Re: Paralellizing Lilypond [was: Re: Sibelius Software UK office shutsdown]
I know this topic changed from Sibelius going belly up to parallelization, but I don't know where else to put it... I'm a current Sibelius user who found Lilypond after panicking a little and a doing quick web search for open source notation software. I don't know how many other users may check out LP, but I love it so far. I just asked my wife to choose among the same piece I printed using Sibelius, the Finale demo, and LP, and she immediately pointed to the LP score and said That one's perfect. -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Sibelius-Software-UK-office-shuts-down-tp17227p130605.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Paralellizing Lilypond [was: Re: Sibelius Software UK office shutsdown]
I made the same switch and am happy about it. I'm not as fast with Lilypond yet, but am getting there. I especially like that that my scores won't become uneditable whenever I stop buying upgrades from Sibelius. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Michael Rivers I'm a current Sibelius user who found Lilypond after panicking a little and a doing quick web search for open source notation software. I don't know how many other users may check out LP, but I love it so far. I just asked my wife to choose among the same piece I printed using Sibelius, the Finale demo, and LP, and she immediately pointed to the LP score and said That one's perfect. -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Sibelius-Software-UK-office-shuts-down-tp17227p130605.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Paralellizing Lilypond [was: Re: Sibelius Software UK office shutsdown]
Lucas Gonze lucas.go...@gmail.com writes: I made the same switch and am happy about it. I'm not as fast with Lilypond yet, but am getting there. I especially like that that my scores won't become uneditable whenever I stop buying upgrades from Sibelius. How would that happen? I would imagine that if you keep your scores and software version unchanged, they should remain working on a given system. Unless somebody else edits them with a newer version and sends you the results. You'll have the same backward compatibility problem with LilyPond (or pretty much any software) in that case, but the human-readable format makes it more likely to wedge in a backward-compatible replacement at the problematic places. And of course, there is no need to _buy_ upgrades. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Paralellizing Lilypond [was: Re: Sibelius Software UK office shutsdown]
Lucas Gonze lucas.go...@gmail.com writes: I made the same switch and am happy about it. I'm not as fast with Lilypond yet, but am getting there. I especially like that that my scores won't become uneditable whenever I stop buying upgrades from Sibelius. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:00 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: How would that happen? I would imagine that if you keep your scores and software version unchanged, they should remain working on a given system. ... And of course, there is no need to _buy_ upgrades. You'd think so, but the underlying OS changes and Sibelius doesn't rev old versions to keep up. The last version of Sibelius that I paid for now crashes on boot. As a result I can't launch Sibelius for tweaks like key changes. The only solution is to re-enter a score in Lilypond. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Paralellizing Lilypond [was: Re: Sibelius Software UK office shutsdown]
El 14/08/2012 21:21, Lucas Gonze lucas.go...@gmail.com escribió: Lucas Gonze lucas.go...@gmail.com writes: I made the same switch and am happy about it. I'm not as fast with Lilypond yet, but am getting there. I especially like that that my scores won't become uneditable whenever I stop buying upgrades from Sibelius. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:00 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: How would that happen? I would imagine that if you keep your scores and software version unchanged, they should remain working on a given system. ... And of course, there is no need to _buy_ upgrades. You'd think so, but the underlying OS changes and Sibelius doesn't rev old versions to keep up. The last version of Sibelius that I paid for now crashes on boot. As a result I can't launch Sibelius for tweaks like key changes. The only solution is to re-enter a score in Lilypond. He meant there is no need to buy lilypond upgrades, I think. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Paralellizing Lilypond [was: Re: Sibelius Software UK office shutsdown]
Lucas Gonze lucas.go...@gmail.com writes: Lucas Gonze lucas.go...@gmail.com writes: I made the same switch and am happy about it. I'm not as fast with Lilypond yet, but am getting there. I especially like that that my scores won't become uneditable whenever I stop buying upgrades from Sibelius. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:00 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: How would that happen? I would imagine that if you keep your scores and software version unchanged, they should remain working on a given system. ... And of course, there is no need to _buy_ upgrades. The last sentence was in reference to using LilyPond. You'd think so, but the underlying OS changes and Sibelius doesn't rev old versions to keep up. The last version of Sibelius that I paid for now crashes on boot. Oh wow. Considering how long binaries tend to work on GNU/Linux (where there actually is much less proprietary/binary software for which this is ultimately important), with several versions of dynamic libraries being installable at the same time, this is somewhat off-putting. As a result I can't launch Sibelius for tweaks like key changes. The only solution is to re-enter a score in Lilypond. It is not really new, but I keep being surprised at the things proprietary/commercial software vendors are getting away with doing to their paying customers. There are occasions where users hit the mailing lists here getting off on the wrong foot, voicing unrealistic expectations and demands. One tends to have the reaction you can put forward that sort of expectation when you are actually paying for software, but the reality seems to be that as a paying customer you are treated worse. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Paralellizing Lilypond [was: Re: Sibelius Software UK office shutsdown]
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:40 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: It is not really new, but I keep being surprised at the things proprietary/commercial software vendors are getting away with doing to their paying customers. Vendors have your existing scores as hostages to keep you paying. It's the opposite of a value proposition. Free software also has that hostage effect, but to a lesser extent. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Paralellizing Lilypond [was: Re: Sibelius Software UK office shutsdown]
On 10/08/12 15:08, Phil Holmes wrote: - Original Message - From: Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net What counts as a chunk for the -djob-count option? It's not clear from the 2.15 usage manual. I believe it would be a compilable file. Useful to know, thank you! ... but I think it emphasizes my real point: this puts the onus on the user to split up a project into independently-compilable units. I think that it's worth having Lilypond try and automatically identify independent units, which could have knock-on benefits in terms of minimizing rebuild times for scores. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Paralellizing Lilypond [was: Re: Sibelius Software UK office shutsdown]
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 01:21:27PM +0100, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: On 10/08/12 15:08, Phil Holmes wrote: - Original Message - From: Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net What counts as a chunk for the -djob-count option? It's not clear from the 2.15 usage manual. I believe it would be a compilable file. Useful to know, thank you! ... but I think it emphasizes my real point: this puts the onus on the user to split up a project into independently-compilable units. Such units are also bound to be more maintainable in the long term. Putting the burden on lilypond (the software) would rather encourage sloppy LilyPond projects (the score source). I think that it's worth having Lilypond try and automatically identify independent units, which could have knock-on benefits in terms of minimizing rebuild times for scores. How many scores would be impossible to manually design into reasonably large independent units? Is it really worth the developers' time to try and automate this? Best regards, Gilles ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Paralellizing Lilypond [was: Re: Sibelius Software UK office shutsdown]
Gilles Sadowski gil...@harfang.homelinux.org writes: On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 01:21:27PM +0100, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: On 10/08/12 15:08, Phil Holmes wrote: - Original Message - From: Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net What counts as a chunk for the -djob-count option? It's not clear from the 2.15 usage manual. I believe it would be a compilable file. Useful to know, thank you! ... but I think it emphasizes my real point: this puts the onus on the user to split up a project into independently-compilable units. Such units are also bound to be more maintainable in the long term. Putting the burden on lilypond (the software) would rather encourage sloppy LilyPond projects (the score source). I don't think that LilyPond can reasonably split a project along the lines of independent chunks since chunks basically are not independent and can communicate using variables and functions. It is more realistic to work with some parallelism and pipelining in the different processing stages. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Paralellizing Lilypond [was: Re: Sibelius Software UK office shutsdown]
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 01:21:27PM +0100, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: ... but I think it emphasizes my real point: this puts the onus on the user to split up a project into independently-compilable units. I think that it's worth having Lilypond try and automatically identify independent units, which could have knock-on benefits in terms of minimizing rebuild times for scores. Even though this phrase has gone out of favor, it was really common 5-10 years ago on the lilypond mailing lists, and I think it's appropriate: Patches appreciated. - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Paralellizing Lilypond [was: Re: Sibelius Software UK office shutsdown]
On 11 août 2012, at 15:16, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote: On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 01:21:27PM +0100, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: ... but I think it emphasizes my real point: this puts the onus on the user to split up a project into independently-compilable units. I think that it's worth having Lilypond try and automatically identify independent units, which could have knock-on benefits in terms of minimizing rebuild times for scores. Even though this phrase has gone out of favor, it was really common 5-10 years ago on the lilypond mailing lists, and I think it's appropriate: Patches appreciated. - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user On this subject, I'll say that one of my hats on the development team is that of FrogMeister, or the person who helps people with first projects in LilyPond coding. I have been tied up w/ professional obligations for a while now and don't read the lists as attentively as I used to but I'm always glad to lend a helping hand for someone who wants to start off. So if you're interested in doing some coding work on LilyPond, lemme know! All levels of expertise (including none at all) are welcome. Cheers, MS ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Paralellizing Lilypond [was: Re: Sibelius Software UK office shutsdown]
m...@mikesolomon.org m...@mikesolomon.org writes: On 11 août 2012, at 15:16, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote: On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 01:21:27PM +0100, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: ... but I think it emphasizes my real point: this puts the onus on the user to split up a project into independently-compilable units. I think that it's worth having Lilypond try and automatically identify independent units, which could have knock-on benefits in terms of minimizing rebuild times for scores. Even though this phrase has gone out of favor, it was really common 5-10 years ago on the lilypond mailing lists, and I think it's appropriate: Patches appreciated. On this subject, I'll say that one of my hats on the development team is that of FrogMeister, or the person who helps people with first projects in LilyPond coding. I have been tied up w/ professional obligations for a while now and don't read the lists as attentively as I used to but I'm always glad to lend a helping hand for someone who wants to start off. So if you're interested in doing some coding work on LilyPond, lemme know! All levels of expertise (including none at all) are welcome. It would likely not be the best utilization of enthusiasm to let people set out on impossible tasks. LilyPond is too programmatic to be amenable to computer discovery of independent components in one LilyPond document. To make progress in this kind of problem space, one would need to work with LilyPond itself: either cutting out ways to reasonably split one work into modules, or by defining subsets of the input language that even _could_ be guaranteed to be workable independently. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Paralellizing Lilypond [was: Re: Sibelius Software UK office shutsdown]
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote: What counts as a chunk for the -djob-count option? It's not clear from the 2.15 usage manual. I believe it would be a compilable file. Useful to know, thank you! ... but I think it emphasizes my real point: this puts the onus on the user to split up a project into independently-compilable units. I think that it's worth having Lilypond try and automatically identify independent units, which could have knock-on benefits in terms of minimizing rebuild times for scores. It would be nice if this were automatically splittable, but the reality is that GUILE has no meaningful multithreading support at the interpreter level, so almost mutating operation has the potential to be a race condition. Short of rewriting LilyPond from scratch, I don't see how we can get parallelism within a file; that doesn't stop you from inventing something that uses includes and some preprocessing to render subsections of a melody, and then stitch the result together in a postprocessing phase. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Paralellizing Lilypond [was: Re: Sibelius Software UK office shutsdown]
Han-Wen Nienhuys hanw...@gmail.com writes: On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote: What counts as a chunk for the -djob-count option? It's not clear from the 2.15 usage manual. I believe it would be a compilable file. Useful to know, thank you! ... but I think it emphasizes my real point: this puts the onus on the user to split up a project into independently-compilable units. I think that it's worth having Lilypond try and automatically identify independent units, which could have knock-on benefits in terms of minimizing rebuild times for scores. It would be nice if this were automatically splittable, but the reality is that GUILE has no meaningful multithreading support at the interpreter level, so almost mutating operation has the potential to be a race condition. Guile 2.0 has threading support. Whether that will prove usefully applicable to LilyPond will be a different question. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Paralellizing Lilypond [was: Re: Sibelius Software UK office shutsdown]
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 4:18 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: I believe it would be a compilable file. Useful to know, thank you! ... but I think it emphasizes my real point: this puts the onus on the user to split up a project into independently-compilable units. I think that it's worth having Lilypond try and automatically identify independent units, which could have knock-on benefits in terms of minimizing rebuild times for scores. It would be nice if this were automatically splittable, but the reality is that GUILE has no meaningful multithreading support at the interpreter level, so almost mutating operation has the potential to be a race condition. Guile 2.0 has threading support. Whether that will prove usefully applicable to LilyPond will be a different question. It has had threading for a long time, but the interpreter is full of global variables. This makes it difficult to ensure that operations are properly serialized. Also, I would be surprised if the MT has had a lot of real testing. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Paralellizing Lilypond [was: Re: Sibelius Software UK office shutsdown]
- Original Message - From: Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net To: han...@xs4all.nl Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org; Han-Wen Nienhuys hanw...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 11:46 AM Subject: Paralellizing Lilypond [was: Re: Sibelius Software UK office shutsdown] Yes, but the problem that you have there is that it requires the user to separate out the projects manually using some kind of build system like Make. I don't see why in principle Lilypond shouldn't be able to work out those independent jobs itself -- essentially any elements separated by a page break can be handled as a separate job, and there must be other further optimizations available. If you could break it up into 8 chunks, you could use all 8 cores in a quad core system using -djob-count. No need to use make. -- Phil Holmes ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Paralellizing Lilypond [was: Re: Sibelius Software UK office shutsdown]
On 10/08/12 14:31, Phil Holmes wrote: If you could break it up into 8 chunks, you could use all 8 cores in a quad core system using -djob-count. No need to use make. What counts as a chunk for the -djob-count option? It's not clear from the 2.15 usage manual. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
