8 ms·
Can I have Paint.NET on Linux yet?
by aargh_aargh 10y ago
Can I have Paint.NET on Linux yet?
- romanovcode 10y agoNo, classic form stuff is not supported. There are only some open-source libraries but they are very new.
- creshal 10y agoDepends on the GUI framework it uses. GDI actually exists for Linux (at least for Mono), but it's not really something you want to use in production. Windows Forms doesn't exist (yet). IIRC that's what paint.net uses, so you're out of luck. Third party toolkits like GTK#, wx.NET or QtSharp will work on both OSes.
- ygra 10y agoI remember that ages ago the Mono team used Paint.NET as a testbed for how complete and usable their System.Windows.Forms and System.Windows.Drawing implementation was. But back then Paint.NET was still open source. By now the source code isn't available anymore and it has grown a lot of things that are implemented in native code for performance (set operations on selection regions) or talking to things that have no equivalent in .NET (DirectWrite). It also uses WPF for a few things, so isn't completely Windows Forms anymore either. As it currently stands, Paint.NET is very much a Windows program, despite being written mostly in C#.
- egeozcan 10y agoOh I didn't know that Paint.NET closed source. I found a blog post about the decision, an interesting read. Here it is: https://blog.getpaint.net/2007/12/04/freeware-authors-beware-of-%E2%80%9Cbackspaceware%E2%80%9D/ https://blog.getpaint.net/2007/12/04/freeware-authors-beware...
- Tharre 10y agoI don't get it, one doesn't need the source code to change a few credits strings and pictures. Making Paint.NET closed source is about as effective as game studios putting more and more advanced DRM mechanisms into their games. I understand why the author is upset, but his cure is worse than the disease.
- Jdam 10y agoThis. Paint.NET is what I'm missing on my Mac so much.
- jug 10y agoI know it's not free, but I think the $30 for Pixelmator is so worth it on Mac. I miss that one now on Windows. :)
- UncleSlacky 10y agoIt was my understanding that Pinta is essentially Paint.NET, and is available on Mac as well as Linux and Windows: https://pinta-project.com/pintaproject/pinta/ https://pinta-project.com/pintaproject/pinta/
- aargh_aargh 10y agoWell, it's like comparing a go-kart to a sportscar. Pinta crashes on me a lot and has a fraction of the features.
- Sir_Cmpwn 10y agoWhen was the last time you tried it? I dismissed it for similar reasons when I first tried it, but then I tried it again about a year later and it was fine. Eventually I just manned up and learned how to use Gimp, though.
- aargh_aargh 10y agoI've been in fact using it from its very beginning and I've been getting the latest version (currently 1.6) from a PPA. It's handy for the same things I use Paint.NET for - it just feels more clumsy, despite tryig to be similar. I appreciate both for being lightweight.
- baldfat 10y agoPaint.net has feature? I find it is just a simple quick raster editor with little to no features. What am I missing?
- gribbly 10y agoAFAIK Paint.NET makes use of .NET functionality only supported on Windows. Beyond that it's closed source, so it would require the Paint.NET developers to port it to Linux. Wine is probably going to be your best bet.
- paullaros 10y agoPinta seems like a decent replacement. https://pinta-project.com/pintaproject/pinta/ https://pinta-project.com/pintaproject/pinta/
- baldfat 10y agoWHY is it just a Ubuntu release and no RPM? I really HATE when developers go Ubuntu = Linux
- darklajid 10y agoI don't think that's their responsibility. Traditionally it's your distribution's job to create and provide packages. Arch Linux has one (I just installed it myself) and if we're talking rpm: Fedora has one as well, it seems [1]. So, what is upsetting you here, really? 1: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/pinta%2A/ https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/pinta%2A/
- baldfat 10y ago> Traditionally it's your distribution's job to create and provide packages That has not been true in my 15 years of Linux. Look at bitsync, rstudio, or other major programs. Arch Linux must build off of the source so that isn't a fair comparison you are on a totally different system (port). EDIT: Here is the one page of documentation to push out deba nd rpm on mono projects. http://www.mono-project.com/docs/getting-started/install/linux/ci-packages/ http://www.mono-project.com/docs/getting-started/install/lin... I have seen electron applications (pinta isn't built on electron but mono) and in the same way ONLY Ubuntu is advertised under Linux. The ability to automatically build Linux formats is built into the framework and still don't add RPM. Linux: AppImage, deb, rpm, freebsd, pacman, p5p, apk. Still other eclectron applications do the same thing and ONLY provide Ubuntu and not provide the Deb or RPM with source. Look at the download page it says Linux and directly under it has a Ubuntu Logo and a ppa link. When I down load any of my commercial or major software there is always a RPM and a DEB with a tar. Linux Support = RPM (The official Linux Foundation package) DEB and Source. I use OpenSUSE and they have awesome build service that allows people to build packages for SUSE but also RPM, Arch and anyone else you want to add. https://software.opensuse.org/package/pinta https://software.opensuse.org/package/pinta
- dotancohen 10y agoNo. But honestly, spend a weekend learning Gimp. It's a pain, yes I know, but I'm really glad that I did. The official tutorials are wonderful. You'll be able to do so much more, and do it so much better, and even a bit quicker than you could in Paint.NET that you'll wind up preferring Gimp even in Windows. Just be sure to use single-window mode.
- scandox 10y agosingle-window mode! That is so much better. Don't know how I missed that for so long.
- chrisper 10y agoI think it was implemented as an option later on.
- Grishnakh 10y agoWith dual monitors and the traditional GIMP non-MDI configuration, I can put the controls on one monitor, and the picture on the other monitor.