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 
> > 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 

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
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to