TinSoldier

Still can't download it... I'll keep trying different ideas. At work today I tried Firefox (times out), wget (times out), and Internet Explorer (times out). If anyone else has any ideas I'm open to them. Thanks in advance. Edit: Okay, I figured it out. I had to remove the Coral proxy stuff from the url and download directly. I understand this isn't recommended otherwise you would not have set up to go through Coral. But it was the only way I could get it to work.

Update: tried wget. Got 403: Forbidden. No response necessary; will try again later.

I'll keep trying, but I disabled my home (McAfee software) firewall when I checked. I'll try again tomorrow at work. I also had problems pinging the site from work. Checking just now, ping works from home. I'll reply again only if I can't get it tomorrow.

Okay, I had only tried this at work so far but at home I get a page that says "HTTP through a proxy server is not allowed." So what is up? How can I get the source so I can study it and learn how to write plugins? At work the server times out. At home I get denied access (using Comcast Cable Internet). I've never had this problem downloading stuff before.

I think it looks great! Can you tell us how you did it? And explain this one as well. It may not have been "Easy" but it looks great!

PNG has partial transparency as well... (that is-- a true Alpha channel). Unfortunately until IE7 is widely adopted IE6 doesn't work properly with PNG transparency.

Sounds more like a macro facility than a scripting language.

I've been trying for two days now to download the source code but the server keeps timing out on me. Is there a mirror somewhere?

Got it. As has been pointed out I was looking at this from a different angle than you are.

Thanks, trickman! I had used the search and browsed the tutorials but I didn't think about using the drop shadow plugin as an outlining tool.

Sorry, Nick, if I've implied anything. I have just assumed that it is just as easy to upgrade (for those that need to upgrade) Paint.NET as it is to upgrade to the required version of Windows or to hardware that will support the latest version of Windows. As a user who knows that there may become a point where he cannot use the most recent version of Paint.NET I try to understand where you are coming from. That is, since I don't plan on upgrading to a newer version of Windows (I never planned on upgrading to XP even though I did eventually). I just wonder what your actual question is. Forking should not be a problem for anything that is truly open source; taking whatever improvements are made to 3.x and backporting them to something that works on versions of Windows pre-XP SP2 should not be a problem in my opinion. That is what open source is all about--making software work on the hardware that you have. Again, I didn't mean to imply anything negative if you were not demanding support from Rick Brewster for your specific configuration. I had to re-read the thread to see that that was the case.

How hard would it be to write a plugin to stroke the current selection with the current brush? I think it would be a useful feature or plugin. I mainly use Paint.NET with photos or for coloring in friends' drawings so being able to darken an outline is a good thing. I can see other uses for this feature as well. It might even be able to be used to antialias a cutuout.

Thanks for the clarification, Rick, but I kind of understood that a little bit. Even though I may not have taken the full picture into consideration. As an electronics technician, in production I've used software written by engineers that was never intended to be used in production much less be used on computers that have been upgraded past Windows 3.11 :!: so I have some appreciation for the situation. It is just that as has been pointed out elsewhere there are other tools that may continue to work with Windows 2000 and earlier that may fit with his needs. Or if he is in a corporate environment, maybe only a small subset of their computers need an upgrade in hardware and/or to a newer version of Windows to actually use the most recent version of Paint.NET. Not that I have any problem with you doing any contract work or anything. I'm just saying...

I'm not sure what you're asking here. If you're asking why someone who is unwilling to upgrade from Windows 2000 to XP or Vista need to upgrade to Paint.Net 3+ then they don't. It's not possible. Paint.Net 2.x runs just fine on Windows 2000 though and when Paint.Net moves to 3+ all those users (which is admittedly a TINY percentage of the overall Paint.Net user base) will have an unsupported and no longer developed piece of software. So the question stands, since Windows 2000 will become a piece of software that is not longer developed or supported. Well you're probably not a programmer either. In my situation I have an installed user base who uses a tool that is going to (has?) become unsupported. The user base likes the tool and are themselves programmers and the source for the tool is available. While it doesn't make sense for Rick to derail progress for such a small user base it does seem potentially worthwhile for a fork to occur so that we may continue to support the product ourselves (and perhaps pick up some outside contributions) until such a time as we meet the requirements to upgrade to a supported version. You are right, I'm not (much) of a programmer. Since the sources for the versions of Paint.NET that work with Windows 2000 are available, though, what is the problem? Are you waiting for Rick to extend new features to you or are you and whomever you represent ready to pay to add those features?My main point is this: Windows 2000 has the features that you want and need. You do not want or need the features in Windows XP and beyond. Since Paint.NET is adding new features that will require Windows XP and beyond, you are hoping to have those features on your older operating systems. So you are hoping for new features in the application that you use without wanting to accept new features in the operating systems that you do not use. Is that a correct assumption? Oh, and like Rick said, if you represent some corporate consortium I guess it is not a problem if they are willing to make a donation to the project in order to maintain backwards compatability.

My only question is why would anyone who is unwilling to upgrade from Windows (notXP) needs to upgrade to Paint.NET (*requiresXP+)? I don't plan on upgrading to Vista; so if Paint.NET gets to the point where it no longer supports XP I guess that I will either have to live with the features of older versions of Paint.NET or switch to a different program.