6 ms·

This. Paint.NET is what I'm missing on my Mac so much.

by Jdam 10y ago

jug 10y ago
I 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 ago
It 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 ago
  Well, 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 ago
    When 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 ago
      I'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 ago
    Paint.net has feature? I find it is just a simple quick raster editor with little to no features. What am I missing?
    - aargh_aargh 10y ago
      A ton of plugins... To be honest, I didn't check if Pinta supports those and I rarely use any in Paint.NET. Being lightweight, quick to start with just the essential features is what I appreciate in both. It's just that for my simple uses (stitching bitmaps together, resizing, getting color values, pixel-perfect alignment, working with multiple buffers, turning toolbars on/off, editing in layers) Pinta feels much clumsier than its big brother.
unixhero 10y ago
Paint.Net is good, indeed. Let Krita be your new friend. https://krita.org/en/ https://krita.org/en/
- skoczymroczny 10y ago
  In the past I didn't like the fact that Paint.NET isn't available on Linux. After using editors like Krita, I realized I didn't miss Paint.NET as much as I missed an image editor that isn't GIMP.
- creshal 10y ago
  Would be nice if I didn't need the half the KDE desktop for it.
  - lmm 10y ago
    What difference does that make? You don't have to run KDE (heck, I use it on windows). Yes its UI is a separate library from the specific program - any well-factored program will do the same, whether it exposes the separation or not.
    - creshal 10y ago
      > What difference does that make? • It's more packages I need to download. Doubly annoying because 95% of the packages are just "thin wrapper around foo, because we're too hipster to use libraries directly like peasants". • It installs system-wide services I have to disable/mask just so other programs don't mistakenly use them because they think I run KDE and they have to integrate into it. • Oh wait, I can't disable some of these, because Krita itself needs them and now I need to figure out how to make them play nice with my desktop aaaaaarggghhhh
      - cash3wz 10y ago
        I agree with you for point 2 & 3, I also hated installing KDE apps for this exact reason. But I can't agree on the first one. I have not checked what these exact thin wrappers are, but most of the time thin wrappers are really useful for testing and switching to another library without being tangled in the old one. It pretty much follow the "D" (Dependency inversion principle) in the S.O.L.I.D. principles: "Depend upon Abstractions. Do not depend upon concretions.”. Again, I have not checked the KDE libs you talk about, so I'm assuming this is what these wrappers are used for. (Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_inversion_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_inversion_principle & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOLID_(object-oriented_design) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOLID_(object-oriented_design) )

This. Paint.NET is what I'm missing on my Mac so much.

by Jdam 10y ago

This. Paint.NET is what I'm missing on my Mac so much.

jug 10y ago

I 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 ago

It 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 ago
Well, 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 ago
  When 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 ago
    I'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 ago
  Paint.net has feature? I find it is just a simple quick raster editor with little to no features. What am I missing?
  - aargh_aargh 10y ago
    A ton of plugins... To be honest, I didn't check if Pinta supports those and I rarely use any in Paint.NET. Being lightweight, quick to start with just the essential features is what I appreciate in both. It's just that for my simple uses (stitching bitmaps together, resizing, getting color values, pixel-perfect alignment, working with multiple buffers, turning toolbars on/off, editing in layers) Pinta feels much clumsier than its big brother.

unixhero 10y ago

Paint.Net is good, indeed. Let Krita be your new friend. https://krita.org/en/ https://krita.org/en/

skoczymroczny 10y ago
In the past I didn't like the fact that Paint.NET isn't available on Linux. After using editors like Krita, I realized I didn't miss Paint.NET as much as I missed an image editor that isn't GIMP.
creshal 10y ago
Would be nice if I didn't need the half the KDE desktop for it.
- lmm 10y ago
  What difference does that make? You don't have to run KDE (heck, I use it on windows). Yes its UI is a separate library from the specific program - any well-factored program will do the same, whether it exposes the separation or not.
  - creshal 10y ago
    > What difference does that make? • It's more packages I need to download. Doubly annoying because 95% of the packages are just "thin wrapper around foo, because we're too hipster to use libraries directly like peasants". • It installs system-wide services I have to disable/mask just so other programs don't mistakenly use them because they think I run KDE and they have to integrate into it. • Oh wait, I can't disable some of these, because Krita itself needs them and now I need to figure out how to make them play nice with my desktop aaaaaarggghhhh
    - cash3wz 10y ago
      I agree with you for point 2 & 3, I also hated installing KDE apps for this exact reason. But I can't agree on the first one. I have not checked what these exact thin wrappers are, but most of the time thin wrappers are really useful for testing and switching to another library without being tangled in the old one. It pretty much follow the "D" (Dependency inversion principle) in the S.O.L.I.D. principles: "Depend upon Abstractions. Do not depend upon concretions.”. Again, I have not checked the KDE libs you talk about, so I'm assuming this is what these wrappers are used for. (Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_inversion_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_inversion_principle & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOLID_(object-oriented_design) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOLID_(object-oriented_design) )