Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.10.disappointment??
#1
Sad 
wow,

its been a long time since i looked forward to going to a new release of software only to have the new version offer much less than the one being replaced (see windows 8)!!

i am hoping that my ignorance and lack of experience is the reason and that it can all be fixed.

i cant figure out for the life of me why anyone would design a new release that ignores all the hard work the users have put in to create expanded functionality through scripts.  from a distance it looks like they purposely slightly renamed variables so that scripts we are all used to using don't work.  i have gone through the effort of changing some of the scripts so they work for me but for the most part i find myself going to the old version 2.8 to complete a job because i need a script or two that they rendered useless??

i've read the release notes and while there is much improvement in the "inner workings" to the software what good is it if you end up removing functionality from the end product???

i also read where you can just "constantize" an old script and it will magically work but it never has for me yet!!  after all if that was the case why didn't development just constantize each script before release...  because it doesn't work!!  i don't understand why people would waste their time in the future writing scripts if they understand that a new release makes them useless!!

i was a mainframe programmer for 30 years and i know that in all 30 of those years i would have lost my career if i did not consider, and plan for, a "transition" from the old software to the new often times called seamless.

i think it is important to realize that not every person using the software is a graphic artist specialist or programmer!

please tell me that i have something wrong so that i can apologize for being so negative but the end product is DISAPPOINTING as is!!!

thanks for listening,         

dhugg Huh
Reply
#2
(02-12-2021, 04:25 PM)dhugg Wrote: wow,

its been a long time since i looked forward to going to a new release of software only to have the new version offer much less than the one being replaced (see windows 8)!!

i am hoping that my ignorance and lack of experience is the reason and that it can all be fixed.

i cant figure out for the life of me why anyone would design a new release that ignores all the hard work the users have put in to create expanded functionality through scripts.  from a distance it looks like they purposely slightly renamed variables so that scripts we are all used to using don't work.  i have gone through the effort of changing some of the scripts so they work for me but for the most part i find myself going to the old version 2.8 to complete a job because i need a script or two that they rendered useless??

i've read the release notes and while there is much improvement in the "inner workings" to the software what good is it if you end up removing functionality from the end product???

i also read where you can just "constantize" an old script and it will magically work but it never has for me yet!!  after all if that was the case why didn't development just constantize each script before release...  because it doesn't work!!  i don't understand why people would waste their time in the future writing scripts if they understand that a new release makes them useless!!

i was a mainframe programmer for 30 years and i know that in all 30 of those years i would have lost my career if i did not consider, and plan for, a "transition" from the old software to the new often times called seamless.

i think it is important to realize that not every person using the software is a graphic artist specialist or programmer!

please tell me that i have something wrong so that i can apologize for being so negative but the end product is DISAPPOINTING as is!!!

thanks for listening,         

As a fellow user, I certainly share the very same sense of frustration as you describe.  But you know the old alibi of free software developers..."hey, would you like your money back?"   Heart


All in all, it's an interesting conflict between the need for progress, vs legacy functionality.     If I was smarter, perhaps I would understand why  newer releases of Linux cannot support older versions of Python (in addition to the currently popular version).

Or, alternatively, why legacy applications that are dependent upon  older versions, cannot have self contained Python 2.x "subsystems" that support their specific needs.

Ah well, I guess the best solution in the interim is to maintain a gimp 2.8.x install working, until the compatibility problems get ironed out?


Reply
#3
(02-12-2021, 04:25 PM)dhugg Wrote: wow,

its been a long time since i looked forward to going to a new release of software only to have the new version offer much less than the one being replaced (see windows 8)!!

i am hoping that my ignorance and lack of experience is the reason and that it can all be fixed.

i cant figure out for the life of me why anyone would design a new release that ignores all the hard work the users have put in to create expanded functionality through scripts.  from a distance it looks like they purposely slightly renamed variables so that scripts we are all used to using don't work.  i have gone through the effort of changing some of the scripts so they work for me but for the most part i find myself going to the old version 2.8 to complete a job because i need a script or two that they rendered useless??

i've read the release notes and while there is much improvement in the "inner workings" to the software what good is it if you end up removing functionality from the end product???

i also read where you can just "constantize" an old script and it will magically work but it never has for me yet!!  after all if that was the case why didn't development just constantize each script before release...  because it doesn't work!!  i don't understand why people would waste their time in the future writing scripts if they understand that a new release makes them useless!!

i was a mainframe programmer for 30 years and i know that in all 30 of those years i would have lost my career if i did not consider, and plan for, a "transition" from the old software to the new often times called seamless.

i think it is important to realize that not every person using the software is a graphic artist specialist or programmer!

please tell me that i have something wrong so that i can apologize for being so negative but the end product is DISAPPOINTING as is!!!

thanks for listening,         

dhugg Huh

Yes, there has been some misses with some of the "constants" (while other "constants" have been handled correctly...).

I have also been close to mainframes in the 80s, and this is a part of IT where the fear of change is pervasive, nurtured by you-know-who to keep the customers in the ecosystem of the blue machines.

But well, 40 years later, they learned that they have to evolve or die. I'm currently working for the IT of a major bank and they have to move as fast as they can because a bank is only as good as its IT and their competitors won't wait for them. They are aware that some changes can be a bit disruptive but they will bite the bullet if necessary.

On the other hand, if your scripts don't work, it is also because they have lost their maintainers. It is one thing to use a script for a one-off, it is another to add the script to your permanent tool base without wondering who can do something if the script breaks.
Reply
#4
(02-12-2021, 06:14 PM)rickk Wrote:
(02-12-2021, 04:25 PM)dhugg Wrote: wow,

its been a long time since i looked forward to going to a new release of software only to have the new version offer much less than the one being replaced (see windows 8)!!

i am hoping that my ignorance and lack of experience is the reason and that it can all be fixed.

i cant figure out for the life of me why anyone would design a new release that ignores all the hard work the users have put in to create expanded functionality through scripts.  from a distance it looks like they purposely slightly renamed variables so that scripts we are all used to using don't work.  i have gone through the effort of changing some of the scripts so they work for me but for the most part i find myself going to the old version 2.8 to complete a job because i need a script or two that they rendered useless??

i've read the release notes and while there is much improvement in the "inner workings" to the software what good is it if you end up removing functionality from the end product???

i also read where you can just "constantize" an old script and it will magically work but it never has for me yet!!  after all if that was the case why didn't development just constantize each script before release...  because it doesn't work!!  i don't understand why people would waste their time in the future writing scripts if they understand that a new release makes them useless!!

i was a mainframe programmer for 30 years and i know that in all 30 of those years i would have lost my career if i did not consider, and plan for, a "transition" from the old software to the new often times called seamless.

i think it is important to realize that not every person using the software is a graphic artist specialist or programmer!

please tell me that i have something wrong so that i can apologize for being so negative but the end product is DISAPPOINTING as is!!!

thanks for listening,         

As a fellow user, I certainly share the very same sense of frustration as you describe.  But you know the old alibi of free software developers..."hey, would you like your money back?"   Heart


All in all, it's an interesting conflict between the need for progress, vs legacy functionality.     If I was smarter, perhaps I would understand why  newer releases of Linux cannot support older versions of Python (in addition to the currently popular version).

Or, alternatively, why legacy applications that are dependent upon  older versions, cannot have self contained Python 2.x "subsystems" that support their specific needs.

Ah well, I guess the best solution in the interim is to maintain a gimp 2.8.x install working, until the compatibility problems get ironed out?

Python 3.0 started in 2008, at the same time as Python 2.6. Since 2010 it is known that support for 2.7 will end in 2020, and Linux distros worked hard to migrate a large code base of Python v2 scripts  to v3 (Python v2.7 owes its longevity to the sheer amount of system utilities written with it).

In practice you can still install Python v2 on your Linux, but you won't find much software still using it, Gimp must be the exception. And if you want want a contained Python v2 with Gimp, the "flatpak" packaging of Gimp comes with its own Python v2.
Reply
#5
like i said..

i wouldn't have had a long and prosperous career and enjoying a nice retirement if i had taken that approach.

hopefully they can learn that, get better and produce things that take us forward instead of reinventing the wheel. i did..
many of the nice improvements that came with the release have been overshadowed by this shortcoming. it kind of makes you not want to use it.

in this case i think developers would have been better served wasting their time on how to make it work instead of wasting that same time on how to throw another level of complexity and frustration at it.

another similar alibi for the developers could be "its worth what you paid for it"!!

i will eventually fix most of them but id rather spend my time creating nice things than playing catchup..

have a nice day and thanks for the responses.

dhugg
Reply
#6
(02-14-2021, 05:14 PM)dhugg Wrote: hopefully they can learn that, get better and produce things that take us forward instead of reinventing the wheel.  i did..
many of the nice improvements that came with the release have been overshadowed by this shortcoming.  it kind of makes you not want to use it.



dhugg

I really like gimp.  It has enabled me to do so many things that I never even dreamed that I would be able to do, 20 years ago.

But, I just noticed that Ubuntu no longer bundles gimp as part of their default install. And to me that  just seems shocking.

I really hope this is just a bump in the road, and not an indication of the future.


Reply
#7
I don't get the GIMP hate here. If you are really that upset, switch to a paid program that will have support because... people get paid to do it! You get the software for free, without warranty. Big Blue was able to do what it did for so long because of the enormous amount they paid people to figure out all the problems.

I code for a living too and sometimes you get to a point where a language or process is not supported any longer, even Big Blue did that albeit glacially slow, via deprecated functions and lapsing support for long deprecated code. They gave plenty of warning and like Ofn said, any of the plugins that are maintained have new versions on the new release and will work just fine still. The exact same thing happened over on the mainframe if the company who supported your code went out of business.

You are certainly welcome to complain but unless you are a paying customer it doesn't really do anything besides make you look like a Karen or Chad.

- E
Reply
#8
not really complaining or hating, more like constructive criticism...

its just that i really have enjoyed everything about gimp to this point and i was surprised by it.

as always i will make the adjustments and continue on.

thanks for the input...
Reply
#9
(02-14-2021, 09:17 PM)eepjr24 Wrote: I don't get the GIMP hate here. If you are really that upset, switch to a paid program that will have support because... people get paid to do it! You get the software for free, without warranty. Big Blue was able to do what it did for so long because of the enormous amount they paid people to figure out all the problems.

You are certainly welcome to complain but unless you are a paying customer it doesn't really do anything besides make you look like a Karen or Chad.

- E

Branding it as "hate", IMO,  is a bit on the "sensationalist" end of the spectrum. But you are right, one of the positives of shrinkwrap is that the provider HAS to listen to your concerns, and if a significant number of end users have similar complaints, then the producer will act.

I don't really see a problem with questions such as this, sometimes genius is inspired, while other times it must be provoked.  Progress is usually rooted where people of a similar mind  first discover that  they aren't alone.


Reply
#10
(02-15-2021, 04:03 PM)rickk Wrote: Branding it as "hate", IMO,  is a bit on the "sensationalist" end of the spectrum. But you are right, one of the positives of shrinkwrap is that the provider HAS to listen to your concerns, and if a significant number of end users have similar complaints, then the producer will act.

I don't really see a problem with questions such as this, sometimes genius is inspired, while other times it must be provoked.  Progress is usually rooted where people of a similar mind  first discover that  they aren't alone.

(02-15-2021, 03:30 AM)dhugg Wrote: not really complaining or hating, more like constructive criticism...

Mea Culpa, I am oversensitized to people complaining of late. Too much politics in my diet, apparently.

If you have specific scripts that you are troubled by it might be worth listing them, some have changed names or been supported by other folks so you might find your work lessened in that way.

- E
Reply


Forum Jump: