I guess more digital art options on Linux are always good, but that aside, is there even a good reason to use it when something like Krita exists? It's always worked flawlessly on my linux machine (Mint).

https://github.com/kde/krita

▲

orbital-decay 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Very different software. Paint.NET is mostly a composition/annotation tool oriented towards simplicity and speed, Krita revolves around digital painting.

▲

louthy 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I use Krita, but I miss Paint.NET

It’s lighter, simpler, and faster with a much more intuitive UX. for basic image manipulation tasks it’s awesome.

For creation of art I’d use Krita, it is more feature complete. But if Paint.NET appeared on Linux, I’d use it in a heartbeat.

Paint.NET is closer to Gimp, but usable.

	▲	vunderba 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I can see that. I wish Pixelmator (before it got bought up by Apple) had been ported over to Linux. That's been the closest lightweight super-intuitive alternative to Paint.net I've ever messed around with.

▲

colkassad 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Paint.net is my go-to image editing software. I'm not a digital artist or professional photographer, I just need to downsize/crop/adjust the occasional image. I don't need the kitchen sink. Regular MS Paint is annoyingly basic and Krita, GIMP, et al., are too much UI-wise. That said, I use Linux daily but not for images so not sure if there is a Paint.net analog on Linux already.

	▲	vunderba 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Back when I was still on Windows(XP days), I made heavy use of Paint.net. Given Microsoft’s penchant for gobbling up smaller companies, I was always a bit surprised that they never bought the company and integrated paint.net as the built-in OS replacement for the original MS Paint.

▲

nashashmi 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'd reverse the question and ask is there any reason to continue developing in .NET and windows-only languages when windows allows for WSL apps.