Sorry to pipe in here. I hope I am the only "list responder." I'm
against the behavior, but I'm MORE against further discussion of it.
So please, if you would like to respond to this comment, let's not
clutter the list any further. I hope the FAQ regarding this and other
topics arrives soon so we can simply refer to it without have another
long and ugly discussion.
(But I guess I never said I appreciate GiMP... I do. I teach it to
others on a regular basis. So I hope no one has ever gotten the
impression I don't love GiMP.)
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 21:58 +0100, pbft wrote:
> Wow. I decided to see if this was an issue for anyone else - I guess it is. I
> think I pretty well understand the arguments on both sides, and I have to say
> that I hope one of the many reasonable solutions proposed here is implemented.
> There really are legitimately different uses of the tool, and a 'one size fits
> all' approach seems needlessly restrictive.
> I've been a Gimp user for a long time. Some of what I do is complex and takes
> advantage of all the goodness of XCF, but the vast majority is very simple:
> 1) Open a JPG file
> 2) Make some minor edits (usually cropping, rotation, and/or color level
> 3) Save that same JPG
> In my case I already have an automated workflow that saved the original as a
> write-only on a different disk, so I really don't care about any of the issues
> or benefits of XCF for these particular files - I can revert to the original
> any time, and my changes are simple. I just need to make edits on a few
> JPGs with the least possible effort. As well described WAY earlier, the change
> dramatically increases the complexity of this particular task.
> The Gimp developer answer seems to be that I am not worthy of a tool so
> as Gimp, and I should find and learn some lesser tool better suited to my
> plebeian needs. Really? I hope cooler heads prevail.
gimp-user-list mailing list