On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:47:42AM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:
> > Also, if you really want comparison by numbers, than the number of
> > people writing that gimp-2.0 will have cmyk is certainly larger than
> > the number of magazine people you talked to.
> > And this is no wonder, as this has been mentioned publicly a lot of
> > times.
> Sure, I don't wonder, after all that's what we told them 3 years
We've been telling them for a couple of years might be
a more precise description (for some definition of we, not
including e.g. me :-) The meme has its own life now...
> Whenever a new GIMP 1.3 release is announced, people ask when
> we will finally start to port it to 2.0. There aren't really so many
> people out there that know about the plans for 2.0 we made three years
> ago. Don't let google fool you; from the discussions I followed
> lately, I came to the impression that people expect a GIMP 2.0
Well, the trailing 2s disease is quite widespread among Gtk+
apps. I wish Gtk+ versions changed more often and to more
silly numbers, so people wouln't be so tempted to adjust
versions of everything else...
Since anyone who've ever seen a 1.3 screenshot (not speaking
about running it) must know it uses Gtk+2, I don't think it
would be so hard to fight the Gtk+1 confusion.
Anyway the difference with the two confusions is this:
- When I thought 2.0 would be GEGL based, support CMYK,
16bit channels, ... and when 2.0 is released I can't
see any trace of these, I'm disappointed.
- When I thought 1.4 would still be Gtk+1 based, and when
it's released I see it's Gtk+2 based, I'm delighted.
Gimp-developer mailing list