Re: [Gimp-user] export vs save

[Simon Budig <simon budig de>]

Daniel Hauck (daniel yacg com) wrote:
> "Owe"?  Therein lies a kind of perspective concern.  It's not a
> question of what is owed, but is what is wanted.  The response to
> something which is wanted is what matters here.

Wanted by whom? We had lots of users here expressing their desire in a
tone which clearly showed that they think they can demand from "the
developers" to implement the features they want. They seem to think that
they can threaten us with a switch to photoshop. [*]

> The change is viewed by many as unwelcome.  The responses to their
> wants are unkind and devoid of understanding.

I said it earlier and will repeat it gladly again. Developers of free
software are selfish bastards. And yes, that includes me.

I work with free software, because I get a glimpse in relatively big
working things. There are interesting problems inside and I don't have
to sign stupid NDAs to get access to the source. I have the freedom to
modify the program to *my* needs. And I am happy if these needs are the
same as from other people and I can discuss interesting issues with
them, giving me satisfaction on an intellectual level.

It is not interesting to me, to maximize the number of users. There is a
certain reputation to be earned if I can claim that I work on the GIMP,
but this doesn't really grow with the number of users. In fact, more
users means more stupid discussions about uninteresting topics.

And to be specific regarding export-vs-save:

It was a highly interesting process to watch peter come up with the
specification, find its problems, and tweak it. I wasn't really involved
directly, but seeing Peters approach to these design things is
fascinating. I might disagree with his solution, but I clearly see its
solid reasoning.

And then there is this clear and straightforward concept, which still
might have little bugs or issues that needs to be adressed. And it meets
this incredibly loud, uninformed and unkind response when people
suddenly realize, that following a development process might *gasp*
actually involve changes.

And it is about a tiny change in the menus. Nobody seems to care about
the important stuff...

And the always-repeated suggestion is to introduce a configuration
option (which for some reason is perceived as being simple), which would
just kill the straightforwardness and clarity, will introduce badly
tested codepaths and give a lot of headache to people following
tutorials that happen to have the "other" option enabled.

What is it again, that a selfish bastard developer like me would gain
from implementing this? I'd do something I am convinced is the wrong
thing. And I'd feel dirty for implementing a compromise I regard as
stupid. I don't think this is going to happen...

Bye,
        Simon


[*] ...which is hilarious. While I don't really know it, Photoshop seems
to be a great piece of software and I have a lot of respect for the work
the developers do. If you're going to be happy with photoshop, then
please go on and use it. But please - regardless of GIMP or Photoshop -
respect the licenses attached.

-- 
              simon budig de              http://simon.budig.de/