7 ms·

It used to do that. I hope somebody reverts this.

by anoncow 14y ago

nitrogen 14y ago
The comments I've found seem to indicate that the Gimp developers have no intention of changing this back, and that anyone who wants it back to the Gimp 2.6 and earlier approach is not in their "target audience". In other words, they hold their most common users in the highest of contempt. Edit: http://registry.gimp.org/node/26348 http://registry.gimp.org/node/26348
- anoncow 14y ago
  fork gimp! :-) They could still prompt users to save a xcf copy .
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    There have been multiple forks, but they all end up dying. The ideal solution would be an automated fork that applies the UI patch to the latest official sources, but obviously the Gimp developers aren't going to care if they break your patch.
- windsurfer 14y ago
  Contempt? What? I think they value developers and people who use their software frequently. As a developer, I love the separation of save and export. They really are separate functions, and the XCF actually saves the export location relative to the original XCF location. It makes working on large projects so much easier. If I wanted to just do a quick edit to something, Gimp isn't the ideal tool for that job anyways. If I wanted to make it so, selecting export instead of save is really fine, especially since it gives the option in the menu to overwrite whatever JPG you just opened.
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    >I think they value developers and people who use their software frequently. I think people who use their software frequently would take offense to the software telling you to fuck off and go do it a different way. The intent is obvious, both to the user and the developer. Why make people's lives more difficult for such questionable benefit? MS Paint doesn't have this problem. Photoshop doesn't have this problem. The user knows what they want to do, and they could do it before the change. Why are you getting in their way?
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    I think they value developers and people who use their software frequently. I use their software very frequently, and the biggest frustration with this is that it completely screws with my muscle memory for the Gimp and every other application. I continue using 2.6 because 2.8 is just too frustrating. When working with images so much that you no longer think about the keyboard and mouse, but you think "Save" and it just happens, a change like this is like rewiring your hand so that all the fingers' nerves are reversed, and you have to get permission from your navel before you can lift your pinky. If I wanted to just do a quick edit to something, Gimp isn't the ideal tool for that job anyways. Gimp has always been the ideal tool to just do a quick edit to something, because it's the tool I know. I've been using it for more than a decade. I don't need some new developers to come along and think they know better than me how I use their software. That's Apple's billion dollar job, and even they get it wrong often enough. If I wanted to make it so, selecting export instead of save is really fine, especially since it gives the option in the menu to overwrite whatever JPG you just opened. Clearly you're not working fast enough for your fingers to be ahead of your brain. I don't need options, I need my tools not to talk back to me.
    - windsurfer 14y ago
      it completely screws with my muscle memory I think this is very relevant: http://xkcd.com/1172/ http://xkcd.com/1172/ Clearly you're not working fast enough for your fingers to be ahead of your brain. I don't need options, I need my tools not to talk back to me. If you have any constructive feedback - or better yet, _code_ - make a polite post on their forum or mailing list. No one here cares about your specific workflow.
      - nitrogen 14y ago
        No one here cares about your specific workflow. Actually, you're the only one here vehemently defending the Gimp's new behavior. The other comments seem to prefer Gimp 2.6's Save behavior. But this is getting unnecessarily petty and personal; it's obvious we disagree, and I'll just stick to 2.6 and stop recommending Gimp to people who would otherwise be happy pirating something more expensive. Edit: Contempt? What? Exactly.
  - kristopolous 14y ago
    I've used gimp since 1997 exclusively and I hate every bit of 2.8s interface ... from the impossible to find dockable tabs that hide every which way, to the laborious change in workflows, to the new way they've decided to do ranges ... making it really simple to choose numbers like 15 bazillion versus 10 bazillion but making it impossibly difficult to easily go between 1 and 4. And they STILL only have 8 bits per plane (people were whining about this in the 90s ... when Bill Clinton was president), STILL can't remember sub-pixel rendering steps ... other than improved PSD importing, I don't see why. I'm sure they've put a lot of work into this; but not in the right areas. Their target audience should be highly technical people that need to do image work and want a tool like vim/emacs/zsh etc but for images; learning curves are ok as long as you can combine simple steps in composable tasks to do amazing things. I say the same things about all my good tools: "I've been using it for 10+ years, I totally suck at it still, and I would never use anything else". You can say that about paintbrushes, driving, violins, maybe even photoshop or excel; but not gimp. They were going down that road for a while in the 2.2 or so days, but then they did a 180.
  - bashinator 14y ago
    This very much reminds me of the attitude amongst the GNOME core developers that basically killed the project, per De Icaza's blog post a while back.
    - Turing_Machine 14y ago
      Yep. Also of the cavalier attitude toward breaking changes that the Firefox team developed. I switched to Chrome and so did many others.
- Turing_Machine 14y ago
  Wow, the hubris in that thread is unbelievable.
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    It's as if everyone in the Gnome/Gtk/Gimp world wants to be a demanding dictator like Steve Jobs, but doing that and getting it right requires an insane budget, and even after all their effort, I still don't like Apple's stuff.
windsurfer 14y ago
Why? The new workflow is better for everything except for quick edits of files. And the GIMP isn't the right tool for that job. Use a smaller, simpler program for a quick edit. If you really want to destroy your layers and history (which GIMP saves into XCFs) there is a menu option for that. But you almost certainly don't want to do that.
- nitrogen 14y ago
  Use a smaller, simpler program for a quick edit. So what smaller, simpler program (other than Gimp 2.6) has all of Gimp's features, but is suitable for a quick edit? Say I have a .png image stored in a version control system, with no need for layers or history, and I want to do a quick perspective clone to paint over something?
  - cbhl 14y ago
    Gwenview, Microsoft Paint, among others.
    - nitrogen 14y ago
      So, neither Gwenview nor Microsoft Paint support the perspective clone operation. Krita does, but Krita crashes every time I try to use it.
- katbyte 14y ago
  Simpler program? I usually just end up using Photoshop instead :) When you save a layered file in a unlayered format photoshop just forces the "Save Aa a Copy" option to be checked and then saves a flattened version while preserving the open one, thus if you then decide to quit without saving a layered version you get a "Are you sure you wish to quit without saving document x?" The way Photoshop handles it is far superior imho. With gimp iirc even if the file is not layered you still have to do export? And for many edits, i simply don't want to save layers or history. there's just no point if i'm cropping, converting, re-sizing, or quickly fixing something. If i do then i'll save it as a layered file and layered is by far in the minority. I know what i'm doing i don't need the app to 2nd guess me, and it seems the new workflow is better for people who don't understand the difference between layered and un-layered files.

It used to do that. I hope somebody reverts this.

by anoncow 14y ago

It used to do that. I hope somebody reverts this.

The comments I've found seem to indicate that the Gimp developers have no intention of changing this back, and that anyone who wants it back to the Gimp 2.6 and earlier approach is not in their "target audience". In other words, they hold their most common users in the highest of contempt. Edit: http://registry.gimp.org/node/26348 http://registry.gimp.org/node/26348

anoncow 14y ago
fork gimp! :-) They could still prompt users to save a xcf copy .
- nitrogen 14y ago
  There have been multiple forks, but they all end up dying. The ideal solution would be an automated fork that applies the UI patch to the latest official sources, but obviously the Gimp developers aren't going to care if they break your patch.
windsurfer 14y ago
Contempt? What? I think they value developers and people who use their software frequently. As a developer, I love the separation of save and export. They really are separate functions, and the XCF actually saves the export location relative to the original XCF location. It makes working on large projects so much easier. If I wanted to just do a quick edit to something, Gimp isn't the ideal tool for that job anyways. If I wanted to make it so, selecting export instead of save is really fine, especially since it gives the option in the menu to overwrite whatever JPG you just opened.
- Karunamon 14y ago
  >I think they value developers and people who use their software frequently. I think people who use their software frequently would take offense to the software telling you to fuck off and go do it a different way. The intent is obvious, both to the user and the developer. Why make people's lives more difficult for such questionable benefit? MS Paint doesn't have this problem. Photoshop doesn't have this problem. The user knows what they want to do, and they could do it before the change. Why are you getting in their way?
- nitrogen 14y ago
  I think they value developers and people who use their software frequently. I use their software very frequently, and the biggest frustration with this is that it completely screws with my muscle memory for the Gimp and every other application. I continue using 2.6 because 2.8 is just too frustrating. When working with images so much that you no longer think about the keyboard and mouse, but you think "Save" and it just happens, a change like this is like rewiring your hand so that all the fingers' nerves are reversed, and you have to get permission from your navel before you can lift your pinky. If I wanted to just do a quick edit to something, Gimp isn't the ideal tool for that job anyways. Gimp has always been the ideal tool to just do a quick edit to something, because it's the tool I know. I've been using it for more than a decade. I don't need some new developers to come along and think they know better than me how I use their software. That's Apple's billion dollar job, and even they get it wrong often enough. If I wanted to make it so, selecting export instead of save is really fine, especially since it gives the option in the menu to overwrite whatever JPG you just opened. Clearly you're not working fast enough for your fingers to be ahead of your brain. I don't need options, I need my tools not to talk back to me.
  - windsurfer 14y ago
    it completely screws with my muscle memory I think this is very relevant: http://xkcd.com/1172/ http://xkcd.com/1172/ Clearly you're not working fast enough for your fingers to be ahead of your brain. I don't need options, I need my tools not to talk back to me. If you have any constructive feedback - or better yet, _code_ - make a polite post on their forum or mailing list. No one here cares about your specific workflow.
    - nitrogen 14y ago
      No one here cares about your specific workflow. Actually, you're the only one here vehemently defending the Gimp's new behavior. The other comments seem to prefer Gimp 2.6's Save behavior. But this is getting unnecessarily petty and personal; it's obvious we disagree, and I'll just stick to 2.6 and stop recommending Gimp to people who would otherwise be happy pirating something more expensive. Edit: Contempt? What? Exactly.
- kristopolous 14y ago
  I've used gimp since 1997 exclusively and I hate every bit of 2.8s interface ... from the impossible to find dockable tabs that hide every which way, to the laborious change in workflows, to the new way they've decided to do ranges ... making it really simple to choose numbers like 15 bazillion versus 10 bazillion but making it impossibly difficult to easily go between 1 and 4. And they STILL only have 8 bits per plane (people were whining about this in the 90s ... when Bill Clinton was president), STILL can't remember sub-pixel rendering steps ... other than improved PSD importing, I don't see why. I'm sure they've put a lot of work into this; but not in the right areas. Their target audience should be highly technical people that need to do image work and want a tool like vim/emacs/zsh etc but for images; learning curves are ok as long as you can combine simple steps in composable tasks to do amazing things. I say the same things about all my good tools: "I've been using it for 10+ years, I totally suck at it still, and I would never use anything else". You can say that about paintbrushes, driving, violins, maybe even photoshop or excel; but not gimp. They were going down that road for a while in the 2.2 or so days, but then they did a 180.
- bashinator 14y ago
  This very much reminds me of the attitude amongst the GNOME core developers that basically killed the project, per De Icaza's blog post a while back.
  - Turing_Machine 14y ago
    Yep. Also of the cavalier attitude toward breaking changes that the Firefox team developed. I switched to Chrome and so did many others.
Turing_Machine 14y ago
Wow, the hubris in that thread is unbelievable.
- nitrogen 14y ago
  It's as if everyone in the Gnome/Gtk/Gimp world wants to be a demanding dictator like Steve Jobs, but doing that and getting it right requires an insane budget, and even after all their effort, I still don't like Apple's stuff.

windsurfer 14y ago

Why? The new workflow is better for everything except for quick edits of files. And the GIMP isn't the right tool for that job. Use a smaller, simpler program for a quick edit. If you really want to destroy your layers and history (which GIMP saves into XCFs) there is a menu option for that. But you almost certainly don't want to do that.

nitrogen 14y ago
Use a smaller, simpler program for a quick edit. So what smaller, simpler program (other than Gimp 2.6) has all of Gimp's features, but is suitable for a quick edit? Say I have a .png image stored in a version control system, with no need for layers or history, and I want to do a quick perspective clone to paint over something?
- cbhl 14y ago
  Gwenview, Microsoft Paint, among others.
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    So, neither Gwenview nor Microsoft Paint support the perspective clone operation. Krita does, but Krita crashes every time I try to use it.
katbyte 14y ago
Simpler program? I usually just end up using Photoshop instead :) When you save a layered file in a unlayered format photoshop just forces the "Save Aa a Copy" option to be checked and then saves a flattened version while preserving the open one, thus if you then decide to quit without saving a layered version you get a "Are you sure you wish to quit without saving document x?" The way Photoshop handles it is far superior imho. With gimp iirc even if the file is not layered you still have to do export? And for many edits, i simply don't want to save layers or history. there's just no point if i'm cropping, converting, re-sizing, or quickly fixing something. If i do then i'll save it as a layered file and layered is by far in the minority. I know what i'm doing i don't need the app to 2nd guess me, and it seems the new workflow is better for people who don't understand the difference between layered and un-layered files.