Slashdot Mirror
Paint.NET: The Anti-GIMP?
Arno contributes a link to Paint.NET, a free-of-charge raster-graphics program for Windows XP machines. "Quote: 'Paint.NET is image and photo manipulation software designed to be used on computers that run Windows XP. Paint.NET is jointly developed at Washington State University with additional help from Microsoft, and is meant to be a free replacement for the MS Paint software that comes with all Windows operating systems. The programming language used to create Paint.NET is C#, with GDI+ extensions.' It really seems like a nice tool. I definitely prefer its UI to GIMP's."
I managed to grab a mirror if needed. Site kinda seemed slow, especially for a .edu domain.
75gb
dev, with mirror link: http://blogs.msdn.com/rickbrew/
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:M2DW9zE1bnIJ: www.eecs.wsu.edu/paint.net/+&hl=en/
Much faster than either of the mirrors listed.
BSD-like License: http://www.eecs.wsu.edu/paint.net/legal.html
try drawing with the fat brush
i am running a 3.0+ ghz and 2GB ram dell and the graphics painting sucks
they may want to work on speed a bit if they want to be taken seriously
I'd say, just like the article, it's intended to be a replacement for MS-Paint. It doesn't appear to have anywhere near all of the advanced features of Gimp.
It has layers, and an effects API, but that seems to be where the similarity ends.
The interface appears to be simple like MS Paint's, but I think it's seriously overstating that it's a Gimp competitor. Heck, sounds like the project has only been around for 2 semesters. How mature could it be compared to Gimp or Photoshop?
1) Yes. /. headlines have to have inflamitory and misleading headlines to attract attention for some reason.
2) No.
3) It's open source.
4) See #3 and because all
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
You don't.
First of all, the .NET framework is not badly designed. It's one of the best-designed products Microsoft ever came up with. The reason Microsoft released so much crap over the years, is probably because all their best programmers were working on .NET.
Secondly, their exist free (as in free software) alternatives. Mono is the best-known one, an other is DotGNU Portable.NET. But they're not 100 % complete yet, so I don't know if this Paint.NET will work.
The XP requirement is due to the use of GDI+, which is included with XP.
= /library/en-us/gdicpp/GDIPlus/GDIPlus.asp
However, GDI+ can be installed on NT4,W2K,Win98,ME see http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url
As Linux doesn't have GDI+ I doubt very much that it will work with Mono.
If MS wanted this to really be cross-platform, why didn't the do what Sun did with the GUI side and have it work on other platforms. The only thing MS did was give us the C# language (which is nice) and a reference C# complier. That is a far way off from being cross platform. What really matters are the class libraries. Sun made theirs cross-platform and implemented them on multiple platforms, MS did not. Sun did not tie anything into just Solaris, MS tied the GUI end of .Net into just MS Windows.
If you write a .Net GUI app, it will not be cross-platform by default. You have to use some other class libraries like GTK#, QT# or wxWindows#. With Java, when you write a GUI app, it _is_ cross-platform.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Ummm...I use the GIMP every day. I'm a website developer and graphic designer. I like Photoshop better than the GIMP, but other than some less-than-perfect GUI issues, I love the GIMP as well.
BenCurry.net
I don't think there is anyone specifically working on this yet, but I'd like to see it.
I downloaded Paint.NET a few days ago to see what it would take to convert it to run on GTK# with mono (much the same way the MonoDevelop guys ported SharpDevelop). The first issue I hit was that it seems to be tightly bound to Ink (the TabletPC SDK).
Nonetheless, I plan to do some more experimenting with it over the next few days. If anyone else is working on this, I'd really like to hear from them.
Joseph Hill (jhill AT arcfocus.com)
"I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson
Have you heard of page sharing and copy-on-write? Most of these 80MB is shared between two instances of the app. At the same time fore each of the processes it looks like it has 80MB of code and data loaded. In reality both processes have the same thing, except for pages that differ. So code DLLs are mapped to the same areas of physical RAM and data segments are only in physically different locations if they've been written into.
Yet windows task manager shows 80MB anyway, because that's what individual processes see.
Any group can make a new language and submit it for ISO standardization. Yes that would allow possible cross-platform implementations. But that is a far cry from actually being cross-platform.
Sun made Java when they were the largest Unix server platform and one of the largest server platforms (MS doesn't have server monopoly). Sun could have made Java only run on Solaris and just submit specs for anyone else. They didn't do that. They _wrote_ the code for multiple platforms so that Java could be cross-platform.
I just finished a C# GUI application (for personal use) that connects into Coast to Coast AM with a StreamLink userName and Password and downloads the daily MP3's of the most recent show (or any date you pick). This app doesn't run on Linux or any other platform. If I had written it in Java, it would run out-of-the-box on those other platforms, that is cross-platform.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Even Photoshop never used that clunky interface originally. The Photoshop MDI originated from the fact that on the Macintosh, Photoshop looked a lot more like the GIMP -- except that the menubar was on top, mac-related stuff, etc. However, the Photoshop programming team didn't want to figure out how to do that on Windows, so they simply made a "container window" to hold everything.
Since then, a number of programs have emulated that, even though they never had to. It was simply a hack to get around a Mac-->Windows porting problem.