Having followed the discussions on the GIMP usability changes for some
weeks now, what I am missing most is a direct comparison of arguments.
Therefore let's consolidate the consensus and the arguments pro and
contra "Making the new open/save/export behavior of GIMP 2.8 optional"
by giving argument abstracts and links to good arguments, i.e. giving
If there is a good argument, you don't have to fully repeat it, just
give a short link and a short abstract (especially if the argument is
too bloated or its core is hard to recognize).
This is the consensus so far (correct me if I am wrong):
There is no "the user". There are all kinds of folks with different
On the one hand, there are "heavy-weight workflows". The main
characteristic of this kind of workflow is the requirement of closing
and re-opening one "high quality" working copy, and tasks like
saving/exporting frequently as both JPEG and XCF, exporting JPEGs for
comparisons, possibility to go back and alter steps throughout the whole
workflow. The most important aspects of this kind of workflow is
preserving image quality and preserving flexibility."
On the other hand, there are "lightweight workflows". The main
characteristic of this kind of workflow is that there is no need for
closing and re-opening the image. The most important aspect of this kind
of workflow is efficiency.
The following are the arguments I found so far. Everybody is invited to
replace weak arguments by stronger ones or to add missing arguments
--just don't forget to give references.
* Abstract: "The previous file open/save/export behavior met the needs
of all users."
* Abstract: "If the Save/Export separation would be the default setting
and could be disabled, then every GIMP user could be happy. The
"heavy-weight workflow" users just leave the default setting enabled,
and the "lightweight workflow" users disable it at their own risk."
* Abstract: "There is no convincing argument so far to _not_ make this
separation optional. It not even seems complicated to implement a switch
for this behavior on the technical level."
* Abstract: "A GIMP fork because of such a little change that can be
made optional makes no sense."
* Abstract: "No."
* Abstract: "Users who don't like the new open/save/export behavior can
use another software than GIMP."
* Abstract: "Open-source software is a meritocracy, not a democracy.
Users who do not implement, should not complain. Stating and explaining
opinions is no merit."
* Abstract: "The PRO arguments only reflect the opinion of a few.
Therefore this is not important."
* Abstract: "Everything convincing has been said elsewhere."
* Abstract: "not the often touted ‘prosumer photo jpeg–to–jpeg’
workflow, because for complying with the GIMP product vision there is no
need for optimising this"
Of course, the mere count of links doesn't say anything. Therefore the
argument abstracts should be preferred.
If it appears too circumstantial even to give a link to a good argument,
this is a direct contradiction to the "everything convincing has been
said elsewhere" argument.
A good starting point for finding arguments is the GIMP mailing list
- or Google ("needle finder") --try it with the
gimp-user-list mailing list