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
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
