Sign up now! · Forgot password?
RSS/Atom feed identi.ca Twitter

Thank you developers, for your patience.

This discussion is connected to the gimp-user-list.gnome.org mailing list which is provided by the GIMP developers and not related to gimpusers.com.

24 of 26 messages available
Toggle history

Please log in to manage your subscriptions.

Thank you developers, for your patience. Dave Helgert 01 Jul 09:55
  Thank you developers, for your patience. Johannes 01 Jul 10:24
   Thank you developers, for your patience. Alexandre Prokoudine 01 Jul 10:27
    Thank you developers, for your patience. Johannes 01 Jul 10:59
     Thank you developers, for your patience. Alexandre Prokoudine 01 Jul 11:01
   Thank you developers, for your patience. Bob Long 01 Jul 23:22
    Thank you developers, for your patience. Johannes 02 Jul 05:02
     Thank you developers, for your patience. Patrick Shanahan 02 Jul 12:52
Thank you developers, for your patience. Alexandre Prokoudine 01 Jul 15:15
Thank you developers, for your patience. Alexandre Prokoudine 01 Jul 16:36
  Thank you developers, for your patience. Francesco Scaglioni 01 Jul 17:04
  Thank you developers, for your patience. Daniel Smith 02 Jul 13:20
   Thank you developers, for your patience. Oon-Ee Ng 02 Jul 13:51
   Thank you developers, for your patience. Alexandre Prokoudine 02 Jul 14:18
    Thank you developers, for your patience. Richard Gitschlag 02 Jul 14:40
     Thank you developers, for your patience. Alexandre Prokoudine 02 Jul 14:51
    Thank you developers, for your patience. Marco Ciampa 02 Jul 15:01
     Thank you developers, for your patience. eduperez 05 Jul 10:23
      Thank you developers, for your patience. bruno@buys.net.br 05 Jul 13:51
      Thank you developers, for your patience. Ken Warner 05 Jul 16:34
      Thank you developers, for your patience. Johannes 05 Jul 17:56
      Thank you developers, for your patience. Johannes 05 Jul 22:09
      Thank you developers, for your patience. Liam R E Quin 05 Jul 23:21
       Thank you developers, for your patience. Richard Gitschlag 06 Jul 14:31
20120701144339.GA3592@penne... 02 Jul 14:41
20120701160905.GA32085@penn... 02 Jul 14:41
Dave Helgert
2012-07-01 09:55:14 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Thank you developers, for your patience.

Thank you developers for your patience and hard work. I've heard far too much bashing of the save/export change. Change is just too had and scary for some it seems. I have been one of the silent masses for far too long.

I am one who has said nothing till now, but I greatly appreciate the new save/export features of Gimp. It simplifies my workflow greatly as I often save/export as both jpg and xcf. I realized the benefits of saving to xcf the hard way and now save important steps as hidden layers so I can always go back and tweak things. I also export jpgs for comparisons along the way and now it's all easier.

Thanks again. Dave H

☞☞ ✍✉ ☜☜
✶⋘ ℉ℝ℺ℳ ⋙✶
☠⊰ ⅅÅ℣ℇ ⊱☠™

Johannes
2012-07-01 10:24:14 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Thank you developers, for your patience.

Am 01.07.2012 11:55, schrieb Dave Helgert:

I greatly appreciate the new save/export features of Gimp. It simplifies my workflow greatly as I often save/export as both jpg and xcf. I realized the benefits of saving to xcf the hard way and now save important steps as hidden layers so I can always go back and tweak things. I also export jpgs for comparisons along the way and now it's all easier.

Yes, it's great for heavy-weight(!) workflows (i.e. "often saving/exporting as both jpg and xcf", "exporting jpgs for comparisons along the way", requirement of the possibility to "always go back and tweak things").

But it is annoying for straightforward light-weight(!) workflows: Open a JPEG, manipulate it, save it.

This is the key problem.

Therefore I suggest to make the new "fool proof" workflow optional, so everybody can be happy.

Alexandre Prokoudine
2012-07-01 10:27:00 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Thank you developers, for your patience.

On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Johannes wrote:

Therefore I suggest to make the new "fool proof" workflow optional, so everybody can be happy.

This has been suggested before. The answer was "no" ever time and won't become a "yes" no matter how actively you keep pushing.

Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org

Johannes
2012-07-01 10:59:10 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Thank you developers, for your patience.

Am 01.07.2012 12:27, schrieb Alexandre Prokoudine:

On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Johannes wrote:

Therefore I suggest to make the new "fool proof" workflow optional, so everybody can be happy.

This has been suggested before. The answer was "no" ever time and won't become a "yes" no matter how actively you keep pushing.

If the "no's" you mentioned have been lacking arguments like this "no", then it's not surprising that the community keeps pushing.

Ignorance cannot be the solution.

Alexandre Prokoudine
2012-07-01 11:01:55 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Thank you developers, for your patience.

On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Johannes wrote:

If the "no's" you mentioned have been lacking arguments like this "no", then it's not surprising that the community keeps pushing.

First of all, the community isn't pushing. You are not the community, nor few dozens of people are.

Also, it _was_ explained in great many details.

Ignorance cannot be the solution.

You lost me there.

Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org

Alexandre Prokoudine
2012-07-01 15:15:24 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Thank you developers, for your patience.

On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 6:43 PM, houghi wrote:

If the "no's" you mentioned have been lacking arguments like this "no", then it's not surprising that the community keeps pushing.

First of all, the community isn't pushing. You are not the community, nor few dozens of people are.

So how many would make it a yes?

It doesn't even matter.

Just curious. I have more often seen that developers said no and when asked, it was becuse the majority was not against it and they calculated the silent majority as well.

I've no idea what developers you are talking about, but that weren't GIMP developers.

Also often the amount of peope should not be a reason. The reason should more often be reasoning.

Exactly

Also, it _was_ explained in great many details.

Do you have a pointer? ie a URL with all the information and explanation about why and/or why not.

Apart from http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/Save_%2B_export_specification ? No.

Maybe it would make sense compiling all replies from Peter and other folks into another wiki page, but personally I don't feel like going through the whole discussion again to pick useful bits.

Also I would be interested in knowing if the default can be changed easily. e.g. I always work with jpg files.

It can't.

As is with communities, you need to do the explanation more then once or provide where it can be found.

I've already done the explanation more than once. What's your point?

Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org

Alexandre Prokoudine
2012-07-01 16:36:11 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Thank you developers, for your patience.

On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 8:09 PM, houghi wrote:

Also I would be interested in knowing if the default can be changed easily. e.g. I always work with jpg files.

It can't.

Well, that seriously sucks. From how I read it, it is because of what GIMP wants, not what the user wants.

This is the core of your delusion.

There is no "the user". There are all kinds of folks with different habits, workflows and past experience of using similar software.

Six years ago we decided that we will be catering to the needs of professionals. The new save/export separation is one of the outcomes of that decision. We've already seen that target audience likes this change. It means we did it right.

Yes, it comes with the cost of parting with some of the existing users. There is nothing horrible about it. It happens all the time. There are other apps people can use. There's no need to turn this into a drama.

Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org

Francesco Scaglioni
2012-07-01 17:04:56 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Thank you developers, for your patience.

Hi,

I have been using GIMP for more years than I care to remember. I don't have the knowhow to contribute anything of value to the project (and probably wouldn't have either the dedication or time if I did) but both single window mode and the export process have both made things far better. I am extremely greatfull to the developers and thank them all.

F

--- (Apologies for brevity, top posting and poor citation - this email was sent from a mobile device) ---

-----Original Message----- From: Alexandre Prokoudine
Sender:
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 20:36:11
To:
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Thank you developers, for your patience.

On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 8:09 PM, houghi wrote:

Also I would be interested in knowing if the default can be changed easily. e.g. I always work with jpg files.

It can't.

Well, that seriously sucks. From how I read it, it is because of what GIMP wants, not what the user wants.

This is the core of your delusion.

There is no "the user". There are all kinds of folks with different habits, workflows and past experience of using similar software.

Six years ago we decided that we will be catering to the needs of professionals. The new save/export separation is one of the outcomes of that decision. We've already seen that target audience likes this change. It means we did it right.

Yes, it comes with the cost of parting with some of the existing users. There is nothing horrible about it. It happens all the time. There are other apps people can use. There's no need to turn this into a drama.

Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org

Bob Long
2012-07-01 23:22:44 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Thank you developers, for your patience.

Johannes wrote,

Am 01.07.2012 11:55, schrieb Dave Helgert:

I greatly appreciate the new save/export features of Gimp. It simplifies my workflow greatly as I often save/export as both jpg and xcf. I realized the benefits of saving to xcf the hard way and now save important steps as hidden layers so I can always go back and tweak things. I also export jpgs for comparisons along the way and now it's all easier.

Yes, it's great for heavy-weight(!) workflows (i.e. "often saving/exporting as both jpg and xcf", "exporting jpgs for comparisons along the way", requirement of the possibility to "always go back and tweak things").

But it is annoying for straightforward light-weight(!) workflows: Open a JPEG, manipulate it, save it.

[..]

I'm a light-weight user (Windows). The most common process I do is:

Drag a BMP image into GIMP. Crop using fixed aspect ratio - very handy for my purposes. Scale image.
File|Overwrite
Exit (close without saving).

I'm not negating the fact that others don't like the new process, but this is easy for me, and a simple change from the previous process.

So just another "thanks to the developers"!

Johannes
2012-07-02 05:02:57 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Thank you developers, for your patience.

Am 02.07.2012 01:22, schrieb Bob Long:

I'm a light-weight user (Windows). The most common process I do is:

Drag a BMP image into GIMP. Crop using fixed aspect ratio - very handy for my purposes. Scale image.
File|Overwrite
Exit (close without saving).

I'm not negating the fact that others don't like the new process, but this is easy for me, and a simple change from the previous process.

I can live with the new process, too. The only thing I am missing is to do the "Exit (close without saving)" step directly (after having overwritten the original BMP/JPEG/PNG/whatever).

At the moment, "Exit (close without saving)" is a "two-step" step: Close -> Close without saving

Or is there a shortcut I am not aware of?

Thanks to the developers for the great work (before and after v2.6.x)!

Patrick Shanahan
2012-07-02 12:52:16 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Thank you developers, for your patience.

* Johannes [01-01-70 12:34]:

I can live with the new process, too. The only thing I am missing is to do the "Exit (close without saving)" step directly (after having overwritten the original BMP/JPEG/PNG/whatever).

At the moment, "Exit (close without saving)" is a "two-step" step: Close -> Close without saving

Or is there a shortcut I am not aware of?

Daniel Smith
2012-07-02 13:20:50 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Thank you developers, for your patience.

I've been reading a lot of these down the nose "developer vs user" emails for what seems like a year now? And it strikes me how much this I guess is really a possible byproduct of open source development, though I think there are many OS packages, Red Hat, Ubuntu etc that are committed to "customer satisfaction" and retainment.

But some of the things you say, Alexandre, you seem to have gotten a giant head from being like the sole spokesperson for Gimp. I'm sure it's a tiring and thankless role. Sure seems like it. I was just reading through this list and actually laughed out loud, considering if one called Adobe cust service department and they started out with:

This is the core of your delusion.

That's one of the things you get with paying for software, being treated like a person. Even if they are the evil empire and are all in it for the money.
A lot of these lists have been about past users and keeping them vs. not. I'm pretty sure a lot of people have read this stuff and decided against. But like you said, that's ok too!
Thank for the laughs.

:)

Dan

Oon-Ee Ng
2012-07-02 13:51:33 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Thank you developers, for your patience.

On Jul 2, 2012 9:21 PM, "Daniel Smith" wrote:

I've been reading a lot of these down the nose "developer vs user" emails for what seems like a year now? And it strikes me how much this I guess is really a possible byproduct of open source development, though I think there are many OS packages, Red Hat, Ubuntu etc that are committed to "customer satisfaction" and retainment.

But some of the things you say, Alexandre, you seem to have gotten a giant head from being like the sole spokesperson for Gimp. I'm sure it's a tiring and thankless role. Sure seems like it. I was just reading through this list and actually laughed out loud, considering if one called Adobe cust service department and they started out with:

This is the core of your delusion.

That's one of the things you get with paying for software, being treated like a person. Even if they are the evil empire and are all in it for the money.
A lot of these lists have been about past users and keeping them vs. not. I'm pretty sure a lot of people have read this stuff and decided against. But like you said, that's ok too!
Thank for the laughs.

:)

Dan

s/person/customer

Of course, I understand how some people actually like the world revolving around that, but open source is probably the greatest meritocracy existing today. It should stay that way, no matter how many snide emails detractors come up with.

Alexandre Prokoudine
2012-07-02 14:18:00 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Thank you developers, for your patience.

On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Daniel Smith wrote:

I've been reading a lot of these down the nose "developer vs user" emails for what seems like a year now? And it strikes me how much this I guess is really a possible byproduct of open source development, though I think there are many OS packages, Red Hat, Ubuntu etc that are committed to "customer satisfaction" and retainment.

But some of the things you say, Alexandre, you seem to have gotten a giant head from being like the sole spokesperson for Gimp. I'm sure it's a tiring and thankless role. Sure seems like it. I was just reading through this list and actually laughed out loud, considering if one called Adobe cust service department and they started out with:

This is the core of your delusion.

That's one of the things you get with paying for software, being treated like a person. Even if they are the evil empire and are all in it for the money.

Well, first of all, I don't think I'm handling this extraordinarily well. So yes, there's room for improvement.

OTOH, communication between vendors and users in commercial companies rarely smells of roses. So it's not all that typical for open source projects.

What I've learned is that no matter how patiently you explain things or how carefully you choose words, someone somewhere will always get things utterly wrong, overreact and annoy.

Over last two months I've heard quite a few amazing misconceptions with "Im sorry to say this, but it smells like lets force our users into our internal format nobody was really using." being an obvious winner in the humour contest and "I hope the XCF format dies" getting a well-deserved 2nd place.

(For the record, we've always been against the use of XCF by 3rd party apps, and Adobe takes the same position with regards to PSD. Also, we too want the existing XCF to die, just for different reasons.)

Finally, what you are percieving as "down the nose emails" are basically attempts to bring some sense into the discussion that isn't supposed to be happening anyway, given the already explained status quo, which is: we will neither revert, nor make it optional".

Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org

gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Richard Gitschlag
2012-07-02 14:40:55 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Thank you developers, for your patience.

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 18:18:00 +0400 From: alexandre.prokoudine@gmail.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Thank you developers, for your patience.

...the discussion that isn't supposed to be happening anyway, given the

already explained status quo, which is: we will neither revert, nor make it optional".

The "not make it an option" part is the part I just don't get.

Don't bother explaining, I just ... don't ... "get" it. (Or maybe I do and just fundamentally disagree.)

-- Stratadrake strata_ranger@hotmail.com
--------------------
Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth.

Alexandre Prokoudine
2012-07-02 14:51:07 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Thank you developers, for your patience.

On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Richard Gitschlag wrote:

...the discussion that isn't supposed to be happening anyway, given the

already explained status quo, which is: we will neither revert, nor make it optional".

The "not make it an option" part is the part I just don't get.

Don't bother explaining, I just ... don't ... "get" it. (Or maybe I do and just fundamentally disagree.)

Pardon? The point of the mailing list is that people exchange opinions and ask questions to be answered. If people start saying things like "Here is my opinion and I don't want to hear no explanations", won't it be more like a guestbook or a shoutbox?

Fundamentally disagreeing is perfectly OK. As a user, you don't have to know about all the technical complications that come with behaviour options. Albeit you might have an idea about UX complications. The fun part is that it's already has been explained in a similar thread over at gimp-developer@.

Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org

Marco Ciampa
2012-07-02 15:01:43 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Thank you developers, for your patience.

On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 06:18:00PM +0400, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote: [...]

What I've learned is that no matter how patiently you explain things or how carefully you choose words, someone somewhere will always get things utterly wrong, overreact and annoy.

Yes that is a fact. Just accept it. Stop feeding trolls.

GIMP is improving everyday and I really like how it is improving.

2012-07-05 10:23:52 UTC (almost 2 years ago)
postings
8
contact
Send private message

Thank you developers, for your patience.

In my humble opinion, the "quid" of the question regarding the new save / export policy, relies on the fact that the new behaviour reflects a change in the intended audience for the project: the old "load JPEG + edit + save JPEG" serves perfectly to a casual user, who just needs a very basic image editor; while the new "import JPEG + edit + save XCF + export JPEG" matches the flow of a power user, who uses GIMP to the full of its capabilities.

What all that people who complain does not seem to understand is that GIMP can no longer accommodate the needs of casual users without compromising the needs of power users, and those power users are the intended userbase for the project. Yes, some simple tasks are harder now, but complex tasks are easier, and GIMP was made to deal with complex tasks. Perhaps that people needs to be very politely told: "Sorry, but GIMP is no longer for you; please, use something different".

Just my two cents.

bruno@buys.net.br
2012-07-05 13:51:53 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Thank you developers, for your patience.

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 12:23:52 +0200, eduperez wrote:

In my

humble opinion, the "quid" of the question regarding the new save / export policy, relies on the fact that the new behaviour reflects a change in the intended audience for the project: the old "load JPEG + edit + save JPEG" serves perfectly to a casual user, who just needs a very basic image editor; while the new "import JPEG + edit + save XCF + export JPEG" matches the flow of a power user, who uses GIMP to the full of its capabilities.

What all that people who complain does not

seem to understand is that GIMP can no longer accommodate the needs of casual users without compromising the needs of power users, and those power users are the intended userbase for the project. Yes, some simple tasks are harder now, but complex tasks are easier, and GIMP was made to deal with complex tasks. Perhaps that people needs to be very politely told: "Sorry, but GIMP is no longer for you; please, use something different".

Just my two cents.

Agreed. Add to this that GIMP has been implementing things like cmyk support, color profiles and management. To the next version there will be 16bit and high precision support. The future points to GIMP being used for high end as well as jpg editing. Looking forward to it!

Ken Warner
2012-07-05 16:34:38 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Thank you developers, for your patience.

That is pure elitist bullshit. Save; Save As along with Export can handle any save action. You are just trying to justify stubbornness.

eduperez wrote:

In my humble opinion, the "quid" of the question regarding the new save / export policy, relies on the fact that the new behaviour reflects a change in the intended audience for the project: the old "load JPEG + edit + save JPEG" serves perfectly to a casual user, who just needs a very basic image editor; while the new "import JPEG + edit + save XCF + export JPEG" matches the flow of a power user, who uses GIMP to the full of its capabilities.

What all that people who complain does not seem to understand is that GIMP can no longer accommodate the needs of casual users without compromising the needs of power users, and those power users are the intended userbase for the project. Yes, some simple tasks are harder now, but complex tasks are easier, and GIMP was made to deal with complex tasks. Perhaps that people needs to be very politely told: "Sorry, but GIMP is no longer for you; please, use something different".

Just my two cents.

Johannes
2012-07-05 17:56:46 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Thank you developers, for your patience.

Am 05.07.2012 12:23, schrieb eduperez:

[...] the old "load JPEG + edit + save JPEG" serves perfectly to a casual user, who just needs a very basic image editor[...]

Disagreed. The length and the shape of the workflow doesn't tell anything about the features of GIMP being used. You can use the most sophisticated functions of GIMP and nevertheless prefer a slim workflow with JPEG as the single output format.

[...]is that GIMP can no longer accommodate the needs of casual users without compromising the needs of power users, and those power users are the intended userbase for the project.[...]

Disagreed. This has been stated but not been proven. You can make a "save as JPEG and quit without being asked afterwards" feature optional without any side effect and without too much effort.

BTW: My favorite argument against such an option (besides "use another software!" and "no") is "everything convincing has been said elsewhere".

Johannes
2012-07-05 22:09:21 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Thank you developers, for your patience.

Am 05.07.2012 12:23, schrieb eduperez:

[...] the old "load JPEG + edit + save JPEG" serves perfectly to a casual user, who just needs a very basic image editor[...]

Disagreed. The length and the shape of the workflow doesn't tell anything about the features of GIMP being used. You can use the most sophisticated functions of GIMP and nevertheless prefer a slim workflow with JPEG as the single output format.

[...]is that GIMP can no longer accommodate the needs of casual users without compromising the needs of power users, and those power users are the intended userbase for the project.[...]

Disagreed. This has been stated but not been proven. You can make a "save as JPEG and quit without being asked afterwards" feature optional without any side effect and without too much effort.

BTW: My favorite argument against such an option (besides "use another software!" and "no") is "everything convincing has been said elsewhere".

Liam R E Quin
2012-07-05 23:21:20 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Thank you developers, for your patience.

On Thu, 2012-07-05 at 12:23 +0200, eduperez wrote:

In my humble opinion, the "quid" of the question regarding the new save / export policy, relies on the fact that the new behaviour reflects a change in the intended audience for the project: the old "load JPEG + edit + save JPEG" serves perfectly to a casual user, who just needs a very basic image editor; while the new "import JPEG + edit + save XCF + export JPEG" matches the flow of a power user, who uses GIMP to the full of its capabilities.

I think if gimp had file->import that might be clearer.

A recognition that lots of power users and professional users of gimp do not always need to save in xcf (and ggenerally know when they do or don't), and that pretty much every professional workflow ends with exporting a file, would really help.

E.g. before you close an image, you need to know: (1) have you saved it as xcf and, if so, to where (2) have you exported it and, if so, to where

Similarly, save and export need to default to the same folder, so that after you've exported an image, save defaults to putting it alongside the exported file, not in ~/Documents each time.

I'm not sure how much of this is bugs, how much is gradual evolution of the spec with user experience, and how much is bugs in the spec.

Long-term I hope we end up with the concept of a "Project" which can involve multiple files, resources like brushes, fonts and colours, and its default import, open, save and export places.

Liam

Richard Gitschlag
2012-07-06 14:31:50 UTC (almost 2 years ago)

Thank you developers, for your patience.

From: liam@holoweb.net
To: forums@gimpusers.com
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 19:21:20 -0400 CC: team@gimpusers.com; gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Thank you developers, for your patience.

On Thu, 2012-07-05 at 12:23 +0200, eduperez wrote:

In my humble opinion, the "quid" of the question regarding the new save / export policy, relies on the fact that the new behaviour reflects a change in the intended audience for the project: the old "load JPEG + edit + save JPEG" serves perfectly to a casual user, who just needs a very basic image editor; while the new "import JPEG + edit + save XCF + export JPEG" matches the flow of a power user, who uses GIMP to the full of its capabilities.

I think if gimp had file->import that might be clearer.

The save/export spec to which the developers attest specifically requires that the Open command remain able to open all formats and not be restricted to just XCF.

-- Stratadrake strata_ranger@hotmail.com
--------------------
Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth.