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 :)
> 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.
gimp-user-list mailing list