On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:35:51PM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote: > > 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? I did a more specific search: http://www.google.com/search?q=gimp+2.0+-gtk+-GTK+GEGL+-gimp-developer+-gegl-developer I excluded pages mentioning GTK plus the developer lists. Still 160 hits, some on major sites. The main argument against naming it "2.0" is that 2.0 is already known as "the all new, GEGL-based GIMP with colospace support etc.". I'm afraid, there would be lots of people asking "where is CMYK support and where is GEGL?" It is very hard to alter such widespread knowledge. It could get a real PITA. Bye, Tino. -- * LINUX - Where do you want to be tomorrow? * http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/linux/tag/
