>> And all users that don't use the two latest releases of MacOS (like >> me) are out of the game, too. >> >> [Note that I'm not a MacOS user at all. For daily work I'm >> exclusively using GNU/Linux. It's just that I'm interested in >> providing support even on exotic platforms :-)] > > Since you’re not a Mac user, are you in any position to talk about > what’s more usable on Mac OS *to experienced Mac users*?
Uh, oh, a smiley in the end seems not to be enough to mark irony... Irrespective of that, Homebrew does not support macOS 10.7, so this is not related to `experience' at all. > If you’re not a Mac user, I suppose it makes sense that you’d prefer > MacPorts: isn’t it more or less a BSD package manager? The problem, > though, is that it doesn’t fit the spirit of Mac OS very well. > Homebrew does a *much* better job at playing nice with the rest of > the OS, its CLI is pleasant, and it’s easy to create new packages. I started with Homebrew, but since 10.7 is no longer supported I was forced to abandon it. By the way, it seems to me that your `hazy recollections' are no longer valid, as far as I can tell. Having used both package managers I don't see an essential difference in the CLI (except that Homebrew uses colours and the sexy beer emoji on the command line). > A lot of the natural users for LilyPond are composers. Many of them > are not very technical and won’t want to install a package manager > when they can get MuseScore, Finale, Sibelius, or Noteflight without > that extra step. That’s one reason that I think it’s important to > lower the bar to getting a binary as much as possible. Agreed. Werner _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel