Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 8th Feb 2010 13:23 UTC, submitted by kragil
Graphics, User Interfaces You may remember that back in November last year, I wrote about the lack of a decent Paint.NET-like application for Linux (or, more specifically, for Gtk+ distributions, since Qt has Krita). As it turns out, this compelled Novell employee Jonathan Pobst to code a Paint.NET clone in Gtk+ using Cairo. Version 0.1 is here, and it's remarkably advanced for something so young.
Thread beginning with comment 408320
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: nothing for me
by rimzi on Mon 8th Feb 2010 16:04 UTC in reply to "nothing for me"
rimzi
Member since:
2009-12-17

Is there something wrong using a technology that works?

C'mon, if you do not use software that does the job for some obscure reason like software patents, interesting how you get around without the likes of mp3 and h264.. which are patented by much more patent-litigious companies than Microsoft ;)

There is nothing wrong with a developer using freedom that mono provides. And in turn, using the amazing software that mono enables to produce.

That's only my opinion, not related with any company, cultist organization or people.

Edited 2010-02-08 16:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: nothing for me
by Morty on Mon 8th Feb 2010 17:08 in reply to "RE: nothing for me"
Morty Member since:
2005-07-06

using the amazing software that mono enables to produce.

Well that's a repeatedly made statement, but one that after years still fail to produce much evidence of being true. There may be many examples of such in the vertical applications space. But it's not surprising if those developers prefer to stay with .NET proper(or Java) rather than bother with Mono.

As for getting the leverage of amazing .NET applications, the porting requirements of Paint.NET show it to be a non starter. And while the regular examples showed when discussing Mono applications are not bad, they are far short of amazing. And most of them have alternatives, consider better by many.

The speed of witch Tomboy was ported to C++, can show that Mono is as a useful prototype tool and where it really shines. But considering the manhours going into Tomboy, that is not compelling either.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: nothing for me
by jpobst on Mon 8th Feb 2010 17:34 in reply to "RE[2]: nothing for me"
jpobst Member since:
2006-09-26

For me personally, it simply comes down to I have been a .Net developer on Windows for close to a decade now. I have no desire to learn a new language while I am already very proficient with C#.

There does not seem to be a large contingent of people falling over themselves to write brand new apps for Linux in C/C++ (as opposed to iPhone or something), so you may be stuck with apps written in languages where the willing programmers are.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: nothing for me
by Mellin on Mon 8th Feb 2010 18:35 in reply to "RE: nothing for me"
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

i haven't found a mono program that i liked and i've tested many of them from banshee to tomboy.


microsoft used patents against tomtom and other companies.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[3]: nothing for me
by 10wattmindtrip on Mon 8th Feb 2010 18:37 in reply to "RE[2]: nothing for me"
10wattmindtrip Member since:
2007-04-01

Well, wouldn't necessarily agree. Docky is actually quite nice. Banshee is also nice and feature rich. I don't think it's the programs that should be judged.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: nothing for me
by modmans2ndcoming on Mon 8th Feb 2010 18:40 in reply to "RE[2]: nothing for me"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

What was TomTom doing? I bet it did not fall under the no lawsuit promis.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: nothing for me
by Mellin on Fri 12th Feb 2010 23:21 in reply to "RE[2]: nothing for me"
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

voting down my comment doesn't make me like mono and mono programs!

Reply Parent Score: 2