[Gimp-user] Save v Export behaviour

[VintageGimp <forums gimpusers com>]

> I hadn't wanted to comment on the earlier threads bc they were too
> heated.
>  
> Initially my work was with .xcfs natively, so this wasn't an issue for
> me.  More recently though I've had to do a lot of spot edits on jpgs
> and pngs.  I would welcome a "responsible adult" mode which didn't bug
> me about saving the file as xcf.
>
> This _even though_ I lost edits last week on a batch of files because
> I forgot jpgs don't support transparency.  Ironically I ignored the
> save as xcf warnings in that case. More useful I think would be a
> dialog which identified for what I was about to lose (transparency,
> layers or whatever) in the target format, and then accepted my
> decision (and cleaned whatever dirty flag is set on edits) if I
> clicked ok.  Harder to implement though I imagine.

It's amazing to see that the fires are still burning on this issue even after
several years. But it's not hard to understand why - a clunkier and more
insulting UI behaviour is hard to find anywhere. Congratulations to the Gimp
team for creating the most controversial UI "feature" in FOSS history!

First of all it breaks the traditional ability to save the file you're working
on, a concept common to most other software.

Secondly, it forces you to use a file format which is not universally supported,
a surprising decision by a team of open source advocates.

Thirdly it makes it far too easy to overwrite a file unintentionally, as the
"overwrite" option sits right next to the "export" submenu and has no
confirmation (this has happened to me, more than once!).

Fourthly it insults professional users by unnecessarily enforcing a particular
workflow (a big no-no), and by pestering us with inane "warning" dialogs. Hello?
Some of us know what file we're editing, what layers are and what lossy vs.
lossless formats mean. People who do not understand these concepts have no
business using a professional tool (which is that the Gimp is, right?) and
frankly deserve to end up with artifact riddled originals and lost layers.

Fiftly(?), it seems to make the assumption that other file formats are somehow
"inferior" - as someone who regularly uses PNG, GIF, TIFF, JPEG and PSD (and
occassionally other ones too) I beg to differ; there's a time and place for all
of them.

Sixthly (this is getting ridiculous) it makes it necessary to create an
additional XCF file for every non-XCF image you want to edit, which makes
working on web projects a hassle as the additional XCFs have no function and
just add bloat to the project.

Seventhly (can you even say that?) having just read some of the vast number of
complaints about this "feature" that can be found here and all over the web the
whole thing serves to make the Gimp team look like a bunch of arrogant t***s,
with their narrow-minded insistence that they alone know what "professional"
users need and that the rest of us are somehow stupid for not appreciating the
amazing improvement this represents. I'm sure they're all really nice and
friendly people, but the defensive attitude they display whenever this issue
comes up makes me wonder if there's perhaps some nagging doubts about whether it
really was a good idea (hint: it wasn't).

This is the first time I speak up on this issue - and I registered here only to,
erm, register my complaint, in the vain hope that it will help push for a more
sensible solution. I'm a realist though, and the attitude displayed by the Gimp
team makes it abundantly clear that professional users will not be heard on this
issue - they obviously already know what is right and have no need to listen to
what anyone says. I can't get over the unpleasant feeling that the prime
motivator for this stupidity is a desire to force the establishment of XCF as a
universal format for images, but if that is the goal I'd suggest you invest your
time in making your software competitive with Photoshop not only in
functionality but also in usability - then maybe uptake by professionals will
increase and the Gimp will become more than the amateur's budget alternative.
The fact that you feel the need to point out that some successful artist
such-and-such actually uses Gimp speaks volumes.

Thank you for listening. 

-- 
VintageGimp (via www.gimpusers.com/forums)