On Thursday 20 December 2007 2:20:36 pm JC Dill wrote:

> >>> Is there any way to restore the Alt key to its old usage
> >>> in 2.4? I can't drag selections anymore because it
> >>> requires Alt and mouse at the same time, which is a
> >>> problem on Linux. How do I tell Gimp to use another
> >>> shift-type key for that action?
> >>
> >> The behavior and use of the Alt key changed between 2.2 and
> >> 2.4, without providing any way for users to select or
> >> configure the older behavior in Gimp.  That is showing
> >> disregard for your established user base.
> >
> > You already said you are not among that user base, "I'm a
> > typical 'potential Gimp user'". Why are you acting all hurt
> > over this change; it doesn't affect you?
> Oh, but it does.  If you do this type of thing now (and don't
> see anything wrong with it), you can be expected to do it
> again.  If I start with Gimp now, at some point I'll be urged
> to upgrade to take advantage of new features, but then
> discover that you changed how the program works - that old
> workflows no longer work in the same way.

So what? Program interfaces do change. Even Photoshop's:

"November 6, 2007 1:12 PM PST
Brace yourself for Adobe's Photoshop overhaul
Posted by Stephen Shankland

"Adobe Systems wants to transform its flagship Photoshop software 
with an interface customized to the task at hand, a potentially 
radical revamp for software whose power today is hidden behind 
hundreds of menu options.

"A new user interface will help Photoshop become 'everything you 
need, nothing you don't,' said Photoshop product manager John 
Nack, describing aspirations for the Photoshop overhaul on his 
blog Monday...

"A new Photoshop approach could let new users get started faster, 
help Adobe phase out old features..."

Phase out old features? Change the user interface? They are 
talking about doing all of this without breaking current work 
flows, but I doubt they will be able to achieve that. And the 
changes they want to make are not small, incremental changes. 
They are talking about sweeping, radical changes to the user 
interface. They are also talking about making it a modular 
program, meaning you purchase it in pieces, making it more 
expensive than it already is.

Instead of focusing your energy criticizing a program you don't 
even use, you'd better give your input to the company behind the 
tool you already rely on before it's too late. I'm sure they'd be 
happy to put you in direct contact with the developers 
responsible for implementing the new user interface, whoever 
they are.

> >> you should provide a way (within the software itself) for
> >> the user to configure the older behavior... This is basic
> >> backwards compatibility.
> >
> > Backward compatibility is not the holy grail of interface
> > design.
> Are you an interface designer, or a programmer?
> > If it were, we would all still be using the command-line...
> The command line still works - and breaking command line
> programs when an OS is upgraded is one of the biggest problems
> with OS upgrades.  You can put new features over the old (e.g.
> add a GUI over a command line interface), but you shouldn't
> break old features or old commands when you do that.

Unless you have a good reason... The GIMP developers had a good 
reason for changing GIMP's behavior as has been explained to 
you. And the changes to the GIMP's interface are not radical. 
They are incremental and relatively easy to adapt to.

> >> The fact that few outside the programmer community
> >> use Gimp
> >
> > I don't think this is a given.
> I assert that it's is quite obviously a given - based on the
> lack of widespread adoption of this program and continued
> strong sales for a similar program that costs hundreds of
> dollars.  

There is no obvious connection between lack of widespread 
adoption and a high percentage of programmer users. You haven't 
provided anything to back up this claim other than "because I say 

> Why would people be buying Photoshop if Gimp were 
> "just as good" and "just as easy to use"?

Simple. They are unaware of the alternatives available to them.

> > I, for one, am not a programmer.
> > There is a thriving non-programmer GIMP user community forum
> > at http://gimptalk.com/. GIMP's user base may not be as
> > large as Photoshop's, but it is not a given that it is
> > largely programmers using it. I also personally know at
> > least two professional photographers (they make their living
> > doing photography) who use GIMP for all their digital image
> > processing who are not programmers, either. I had a
> > conversation with one of them less than a month ago. He said
> > that GIMP provides all the necessary tools a professional
> > photographer needs.
> I don't know of any professional photographer who doesn't use
> Actions. You can't "record an action" in Gimp - you have to
> program it.  This makes it much harder to use for
> non-programmers, and makes it impossible to use Photoshop
> Actions recorded by others.

I don't find it hard to use. And GIMP script-fu's are just as 
impossible for PS users to use. So what?

> I do know some photographers who use Gimp - they are all
> programmers, all happy to spend their time fiddling with the
> programming aspects rather than having the tool do the hard
> work (actions) while they do the creative work (creative
> edits).

Maybe the ones you know are all programmers; the ones I know are 
not. And they apparently still get their work done. Hmmm... how 
DO they do it?

> > You say:
> >> it's not suitable for a non-programmer...
> >
> > And then:
> >> Try taking any
> >> PS tutorial (especially one about programming an action)
> >> and applying to to Gimp.  This is impossible for most
> >> users!  So those resources aren't available to Gimp users.
> >
> > Without dwelling on the obvious contradiction in your
> > remarks,
> There is no contradiction.

No, not if you ignore "[GIMP is] not suitable for a 
non-programmer" and then use the example of programming 
Photoshop to support your point.

> > GIMP does not attempt to clone Photoshop. I would not expect
> > macros written for any program to work in any other that was
> > not intended to clone that product.
> I'm talking about following the concept of creating an action,
> following the ideas in the tutorial.  The concept of "here is
> a way to do a thing" and "here is a way to program your
> software to do this thing over and over automagically" is not
> new in image editing software.  Many methods of how to "do a
> thing" in PS and Gimp are similar (e.g. how to use a given
> editing tool such as a paintbrush or eraser), but the method
> for doing something over and over is fast and easy in PS
> (record an action) and laborious and complicated in Gimp
> (script-fu).

And again:
> >  But if you insist, your argument
> > could as easily be turned around and applied to making PS do
> > what a tutorial or macro does in GIMP. Would it be easy to
> > achieve the same results in PS without significantly
> > reworking the examples? Probably not. Should we heap shame
> > on PS for its poor compatibility with GIMP solutions? I
> > don't think so.
> I was speaking about the volume of support - there are many
> tutorials for PS users - there are few equivalent tutorials
> for Gimp users.

You haven't looked in the right places. There are many 
available... too many to have time to read them all.

> >> You can learn from my feedback, or you can attack the
> >> messenger again, as you wish.
> >
> > Or, we can also point out the flaws in your argument.
> Which you failed to do.  So are you going to learn from my
> feedback, or continue to attack the messenger?

I didn't attack you... yet. You, on the other hand, ARE attacking 
others here: "And why on Earth would you not at least display 
the actual ratio as the user works? Changing that (as compared 
to 2.2 which DOES display the current ratio) was just nuts, 

"What should the fact that you thought that was a sensible way of 
doing it make me think about you?"

You don't use the GIMP. You attack the developers and attempt to 
shame anyone here who might attack you, "the messenger". You 
waste other's time. What should all of that make us think about 

It leads me to conclude you are a troll with nothing better to 
do. It leads me to think of you as a jerk.

> >  What tools
> > does Photoshop provide to professional photographers that is
> > not only lacking in GIMP, but that have escaped the notice
> > of my professional photographer acquaintances?
> Perhaps you haven't been reading very carefully as I've
> already told you the #1 stopper - Gimp has no way to "record"
> a series of edits and then apply that same series of edits to
> other images.  In Photoshop, this is an Action.  In Gimp you
> can't "record" while doing the edits, you have to program what
> you want in script-fu and the methods for doing this are not
> nearly as simple, obvious, intuitive as recording an action. 
> This is a UI design flaw.

That's your killer feature? Then, by all means, stick with 
Photoshop. It obviously so outshines anything as pitiful as the 
GIMP that deigning to spend your time here instead of creating 
wonderful images in the only program that matters is unworthy of 
your effort.
Linux user #: 246504
Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to