Talk:Paint.NET

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Software / Computing  (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Free Software / Software / Computing  (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Free Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of free software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
 

The program is not dead[edit]

Is this program dead? The link http://www.eecs.wsu.edu/paint.net/ is broken. exe 16:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The program is not dead it works perfectly. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachary9 (talkcontribs) 12:59, 15 June 2006

It's currently sitting at their new website:

http://www.getpaint.net/download.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.64.149.240 (talkcontribs) 09:00, 6 October 2006

Sorry for probably messing this page up, as I've never participated in a Talk page before, but is this program vector-based? I don't see any mention of it in the article, or the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.154.50 (talkcontribs) 06:24, 14 October 2006

no its a raster image editor. also, someone should make notice of the fact that 3.0 is almost out - Mickiscoole 09:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Mention should be made that it has excellent support for transparency (alpha channel), but no real support for paletted (8-bit etc) bitmaps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewWPhillips (talkcontribs) 12:52, 7 October 2007

September 2007 rewrite[edit]

I just completed an extensive reword and rework of this article. Please review and post ideas you have for the improvement of the article here. Cheers! =David(talk)(contribs) 20:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Title[edit]

Paint.Net or paint.net? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 22:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Neither. Its official title, from the program's help menu and title bar, is Paint.NET - a blending of Microsoft Paint and the .NET Framework. Capital P, lowercase aint., capital NET. The article is correctly titled. =David(talk)(contribs) 01:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Source Code Change[edit]

The author(s?) is/are considering not releasing the source code, or not releasing all of the source code, as per this blog post:

http://blog.getpaint.net/2007/12/04/freeware-authors-beware-of-%E2%80%9Cbackspaceware%E2%80%9D/ --CCFreak2K (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It's just the installer, text, and images. The bulk of the program is still under the MIT license.I Love Pi (talk) 16:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Paint-Mono Screenshot.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Paint-Mono Screenshot.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Timeline[edit]

Is the timeline really necessary. Maybe if it only contained major milestone releases, otherwise it should be remove. It is very impractical in it's current state, an extensive changelog is available here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toehead2001 (talkcontribs) 23:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree, no reason for a timeline to take up the majority of the page. I Love Pi (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I think NEW FEATURES are acceptable for that section, and I completely agree with the fact that its unnecessary to put too much stuff there. --Colintso (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

misappropriate use of ".pdn" file extention[edit]

When searching wikipedia for ".pdn" it redirects to this article. This file extention for years now is used by "Portable Draughts Notation" and thus has becomed international standard.

At least some link to "disambiguation" MUST exist.

Portable_Draughts_Notation

82.135.215.244 (talk) 05:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)MJ

I've fixed it, now goes to the disambiguation page. --toehead2001 (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No longer open source[edit]

Last source release was 3.2, and now at 3.36. The source, even old source, is not available on the web site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.17.43.205 (talkcontribs) 12:11, 7 October 2008

The web site no longer lists it as open source, and the main author, Rick Brewster, confirmed via email that the source was not available:

Sorry, the source code is not available.

Paint.NET was never a conventional "open source" application anyway, as it was not "community developed". We have never accepted unsolicited, outside contributions.

Our current plan is to release only the source code for the Data and Effects DLL's, to serve as a plugin SDK.

-Rick Brewster

Anotherbloodyusername (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The last source release was 3.36 (I have a copy of it, as do many others who got it before it was pulled). Some parts are under licenses more restrictive than the MIT license, but the vast majority is still under MIT. I Love Pi (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the open source category was incorrect at this point. §FreeRangeFrog 20:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Using the Wikipedia definition of open source:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Definition

this software is definitely not open source any longer. The fact that a limited number of people have the source is not really relevant. Though I would like a copy ;-) ... feel free to send me any info you have.

I'd suggest amending the article to the effect that:

3.3.6 was initially released as partial open source, but later pulled, and the developer no longer makes the source freely available for download.

Anotherbloodyusername Feb 20 2009

Forum section[edit]

Is this relevant to the article which is about the software? To me it sounds like someone trying to increase the userbase for the forum. -- RND  T  C  22:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, the forum is not only official, but one of the "selling points" of the program. Part of its distinctive is the community. =David(talk)(contribs) 14:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Exactly! And that means this section is NOT ALLOWED in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Besides, this section fails to comply with Wikipedia notability guideline, meaning that no reliable secondary source has ever made a point that this forum is by any mean more important than other customer support forums.
I'm re-adding importance template and I'm going to delete this section within 7 days, unless its issues are resolved.
Fleet Command (talk) 06:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I've added references which clearly detail the forum (Active Online Community) as a main feature of Paint.NET and slightly reworded the section. As it is a feature of the program I do not see why it needs be labelled unimportant, after all, the GIMP page details a list of it's features.
123.100.109.98, 00:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.100.109.98 (talk)
Insufficient: You have provided a link to author's advertising. This is neither secondary source nor reliable source. Every product can assert to have an active community, especially Microsoft products. This doesn't make it notable. Why don't you study Wikipedia general notability guideline? Fleet Command (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, 190.218.50.57 took care of it. Fleet Command (talk) 11:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Freeware License?[edit]

The sidebar lists "Freeware" as the license type, however the link target is to the Wikipedia article on Freeware. Freeware is not a license type. Freeware can, of course, be offered under a wide variety of licenses.

The Wikipedia article on Comparison of raster graphics editors designates the licensing as "Proprietary with MIT components". I propose changing the sidebar to more accurately reflect the current licensing of Paint.NET.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.124.49.214 (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Freeware IS a license type: It specifies that the software is available free of charge.
Adding more accurate information is welcome in Wikipedia. But you don't need to be picky about small points.
As for the information given in Comparison of raster graphics editors, it now says "Free" and "Proprietary". There is no mention of MIT anymore. Fleet Command (talk) 11:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

License blah blah[edit]

Don't you think that all this license-related blahblah in the "Overview" section is a bit too exhaustive? I mean, "normal" Wikipedia readers probably don't care all that much about that (including me...)

82.139.196.68 (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete color space[edit]

Is there any mention as to why the main color space does not allow to quickly pick luminosity lower than half the way down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiftadot (talkcontribs) 05:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

adding download links to the source code?[edit]

A while ago, I added some links to sites that mirror the source code, including one to what appears to be an old official website that is no longer maintained. However, 24.19.188.205 (talk · contribs) removed them, saying that Wikipedia is not a "place for collecting download links." I agree that we are not a link farm, but I don't see any problem with including a link to the source code. The source code is no longer available on the developer's website, but just because a developer is no longer offering an official download does not mean we shouldn't link to third-party sites that mirror it.

For the record, I think at least one of the following links (especially the first one) should be included:

What does everyone think? --Ixfd64 (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedians who use Paint.NET[edit]

For Wikipedians who use Paint.NET, see Category:Wikipedians who use Paint.NET. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Beware misleading download links[edit]

On the product's website which is referred by this article are multiple confusing 'download' buttons which are actually advertisment and download / install 'junk' software on your computer. Should wikipedia still link to the website under such circumstances? David Burg (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I can find five instances of the word "download" on getpaint.net's main page.
  • The one in the menu on top, beside the Donate and Roadmap buttons, which doesn't seem to lead to junk
  • A link at the top part of the right column, which seems to lead to the correct one
  • An ad that clearly claims to be for a download manager, which is clearly not relevant
  • An ad that clearly claims to be for a RAR to ZIP converter, which is clearly not relevant
  • An ad for some poorly described piece of software at the bottom. "flv" in the URL means it's some kind of video converter; Paint.NET doesn't even try to handle video files. I doubt anyone would scroll to the bottom without finding the real download links anyways.
  • Possibly some more behind the annoying double underlines. Flashblock stops me from checking, but I don't consider it likely to contain any download links for anything.
Therefore, I vote for keeping that link. It is a bit excessive with the ads, but it's the official website, and all other project pages on Wikipedia link to their official websites. I see no reason to be different around here. --81.231.245.214 (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

XP SP2[edit]

What version work at XP SP2?--Kaiyr (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Brewster later stated that he hopes to release portions of the source code back into the public.[edit]

When did he said that? Still no source is available.

Notability tag[edit]

I noticed that a "Notability" tag has been on this page for several months, but no discussion was opened on the topic. All sections of the article are sourced and Paint.net appears to be both popular and referenced in a good number of third-party articles, therefore I have removed the tag. 173.76.119.195 (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi.
...but no discussion was opened on the topic. Merger needs a discussion, not notability, unless there is a dispute.
All sections of the article are sourced... That's verifiability, not notability. Please be careful not to confuse these two. This topic clearly fails to supply evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. All information in the article comes from primary sources.
...referenced in a good number of third-party articles... Are you sure you look at Paint.NET article? Because there is only one citation from secondary source in it. That's citation number 10 from Mook, Nate. The rest are all from getpaint.net domain, except three ancillary footnotes that are not even citations.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Ridiculous. I'm not a fan of Paint.NET because I test downloaded it once years ago, uninstalled it, and yet I just discovered a folder in my registry today. The thing is hard to kill on a computer. Here are third party Google news sources: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=%22paint.net%22+editor&tbm=nws to possibly use. The article just needs a new flag at top requesting more non-primary source citations, in my opinion. 5Q5 (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Notability: there are multiple well-known publishers offering books around the software:
It's certainly notable. --20:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.142.214.19 (talk)
Hi. The first two are good, ... if you could cite them in the article. The third, no; notability demands significant coverage, not mentions.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, ya'll – not sure how much if any bearing this may have on the matter, but there are several metadata links from image files that rely on this article and its version history. An example of a metadata redirect is Paint.NET v2.6. Joys! – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 10:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The website lied to me about the copyright status of the logo.[edit]

The website's bottom message said that the entire website was licensed under Creative Commons, so the logo on the website (as its element) must also be licensed—right? What? It is not free? I feel lied to. Also, what is the difference between a "fake" SVG and a "real" SVG. Lastly, I can not believe that I have been deceived by that lie. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Look. I am sorry for raising my tone like that. When things go wrong, I often try not to overreact, but this is just one of those examples that could have made me be blocked even though it was not really my fault, and my response is making accusations of lying (such as this discussion). Perhaps, the reason to call the picture fake is because of the apparent licensing problems. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Gff365
The problem is far simpler than what you think.
Judging by what you yourself wrote in the image description page, you correctly identified the image as licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0. Only what you don't know is that this license, unlike most other Creative Commons licenses, is non-free. (If only you had thought for a second: How can one license be free when it forbids commercial use? You also didn't pay enough attention to the fact that Commons does not have a PD-BY-NC license tag.)
As for a fake SVG, it is an SVG file that contains only and only a raster image. SVGs are supposed to be mostly vector images.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
As soon as I have looked at "Noncommercial", I suddenly realized that I have made a mistake—a mistake that could have made me be blocked even though the copyright violation was innocent. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
No one blocks you for one mistake. —Codename Lisa (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I also was not told any of this on Commons Wikimedia when I should have; instead, I just received an ambiguous license notice. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, there are ample warnings and tutorials. That's how I learned. Even the upload tool provides some illustrated graphics. —Codename Lisa (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
And is it possible to convert raster images into vector images? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
It is. But it is difficult. It is called image tracing. —Codename Lisa (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I used to think that all SVG files used vector images. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Almost all of those uploaded to Commons do. SVG is created for vector graphics after all. —Codename Lisa (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Lastly, where does it say that SVG files must use vector graphics? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
It is so obvious that no one ever thought of writing it down. Why would anyone use SVG if it is not for its scalability anyway? —Codename Lisa (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
There should be a bot that reads files for "Creative Commons" and "Noncommercial" or "Non-commercial" and warns users that their files are poorly licensed. I am requesting that now. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)