arguments about encouraging/forcing users to non destructive workflow are reasonable, but there is one tiny problem. I've encountered it while cooperating with "professional users" of CorelDraw (design studios, marketing companies etc.)

Corel can understand bunch of vector-based fileformats. It can import them, it can write into them. So in theory i could prepare image in *.eps or *.svg and it can be later processed in Corel. In fact any images that was not in native CorelDraw fileformat was rejected. (Even images from Adobe Illustrator !)

Reason was simple: Corel open only it's native files (*.cdr). You can launch Corel and later import *.ai, *.svg, *.ps but You can not just navigate to such file and double click it to edit. You can't open them from command line too.
This mean that "professional corel users" were forced to THINK ... they just choose to reject Your graphics.

We can improve programs, we can create better images but we're unable to change peoples (un)thinking habbits. Please imagine what harm to trade and workflow can arise from proposed improvement of open/import behaviour.

If You really believe that this change is necessary, there should be way of avoiding disaster that happened to "Proffesional Corel Users".

Let me give some proposition: 1)Gimp always open/import any type of file, it can understand. No matter if we ask program to do so from it's menu, command line or just click file in file commander.
2) After Gomp start and examine the file there are two possibilities: a) file is an *.xcf so Gimp just open it. b) file is not *.xcf -> Gimp show the message and ask for permission to import it.

If proposed change don't stop launching Gimp and opening/importing any file just by selecting it in a file commander, than You can hope it won't do so much harm to the bussines as Corel behaviour did. All differences would be one click more and Gimp remain universal image editor.

I hope that we're not going to redefine meaning of word "professional". Corel disaster shows that new meaning of this word is: someone who have ability to reject Your work. Don't let such redefinition happen in Free Software ecosystem.

2013/2/20, s.kortenweg :

On 20-02-13 12:55, Kevin Brubeck Unhammer wrote:

"s.kortenweg" writes:

From the start of GIMP 2.8 there are rumors about Save vs. Export. It is a change with the past, but that has happened more times by changing versions.
The first version of the GIMP that i started (i believe 1.2) came up with a single toolbox and nothing more. And i survived all the changes that came after that. To make the changes more visible for the users is it possible to add to the various Save options
in the File Menu that this will happen in XCF format?

As in:

---------------------- | File |
|--------------------|
| New image |
| ... |
|--------------------|
| Save to XCF |
| Save to XCF as ... |
| ... |

?

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

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

I apologise that my last message appear as writen by s.kortenweg. Next time I'll pay more attention to what is going to be send, before i press "send button".
This bad example from Corel is my experience and i don't wish to speak for anyone else.

Dominik Tabisz

2013/2/21, Dominik Tabisz :

All the arguments about encouraging/forcing users to non destructive workflow are reasonable, but there is one tiny problem. I've encountered it while cooperating with "professional users" of CorelDraw (design studios, marketing companies etc.)

Corel can understand bunch of vector-based fileformats. It can import them, it can write into them. So in theory i could prepare image in *.eps or *.svg and it can be later processed in Corel. In fact any images that was not in native CorelDraw fileformat was rejected. (Even images from Adobe Illustrator !)

Reason was simple: Corel open only it's native files (*.cdr). You can launch Corel and later import *.ai, *.svg, *.ps but You can not just navigate to such file and double click it to edit. You can't open them from command line too.
This mean that "professional corel users" were forced to THINK ... they just choose to reject Your graphics.

We can improve programs, we can create better images but we're unable to change peoples (un)thinking habbits. Please imagine what harm to trade and workflow can arise from proposed improvement of open/import behaviour.

If You really believe that this change is necessary, there should be way of avoiding disaster that happened to "Proffesional Corel Users".

Let me give some proposition: 1)Gimp always open/import any type of file, it can understand. No matter if we ask program to do so from it's menu, command line or just click file in file commander.
2) After Gomp start and examine the file there are two possibilities: a) file is an *.xcf so Gimp just open it. b) file is not *.xcf -> Gimp show the message and ask for permission to import it.

If proposed change don't stop launching Gimp and opening/importing any file just by selecting it in a file commander, than You can hope it won't do so much harm to the bussines as Corel behaviour did. All differences would be one click more and Gimp remain universal image editor.

I hope that we're not going to redefine meaning of word "professional". Corel disaster shows that new meaning of this word is: someone who have ability to reject Your work. Don't let such redefinition happen in Free Software ecosystem.

2013/2/20, s.kortenweg :

On 20-02-13 12:55, Kevin Brubeck Unhammer wrote:

"s.kortenweg" writes:

From the start of GIMP 2.8 there are rumors about Save vs. Export. It is a change with the past, but that has happened more times by changing versions.
The first version of the GIMP that i started (i believe 1.2) came up with a single toolbox and nothing more. And i survived all the changes that came after that. To make the changes more visible for the users is it possible to add to the various Save options
in the File Menu that this will happen in XCF format?

As in:

---------------------- | File |
|--------------------|
| New image |
| ... |
|--------------------|
| Save to XCF |
| Save to XCF as ... |
| ... |

?

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

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

Dominik Tabisz

În data de Thu, 21 Feb 2013 01:33:52 +0100, Dominik Tabisz a scris:

Let me give some proposition:
1)Gimp always open/import any type of file, it can understand. No matter if we ask program to do so from it's menu, command line or just click file in file commander.

I guess this is the actual behavior. What's wrong with it ?

b) file is not *.xcf -> Gimp show the message and ask for permission to import it.

That will be extremely annoying and useless. I don't remember to have ever used the open dialog, I always drag and drop the (whatever) image. Even if the program knows for itself that this is actualy an import, why should the program stop and ask for permission ? (what would be the benefit ?) Sounds absurd. I imagine that would be just a step to take some users away from this application.

The export makes sense, in order to keep working in native format (this is one of the annoyance with OOo/LO, where after saving as MS Word for example, then the further editing remains in MS Word format instead to remain in native OpenDocument). But the import ?

Cristi

Cristian Secară
http://www.secarica.ro

Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 01:33:52 +0100 From: d.kupka1@gmail.com
To: s.kortenweg@hccnet.nl
CC: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] import vs open

We can improve programs, we can create better images but we're unable to change peoples (un)thinking habits. Please imagine what harm to trade and workflow can arise from proposed improvement of open/import behaviour.

...Speaking
of 'thinking habits', anyone want to know what change in GIMP had the biggest negative impact on my individual workflow?

Hint: It was introduced in GIMP 2.4 .

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

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Richard Gitschlag wrote:

...Speaking of 'thinking habits', anyone want to know what change in GIMP had the biggest negative impact on my individual workflow?

Hint: It was introduced in GIMP 2.4 .

If you said "2.6", I'd assume it was removing the menu from the toolbox :)

Can't say for 2.4.

Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org

Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 22:23:47 +0400 From: alexandre.prokoudine@gmail.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] import vs open

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Richard Gitschlag wrote:

...Speaking of 'thinking habits', anyone want to know what change in GIMP had the biggest negative impact on my individual workflow?

Hint: It was introduced in GIMP 2.4 .

If you said "2.6", I'd assume it was removing the menu from the toolbox :)

Can't say for 2.4.

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

Actually 2.6's window management (i.e. the 'empty window') was a very positive thing for me.

The change I'm thinking of was technically very minor, but the ramifications from it were huge.

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