On 09/12/2012 01:52 AM, Ofnuts wrote:
On 09/11/2012 08:38 AM, maderios wrote:
Hi
I'm not developper but I think it is certainly possible to give the
choice in the configuration.
Yes, but it's a bad idea. Having all the people using more or less the
same Gimp is beneficial. The same tutorials
maderios (mader...@gmail.com) wrote:
May be but you have already the choice with window-single mode or
not. Then you open edit - preferences and here, incredible thing,
you can discover about thousand settings ! I joke, you know that.
True, we know that we have way too many configuration
On Tuesday 11 September 2012 07:23:34 Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* maderios mader...@gmail.com [09-11-12 06:15]:
...
It's really very simple:
Photoshop / Saving images
Save a file
Use the Save command to save changes to the current file or the Save As
command to save changes to a
On 09/12/2012 10:16 AM, Simon Budig wrote:
maderios (mader...@gmail.com) wrote:
May be but you have already the choice with window-single mode or
not. Then you open edit - preferences and here, incredible thing,
you can discover about thousand settings ! I joke, you know that.
True, we know
maderios, please, please just accept that it will not happen. This has
been discussed at great length, and it will not change.
On 12/09/2012 10:55, maderios wrote:
On 09/12/2012 10:16 AM, Simon Budig wrote:
maderios (mader...@gmail.com) wrote:
May be but you have already the choice with
maderios (mader...@gmail.com) wrote:
True, we know that we have way too many configuration settings.
Unfortunately adding to these doesn't help with this problem.
I don't understand. What's the problem ? You can keep a default conf
or change a few things, or change many things...
This is
On Sep 12, 2012 5:56 PM, maderios mader...@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/12/2012 10:16 AM, Simon Budig wrote:
maderios (mader...@gmail.com) wrote:
May be but you have already the choice with window-single mode or
not. Then you open edit - preferences and here, incredible thing,
you can discover
On 09/10/2012 07:09 PM, Simon Budig wrote:
Ken Warner (kwarner...@verizon.net) wrote:
And your insistence that your design decisions are right even while
the user community tells you otherwise is strictly amateur.
See, here you're disregarding my assertion that we got a lot of positive
On 09/10/2012 11:30 PM, Daniel Hauck wrote:
I too have ranted about this topic. Not to get into it again, I would
like to point out a couple of things:
1. This change doesn't remove functionality. It only moves it.
The problem is that gimp arbitrarily separates the types of files: .xcf
and
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:52 AM, maderios wrote:
1. This change doesn't remove functionality. It only moves it.
The problem is that gimp arbitrarily separates the types of files
Not arbitrarily, but on purpose and by design.
May I ask why you keep making incorrect statements for which you
On 09/11/2012 09:01 AM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
May I ask why you keep making incorrect statements for which you
apologize later anyway?
Hi
Reread what I wrote above. Do not distort what I meant. Thanks...
Greetings
--
Maderios
___
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:11 AM, maderios wrote:
Reread what I wrote above. Do not distort what I meant. Thanks...
Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word arbitrary?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary
The distinction isn't arbitrary. It's a design decision.
On 09/11/2012 09:29 AM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:11 AM, maderios wrote:
Reread what I wrote above. Do not distort what I meant. Thanks...
Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word arbitrary?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary
maderios schreef op di 11-09-2012 om 08:52 [+0200]:
1. This change doesn't remove functionality. It only moves it.
The problem is that gimp arbitrarily separates the types of files: .xcf
and others. This does not happen like this in the work. We work
indifferently on all file types.
Maybe
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Maarten De Munck wrote:
If you are really really annoyed by this behaviour, use 2.6, start a
fork, ask/pay someone to start a fork for you, use another image
editor, ...,
No need to. There already is a fork.
https://github.com/mskala/noxcf-gimp
Alexandre
On 09/11/2012 11:45 AM, Maarten De Munck wrote:
maderios schreef op di 11-09-2012 om 08:52 [+0200]:
1. This change doesn't remove functionality. It only moves it.
The problem is that gimp arbitrarily separates the types of files: .xcf
and others. This does not happen like this in the work. We
On 09/11/2012 05:05 AM, Daniel Hauck wrote:
On 09/11/2012 04:25 AM, Steve Kinney wrote:
My word processor responds to control-s by saving the open
document in its own native format, which does not happen to be
suitable for distribution to end users. [etc]
Which word processor might that be?
On 09/11/2012 11:49 AM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Maarten De Munck wrote:
If you are really really annoyed by this behaviour, use 2.6, start a
fork, ask/pay someone to start a fork for you, use another image
editor, ...,
No need to. There already is a fork.
* maderios mader...@gmail.com [09-11-12 06:15]:
...
It's really very simple:
Photoshop / Saving images
Save a file
Use the Save command to save changes to the current file or the Save As
command to save changes to a different file.
That's good news! I wish that effort all success.
On 9/11/2012 2:49 AM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Maarten De Munck wrote:
If you are really really annoyed by this behaviour, use 2.6, start a
fork, ask/pay someone to start a fork for you, use another image
On 09/11/2012 08:38 AM, maderios wrote:
Hi
I'm not developper but I think it is certainly possible to give the
choice in the configuration.
Yes, but it's a bad idea. Having all the people using more or less the
same Gimp is beneficial. The same tutorials work everywhere, and the
people
The obvious design that satisfies both groups has been offered several times
and has been derided as --- I don't know why, although numerous attempts to
justify the current design has been proffered.
On 9/11/2012 4:52 PM, Ofnuts wrote:
On 09/11/2012 08:38 AM, maderios wrote:
Hi
I'm not
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 18:50:54 -0700
From: kwarner...@verizon.net
To: ofn...@laposte.net
CC: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] About bad new save export function in Gimp-2.8
The obvious design that satisfies both groups has been offered several times
and has been
Hi
State of mind ... I am willing to change things if it is an improvement
but if the change causes a regression, I do not see the point unless I
was masochistic.
For people to understand: I spent a lot of time experimenting on my
Linux system new programs, new functions, with bugs. It was
maderios (mader...@gmail.com) wrote:
Developers gentlemen, thank you for listening to the users who
actually use Gimp to work. Listen to their needs. Practice, there is
all that counts and not the theoretical ideas completely divorced
from reality.
We got a lot of negative feedback,
On 09/10/2012 06:19 PM, Simon Budig wrote:
maderios (mader...@gmail.com) wrote:
Developers gentlemen, thank you for listening to the users who
actually use Gimp to work. Listen to their needs. Practice, there is
all that counts and not the theoretical ideas completely divorced
from reality.
maderios (mader...@gmail.com) wrote:
Because you're not dealing with reality. This is the problem of
amateurs who create software professional vocation.
See? This is what I was referring to.
Bye,
Simon
--
si...@budig.de http://simon.budig.de/
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 8:27 PM, maderios wrote:
On 09/10/2012 06:19 PM, Simon Budig wrote:
We got a lot of negative feedback, unfortunately most of it was
incoherent write-only-rambling, which makes it hard to listen to. If
you're masochistic, go to the gimp-devel archives and read the
On 09/10/2012 06:32 PM, Simon Budig wrote:
maderios (mader...@gmail.com) wrote:
Because you're not dealing with reality. This is the problem of
amateurs who create software professional vocation.
See? This is what I was referring to.
Historically, tools and software are improved by
Just because the English doesn't meet your standards doesn't mean the viewpoint
is invalid. And maybe your refusal to see the thought in the message is the
root of the discord.
On 9/10/2012 9:32 AM, Simon Budig wrote:
maderios (mader...@gmail.com) wrote:
Because you're not dealing with
Ken Warner (kwarner...@verizon.net) wrote:
And your insistence that your design decisions are right even while
the user community tells you otherwise is strictly amateur.
See, here you're disregarding my assertion that we got a lot of positive
feedback, Alexandre even pointed to a small part of
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Ken Warner kwarner...@verizon.net wrote:
You know, like Forest Gump says [paraphrased] Amateur is as amateur does.
And your insistence that your design decisions are right even while the user
community tells you otherwise is strictly amateur.
And your
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Bruno wrote:
I wonder, who gave you credentials to speak in the name of the
community?
Bruno,
We are dealing with the it stands to reason kind of logic. It isn't
possible to argue against it. You can laugh at it, or you can ignore
it. That's pretty much all
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 21:15:08 +0400, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Bruno wrote:
I wonder, who gave
you credentials to speak in the name of the community?
Bruno,
We are dealing with the it stands to reason kind of logic. It
isn't
possible to argue
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Alexandre Prokoudine
alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com wrote:
We just did something some people don't like. Therefore for them the
rest doesn't matter and probably doesn't even exist. Hence all the
talks about reaility.
'Probably doesn't even exist' is probably
35 matches
Mail list logo
