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 :)

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

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.

gimp-user-list mailing list

Reply via email to