3 ms·

I didn't realize Paint.net was closed-source now. What's the best alternative, Pinta?

by xnx 1mo ago

Macha 1mo ago
Paint.Net was only really open source entirely from 2004-2007 and partially from 2007-2009 (engine only, not the UI for the latter part). My experience: Pinta is an inferior Paint.NET . It's about the same level of complexity, but everything is just like... 60-85% as good. Krita is a heavier program, but has a similar level of polish. You might not use half the features, but Krita's what I'd suggest for anyone wanting an open source alternative to Paint.net
tech234a 1mo ago
It's been closed source for 16+ years. Some background: * https://blog.paint.net/2007/12/04/freeware-authors-beware-of-%E2%80%9Cbackspaceware%E2%80%9D/ https://blog.paint.net/2007/12/04/freeware-authors-beware-of... * https://blog.paint.net/2009/11/06/a-new-license-for-paintnet-v35/ https://blog.paint.net/2009/11/06/a-new-license-for-paintnet...
- vova_hn2 1mo ago
  > The biggest problem was that, even though these were clearly unethical and deplorable actions, the MIT License permitted all of it. Seriously? Why not go GPL then?
  - NetMageSCW 1mo ago
    Because that is even worse for what he wants to allow.
    - saghm 1mo ago
      Which is what, exactly? As far as I can tell, it seems more about what he wants to not allow. At the end of the day I respect an author's choice whether to close source to something even if I disagree with it, but it feels a little euphemistic to describe that as "allowing" something.
pndy 1mo ago
Pinta is based on an old Paint.net code
mminer237 1mo ago
Pinta is obviously not as capable, but yeah, it's by far the most usable general-purpose photo editor on Linux that I've found.
- red_admiral 1mo ago
  It says something that an old paint.net derivative is still the best general purpose image editor out there. (I consider GIMP harder and slower to use.)
neurosock 1mo ago
If you really miss the simplicity of MSPaint and need something that's quick and no layer complications: KolourPaint.
red_admiral 1mo ago
If open source matters more than anything else, there's always GIMP. If you just want to use the thing, not recompile it, paint.net is still free, even for commercial work, and (in my opinion) has better UX.
slazaro 1mo ago
Krita is what I use. Pinta just had a lot of broken UX and it didn't behave the way I expected. Krita is closer to Photoshop, but having extra features is not a problem. I'm pretty sure anything you'd do in paint.net you can do in Krita.

I didn't realize Paint.net was closed-source now. What's the best alternative, Pinta?

by xnx 1mo ago

I didn't realize Paint.net was closed-source now. What's the best alternative, Pinta?

Macha 1mo ago

Paint.Net was only really open source entirely from 2004-2007 and partially from 2007-2009 (engine only, not the UI for the latter part). My experience: Pinta is an inferior Paint.NET . It's about the same level of complexity, but everything is just like... 60-85% as good. Krita is a heavier program, but has a similar level of polish. You might not use half the features, but Krita's what I'd suggest for anyone wanting an open source alternative to Paint.net

tech234a 1mo ago

It's been closed source for 16+ years. Some background: * https://blog.paint.net/2007/12/04/freeware-authors-beware-of-%E2%80%9Cbackspaceware%E2%80%9D/ https://blog.paint.net/2007/12/04/freeware-authors-beware-of... * https://blog.paint.net/2009/11/06/a-new-license-for-paintnet-v35/ https://blog.paint.net/2009/11/06/a-new-license-for-paintnet...

vova_hn2 1mo ago
> The biggest problem was that, even though these were clearly unethical and deplorable actions, the MIT License permitted all of it. Seriously? Why not go GPL then?
- NetMageSCW 1mo ago
  Because that is even worse for what he wants to allow.
  - saghm 1mo ago
    Which is what, exactly? As far as I can tell, it seems more about what he wants to not allow. At the end of the day I respect an author's choice whether to close source to something even if I disagree with it, but it feels a little euphemistic to describe that as "allowing" something.

pndy 1mo ago

Pinta is based on an old Paint.net code

mminer237 1mo ago

Pinta is obviously not as capable, but yeah, it's by far the most usable general-purpose photo editor on Linux that I've found.

red_admiral 1mo ago
It says something that an old paint.net derivative is still the best general purpose image editor out there. (I consider GIMP harder and slower to use.)

neurosock 1mo ago

If you really miss the simplicity of MSPaint and need something that's quick and no layer complications: KolourPaint.

red_admiral 1mo ago

If open source matters more than anything else, there's always GIMP. If you just want to use the thing, not recompile it, paint.net is still free, even for commercial work, and (in my opinion) has better UX.

slazaro 1mo ago

Krita is what I use. Pinta just had a lot of broken UX and it didn't behave the way I expected. Krita is closer to Photoshop, but having extra features is not a problem. I'm pretty sure anything you'd do in paint.net you can do in Krita.