The full thread[0] about how it runs on Wine is quite interesting:

> Direct2D has always been the biggest hurdle for Paint.NET on WINE, and it's clear that it will never be completed enough for Paint.NET's use. And I can't just "disable" the use of Direct2D. So, instead, Paint.NET now has an internal, from-scratch, clean-room reverse-engineered rewrite of Direct2D that it uses on WINE (triggered by using /wine). It lives in PaintDotNet.Windows.Direct2D1.Managed.dll. This was written by our good friend Claude, without whom this would NOT have been possible and would NEVER have happened.

> Most of this code is, as they say, "vibe coded." By that I mean that it has not been thoroughly reviewed, it's more "trust me bro" style. I cannot possibly review 180,000 lines of code, it's just way way way too much. For reference, the rest of Paint.NET is about 700,000 lines of code and I've been working on it for over 20 years. I did thoroughly review any code that had to be changed or added elsewhere in the Paint.NET code base (refactoring and integration points, etc.). Over time I do hope that more of this code will be vetted by real humans and also by more advanced AI models.

[0]: https://forums.paint.net/topic/134563-%F0%9F%8D%B7-extremely...

▲

edflsafoiewq 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Why is Direct2D so hard to implement in Wine?

▲

0x1d7 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How can one claim clean room if developed by a model? “Don’t use stolen code, yo”?

	▲	rspeele 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not the Paint.NET developer (just a happy user of that software), but to me the moral logic would go something like this: If Anthropic can absorb proprietary or GPL code into their models, which they rent usage of for tens of billions of dollars in revenue, and successfully claim that this violates no licenses, then I can also consider the output of those models "clean" for purposes of my software I give away for free.