| ▲ | xnx 4 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
I didn't realize Paint.net was closed-source now. What's the best alternative, Pinta? | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | tech234a 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
It's been closed source for 16+ years. Some background: * https://blog.paint.net/2007/12/04/freeware-authors-beware-of... * https://blog.paint.net/2009/11/06/a-new-license-for-paintnet... | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | Macha 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
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 | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | red_admiral an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
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. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | pndy 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Pinta is based on an old Paint.net code | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | mminer237 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
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. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | neurosock 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
If you really miss the simplicity of MSPaint and need something that's quick and no layer complications: KolourPaint. | |||||||||||||||||