Hi, Hans Breuer <Hans@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Instead of that, please try to read _and understand_ the arguments > other people have against your decision, Decision? There is no decision. I admit that I didn't expect this reaction but the mail that started all this wasn't meant as a proclamation. If I had known that you would all go bezerk about the idea, I would have still asked for it, but perhaps differently. Decision? Well, we should come to one. Better sooner than later. > or how should one understand : > > "Actually a few magazines already know that the next stable > release is supposed to be 2.0 for some time already." Perhaps I told one or even two people involved in the computer magazine business about it when I tried to get some support for the conference this summer. I'm sorry but I need to sell this conference at the moment and everyone seems flat broke. We really could need some good marketing and instead you guys take this as an opportunity for flames? Please come back with arguments as soon as you have settled down. > And please try a google search for "gimp 2.0" as suggested. My > quick looking reveals "gimp 2.0 backend", 16 bit, cmyk, does qualify > for pre press ... I did that since Marc suggested and I spent some time with the results. I didn't make up any scientific statistics but I got to the impression that most the hits for "gimp 2.0" are caused by "gimp" used on the same page as "gtk+-2.0". What exactly do you want to prove by 116,000 hits on google? > See above. BTW: do I have qualified to have an option ? BTW: Yes, indeed you do. What exactly makes you think you don't? > And Gimp Python was in the Gimp tree before 1.2 was released ... Oh shit, I got one wrong. But wait, I'll put "Image templates" in as a new feature that I forget to listen. Sven
