3 ms·
Paint.NET became irrelevant when it became closed source. These awful malware buttons are just another example of the same mentality that led to changing the li
by Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
Paint.NET became irrelevant when it became closed source. These awful malware buttons are just another example of the same mentality that led to changing the license.
- sdegutis 8y agoWait, Paint.net is closed source, and the website knowingly has malware buttons? That makes me extremely hesitant to use the app anymore. If they're unscrupulous about putting those buttons on the website, who's to say they aren't putting actual malware inside the app?
- Ajedi32 8y agoWait, Paint.net is closed source? Weird, I guess I always just assumed it was open. Is there a fork?
- dagw 8y agoThe last open source release was in 2009, and I recall there being some weirdness with the code being open, but the icons other resources weren't. There where a couple of forks around years ago, but non of them went anywhere.
- rhencke 8y agoThe author of Paint.NET struggled with the source code being lifted, rebranded and sold for a profit. 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...
- tracker1 8y agoSomeone was taking the Paint.Net source, bundling with OSS plugins and replacing all the names/copyright as another piece of software. The person doing so is in another country from the author, so the author decided to close the source. If you're on Linux or Mac, there's a recreation after Paint.Net called Pinta. It's passable on windows and mac, but the linux version has been very buggy for me, it doesn't seem to be well maintained either. Which is a shame. I really do like Paint.net a lot, but as GP mentions, actually getting a novice through the download process is scary to say the least.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]