On 19 Jun 2003, at 12:56, Sven Neumann wrote: > <pcg( Marc)@goof(A.).(Lehmann )com> writes: > > > Ok, here's _my_ deal: *If* you say that not calling it 2.0 would > > cause problems in fundraising, then you simply win... While my > > concerns were, for me, important enough to mention them (and argue > > about them), and while the "gtk+ has 2" etc.. style of arguments > > were not convincing, this one is. > > We already have problems in fundraising, I can not tell you if the 2.0 > would solve them but I had that plan that involved announcing the 2.0 > release number plan. If we decide that we stick to 1.4, I'll have to > make up a new one. Can we know what that plan is? Perhaps we can help. I benefitted a lot from the feedback I got on my GIMP for Windows 1.2.3 press release. > > I still disagree on that, people are eagerly waiting for 2.0 for the > > very features it should have. Unfortunately. > > Are they? I don't really know what people are expecting from GEGL > integration but it will certainly not be another GIMP once this has > happened. When GEGL is used, users will probably not notice that the > crappy code that provides the basis for pixel manipulations in the > current GIMP has been replaced. We should go for GEGL soon after the > next release but it will not be a substantial change from a GIMP users > point of view. Only if we then add CMYK as a new colorspace and add > proper color management functionality, really new features will be > available. These enhancements are not provided by GEGL, GEGL only > provides a framework that allows to do such changes in a nice and > clean way. > > From all the people that addressed me and asked for CMYK support, > only one so far was able to explain to me what benefits one can get from > working in CMYK. All others would have made things worse since they > would have attempted to do color separation w/o any knowledge of the > inks and paper used to print the result. To get to a point here, CMYK > support is IMO a bit overrated. We surely want to add it but we need > to do it proper. > > You also mentioned integration with FilmGIMP or CinePaint. Well, it > seems there is little interest from the CinePaint people, but if you > look at the current state of GAP for GIMP-1.3, it seems that we can > already provide quite a few of the features that film people keep > asking for. As to the latter, I don't think so, or there wouldn't be a Film GIMP. Cinepaint exists, because it fulfils a clear need. Yes, there is a difference between what people need and what they think they need. An example would be resolution: a completely useless measurement of scale, yet all the people in the print graphics business swear by it. I won't tell you how often art directors have asked me what the resolution should be for the web site designs they are making. I always try to educate them, tell them that only the pixels count, but it would probably be much easier if I told them 74 dpi or some such number. Similarly, working in CMYK is not a technical necessity: it's a market space demand (although I personally would not mind having blackness as separate channel, but then preferably in a RGBK format). So you have to ask yourself: who am I selling to? Graphics artists? Geeks? Buyers for large firms? Reporters? The Slashdot crowd? Governments? They all have different needs, and these needs may not be fulfilled by a pretty version number, or by features, or by technical prowess and progress. If you're trying to sell GIMP progress by organising a meaningful GIMPcon, perhaps asking for money on Slashdot would be more useful than talking to one or two journalists. I don't know. What are your expectations? Does your experience tell you they will come true? -- branko collin collin@xxxxxxxxx
