On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Sven Neumann wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to inform you about our plans for the GIMP 2.0 release. > > First of all, Mitch and me are not willing to raise the 2.0 versus 1.4 > discussion again. Gimp is more than "Mitch and me," isn't it? > Both sides have expressed their arguments. We took quite some time to > think about all of them and to reconsider our decision. We came to the > point that it should be called 2.0. It's just a number, so please, > before you start the discussion again, think twice if it's worth it. It really is worth it. We will loose *A LOT* of trust with our users if we disappoint them. There are many more than a trivial number of people whe expect CMYK, 16-bit, etc in gimp 2.0. These people are our *MOST ACTIVE USERS* and those who are waiting for gimp to have these features. Any time in the past two years that someone has asked on IRC or mailing lists when gimp will have these features. The second group mentioned I worry about more; the people who need these features, when they hear that 2.0, will check it out and sorely be disappointed. I don't know how well a reference to the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf communicated cross-culturally, but I can tell you that once lied to once, these people will probably not trust the gimp developers again. They will go elsewhere. This is a big loss to us -- imagine what contributions would come to gimp if people who professionally need features like deep images would be using the software. The lack of deep image support up to this point has already cost us a lot; those who flocked to the program formerly known as FilmGimp would have flocked to us instead. Yes, calling the new release 2.0 is a LIE. I cannot emphasize this strongly enough. It is a lie because we have told many, many people what 2.0 will do. To release a 2.0 without these features is pure misrepresentation. It is much too late to put the worms back into the can. Rockwalrus
