Re: LilyPond-2.22.2 does not work on Windows XP
On Fri 14 Oct 2022 at 10:24:37 (+0100), J Martin Rushton wrote: > On Fri, 2022-10-14 at 01:51 -0700, Aaron Hill wrote: > > On 2022-10-14 12:18 am, J Martin Rushton wrote: > > > For some reason best known to Microsoft Windows held > > > systems down in 32-bit node for years after they were internally > > > 64- > > > bit. > > > > Microsoft did not "hold systems down". In the era of XP, Windows > > came > > in a 64-bit version, colloquially known as XP64. The main issue was > > that most consumers at that time only had access to 32-bit hardware, > > so > > it was not a priority to market 64-bit support. > > > > Over time, computer manufacturers have made 64-bit hardware the > > norm; > > but as anyone with IT experience knows: clients are rarely eager to > > spend money upgrading when things are not completely broken. (And > > even > > then when the office is on fire, some are still stingy.) So > > notwithstanding the average home user facing rising costs of new > > computers, Microsoft has many business, educational, and government > > customers that would all have to get aboard the 64-bit train. > > > Perhaps then trying to source XP64 would be a solution for the OP? Paul's experience might suggest that this could be a case of out of the frying pan into the fire, and it also doesn't help with connectivity. > Maybe it was the supply chain that shipped 32-bit XP on 64-bit machines > or maybe MS didn't want to push it for some reason? The fact remains > that in the XP era there were plenty of 64-bit machines hamstrung by a > 32-bit OS. Wasn't this about the time that Microsoft lost focus on their development of Vista? They seemed to be more intent on tinkering about with adding morsels of Vista into XP. Eventually they had to start over with Vista again. But the main thing was that the money kept pouring in, regardless of whether they were buying 32-bit or 64, so why bother. Meanwhile (say, 2005), Linux (Debian/sarge) supported i386, m68k, alpha, sparc, powerpc, arm, mips (both little- and big-end), ia64, hppa, and s390, in their first release not to support the 386 processor (that is as opposed to 486 on up). Cheers, David.
Re: LilyPond-2.22.2 does not work on Windows XP
On Fri 14 Oct 2022 at 09:48:41 (+), Dag Bergman wrote: > Thanks David for your comments. > > As I said to Werner, I will probably have to do Lilypond work on the Windows > 10 machine, albeit inconvenient. On Fri 14 Oct 2022 at 00:16:39 (+), Dag Bergman wrote: > Hi David, > > Thanks for your reply. > > I run Windows 10 on a rather powerful Dell-Precision with an i7-7700HQ CPU > and 32.0 GB RAM. You could take the opportunity to install a VM running linux, and leave the problems of LilyPond on windows/macs behind. You never know—you might find other XP programs that you can wean off XP onto open-source software. I'm sure there are smart people who run linux at Oxford who could help. Many of the IT people where I used to work were running linux systems at home or work, and that's 20 years ago.¹ And I would assume that these people's day jobs involves helping students and staff with their accessibility battles against the grey on grey themes of so much current software. ¹ Personally, I avoided the university's macs and windows machines, preferring instead to acquire any number of their 3-yr old cast-off PCs (from administrators and secretaries) for running linux on my desk, in the lab, and at home. Cheers, David.
Re: Building Mac OS LilyPond versions automatically (Was : another 'wrong type argument' error )
(regarding "automatically" in the title, please see my other reply) On Fri, 2022-10-14 at 08:29 +0200, Jacques Menu wrote: > Hello folks, > > I’m a regular user of Mac OS, which I use for development, and > will help with the creation of LilyPond versions with pleasure. > > My last try at building LilyPond from the source code on my Mac > Mini M1 failed due to a library not being ported yet to this > architecture, but Jonas told me that this should come with the > current efforts by the developers team. To be clear, I my self am not working on this due to lack of hardware. If somebody wants to give it a try, that would again be great. I can of course try to assist, but remote debugging only gets us that far... Jonas > signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: another 'wrong type argument' error
On Fri, 2022-10-14 at 04:30 +, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > > > In the spirit of my first comments in this email I’ll directly ask > > if the project needs help testing or working on the Mac build > > system at all? > > Yes, we need help – namely for taking *permanent* care of the MacOS > releases in > > https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/releases > > that have been built with the scripts in > > https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/tree/master/release > > With 'permanent' I mean that the automatically created and released > binaries should be regularly tested on actual Mac hardware to check > whether they work as expected. Jonas's fear is too real that some > day deployment support for older OS versions will break out of the > blue, unfortunately. Slight clarification: the binaries are not created "automatically" by some CI pipeline or the like, but by executing the scripts linked above on a macOS node provided by MacStadium. But yes, testing them on a regular basis and in a wider set of configurations would be great. > As Jonas writes: He isn't a MacOS users, and none of us main > developers is either. It was a heroic effort of him to set up the > scripts, but details like handling deployment targets to make this > work on older MacOS versions needs a dedicated specialist. The other point that was raised in the past was packaging as a LilyPond.app and a .dmg that users are more familiar with. In the end, it's "just" a special directory with some metadata files, but it needs somebody with the appropriate knowledge and hardware to figure out what needs to be done (if the idea is useful). Jonas signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: LilyPond-2.22.2 does not work on Windows XP
From: Nicholas Bailey I see you have a Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, University of Oxford email address. They shouldn't be using that OS any more. When I retired from Oxford University (where I was a department network manager) six years ago, most departments were already detecting and forbidding the use of XP on the University's networks. Some departments made provision for a separately firewalled and restricted network for machines running unreplaceable laboratory equipment. Paul
Re: LilyPond-2.22.2 does not work on Windows XP
That's what to do. XP EULA which they made you agree to: "3. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND OWNERSHIP. Microsoft reserves all rights not expressly granted to you in this EULA. The Software is protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws and treaties. Microsoft or its suppliers own the title, copyright, and other intellectual property rights in the Software. The Software is licensed, not sold." So if you buy in, you have to do what they want you to, or risk losing your work all at once. I see you have a Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, University of Oxford email address. They shouldn't be using that OS any more. Often, students and staff can buy MS licences for personal use through the institution. I can at Glasgow, but I gave up using MS when I was a postdoc last century, and spent most of my time trying to fix a bug in an adaptive optics platform I'd written which turned out to be in the MS C compiler. This is why open source happened. I've only used Linux since. I don't do games, so it's a no-brainer. If I did, there's the dual boot / virtual machine route. You may prefer to move to a newer Windows, if your machine is up to it. Either way, do it soon. XP is unsupported, which means you shouldn't really connect it to the big bad internet. There are nasty viruses out there, and XP won't be protected against new ones any more. On Friday, 14 October 2022 10:48:37 BST Dag Bergman wrote: > Thanks Werner for your comments, > > I will eventually test your suggestions, but the quickest way seems to do > Lilypond work on the Windows 10 machine, albeit inconvenient. > Best regards > Dag
Re: LilyPond-2.22.2 does not work on Windows XP
You can make W 10 look just like XP with Stardock Window Blinds: https://www.stardock.com/products/windowblinds/ And you can get quite similar to XP as follows: https://winaero.com/get-windows-xp-look-in-windows-10-without-themes-or-patches/ Andrew
Re: LilyPond-2.22.2 does not work on Windows XP
Then don't forget VueScan. It's a thoroughly professional scanning application. I'm be sure there are solutions for your printer also. What model? Andrew On 14/10/2022 8:48 pm, Dag Bergman wrote: Thanks Werner for your comments, I will eventually test your suggestions, but the quickest way seems to do Lilypond work on the Windows 10 machine, albeit inconvenient. Best regards Dag
RE: LilyPond-2.22.2 does not work on Windows XP
Thanks David for your comments. As I said to Werner, I will probably have to do Lilypond work on the Windows 10 machine, albeit inconvenient. Best regards Dag -Original Message- From: David Wright Sent: Friday, 14 October 2022 05:10 To: Dag Bergman Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org Subject: Re: LilyPond-2.22.2 does not work on Windows XP On Fri 14 Oct 2022 at 00:16:39 (+), Dag Bergman wrote: > > On Wed 12 Oct 2022 at 23:51:22 (+), Dag Bergman wrote: > > > I have a Windows XP computer with Lilypond 2.10.25. It works fine with > > > simple program codes and advanced code developed with earlier versions of > > > Lilypond. It does not work so well when I try to use a newer program > > > developed with a later version of Lilypond, as I get many error messages. > > > I therefore tried to install LilyPond-2.22.2, which is newer than the > > > versions of Lilypond the program were developed with. It does not work > > > at all, however, and I get the error message: "The system cannot execute > > > the specified program." It does not matter what code I try to run. If "by code" you mean LilyPond source code, then no, it doesn't matter, because the program doesn't start running, so it doesn't even open the input file. > > > What is the latest version of Lilypond that actually works on Windows XP? That's probably something you will have to determine for yourself. The way in which the mingw binaries are built appears to have changed over the years, so I'd be wary of jumping straight from 2.10.25 to 2.22.2. At the very least, I'd try installing 2.10.33, which appears to be the final version of 2.10. That will test whether your error message is merely caused by trying to run a downloaded file without performing some essential step first (perhaps concerning Virus protection, unblocking downloads, etc). After all, you might have forgotten what you had to do, long ago when you installed 2.10.25. Googling "the system cannot execute the specified program" yields various problems and solutions that just might be relevant. If you can run 2.10.33, then I'd try 2.18.2, which was the stable version of LP for a long time, and is therefore well tested. It's a version you could probably live with for a while. If that runs, then try 2.22.2 again, particularly if you've discovered any step that was necessary to get the previous versions to run. The goal at this stage is to get "GNU LilyPond 2.22.2 Processing …" emitted, regardless of what follows, error messages or otherwise. > > > What is the reason for this? My reasoning for using the versions mentioned is merely that I've observed differing structures between these binaries. I know nothing about mingw, and my observations could be no more relevant than a suggestion to try tasting red, yellow or green tomatoes just on the basis of their colour. > > > What to do about it? That depends on whether you get different behaviours of the system using these versions of LilyPond. Step one is checking whether you can run /any/ downloaded lilypond file at all, regardless of version. All the above assumes that you're sticking with your old XP machine (I don't know how important LP is among its mix of tasks). Cheers, David.
RE: LilyPond-2.22.2 does not work on Windows XP
Thanks Werner for your comments, I will eventually test your suggestions, but the quickest way seems to do Lilypond work on the Windows 10 machine, albeit inconvenient. Best regards Dag -Original Message- From: Werner LEMBERG Sent: Friday, 14 October 2022 05:12 To: Dag Bergman Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org Subject: Re: LilyPond-2.22.2 does not work on Windows XP > I thought I had downloaded the Lilypond file from the list that you > mentioned, but to make sure, I repeated the download and made sure I > downloaded (lilypond-2.22.2-1.mingw.exe) from the list you suggested > for 32 bits systems. Unfortunately, I had the same result as the > first time: > > Error message: "The system cannot execute the specified program." OK. So we have a first hint: the 32bit MinGW executable for 2.22.2 doesn't work on (your) XP at a very fundamental level. I can now only suggest that you search for the last executable that actually works on Win XP. * Just to be sure: Start with downloading the 2.10.33-1 bundle and check whether it works. If it does, try 2.14.2, then 2.16.2, and so on. Be careful, however, to move your original LilyPond installation temporarily out of the way (including binaries and DLLs) so that nothing gets overwritten accidentally. * If 2.10.33-1 doesn't work, you are completely out of luck, unfortunately – it means that you got your binary elsewhere. Note that we also have a 'cygwin' directory, with some binaries (and source bundles) up to 2.14.1-1, but it seems that you have to have a cygwin environment set up to run this, which you probably don't. Werner
Re: LilyPond-2.22.2 does not work on Windows XP
On Fri, 2022-10-14 at 01:51 -0700, Aaron Hill wrote: > On 2022-10-14 12:18 am, J Martin Rushton wrote: > > For some reason best known to Microsoft Windows held > > systems down in 32-bit node for years after they were internally > > 64- > > bit. > > Microsoft did not "hold systems down". In the era of XP, Windows > came > in a 64-bit version, colloquially known as XP64. The main issue was > that most consumers at that time only had access to 32-bit hardware, > so > it was not a priority to market 64-bit support. > > Over time, computer manufacturers have made 64-bit hardware the > norm; > but as anyone with IT experience knows: clients are rarely eager to > spend money upgrading when things are not completely broken. (And > even > then when the office is on fire, some are still stingy.) So > notwithstanding the average home user facing rising costs of new > computers, Microsoft has many business, educational, and government > customers that would all have to get aboard the 64-bit train. > > As I recall, Windows 10 was supposed to launch as 64-bit only; yet > even > it still has an installation option to run on 32-bit processors. It > is > looking like Windows 11 will be the first release to draw the line > in > the sand and cut off old hardware. > > > -- Aaron Hill Perhaps then trying to source XP64 would be a solution for the OP? Maybe it was the supply chain that shipped 32-bit XP on 64-bit machines or maybe MS didn't want to push it for some reason? The fact remains that in the XP era there were plenty of 64-bit machines hamstrung by a 32-bit OS. -- J Martin Rushton MBCS
Re: LilyPond-2.22.2 does not work on Windows XP
I used XP64 for a while. What killed it for me was that when XP service pack 3 came out, many programs started to require the new facilities it included, and so checked for SP3 being installed. XP64 had the same service pack, but because the 64bit XP had come out later than the 32bit version, it was called SP2, and so the programs requiring and checking for "SP3" would refuse to run even though the capability to run them was present! Paul From: Aaron Hill Microsoft did not "hold systems down". In the era of XP, Windows came in a 64-bit version, colloquially known as XP64. The main issue was that most consumers at that time only had access to 32-bit hardware, so it was not a priority to market 64-bit support.
Re: LilyPond-2.22.2 does not work on Windows XP
On 2022-10-14 12:18 am, J Martin Rushton wrote: For some reason best known to Microsoft Windows held systems down in 32-bit node for years after they were internally 64- bit. Microsoft did not "hold systems down". In the era of XP, Windows came in a 64-bit version, colloquially known as XP64. The main issue was that most consumers at that time only had access to 32-bit hardware, so it was not a priority to market 64-bit support. Over time, computer manufacturers have made 64-bit hardware the norm; but as anyone with IT experience knows: clients are rarely eager to spend money upgrading when things are not completely broken. (And even then when the office is on fire, some are still stingy.) So notwithstanding the average home user facing rising costs of new computers, Microsoft has many business, educational, and government customers that would all have to get aboard the 64-bit train. As I recall, Windows 10 was supposed to launch as 64-bit only; yet even it still has an installation option to run on 32-bit processors. It is looking like Windows 11 will be the first release to draw the line in the sand and cut off old hardware. -- Aaron Hill
Re: LilyPond-2.22.2 does not work on Windows XP
Probably quite off the wall and not acceptable, but there are other operating systems! At work we regularly repurposed old 32-bit Windows boxes as up to date 64-bit Linux boxes when a special use one-off node was needed. For some reason best known to Microsoft Windows held systems down in 32-bit node for years after they were internally 64- bit. the other thing is that Linux generally has a lighter demand on the system that Windows and will run nicely on some older machines. Come out of the dark into the light!:-) -- J Martin Rushton MBCS
Building Mac OS LilyPond versions automatically (Was : another 'wrong type argument' error )
Hello folks, I’m a regular user of Mac OS, which I use for development, and will help with the creation of LilyPond versions with pleasure. My last try at building LilyPond from the source code on my Mac Mini M1 failed due to a library not being ported yet to this architecture, but Jonas told me that this should come with the current efforts by the developers team. Hope that helps! JM > Le 14 oct. 2022 à 06:30, Werner LEMBERG a écrit : > > >>> So you checked all of LilyPond's dependencies and can guarantee >>> that it will stay like this forever? >> >> I am on Big Sur (11.6) and I can still choose 10.9 as a deployment >> target. [...] > >>> I'm not going to work on anything. I have been alone trying to get >>> a build for macOS even though I don't even use Apple hardware and >>> other core developers do. It will take somebody willing to work on >>> this effort *and commit to maintaining it* because I don't think >>> it's a good idea to release something half-working. >> >> In the spirit of my first comments in this email I’ll directly ask >> if the project needs help testing or working on the Mac build system >> at all? > > Yes, we need help – namely for taking *permanent* care of the MacOS > releases in > > https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/releases > > that have been built with the scripts in > > https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/tree/master/release > > With 'permanent' I mean that the automatically created and released > binaries should be regularly tested on actual Mac hardware to check > whether they work as expected. Jonas's fear is too real that some day > deployment support for older OS versions will break out of the blue, > unfortunately. > > As Jonas writes: He isn't a MacOS users, and none of us main > developers is either. It was a heroic effort of him to set up the > scripts, but details like handling deployment targets to make this > work on older MacOS versions needs a dedicated specialist. > > >Werner
Re: LilyPond-2.22.2 does not work on Windows XP
At 23:51 12/10/2022 +, Dag Bergman wrote: What is the latest version of Lilypond that actually works on Windows XP? I happen to have an old Pentium Windows XP system from about 2004, which I used until about 2017. It has Lilypond 2.18.2 (the then "stable" version?) on it. I've checked, and it still works. Brian Barker
