On 10/24/2010 08:49 PM, Tomek CEDRO wrote: > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Rob Antonishen > <rob.antonishen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Well, >> To chip in my two cents, I want to remind you that Gimp is open source and if you want the menu there then you are free to fork and maintain a version of Gimp with the menu in. >> Arguing against the vision and direction already set is counterproductive at this point. Arguing that one user's work flow is better than any others is just egoism imoo. >> > OK guys, I am bad egoist - I want to be productive and use comfortable > tools, sometimes I create them, and always try to remember about good > standard, quality and usability. Also there are some bad egoists > around. New vision is not necessary against standard or backward > compatibility, because standard is what makes base for further > development. I don't think development requires enforcement, but its > your socialist style with your nice theories and wise words, because > you enforce others to do as you please with no alternative for them > (while this alternative is possible). I just wanted to ask for old > menu back, or anything that could be similar to this menu - its not > about changing your vision, but accepting feedback from users that > enjoyed this feature. Don't you think such vision would be much more > fulfilled when at low cost both sides are happy? None of this is going > to happen. We waste more time and energy on talking than simply fixing > this issue. The patch is created for 2.6, I am switching back to 2.4 > then. You can be proud of your bright new vision and forcing everyone > to use it, because you know better than user. You are right, I can > still use version 2.4 or patch the sources of 2.6, but like I said - > its not Open Source anymore, only the source code is available, > because you are not open to feedback and user ideas, even when patch > is ready. Maybe someone come soon and enforce his own vision > irreversibly destroying your work, then you will understand what I was > talking about. > I'm not a Gimp developer, but as a software developer I understand the point of view of the current Gimp team, and I sympathize. UI development is one person to do the work and 10 to criticize :-) If we want to improve things we have to shed some of the old. Our ancestors lost their gills when they developed lungs. Having both would have been useful only to a very small set of species. Backward compatibility is nice, often very useful and on the verge of mandatory when it comes to file formats and APIs, but in the world of UIs it creates confusion and is more complicated to achieve than you think (should new features be implemented in both UIs?). It's not uncommon for software to drastically change its human interface. From Windows 3.1 to Seven I see at least two landmark UI changes, and about the same for MS-Office (I'm too recent a Linux convert to tell but I'm sure there are examples on that side of the force, too). OTOH there are usually many ways to skin a specific cat (especially with Gimp), so what you want may be there but under a different guise. __ Ofnuts _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
