Re: Gittip (and Supporting my work on LilyPond financially)
On 12/02/2013 02:03 AM, Paul Morris wrote: I have been keeping my eye on Gittip. It's basically a tool that lets individuals make ongoing weekly payments to other individuals (or organizations) to support whatever work they do. It happens that more often than not this is volunteer work on free/open-source software. What really makes it compelling is that Gittip does not make any money off of the transactions that go through it. They only charge a minimal fee to cover their own transaction costs (credit card fees). Gittip is itself funded by voluntary donations made through Gittip. The code that runs Gittip is in the public domain and hosted on Github. I'm not affiliated with Gittip, I'm just really interested and intrigued by its potential. I've often thought that it would make sense for projects like LilyPond/Frescobaldi/etc. After my own initial curiosity and Paul's words above I have now created an account on Gittip. On 12/05/2013 10:11 AM, David Kastrup wrote: The thought "if everybody contributed just a little" seems compelling. It's actually my experience that those who pledge to contribute a monthly payment less than €10 tend to stop after few months, probably because they think it does not make a difference. David, would you consider joining me? I think it would mean that it will be easier in general for people to set up a monthly payment (for LilyPonds future development). Anyway, it could perhaps attract some new people both to LilyPond itself and to its funding. (But it seems that it's more convenient to withdraw the money if you have an US bank account.) Best Peter ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:11 AM, David Kastrup wrote: > Christ van Willegen writes: >> If everyone on the mailing list chipped in 1 euro a month, that would >> get David out of financial problems, probably for the rest of his >> life... > > Just for the record, I am not having "financial problems": That was part of my over-exageration. I was not saying that you had financial problems, but the message was meant to be: "If we all chipped in 1 euro per month, David could probably work on Lilypon the rest of his life." > >> A slight over-exageration, perhaps, but not far off I think. > > I think you are overestimating the readership here. I recently checked > the Cc list for my reports (so far nobody asked for getting removed from > that list) which consists of all people who have contributed so far. > I was actually surprised that it was about 80 entries long. True, > containing quite a few entries for one-time contributions or short > periods of time, but nevertheless the number does not appear negligible > compared to the active readership here. Any idea how much 'active readership' would be? > The thought "if everybody contributed just a little" seems compelling. Yes. It shares the burden of improving Lilypond. > It's actually my experience that those who pledge to contribute a > monthly payment less than €10 tend to stop after few months, probably > because they think it does not make a difference. Too bad :-( > So unless one manages to get along on lots of small one-time payments > (implying an even larger audience one has to reach), I don't see how > I can get around tapping those who are enthusiastic about LilyPond, are > "invested" in it, more than those who care only a little. If you look at Kickstarter, it's quite obvious how (many people) * (a small amount) = (a large(ish) amount of money). That would certainly pave the way to a continued development on Lilypond... Christ van Willegen -- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Christ van Willegen writes: > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Chris Crossen wrote: >> I just wanted to re-emphasize that original point and hope the >> discussion has convinced a few more of us to make a small, but >> regular donation. > > If everyone on the mailing list chipped in 1 euro a month, that would > get David out of financial problems, probably for the rest of his > life... Just for the record, I am not having "financial problems": I am trying to make my income match my comparatively modest expenses as nothing else will work in the long run. But that does not mean that bankruptcy is around the corner. What it does mean is that at some point of time a different job may be around the corner. And I would not wait with starting to look until things became desperate. So payments for my work on LilyPond will not be to "get me out of financial problems": the problem, namely that income and expenses have to match, is not of temporary nature and not one of personal mishap. Payments for my work on LilyPond are basically you supporting a cultural charity for the public good that in turn pays me regularly for providing that public good. Except that we've optimized away the charity in the middle. So if you want to feel good, it is more for doing something good for LilyPond, its community, music and Free Software. Not so much for me. Since I don't exactly evoke the warm fuzzy feeling of a big-eyed puppy, that's probably a good thing. > A slight over-exageration, perhaps, but not far off I think. I think you are overestimating the readership here. I recently checked the Cc list for my reports (so far nobody asked for getting removed from that list) which consists of all people who have contributed so far. I was actually surprised that it was about 80 entries long. True, containing quite a few entries for one-time contributions or short periods of time, but nevertheless the number does not appear negligible compared to the active readership here. The thought "if everybody contributed just a little" seems compelling. It's actually my experience that those who pledge to contribute a monthly payment less than €10 tend to stop after few months, probably because they think it does not make a difference. So unless one manages to get along on lots of small one-time payments (implying an even larger audience one has to reach), I don't see how I can get around tapping those who are enthusiastic about LilyPond, are "invested" in it, more than those who care only a little. At any rate, this _is_ an impressive community. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Chris Crossen wrote: > I just wanted to re-emphasize that original point and hope the discussion has > convinced a few more of us to make a small, but regular donation. If everyone on the mailing list chipped in 1 euro a month, that would get David out of financial problems, probably for the rest of his life... A slight over-exageration, perhaps, but not far off I think. Christ van Willegen -- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
> Hi, > > we are nearing the end of the year, and, uh, it looks like I could make use > of some of the spirit of giving. > > As you can see from the accompanying report, the current number of people > supporting my work on LilyPond financially is on the decline: > while there are a few large donors, many of them actually have done so much > for LilyPond in other ways that it is embarrassing I am dependent on their > continued _large_ contributions. > > So taking some of the load off them will not just express your gratitude > towards the work I do myself on LilyPond but also towards them. It would be > fabulous if I could get along well with mostly "small" > donations in the monthly €15-€25 range, but that requires quite a few more > who are willing to pitch in. > > Think about it. You can ask me for my SEPA bank account number (SEPA order > should be the cheapest variant within the Euro zone), this mail address is > registered at Paypal, and you can use the account number > 1Kw7HZMd8L52BCL9vEjSxdPG4p3phRvtQF for Bitcoin transfers. > > There is still a lot LilyPond is in need of doing, I am pretty positive that > 2.18 will be out before Christmas, and I am responsible for a large part of > the developments even though the majority of contributions and of > organizational tasks and efforts and translation work and user help and so on > is done by volunteers working in their spare time. > > But one person who just works on LilyPond can make a difference. Can we keep > this up? > > Thanks for your help! > > -- > David Kastrup David's post generated some interesting threads and discussion. But, it strayed from the original point. He needs more donors to continue his work for us in the LilyPond community. I just wanted to re-emphasize that original point and hope the discussion has convinced a few more of us to make a small, but regular donation. Thanks, Chris Crossen ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Schikkers List (was: Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially)
2013/12/3 Noeck > > This is *exactly* why I've been playing/experimenting with GUI > > backends/frontends since 2004. If you haven't done so, please have > > a look at Schikkers List > > > > http://lilypond.org/schikkers > > This looks really cool! (Has it improved a lot or is the html5 demo new, > compared to last year? The last time I looked, it didn't work for me) > I think this is what we need - at least for beginners. > A gnome-gui is anounced but I can't find it. In the download folder > every sub-folder is again the download folder. Are there linux > executables or a deb package? Or do I have to compile it? > It was hosted on github years ago, but now I see that last update is 3 years ago. The demo is not working on Chromium 31.0.1650.57 ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Schikkers List (was: Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially)
> This is *exactly* why I've been playing/experimenting with GUI > backends/frontends since 2004. If you haven't done so, please have > a look at Schikkers List > > http://lilypond.org/schikkers This looks really cool! (Has it improved a lot or is the html5 demo new, compared to last year? The last time I looked, it didn't work for me) I think this is what we need - at least for beginners. A gnome-gui is anounced but I can't find it. In the download folder every sub-folder is again the download folder. Are there linux executables or a deb package? Or do I have to compile it? Cheers, Joram ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
"R.D. Latimer" writes: > I'm a retired school teacher, I know some C++, I'd be happy to help > out with dev if I can, though I may not know enough, but would be > willing to try. I know some c++ and lisp/scheme and music theory. I > have a Windows 7 laptop, Netbeans for C++ dev. Let me know if there > may be ways to help out with the development end. - thanks Well, we have a Ubuntu VM setup called Lilydev that is used for development on Windows: there are so many dependencies to other free software easily available and installed on typical GNU/Linux systems that the developers have at some point of time given up on native Windows development. Not sure whether you'll be able to use the Netbeans with that. Try checking out the "Contributor's Guide" http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.17/Documentation/contributor/index.html> and see whether this gives you a somewhat better idea what you are dealing with here. What we need badly is actually code reviewers: there are a lot of "lone wolf" developers around who create and commit changes without a lot of review going on between them. Having a person pitch in and state what kind of new code needs commenting/explaining for the average programmer to be able to maintain/follow it is likely helpful. You have to be aware, however, that the current commenting style in the code will make you feel like a veterinarian doing an internship in a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant, trying to set the bones in broken chicken wings. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
I'm a retired school teacher, I know some C++, I'd be happy to help out with dev if I can, though I may not know enough, but would be willing to try. I know some c++ and lisp/scheme and music theory. I have a Windows 7 laptop, Netbeans for C++ dev. Let me know if there may be ways to help out with the development end. - thanks On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:29 AM, immanuel litzroth wrote: > >> 2) The contention was that this stuff would be easier in Sibelius. Not >>> that you >>> can get it right there too. >>> >> >> Sibelius doesn't get things automatically right as well as Lilypond does, >> but it's usually much, much easier to correct or customize them when it >> doesn't give you what you want, which in turn means that it's easier to get >> what you want in general. But the lack of automation does make you >> vulnerable to idiots who don't do proper quality control or who have no >> clue about what is wanted. >> >> I don't know if you use or have used Sibelius, but if you're judging it >> solely on the grounds of the bad parts you get from bad suppliers, you're >> not really assessing the software at all. The real measure of engraving >> software shouldn't be, "How readily does it stop an idiot from getting it >> wrong?" but, "How readily does it let a user achieve the notation they want >> to achieve?" >> >> For the record, I'm not speaking out in favour of Sibelius in any general >> sense here. I just think that one should try and understand why it is that >> software like this has the user-base and staying power that it does. >> > > I've tried Sibelius and Finale (way back...) and I far prefer Lilypond to > both. But I'm a C++ programmer that uses emacs 10h/day, > I might be a little eccentric :-) > Immanuel > > ___ > 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: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Carl Peterson writes: > On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 1:31 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > >> Well, I'd argue that a mouse makes absolutely no sense for music input. >> A practised typist can write several hundred words per minute and keep >> this up for quite a long time. >> >> Input the same amount of information with a mouse, and you'll have >> Repetitive Strain Injury in no time at all. >> > > I don't know about "several hundred" words per minute (is that even > physically possible?), but the last time I took a secretarial test, I rated > around 70-75 wpm. Well, I misremembered. The world record appears to be 236 wpm, and that's not really "several". -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
> > > 2) The contention was that this stuff would be easier in Sibelius. Not >> that you >> can get it right there too. >> > > Sibelius doesn't get things automatically right as well as Lilypond does, > but it's usually much, much easier to correct or customize them when it > doesn't give you what you want, which in turn means that it's easier to get > what you want in general. But the lack of automation does make you > vulnerable to idiots who don't do proper quality control or who have no > clue about what is wanted. > > I don't know if you use or have used Sibelius, but if you're judging it > solely on the grounds of the bad parts you get from bad suppliers, you're > not really assessing the software at all. The real measure of engraving > software shouldn't be, "How readily does it stop an idiot from getting it > wrong?" but, "How readily does it let a user achieve the notation they want > to achieve?" > > For the record, I'm not speaking out in favour of Sibelius in any general > sense here. I just think that one should try and understand why it is that > software like this has the user-base and staying power that it does. > I've tried Sibelius and Finale (way back...) and I far prefer Lilypond to both. But I'm a C++ programmer that uses emacs 10h/day, I might be a little eccentric :-) Immanuel ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
On 01/12/13 15:09, immanuel litzroth wrote: 1) I don't seem to run into many of these problems with lilypond and I do transcriptions of small ensembles *and* export all the voices separately (that's including drums) -- I almost never have to clean up for readability issues, and don't have the time to do it for aesthetic issues. Lilypond is generally better at automatically placing most musical elements in the right place. There are usually fewer score --> parts discrepancies in Lilypond-engraved works as a result, but the general problem is still something that needs care and attention. Don't forget, too, that part of the reason you get good results out of Lilypond is because _you_ are the one using Lilypond and you know what it is that you want to achieve in the score. Part of the reason you know that you rarely have to clean up for readability issues in the parts is because ... you actually check the parts. It's probably more than can be said for your Sibelius-using suppliers. :-) After all, if they'd given a toss about the parts, that guitar part would have at least had a cue melody line in it ... 2) The contention was that this stuff would be easier in Sibelius. Not that you can get it right there too. Sibelius doesn't get things automatically right as well as Lilypond does, but it's usually much, much easier to correct or customize them when it doesn't give you what you want, which in turn means that it's easier to get what you want in general. But the lack of automation does make you vulnerable to idiots who don't do proper quality control or who have no clue about what is wanted. I don't know if you use or have used Sibelius, but if you're judging it solely on the grounds of the bad parts you get from bad suppliers, you're not really assessing the software at all. The real measure of engraving software shouldn't be, "How readily does it stop an idiot from getting it wrong?" but, "How readily does it let a user achieve the notation they want to achieve?" For the record, I'm not speaking out in favour of Sibelius in any general sense here. I just think that one should try and understand why it is that software like this has the user-base and staying power that it does. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Henning Hraban Ramm wrote: > > I guess „we“ have a chance in combination with TeX, i.e. at universities > etc. where TeX is in broad use, since the approach and needed expertise is > similar. > Good luck with that, at least if my university was any indication of things. The only users of (La)TeX was the mathematics department (and then, really only the professors---I learned LaTeX and wrote basically all my math papers using it, but I know of few other students who did...they opted to use the formula editor in Microsoft Word, which, admittedly, got better with Office 2007, but I digress). The math department and the music department don't talk to each other. Almost literally. Larger universities may have broader LaTeX support and better collaboration, but that's what I've seen. Carl P. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
improving LilyPond useability (was: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially)
Hi all, this is quite a different subject from the "promoting LilyPond" stuff, so i separated this thread. 2013/12/1 David Kastrup : > Kieren wrote: >> Result? Not a single successful convert [to Lily] to date. > > I think Frescobaldi with its templates would likely be helpful. > Possibly also Denemo. Staring at an empty canvas without any controls > is a bit disconcerting. Basically you need to have a printout with the > basics at hand. How many pages is our tutorial? Learning Manual is 200 pages. 10 times too long - noone except the most nerdy people would read it (no surprise that i'm using Lily - i'm a nerd ;P). Even the "Tutorial" part of it is way too long (20 pages just to get the program running and another 20 pages to get very basic notation!!). I've created a "Quick-start" tutorial some time ago - my choir colleagues used it when crowd-typesetting "Dixit Dominus". It's only 6 pages long and covers nearly all basic notation elements than a beginner would need - but it's not just a cheat-sheet: it introduces and teaches how to use Lily. Add to that 3 pages explaining how to write basic structure and we'd have something that gives an easy (but complete enough) introduction to LilyPond in half an hour (as opposed to 2 days of reading and heavy thinking for the Learning manual). I'd be more than happy to share this tutorial and translate it, but i don't have time to lead an effort to incorporate it in our docs. So, if someone wants to take responsibility for this, i'll help, but without support this will not work out! 2013/12/1 David Kastrup : > Henning Hraban Ramm writes: > >> Am 2013-12-01 um 19:15 schrieb David Kastrup : >>> I'm always a bit surprised about the low resonance on features like >>> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3648> >>> Issue 3648: Patch: Isolated durations in music sequences now stand for >>> unpitched notes >> >> I hear you - as a magazine layouter I seldom get feedback at all, and >> then mostly some nitpicking of the authors. >> >> Hey, isolated durations are GREAT! I can remember some pieces where >> they would have been very handy. > > Well, the main reason I'm surprised is that a few years ago there were > proposals about it and I said "this will have to wait until some other > parser parts are where they need to be" and there was wailing and > gnashing of teeth. Well, i think i know why there is so little resonance: too little advertising. You put the patch in the tacker - that's where patches should be added, but it doesn't make it very visible: issue tracker is not a newsreader. I barely manage to look at patches that hit the countdown - not always, in fact - and i suppose that there are not many people that regularly swoop the tracker to see what's going on. And i don't remember this patch being announced in some special way. What could you do to make sure that outstanding improvements are noticed? Good question. For example, write a post on the blog (or at least -user) saying "A long-awaited feature is finally implemented", mention people who requested it (with links), show all things that will be possible thanks to this patch, throw in a custom-built binary containing the patch so that power users could test it before it's actually merged into master. I bet 10 Euro that you'd get 3 times more publicity if you do this :-) (If i win the bet, i'll donate the money to Lily development!) 2013/12/1 David Kastrup : >>> If you're looking at a real-world score's input file it's >>> overwhelmingly daunting. >> >> …even for me, and I’m one of Lily’s biggest users in terms of number >> and size and “real-ness” of scores. > > Well, we'll probably need some open discussion of common problems and > imaginary input that would make it considerably easier for people to > overcome them. Well, that's what i'm trying to do for very long time: identify common problems (for example in articles on LilyPond blog, and in the analysis that was published in the LilyPond Report a long time ago). We tried this a year ago during GLISS - it didn't quite work out, but maybe we could try again. Anyway, we could do a poll about this. best, Janek PS 2013/12/1 Richard Shann : > But the feedback I get about Denemo is almost entirely positive - those > who find it unusable just quietly switch to something else, out of > politeness I guess. Most unhelpful! I've been guilty of this - I'm sorry! It's been a long time since i tried Denemo, and i no longer remember what the problem was. If i get some time to try again, i'll report. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 1:31 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > SoundsFromSound writes: > > > The biggest complaint I've heard from many of my peers (when it comes > > to possibly switching from Finale/Sibelius) is that "LilyPond looks > > like way too much work" and "Text input?? That makes absolutely no > > sense for music. You're not writing a book! It's a score!". > > Well, I'd argue that a mouse makes absolutely no sense for music input. > A practised typist can write several hundred words per minute and keep > this up for quite a long time. > > Input the same amount of information with a mouse, and you'll have > Repetitive Strain Injury in no time at all. > I don't know about "several hundred" words per minute (is that even physically possible?), but the last time I took a secretarial test, I rated around 70-75 wpm. For transcription work, I use direct text input exclusively. It is faster and more intuitive than either point-and-click mouse entry or (computer) keyboard entry in point-and-click programs (the latter because I don't have to think about relative intervals). For composition and arranging, I sometimes directly input into LP, but I also use MuseScore to "play" with the notes (pun intended). When I am finished, I will manually retype the finished parts into my LP template. If I am composing away from the computer, I will frequently compose using LP syntax. By this point, I can look at LP code for SATB parts and more or less "hear" what it's supposed to sound like, check for objectionable parallels, etc., as well as if I were looking at traditional music notation. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
promoting LilyPond (was: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially)
Hi all, a very important discussion! A couple thoughts: 2013/12/1 Carl Peterson : > LP came out in the midst of other packages that already existed. As a > result, it is fighting for marketshare in a relatively mature market. > Granted, it is possible to overcome this hurdle, as Google Chrome seems to > be doing in the Browser Wars, but it takes something special for that to > happen. In the case of Firefox and Chrome, that something was IE's truly > abysmal performance in the IE 6-8 years. That's true. What's more, web browser users are just consumers. With notation packages, they are creators: - learning how to create takes days or weeks (while learning how to consume takes minutes), - creators have a lot of their content tied to a specific format. 2013/12/1 Kieren MacMillan : > Urs wrote: >> Most people I tried to persuade simply said "this isn't my cup of tea, >> I'm not a programmer”. > > THAT is the main problem right there — one we are likely never to overcome, > as much as I hate to admit it. Yup... As i see it, 90% of people notating music will never want to use LilyPond, and we cannot do much about it: - they don't care about high quality (just want "good enough"), - they want to do things the easiest way, and LilyPond will never appear to be the easiest choice, - etc. Unfortunately, people who don't have money for Finale/Sibelius usually pirate it (instead of using Free Software). Also, some smaller publishers i've talked with seem not to care much about quality engraving, and big publishers have a lot of inertia and stick to tried programs. Still, something like 10% of people *could* be convinced to using LilyPond. Some of them (2-3% of notation software users?) would actually prefer using Lily for some reason. Let's not waste time trying to convince the ones who cannot be convinced, and instead try finding people who may actually like LilyPond, but don't know that they could use it: - people with no money AND strong etthics, who won't pirate software (e.g. monks/other religious people that typeset religious music), - public companies with little money, which cannot risk using pirated software, - people who want to Do Things The Right Way (usually geeks) - these usually won't be scared by text input at all, - professional engravers that really want perfect results, - other professionals who would benefit from very advanced workflows (using version control). This is what Urs was talking about and i really think it would be a very good opportunity for LilyPond. - people who still use Score - they do care about quality, they shouldn't be scared by learning curve, - organizations funded by governments (0 price should be a big advantage to them, and gonvernments should be promoting open culture anyway), - people who don't use any notation yet - students. 2013/12/1 David Kastrup : > >> Here are the problems I run into: (1) most musicians/composers/institutions >> are already using something. > > So we need to catch them before they do. Janek got a number of his > choir colleagues to enter "Stabat Mater" (don't remember whose, > Pergolesi?) into LilyPond. It was Handel's Dixit Dominus (http://lilypondblog.org/2013/06/crowd-engraving-whats-that-part-1/) - very simple notation-wise. But later we entered more complex pieces as well. Still, most of them were "geeky" people (physics PhD, a couple programmers, math students). The approach i used there (i mean "crowd-engraving") proved to be a good one, but we'd have to make a lot things simpler to make this really effective. I mean, i was the only one who could combine the parts into the full score - creating \score blocks (real-life \score blocks, with all nuances and settings) is too difficult for beginners. So, what should we do now? I suggest to create some comparisons and promotional materials, similar to what is already in our Essay, but more diverse and in a more compact form. I already have some stuff like that which i could share and translate. Who'd like to join this effort? Also, the currently published series of articles on the lilypondblog.org aims to make a foundation for this effort (evangelize about LilyPond). best, Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
David Kastrup schrieb: >SoundsFromSound writes: > >> The biggest complaint I've heard from many of my peers (when it comes >> to possibly switching from Finale/Sibelius) is that "LilyPond looks >> like way too much work" and "Text input?? That makes absolutely no >> sense for music. You're not writing a book! It's a score!". >Well, I'd argue that a mouse makes absolutely no sense for music input. And I'd add that what you input as text is much closer to the content you input. If you want an 'a' you write 'a'. Sounds completely convincing to me, but doesn't seem to be very effective usually ... Urs >A practised typist can write several hundred words per minute and keep >this up for quite a long time. > >Input the same amount of information with a mouse, and you'll have >Repetitive Strain Injury in no time at all. > >MIDI input would be a good compromise if you are an actual keyboard >player: LilyPond's input tool shed is not too impressive here. But >MIDI >only carries the performance part of the musical information, not the >notational part. > >-- >David Kastrup > >___ >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: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
SoundsFromSound writes: > The biggest complaint I've heard from many of my peers (when it comes > to possibly switching from Finale/Sibelius) is that "LilyPond looks > like way too much work" and "Text input?? That makes absolutely no > sense for music. You're not writing a book! It's a score!". Well, I'd argue that a mouse makes absolutely no sense for music input. A practised typist can write several hundred words per minute and keep this up for quite a long time. Input the same amount of information with a mouse, and you'll have Repetitive Strain Injury in no time at all. MIDI input would be a good compromise if you are an actual keyboard player: LilyPond's input tool shed is not too impressive here. But MIDI only carries the performance part of the musical information, not the notational part. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Kieren MacMillan wrote >> How does that compare to their reaction to Lilypond? I would guess >> amazement at how much Lilypond gets right, but frustration with how >> relatively complicated it is to enter a score and see the results? And >> probably overwhelming frustration when they hit the point of wanting to >> tweak something? > > Exactly. > Kieren. > ___ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@ > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user For what it's worth, I was a user of Sibelius since 2000, and Finale since 2001. I recently switched completely to LilyPond for all of my archival-quality engravings [master copies] and I am very happy with my decision. Personally, I was a bit overwhelmed at first with this whole "text input" concept, but I stuck with it and now I can't believe how much of a boost my workflow has seen because of LilyPond. Not to mention how my compositions look now on the page. Who knows if they sound good, but at least they look good. :) I hope you guys don't "abandon" the idea of text input because it may be daunting to some who are making the switch as I have, for engraving. At the risk of sounding uber-cliché, I really am in awe of the power of LilyPond and how beautiful my scores look once they are printed. It has that nice old-school hand-engraved vibe that I dig. :) And text input allows for some crazy-powerful tweaking and the OCD in me is beyond happy with the possibilities. I do still find myself having to use Finale every now and then for projects that require it [paid clients, school gigs, etc.], but I would say the biggest selling point for me was "seeing" the score as a finished product. What a feeling. It makes the learning curve worth it, imho. The biggest complaint I've heard from many of my peers (when it comes to possibly switching from Finale/Sibelius) is that "LilyPond looks like way too much work" and "Text input?? That makes absolutely no sense for music. You're not writing a book! It's a score!". Sorry for the long post. I just wanted to share my thoughts as a working composer and "power-user" of Finale and Sibelius who has since switched to LilyPond for his personal portfolio. I'm always happy to help grow the LilyPond community. Have a nice weekend! Ben - composer | sound designer LilyPond Tutorials (for beginners) --> http://bit.ly/bcl-lilypond -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Supporting-my-work-on-LilyPond-financially-tp154644p154813.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: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Martin Tarenskeen writes: > On Sun, 1 Dec 2013, Kieren MacMillan wrote: > >> I am looking forward to examining Denemo, once my current project >> load diminishes to the point where “free time” is a reality. > > Denemo is mentioned several times in this thread. > > I have installed and tried Denemo several times recently and in the > past, but never managed to make it make life with LilyPond easier for > me. I think the idea was to make life _without_ LilyPond prettier by outsourcing the real work to LilyPond behind your back. > I guess that if you are used to writing Lilypond Code by hand, using > Frescobaldi, or another editor, there is not much benefit in using > Denemo. It's a different workflow. There is LyX which people use in order to avoid touching LaTeX. It works for casual users, but LyX powerusers at some point of time need more knowledge to get LyX to do what they need than if they just used LaTeX directly. Some move on then. The involved principles seem related with Denemo/LilyPond, but I have no idea how much LilyPond knowledge can be employed from within Denemo, and where the sweet spots are beyond which people get annoyed enough to move to direct LilyPond input. For some, the mixture might be just what they want. > Which leads to my question: Denemo seems to be a powerful and > feature-rich tool, which is continuously improved, but how many people > do actually use it for real-life music engraving projects? No idea about that. http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=denemo> http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=lilypond> Looks like a quarter of LilyPond users has Denemo installed. Or something. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Kieren MacMillan writes: > Hi David, > >> I'm always a bit surprised about the low resonance on features like >> >> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3648> >> Issue 3648: Patch: Isolated durations in music sequences now stand for >> unpitched notes > > It’s a nice feature… but applicable, I would imagine, to a > spectacularly small percentage of users. I, for one, can think of > exactly three staves (and then only a fraction of the measures in > those staves) in I would have used this feature, out of the last > several thousand that I’ve engraved. > > On the other hand, something really useful — and helpful in getting > users “out of the code” — would be the ability to say: > > lastCymbalCrash = { > \atMoment (256 . 1) b4\accent\sff > } > > and then output a 256-measure part (complete with rests, time > signatures, etc.) for the poor cymbal player with > > \score { > \new RhythmicStaff << \theGlobalStuff \lastCymbalCrash >> > } What makes this hard is that lengths are precomputed, this may lead to weird side effects. Now to be honest, \lyricsto has the same problem. I'm not sure this isn't related to some obscure bugs... > Or how about > > \score { > \new Staff \with { \lineBreaksAt (5 10 17 21 26) \pageBreaksAt (17) > \autoBreaksOnAt (26) } \theMusic > } > > Or any of a dozen other functions I could dream up in a few minutes > which would make life easier here in the trenches. So dream them up, one by one, and either let them first be discussed here, one by one, before preparing an issue report. Yes, some may end up as "invalid" or as not compatible with how LilyPond does things, and some may sit years in the tracker. When preparing a careful proposal fitting with the rest of LilyPond, this may be somewhat deflating. >> most of the time I'm left alone with figuring out what might work >> best for people. > > This, I think, is the key problem with "front-end” Lilypond > development right now: there are spectacular things going on in the > "back-end" — prerequisites, of course, for real advance(s) to the > “front-end” No, that's rather independent. The frontend is about how much it sucks to tell LilyPond what one wants, and the backend is about how much it sucks what LilyPond does once it has understood what is wanted. Dependencies come into play only when LilyPond has no useful concept representing the idea to be presented to the frontend. > — but there are few real quantum leaps on the user side that mean > anything to people who are cranking out real-world scores on a daily > basis. And those are the ones that reduce the well-documented inertia > that keep many users from switching to Lilypond. Well, we have by now a slowly growing number of power uses that crank out ad-hoc solutions. At some point of time we need to integrate a few of them back into LilyPond when they are often asked for, being reasonably careful that this makes sense as a whole. > When 2.18 is out, perhaps the ‘Pond would benefit from a discussion of > what real-world functions might bring us closer to some of those > “huddled masses yearning to be free”. We'll certainly need to get a better idea how to grow better without getting different tasks in the way of each other. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Henning Hraban Ramm writes: > Am 2013-12-01 um 19:15 schrieb David Kastrup : > >> I'm always a bit surprised about the low resonance on features like >> >> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3648> >> Issue 3648: Patch: Isolated durations in music sequences now stand for >> unpitched notes > > I hear you - as a magazine layouter I seldom get feedback at all, and > then mostly some nitpicking of the authors. > > Hey, isolated durations are GREAT! I can remember some pieces where > they would have been very handy. Well, the main reason I'm surprised is that a few years ago there were proposals about it and I said "this will have to wait until some other parser parts are where they need to be" and there was wailing and gnashing of teeth. Actually, that was the second iteration. The first was rather heated, Han-Wen violently opposed the idea, I agreed with him, there was bitter disappointment, and then q was designed instead. Fixing the broken and hotly loved q eventually fell to my lot, and issue 2240, required for that, introduced the largest Scheme incompatibility for 2.16. We still have fallout from that. So now the stars are right, I mean, the parser parts are where I needed them to be for the original issue, I implement the stuff, and people have moved on. And implementing the stuff comes at a cost: it was moderate for me once I had the parser where I needed it to be, but of course there is a followup cost for all tools that try understanding LilyPond input: editors, converters, and so on. We have not really found a good answer to that problem. Good MusicXML support would help as it is not affected by how user-friendly the LilyPond input is. > Can’t say anything about other improvements - most of my songs are too > simple for them, and I use LilyPond far too seldom. > But I’m looking forward to better accidentals in chord names. Chord names look generally awful by default. It's not just the accidentals. That's really an area where we could need a good typesetting and font person (someone with a lot of experience rather than someone just interested in doing it) to pound them into shape. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Richard Shann writes: > On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 11:41 +0100, David Kastrup wrote: >> > In my opinion, there are only two things that will ever change this: >> > 1. A real, live, useable, full-functioned GUI (so that users *never* >> > have to see Lilypond “code”); >> >> According to the advertising, that's Denemo. > > I hope nothing I write could be described as advertising, rather than > describing. I did not want to imply that I considered the description inaccurate. I could have said "according to how it is marketed", but that's probably not much better. It's a sad thing that "businessmen talking about their product" nowadays is tantamount to "politicians talking about their government activities". Actually, that would be ok. The sad thing is that both have become equivalent to "con men talking about their get rich schemes" nowadays. So strike "advertising" or "marketing", and replace it with "description". Until that term is corrupted as well. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 17:27 +0100, Martin Tarenskeen wrote: > > On Sun, 1 Dec 2013, Kieren MacMillan wrote: > > > I am looking forward to examining Denemo, once my current project load > > diminishes to the point where “free time” is a reality. > > Denemo is mentioned several times in this thread. > > I have installed and tried Denemo several times recently and in the past, > but never managed to make it make life with LilyPond easier for me. > > I guess that if you are used to writing Lilypond Code by hand, using > Frescobaldi, or another editor, there is not much benefit in using Denemo. It would depend on what sort of activity you were doing - composing and transcribing being the two main ones. I have heard it said that most composers still use pencil, rubber and paper until they are ready to publish. For transcribing I gain both in speed and enjoyment by using Denemo for transcribing. That's because while typing in note names and durations I get no sense of the music, I tend to lose my place. By contrast, by playing rhythms and then the piece on a MIDI controller I am leveraging my ability to read music - I know where I am in the score as I know where I am when reading a book. > > If you are used to using Finale, Sibelius - from a Sibelius/Finale-users > point of view - there is not much benefit in using Denemo either. AFAIK they don't offer such a method of entering the music, so are slower and less pleasant. And then you have to adjust the positions of things by dragging them around... > > Which leads to my question: Denemo seems to be a powerful and feature-rich > tool, which is continuously improved, but how many people do actually use > it for real-life music engraving projects? Not many I think. I would like to know why, but I guess that devoting a lot of screen space (you want ideally to see your original to transcribe from, your input and the typeset at once) and desk space (for a MIDI keyboard) could be factors. But mostly I suspect, it is because it is an unusual program - people expect to work steadily away entering their notes using Sibelius, Finale or MuseScore, and for some (e.g. those doodling about composing things) the raw speed of music entry is not an issue. And people expect to spend time tidying up the engraving just to remove collisions. But the feedback I get about Denemo is almost entirely positive - those who find it unusable just quietly switch to something else, out of politeness I guess. Most unhelpful! Richard Shann ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
On Sun, 1 Dec 2013, Kieren MacMillan wrote: I am looking forward to examining Denemo, once my current project load diminishes to the point where “free time” is a reality. Denemo is mentioned several times in this thread. I have installed and tried Denemo several times recently and in the past, but never managed to make it make life with LilyPond easier for me. I guess that if you are used to writing Lilypond Code by hand, using Frescobaldi, or another editor, there is not much benefit in using Denemo. If you are used to using Finale, Sibelius - from a Sibelius/Finale-users point of view - there is not much benefit in using Denemo either. Which leads to my question: Denemo seems to be a powerful and feature-rich tool, which is continuously improved, but how many people do actually use it for real-life music engraving projects? -- MT___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Am 01.12.2013 12:04, schrieb Kieren MacMillan: Hi Urs, If anybody is interested in this and has experience with Python and/or MusicXML please contact us I have no Python experience, but lots of XML/XSL(T) experience — and, of course, a proven willingness to financially support Lilypond. Will those help? Both will surely help, although it's probably too early for talking about concrete sponsorship. I see three possible approaches for you: 1) Write to Peter privately, and you'll probably get into an exchange of ideas what could be useful. 2) Goto https://github.com/openlilylib/ly2xml/wiki/_pages and have a look if anything rings a bell with you. But be warned: The hyperlinks may lead you far away ;-) 3) Have a look at http://music-encoding.org It's not about MusicXML export but something for a later step. But it's a major academic initiative that _seems_ to be partially complementary to us, and it may be a good thing to think about converters for MEI->ly<-MEI. I'm telling this you because MEI is an XML DTD and so it should be possible to convert between both with XSLT. And probably this is already done or started, so some research in this regard would be useful. Best Urs Kieren. ___ 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: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Hi Richard, > Ha! It's funny you should mention this, but I just added a command to > Denemo to create a staff complete with time signature changes and empty > measures for a score (for a completely different reason). Synchronicity! > Front-end stuff is so easy to do with a pre-processor like Denemo. Fair enough… but to accomplish such “obvious” things, 1. Lilypond shouldn’t require a pre-processor (the very mention of which makes most potential users eyes cross); and 2. Users shouldn’t be required to learn a new tool. I am looking forward to examining Denemo, once my current project load diminishes to the point where “free time” is a reality. Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 09:19 -0500, Kieren MacMillan wrote: > > On the other hand, something really useful — and helpful in getting > users “out of the code” — would be the ability to say: > > lastCymbalCrash = { > \atMoment (256 . 1) b4\accent\sff > } > > and then output a 256-measure part (complete with rests, time > signatures, etc.) for the poor cymbal player with Ha! It's funny you should mention this, but I just added a command to Denemo to create a staff complete with time signature changes and empty measures for a score (for a completely different reason). Front-end stuff is so easy to do with a pre-processor like Denemo. Richard Shann ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Hi Richard, > They had posted the musicXML too, so I imported it into Denemo > and re-typeset it with LilyPond. The result was this: > > http://imslp.org/wiki/Oboe_Sonata_in_C_major_(Albinoni,_Tomaso) > > I didn't need to tweak it with LilyPond, and, for fun, I transposed it > up a minor third for treble recorder with absolutely no further > adjustments. This was remarkably painless, even though there were > mistakes in the musicXML (there is one bar that is actually incomplete > and one with wrong notes). A rather spectacular example! Nice, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
> How does that compare to their reaction to Lilypond? I would guess amazement > at how much Lilypond gets right, but frustration with how relatively > complicated it is to enter a score and see the results? And probably > overwhelming frustration when they hit the point of wanting to tweak > something? Exactly. Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Am 2013-12-01 um 19:15 schrieb David Kastrup : > I'm always a bit surprised about the low resonance on features like > > http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3648> > Issue 3648: Patch: Isolated durations in music sequences now stand for > unpitched notes I hear you - as a magazine layouter I seldom get feedback at all, and then mostly some nitpicking of the authors. Hey, isolated durations are GREAT! I can remember some pieces where they would have been very handy. Can’t say anything about other improvements - most of my songs are too simple for them, and I use LilyPond far too seldom. But I’m looking forward to better accidentals in chord names. Greetlings, Hraban --- fiëé visuëlle Henning Hraban Ramm http://www.fiee.net http://angerweit.tikon.ch/lieder/ https://www.cacert.org (I'm an assurer) ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Hi David, > I'm always a bit surprised about the low resonance on features like > > http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3648> > Issue 3648: Patch: Isolated durations in music sequences now stand for > unpitched notes It’s a nice feature… but applicable, I would imagine, to a spectacularly small percentage of users. I, for one, can think of exactly three staves (and then only a fraction of the measures in those staves) in I would have used this feature, out of the last several thousand that I’ve engraved. On the other hand, something really useful — and helpful in getting users “out of the code” — would be the ability to say: lastCymbalCrash = { \atMoment (256 . 1) b4\accent\sff } and then output a 256-measure part (complete with rests, time signatures, etc.) for the poor cymbal player with \score { \new RhythmicStaff << \theGlobalStuff \lastCymbalCrash >> } Or how about \score { \new Staff \with { \lineBreaksAt (5 10 17 21 26) \pageBreaksAt (17) \autoBreaksOnAt (26) } \theMusic } Or any of a dozen other functions I could dream up in a few minutes which would make life easier here in the trenches. > most of the time I'm left alone with figuring out what might work best for > people. This, I think, is the key problem with "front-end” Lilypond development right now: there are spectacular things going on in the "back-end" — prerequisites, of course, for real advance(s) to the “front-end” — but there are few real quantum leaps on the user side that mean anything to people who are cranking out real-world scores on a daily basis. And those are the ones that reduce the well-documented inertia that keep many users from switching to Lilypond. When 2.18 is out, perhaps the ‘Pond would benefit from a discussion of what real-world functions might bring us closer to some of those “huddled masses yearning to be free”. Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling < joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net> wrote: > On 01/12/13 14:56, immanuel litzroth wrote: > >> Here's a nice example. >> > > That's almost certainly someone writing to full score (which has > particular spacing properties) and auto-exporting to parts without ever > actually looking at them. Surprise to surprise, the horizontal spacing > issues are different in an individual part than in a full score, > particularly if (as in this case) the part is _all_ chords with no notes to > space things out. > > (Although why they don't in that case put in a cue melody line, I can't > imagine. Makes no sense to me.) > > I would imagine these pieces are meant to be performed by ad-hoc ensembles > which are not necessarily consistent in instrumentation. So probably what > happens is, Random Engraver takes all the possible instrument choices, > throws them into one giant full score, gets it looking sort of all right > there, and then exports the parts without a second thought. It's a recipe > for disaster. > > This is not really a fault of Sibelius -- similar problems can happen with > Lilypond if you proofread full score but not individual parts. (For > example, imagine a hairpin that's spread over quite a wide horizontal space > in the score, but a fairly narrow space in the individual part: it may need > a custom tweak to look right in the second case.) > > Well, 1) I don't seem to run into many of these problems with lilypond and I do transcriptions of small ensembles *and* export all the voices separately (that's including drums) -- I almost never have to clean up for readability issues, and don't have the time to do it for aesthetic issues. 2) The contention was that this stuff would be easier in Sibelius. Not that you can get it right there too. Immanuel ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Am 2013-12-01 um 15:26 schrieb Urs Liska : > I think it hasn't been stressed enough yet that the text input by itself is a > huge hurdle. I mean, not the syntax but the plain fact. > If you're looking at a real-world score's input file it's overwhelmingly > daunting. And if you look at { c d e f g } like examples they aren't at all > overwhelming. > Most people I tried to persuade simply said "this isn't my cup of tea, I'm > not a programmer“. Hm, my ex-girlfriend was a fiddler in an Irish Folk band. She was used to note her tunes like „c d e f“ anyway and had no big hurdles with the LilyPond template I made for her. Don’t know if she still uses LilyPond, though ;-) But most other people I know (that write notes at all), are content with the default quality of Finale (price is not a problem if you don’t care about legality) or even (I forgot the name of that crappy Windows-only program). Myself I used to use Myriad Harmony Assistant until 2006 (a first try with LilyPond some years before failed, because I couldn’t get it to compile on Linux PPC; the same with MusiXTeX’s preprocessors); „Harmony“ has great MIDI output (I still miss it), a convoluted interface and rather poor notation - but still better that the competition in its price range; AFAIR I chose it since it could output PS/PDF, others had only bitmaps. I guess „we“ have a chance in combination with TeX, i.e. at universities etc. where TeX is in broad use, since the approach and needed expertise is similar. Greetlings, Hraban --- fiëé visuëlle Henning Hraban Ramm http://www.fiee.net http://angerweit.tikon.ch/lieder/ https://www.cacert.org (I'm an assurer) ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
On 01/12/13 14:56, immanuel litzroth wrote: Here's a nice example. That's almost certainly someone writing to full score (which has particular spacing properties) and auto-exporting to parts without ever actually looking at them. Surprise to surprise, the horizontal spacing issues are different in an individual part than in a full score, particularly if (as in this case) the part is _all_ chords with no notes to space things out. (Although why they don't in that case put in a cue melody line, I can't imagine. Makes no sense to me.) I would imagine these pieces are meant to be performed by ad-hoc ensembles which are not necessarily consistent in instrumentation. So probably what happens is, Random Engraver takes all the possible instrument choices, throws them into one giant full score, gets it looking sort of all right there, and then exports the parts without a second thought. It's a recipe for disaster. This is not really a fault of Sibelius -- similar problems can happen with Lilypond if you proofread full score but not individual parts. (For example, imagine a hairpin that's spread over quite a wide horizontal space in the score, but a fairly narrow space in the individual part: it may need a custom tweak to look right in the second case.) ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
On 01/12/13 14:13, immanuel litzroth wrote: I follow a music education program that requires me to play in a combo 1 hour a week. The scores there are prepared by paid professionals, usually in Sibelius. They are invariably late, and usually unreadable when they arrive. Chords on top of each other, confusing spacing and layout, although they are normally just a melody (if even that) without any articulation marks and some chords. Sounds to me like, regardless of the software involved, you are paying the wrong professionals. Out of curiosity, what form do the scores arrive in -- paper, PDF, ... ? ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Kieren MacMillan writes: > Hi Joseph, > >> The default output of Finale is indeed ugly, and I was reminded that >> Sibelius too has its problems when I recently received a score from >> a friend which would surely have looked much better done in >> Lilypond. >> >> The thing is, though, both are so easy to tweak, it doesn't matter. > > I disagree somewhat… and so do most of my Finale- and Sibelius-using > friends and colleagues, who complain endlessly about how much time it > takes to tweak scores and parts. > > What *is* true is that beauty in engraving is less of an issue to most > people than just getting it done. > >> what matters to the end user is very often the facility to get the >> score _just as they want it_, not the ability of the program to >> automatically second-guess their desires. > > Actually, what matters to most end user is to have something “good > enough”… and, I’m sad to say, Finale and Sibelius do that (for them) > with almost no tweaking at all. If people are not interested in the output, the selling point are the input methods. I'm always a bit surprised about the low resonance on features like http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3648> Issue 3648: Patch: Isolated durations in music sequences now stand for unpitched notes or the followup http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3682> Issue 3682: Patch: Implement \beamExceptions function fishing exceptions from beamed music. which feel to me like non-trivial steps in usability. But most of the time I'm left alone with figuring out what might work best for people. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling < joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net> wrote: > On 01/12/13 09:45, David Kastrup wrote: > >> Finale output is ugly to the degree where it is distracting readability, >> particularly for instrumentalists. Sibelius' corporate parent has fired >> its core developer team in the UK, including its original authors. >> Steinberg does not yet have a finished product on market. Most other >> players are fringe players. >> >> >> The situation is not really all that unfavorable for LilyPond. >> > > The default output of Finale is indeed ugly, and I was reminded that > Sibelius too has its problems when I recently received a score from a > friend which would surely have looked much better done in Lilypond. > > The thing is, though, both are so easy to tweak, it doesn't matter. My > Bärenreiter scores engraved (presumably) with Finale may be less beautiful > than the obviously hand-engraved earlier publications, but they are > entirely satisfactory so far as reading goes. Most practical readability > problems arise because of publishers (or composers) who put inadequate work > into copyediting parts, not because of the software used. > > I don't say this to discourage anyone, but just to note that what matters > to the end user is very often the facility to get the score _just as they > want it_, not the ability of the program to automatically second-guess > their desires. I follow a music education program that requires me to play in a combo 1 hour a week. The scores there are prepared by paid professionals, usually in Sibelius. They are invariably late, and usually unreadable when they arrive. Chords on top of each other, confusing spacing and layout, although they are normally just a melody (if even that) without any articulation marks and some chords. If anyone is interested I can post some nice examples of the stuff I'm being given under the motto "Sightread That!". It normally takes me 30 mins to redo them in lilypond and get something infinitely better. The other bands I play in also usually have scores in lily written by me, the other guys mainly distribute some copies of handwritten stuff and are working on their Sibelius/Finale scores. I see no evidence of Sibelius/Finale being better in any sense than lily to actually produce scores. Immanuel ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 11:41 +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > > In my opinion, there are only two things that will ever change this: > > 1. A real, live, useable, full-functioned GUI (so that users *never* > > have to see Lilypond “code”); > > According to the advertising, that's Denemo. I hope nothing I write could be described as advertising, rather than describing. I never have to see Lilypond "code" for the music typsetting that I do with Denemo, but that is because I have installed all the tweaks I need (you can parcel up Lilypond code as a user to be emitted by a command that you install into Denemo, with the same status as Denemo's other commands). So it depends on the user; likewise "publication quality" depends on the publisher - I use the term in the way that I guess people will understand it, namely better than some main-stream publishers editions that I have. Later in this thread someone has commented that many users want to be able to make a score look just like they want. I think this is so - often people want a score to look exactly like some particular thing; one suspects that had they seen something else, they would have wanted that instead. Such people with a specific idea of what they want the final output to look like will usually have to tackle the LilyPond code when using Denemo - more often they will jump to the far end and start editing the output. (Truly, I know of people using pdf editors!). How this compares with people's experience of commercial programs I don't really know - the other day someone posted a Sibelius score on IMSLP which wouldn't render correctly on my Debian Stable box. They had posted the musicXML too, so I imported it into Denemo and re-typeset it with LilyPond. The result was this: http://imslp.org/wiki/Oboe_Sonata_in_C_major_(Albinoni,_Tomaso) I didn't need to tweak it with LilyPond, and, for fun, I transposed it up a minor third for treble recorder with absolutely no further adjustments. This was remarkably painless, even though there were mistakes in the musicXML (there is one bar that is actually incomplete and one with wrong notes). Richard ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
On 01/12/13 14:00, Kieren MacMillan wrote: I disagree somewhat… and so do most of my Finale- and Sibelius-using friends and colleagues, who complain endlessly about how much time it takes to tweak scores and parts. How does that compare to their reaction to Lilypond? I would guess amazement at how much Lilypond gets right, but frustration with how relatively complicated it is to enter a score and see the results? And probably overwhelming frustration when they hit the point of wanting to tweak something? What *is* true is that beauty in engraving is less of an issue to most people than just getting it done. Actually, what matters to most end user is to have something “good enough”… and, I’m sad to say, Finale and Sibelius do that (for them) with almost no tweaking at all. Yes, and this is overwhelmingly true of most things in life. "Easy to get it good enough" almost always wins over "difficult but gets it perfect". When I compare Finale/Sibelius output with hand-copied (not hand-engraved!) parts from earlier years, which was the norm for a lot of new works, there is very rarely any contest. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Hi Joseph, > The default output of Finale is indeed ugly, and I was reminded that Sibelius > too has its problems when I recently received a score from a friend which > would surely have looked much better done in Lilypond. > > The thing is, though, both are so easy to tweak, it doesn't matter. I disagree somewhat… and so do most of my Finale- and Sibelius-using friends and colleagues, who complain endlessly about how much time it takes to tweak scores and parts. What *is* true is that beauty in engraving is less of an issue to most people than just getting it done. > what matters to the end user is very often the facility to get the score > _just as they want it_, not the ability of the program to automatically > second-guess their desires. Actually, what matters to most end user is to have something “good enough”… and, I’m sad to say, Finale and Sibelius do that (for them) with almost no tweaking at all. Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
On 01/12/13 12:49, David Kastrup wrote: I don't think this sort of preplanning works out well. Mostly it just leads to people going away until the stuff they are not interested in is done. We need to figure out better ways to work on parallel and partly conflicting goals. Yes, I guess that's a risk. :-( Perhaps if you start by getting all the key developers to commit to trying to communicate and discuss with all the others exactly how their part of the backend works ... ? ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Joseph Rushton Wakeling writes: > On 30/11/13 21:40, David Kastrup wrote: >> The backend is much less coherent, so expertise is harder to acquire, >> people tend to work with partial knowledge, and progress is a lot >> more fragile. We need to get those four months down, and yes, a >> shouting match is not going to help. What will help is refactoring >> and rearchitecturing, and that needs people with a thorough >> programming background. > > Is it perhaps worthwhile having a purely "backend cycle" where _all_ > development effort is focused on turning the backend into something > that's easy to work with? I don't think this sort of preplanning works out well. Mostly it just leads to people going away until the stuff they are not interested in is done. We need to figure out better ways to work on parallel and partly conflicting goals. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
On 01/12/13 09:45, David Kastrup wrote: Finale output is ugly to the degree where it is distracting readability, particularly for instrumentalists. Sibelius' corporate parent has fired its core developer team in the UK, including its original authors. Steinberg does not yet have a finished product on market. Most other players are fringe players. The situation is not really all that unfavorable for LilyPond. The default output of Finale is indeed ugly, and I was reminded that Sibelius too has its problems when I recently received a score from a friend which would surely have looked much better done in Lilypond. The thing is, though, both are so easy to tweak, it doesn't matter. My Bärenreiter scores engraved (presumably) with Finale may be less beautiful than the obviously hand-engraved earlier publications, but they are entirely satisfactory so far as reading goes. Most practical readability problems arise because of publishers (or composers) who put inadequate work into copyediting parts, not because of the software used. I don't say this to discourage anyone, but just to note that what matters to the end user is very often the facility to get the score _just as they want it_, not the ability of the program to automatically second-guess their desires. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
On 30/11/13 21:40, David Kastrup wrote: The backend is much less coherent, so expertise is harder to acquire, people tend to work with partial knowledge, and progress is a lot more fragile. We need to get those four months down, and yes, a shouting match is not going to help. What will help is refactoring and rearchitecturing, and that needs people with a thorough programming background. Is it perhaps worthwhile having a purely "backend cycle" where _all_ development effort is focused on turning the backend into something that's easy to work with? ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes: > Kieren MacMillan writes: > >> (so that users *never* have to see Lilypond “code”); or > > and this is what I don't understand. > > My idea is exactly the opposite: to show people the corresponding text > input also, "also" > so that they have a very easy way to learn it and may at their > convenience choose to change their primary focus of input to text > input or GUI, depending on the situation at hand. I hear this as the > biggest complaint against GUI based text processors, many people still > long for the days of Word Perfect with it's "underwater screen". How many passionate snorklers and divers do you know who would want to actually _live_ underwater, abandoning the surface altogether? > However, show them LaTeX (or even Lyx) and they run. As I said, I > have ideas but do not quite understand how people choose to use > computers. The most-sold keyboards are some Casio or whatever with blinkenlights and automatic rhythms and learning software and so ever, and the majority of those never gets to see much more action than blink and let the preprogrammed stuff run off. There are more CD players sold than music instruments. People don't want to be faced with manual intervention for their music every quaver but rather every hour or so. Why would I use a computer if I still have to think myself? At some point of time, you have to stop worrying about pissing off the people who don't like this kind of manual access. You'll not reach them anyway. What we do have to worry about is pissing off those who'd actually _like_ this approach but have LilyPond keep getting in their way. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Hi David, > we'll probably need some open discussion of common problems and > imaginary input that would make it considerably easier for people to > overcome them. I’m right in the middle of an immense engraving project — I have lots of fodder and examples for such a discussion. > LilyPond's rigid voicing is not fun for entering piano music +1 > In a similar vein, we won't change LilyPond's nature. But there is a > lot one can do to make it appear less obnoxious, and possibly also > enable new workflows around it in connection with other tools. The second part is, I believe, Lily's best hope. Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Hi Urs, > If anybody is interested in this and has experience with Python and/or > MusicXML please contact us I have no Python experience, but lots of XML/XSL(T) experience — and, of course, a proven willingness to financially support Lilypond. Will those help? Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Kieren MacMillan writes: >> I think it hasn't been stressed enough yet that the text input by >> itself is a huge hurdle. I mean, not the syntax but the plain fact. > > Amen. > >> If you're looking at a real-world score's input file it's >> overwhelmingly daunting. > > …even for me, and I’m one of Lily’s biggest users in terms of number > and size and “real-ness” of scores. Well, we'll probably need some open discussion of common problems and imaginary input that would make it considerably easier for people to overcome them. I'm not primarily interested in syntactic sugar here (though the \override Context.Grob.property thingy is at least a friendly gesture towards the user), but structural things. LilyPond's rigid voicing is not fun for entering piano music, particularly where comparatively free stemming and slurring and beaming and staff crossing come into play. That's one point I feel embarrassed about and am planning to improve one day. > Here’s my experience: > 1. I've tried to convince at least a dozen people — all of whom are of > high intelligence (though none “programmers”) — to try Lilypond. > 2. Every single one has preferred (or at least claimed to prefer) > Lilypond's output to that of the engraving software they use — most > are on Sibelius; a few use Finale. > 3. About half took the time to install Lilypond and compile a simple example > file. > 4. To my knowledge, exactly one tried a second example. > > Result? Not a single successful convert to date. I think Frescobaldi with its templates would likely be helpful. Possibly also Denemo. Staring at an empty canvas without any controls is a bit disconcerting. Basically you need to have a printout with the basics at hand. How many pages is our tutorial? >> Most people I tried to persuade simply said "this isn't my cup of >> tea, I'm not a programmer”. > > THAT is the main problem right there — one we are likely never to > overcome, as much as I hate to admit it. That's relative, like people who don't use Emacs as an editor. Nowadays some newcomers start using it and don't understand the fuzz from oldtimers who said they never managed getting along with it. The basic problems for its workflow it have not changed all that much over the last 20 years, so if you had thorough bad experiences with it, you'll get reminded of them meeting it again. But the degree to which they hit you in the face has changed a lot. In a similar vein, we won't change LilyPond's nature. But there is a lot one can do to make it appear less obnoxious, and possibly also enable new workflows around it in connection with other tools. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Kieren MacMillan schrieb: >Hi David, > >>> 1. A real, live, useable, full-functioned GUI >> According to the advertising, that's Denemo. > >Perhaps when I’ve got a little time to spare, I’ll give that a look — >if it’s really all that, it might become part of my standard >“proselytizing” package. > >> "LilyPond for output only" is not much of a goal: it buys us bug >reports >> without buying us a community interested in working with and on >LilyPond. > >Ah, but you’re ignoring the “virus” factor: if enough people depend on >Lilypond for output, an interested community arises to support it. >Right now, “nobody” depends on Lilypond for output, so there is — as >you say — no community interested in working with and on it. > >> MusicXML export/import or even input/output is definitely something >> needed for a variety of reasons. > >We should start with “perfect" export/import — even that (IMO) would >turn the tide significantly, perhaps even decisively, in Lily's favour. > In case anyone hasn't noticed: we (that is mainly Peter Bjuhr) have finally started on giving MusicXML export a try. For now as Frescobaldi functionality. If anybody is interested in this and has experience with Python and/or MusicXML please contact us :-) Urs >Cheers, >Kieren. >___ >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: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Hi Jan, > This is *exactly* why I've been playing/experimenting with GUI > backends/frontends since 2004. If you haven't done so, please have > a look at Schikkers List > >http://lilypond.org/schikkers > > and come help me out! If only to lure people over to LilyPond, > increase its potential user base. I looked at Schikkers List a year or so ago — it didn’t seem nearly feature-rich enough to convert anyone, so I didn’t look any further. After things calm down around here (ca. Feb), I’ll give it a fresh look. >> (so that users *never* have to see Lilypond “code”); or > and this is what I don't understand. […] > I have ideas but do not quite understand how people choose to use computers. Consider the tab ruler in Microsoft Word. The world’s simplest feature to use in one of the world’s most idiot-proof GUI-based applications, right? And yet nearly 100% of the documents I get from people simply have multiple tab characters used to push text “over to the right”. When I’m given the task of formatting a document someone else inputted, my first task is almost always to convert those tabs to single tabs with tab stops in the ruler. Why is this true? Because people want to use computers to get things done with the least possible effort UP FRONT. People want computers to make their lives simpler — end of story. Except for fringe cases (e.g., automated github-y workflows on multiple editions, etc.), Lilypond code makes 99.9% of engraving tasks 99.9% more difficult (at least UP FRONT) for 99.9% of the people who use engraving software at all — or at least that’s the appearance, and really that’s all that matters. We can be confused all day about why our favourite tool(s) don’t run the world… but it’s pretty clear why, if you actually take the time to put yourself in the mindset of the vast majority of computer users. Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Hi David, >> 1. A real, live, useable, full-functioned GUI > According to the advertising, that's Denemo. Perhaps when I’ve got a little time to spare, I’ll give that a look — if it’s really all that, it might become part of my standard “proselytizing” package. > "LilyPond for output only" is not much of a goal: it buys us bug reports > without buying us a community interested in working with and on LilyPond. Ah, but you’re ignoring the “virus” factor: if enough people depend on Lilypond for output, an interested community arises to support it. Right now, “nobody” depends on Lilypond for output, so there is — as you say — no community interested in working with and on it. > MusicXML export/import or even input/output is definitely something > needed for a variety of reasons. We should start with “perfect" export/import — even that (IMO) would turn the tide significantly, perhaps even decisively, in Lily's favour. Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Kieren MacMillan writes: >> The situation is not really all that unfavorable for LilyPond. > > Having been “in the trenches” perhaps more than most others on this > list, I can tell you the situation *is* really all that unfavorable > for Lilypond. > > In my opinion, there are only two things that will ever change this: > 1. A real, live, useable, full-functioned GUI This is *exactly* why I've been playing/experimenting with GUI backends/frontends since 2004. If you haven't done so, please have a look at Schikkers List http://lilypond.org/schikkers and come help me out! If only to lure people over to LilyPond, increase its potential user base. > (so that users *never* have to see Lilypond “code”); or and this is what I don't understand. My idea is exactly the opposite: to show people the corresponding text input also, so that they have a very easy way to learn it and may at their convenience choose to change their primary focus of input to text input or GUI, depending on the situation at hand. I hear this as the biggest complaint against GUI based text processors, many people still long for the days of Word Perfect with it's "underwater screen". However, show them LaTeX (or even Lyx) and they run. As I said, I have ideas but do not quite understand how people choose to use computers. Jan. -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar® http://AvatarAcademy.nl ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Kieren MacMillan writes: > Hi David, > >> The situation is not really all that unfavorable for LilyPond. > > Having been “in the trenches” perhaps more than most others on this > list, I can tell you the situation *is* really all that unfavorable > for Lilypond. > > In my opinion, there are only two things that will ever change this: > 1. A real, live, useable, full-functioned GUI (so that users *never* > have to see Lilypond “code”); According to the advertising, that's Denemo. > or 2. Robust (i.e., essentially ‘transparent’) MusicXML input/output > (so that users can input items in the tool of their choice, and use > Lilypond for output only). "LilyPond for output only" is not much of a goal: it buys us bug reports without buying us a community interested in working with and on LilyPond. It's probably somewhat tantamount to those maintaining Ghostscript, by now a probably somewhat frustrating task. MusicXML export/import or even input/output is definitely something needed for a variety of reasons. If it's needed for note input on a continuing basis, we should ask ourselves how we can encourage existing input tools or editors to do better. Of course, a robust input of material that _has_ already been input previously is still independently useful. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Hi David, > The situation is not really all that unfavorable for LilyPond. Having been “in the trenches” perhaps more than most others on this list, I can tell you the situation *is* really all that unfavorable for Lilypond. In my opinion, there are only two things that will ever change this: 1. A real, live, useable, full-functioned GUI (so that users *never* have to see Lilypond “code”); or 2. Robust (i.e., essentially ‘transparent’) MusicXML input/output (so that users can input items in the tool of their choice, and use Lilypond for output only). Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
> I think it hasn't been stressed enough yet that the text input by itself is a > huge hurdle. I mean, not the syntax but the plain fact. Amen. > If you're looking at a real-world score's input file it's overwhelmingly > daunting. …even for me, and I’m one of Lily’s biggest users in terms of number and size and “real-ness” of scores. Here’s my experience: 1. I've tried to convince at least a dozen people — all of whom are of high intelligence (though none “programmers”) — to try Lilypond. 2. Every single one has preferred (or at least claimed to prefer) Lilypond's output to that of the engraving software they use — most are on Sibelius; a few use Finale. 3. About half took the time to install Lilypond and compile a simple example file. 4. To my knowledge, exactly one tried a second example. Result? Not a single successful convert to date. > Most people I tried to persuade simply said "this isn't my cup of tea, I'm > not a programmer”. THAT is the main problem right there — one we are likely never to overcome, as much as I hate to admit it. Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Am 01.12.2013 09:45, schrieb David Kastrup: This means that the first hurdle is overcoming the inertia of "I > already have x, why should I switch? Which leads to (2) even if I can > demonstrate that LP overcomes the technical difficulties of another > notation program, people are going to be reluctant to switch because > of the perceived difficulty of learning LP syntax or working without > the UI bells and whistles of Finale, etc. Which is a reason to teach them working with Frescobaldi, "not" LilyPond. Teaching LilyPond is like teaching blueprints to carpenters. In the end, they know exactly what the blueprint means and where each cut has to be placed, but they never got to touch a saw. When that fails, try getting them hooked on Denemo first as an entry-level drug potentially leaving to raw LilyPond use at a later stage. Lacking spare time today I can only hook in sporadically into this important discussion. I think it hasn't been stressed enough yet that the text input by itself is a huge hurdle. I mean, not the syntax but the plain fact. If you're looking at a real-world score's input file it's overwhelmingly daunting. And if you look at { c d e f g } like examples they aren't at all overwhelming. Most people I tried to persuade simply said "this isn't my cup of tea, I'm not a programmer". So while I can imagine it _should_ be possible to convince people on the professional side of the spectrum, e.g. people responsible for scholarly editions that LilyPond _can_ produce professional results while giving huge surplus for the quality of the workflow through versioning there should be more (tutorial and presentational) material to show that you can initially get usable and useful results with rather small investment. I'm thinking of stuff like integrated sheets for educational purposes. (OK, that's just one little drop, but:) If someone would write a beginner's tutorial how to create such sheets with OOolilypond that would be a great resource. I think this approach is particularly nice because (IIRC) you can achieve first _useful_ results without even bothering about such things as input file structure. This isn't to say that making LilyPond easier to use wouldn't be a great achievement, but people first have to reach the point where they have the need to tweak things. Urs ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Carl Peterson writes: > On Dec 1, 2013 1:47 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote: >> >> Noeck writes: > >> > I personally don't understand why LP is not common at music >> > universities but that's probably a chicken-or-the-egg thing and the >> > lack of large scale marketing. But this would also need official >> > contacts in the LP team who are responsible and can represent LP >> > towards these institutions. > >> Convert three musicians you know to using LilyPond. If you go >> "I couldn't get _him_ or _her_ to use it", then how to pitch LilyPond to >> someone you don't even have contact with? Think about _why_ you could >> not get a friend of yours to use it. What would need to happen so that >> you could? Have you tried? What did you learn when doing so? >> > > Here are the problems I run into: (1) most musicians/composers/institutions > are already using something. So we need to catch them before they do. Janek got a number of his choir colleagues to enter "Stabat Mater" (don't remember whose, Pergolesi?) into LilyPond. If they had no previous need to music typesetting, the first idea they'll have _when_ they do is to take a look at LilyPond. After all, they know its basic note entry already. The crucial question here is whether LilyPond will survive that first look even given their previous exposure. But that's already better than starting from scratch. Then we need to get and think about feedback like "I could not for the life of me figure out how to do x" and its followup feedback "I now know how to do x, but that's far too complicated a trick to pull whenever I need x". > This means that the first hurdle is overcoming the inertia of "I > already have x, why should I switch? Which leads to (2) even if I can > demonstrate that LP overcomes the technical difficulties of another > notation program, people are going to be reluctant to switch because > of the perceived difficulty of learning LP syntax or working without > the UI bells and whistles of Finale, etc. Which is a reason to teach them working with Frescobaldi, "not" LilyPond. Teaching LilyPond is like teaching blueprints to carpenters. In the end, they know exactly what the blueprint means and where each cut has to be placed, but they never got to touch a saw. When that fails, try getting them hooked on Denemo first as an entry-level drug potentially leaving to raw LilyPond use at a later stage. > They will also say, "Well, it's not *that* bad of a problem." > > I frequently advocate the simplicity of setting SATB hymns in LP to > the hymn writers and composers of my personal acquaintance (using the > template I've mentioned on other threads). My standard response > whenever they talk about a workaround for a provlem in Finale is, "Or > you could just use Lilypond." They acknowledge that LP would probably > make their work much easier, but too many are too invested in Finale > at this point to make the switch. Well, what's the investment they'll lose? It's either an imaginary or a real loss, and if it's the latter, how can we address this? > LP came out in the midst of other packages that already existed. As a > result, it is fighting for marketshare in a relatively mature > market. Finale output is ugly to the degree where it is distracting readability, particularly for instrumentalists. Sibelius' corporate parent has fired its core developer team in the UK, including its original authors. Steinberg does not yet have a finished product on market. Most other players are fringe players. The situation is not really all that unfavorable for LilyPond. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
On Dec 1, 2013 1:47 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote: > > Noeck writes: > > I personally don't understand why LP is not common at music > > universities but that's probably a chicken-or-the-egg thing and the > > lack of large scale marketing. But this would also need official > > contacts in the LP team who are responsible and can represent LP > > towards these institutions. > Convert three musicians you know to using LilyPond. If you go > "I couldn't get _him_ or _her_ to use it", then how to pitch LilyPond to > someone you don't even have contact with? Think about _why_ you could > not get a friend of yours to use it. What would need to happen so that > you could? Have you tried? What did you learn when doing so? > Here are the problems I run into: (1) most musicians/composers/institutions are already using something. This means that the first hurdle is overcoming the inertia of "I already have x, why should I switch? Which leads to (2) even if I can demonstrate that LP overcomes the technical difficulties of another notation program, people are going to be reluctant to switch because of the perceived difficulty of learning LP syntax or working without the UI bells and whistles of Finale, etc. They will also say, "Well, it's not *that* bad of a problem." I frequently advocate the simplicity of setting SATB hymns in LP to the hymn writers and composers of my personal acquaintance (using the template I've mentioned on other threads). My standard response whenever they talk about a workaround for a provlem in Finale is, "Or you could just use Lilypond." They acknowledge that LP would probably make their work much easier, but too many are too invested in Finale at this point to make the switch. The major hurdle LP faces is that others were there first. History generally bears this out. 20+ years ago, WordPerfect was *the* word processor for MS-DOS, and with good reason. It could run circles around Microsoft Word. What led to its downfall was that as programs started to migrate to Windows, MS Word launched a Windows version several months before WordPerfect could. By the time WP for Windows came out, people had already gone to Word. The sad part of this example is that WP was, even as late as the mid-00s, a superior product, particularly for business use. LP came out in the midst of other packages that already existed. As a result, it is fighting for marketshare in a relatively mature market. Granted, it is possible to overcome this hurdle, as Google Chrome seems to be doing in the Browser Wars, but it takes something special for that to happen. In the case of Firefox and Chrome, that something was IE's truly abysmal performance in the IE 6-8 years. Finale and Sibelius may have issues, but I don't think they've reached that level for the average user. Carl P. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Noeck writes: > 2) Private donations from hobby users: > Probably most users are not paid for their music engraving. If LP would > not exist (nor some other free (as in free beer) software), they might > have to pay for Finale (600$) or Sibelius (550€). But probably they > would go with a light version of these programs (50$ - 120€). Just to > have an idea what would be to spend otherwise (without LP). > I write this to both sides: Spending about 100€ in 2 years is quite a > lot if you use LP just for fun, €1 per week... It does add up. In my experience, the smallest regular donation that does work is about €10. Smaller monthly donations tend to cease after few months, probably because the donor thinks his contribution would not be noticed. Of course, the best scheme is making an automatic payment scheme which the bank continues on its own, with an amount that is small enough that one is too lazy to cancel it. In the long run, this makes quite a difference. > not spending anything is quite cheap for such a great program. To be clear: the €50 per year number alone would require several hundred participants to keep one developer active. You don't get that from a mailing list: you need to reach the end user masses for that. Ardour does it in that manner while remaining under the GPL, but it's somewhat on the obnoxious side (downloading binaries requires a donation, they sell proprietary add-ons). That software is basically owned by its core developer and so he gets to make the calls. It's not really an option for LilyPond, both because it is a community project and because it is a GNU project. > 3) Private donations from professionals: > If professionals could be convinced that spending the money on LP > development rather than on commercial products is beneficial also for > them that would be great. How? Does someone have a closer relation to > this occupational group than I do and has any ideas how to promote LP? Probably half of the large donors are one-person music publishers. If you take a look at music publisher registers, you'll find that in Germany alone there are several hundreds, and you'll find a few long-term contributors to LilyPond among them. I have no idea for a good sales pitch here: many of the small and actually also large publishers will be wed to a particular workflow. > 4) Donations/payments from institutions: > I can not guess the user base, but I assume that institutional support > is needed for sustainability and long term support. So far I have only > heard about musicians in the LP community who are very tech-savvy and/or > use linux anyway. No, I think we have a fair amount of Windows users (probably more than GNU/Linux). > Somehow the benefits of LP should be made clearer for music/composing > professors the fact that many things can be made doable which are not > up to now with any program. Those things in general are hard to to in LilyPond, and they are generally hard to do, period. Our main selling point should be things that are easy to do. LilyPond should be the first, not the last resort. > And music teachers/schools could support it as licences for engraving > software are mostly unaffordable for schools, but if everything is set > up, pupils can write { a4 g f } and learn a program that everyone can > use at home. Sound-proof practice rooms are way more expensive than most software, and most software offers student licensing schemes. > So, in my opinion, universities and schools should be convinced of LP, > because 100€ for a single person is quite something, but a remarkably > good project which can bring some good publicity could be worth much > more for such institutions. Here €100 a year is about the tuition to expect for a public music school for one pupil. > I personally don't understand why LP is not common at music > universities but that's probably a chicken-or-the-egg thing and the > lack of large scale marketing. But this would also need official > contacts in the LP team who are responsible and can represent LP > towards these institutions. Institutions mean projects, projects mean support, support means a reliable base of available professionals. Convert three musicians you know to using LilyPond. If you go "I couldn't get _him_ or _her_ to use it", then how to pitch LilyPond to someone you don't even have contact with? Think about _why_ you could not get a friend of yours to use it. What would need to happen so that you could? Have you tried? What did you learn when doing so? > My summary: LP would need either a large user base with small > donations (like wikipedia partly) or institutions behind it (I'm > thinking about the Document Foundation or Linux, in this case more > about universities). "LilyPond" as such would need public projects like EU projects. But to tap those, we need a reliable way to turn money into code and music, and that means extending programmer accessibility and user accessibility, and infrastructu
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
On Sun, 1 Dec 2013, Noeck wrote: But: »Der Ton macht die Musik« (for non German speakers: it's not what you say but the way you say it). I can understand both German and English. But I have always thought the original is in French: "C'est le ton qui fait la musique". Sounds good to me :-) -- MT___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Hi, I was thinking about fund raising for some days now. I see several possible sources for supporting LP financially: 1) Private donations from developers: This seems to be partly the case and you have my deep respect that you both work for and spend money on LP. This group probably stays relatively small. 2) Private donations from hobby users: Probably most users are not paid for their music engraving. If LP would not exist (nor some other free (as in free beer) software), they might have to pay for Finale (600$) or Sibelius (550€). But probably they would go with a light version of these programs (50$ - 120€). Just to have an idea what would be to spend otherwise (without LP). I write this to both sides: Spending about 100€ in 2 years is quite a lot if you use LP just for fun, not spending anything is quite cheap for such a great program. Here I would really encourage people using LP to think about this and help financially with a realistic amount of money, because there is need for it. Even if it is not much, the sheer number of users can contribute significantly. 3) Private donations from professionals: If professionals could be convinced that spending the money on LP development rather than on commercial products is beneficial also for them that would be great. How? Does someone have a closer relation to this occupational group than I do and has any ideas how to promote LP? 4) Donations/payments from institutions: I can not guess the user base, but I assume that institutional support is needed for sustainability and long term support. So far I have only heard about musicians in the LP community who are very tech-savvy and/or use linux anyway. Somehow the benefits of LP should be made clearer for music/composing professors the fact that many things can be made doable which are not up to now with any program. If his/her chair is supporting LP, this program could be a showpiece project (high quality engraving, open and free software, international project, huge amount of work already done and therefore a lot to show at low cost). Students in a paid assistant job could work on LP, this particularly in the computer science departments. Universities should be a place where new ways are chosen and new ideas pushed forward. And music teachers/schools could support it as licences for engraving software are mostly unaffordable for schools, but if everything is set up, pupils can write { a4 g f } and learn a program that everyone can use at home. So schools could teach this and offer a free software and support LP also financially. For music teachers OOoLy is so convenient to produce worksheets. So, in my opinion, universities and schools should be convinced of LP, because 100€ for a single person is quite something, but a remarkably good project which can bring some good publicity could be worth much more for such institutions. I personally don't understand why LP is not common at music universities but that's probably a chicken-or-the-egg thing and the lack of large scale marketing. But this would also need official contacts in the LP team who are responsible and can represent LP towards these institutions. tl;dr My summary: LP would need either a large user base with small donations (like wikipedia partly) or institutions behind it (I'm thinking about the Document Foundation or Linux, in this case more about universities). Cheers, Joram ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Am 30.11.2013 22:10, schrieb David Kastrup: > Janek Warchoł writes: > >> The only way that i see in which David influences development is that >> he doesn't allow bad code during reviews, and it's hard to write good >> code when there's a lot of bad code and architectural problems already >> in the codebase (at least that's how the situation looks for me). > > More favorable to me than it looks to me. I don't really have the time > and energy for thorough reviews. And there is a dearth of reviews going > on, and there is a dearth of expertise. When we want to get a stable > release out, there is some code that reeks of being a troublemaker, so > my reviews end up more similar to an allergic reaction than a > well-reasoned analysis. But: »Der Ton macht die Musik« (for non German speakers: it's not what you say but the way you say it). From my outside perspective it looks to me as if a lot could be gained in appreciating other people’s work and putting things as friendly as possible also in cases of disagreement. Having a clear and agreed procedure of code style, code review, positions in the team, timelines and strategies for release versions might help to improve the atmosphere. I will be quiet now, because I don't want to stir up things that aren't truly my business on a public list. I appreciate very much all of your work and I hope very much that the atmosphere in the community can get a biotope for all developers to work in. Joram ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
2013/11/30 David Kastrup : > Janek Warchoł writes: > >>> [] It is clear that our development cycles have not worked out >>> well. It's taken probably 9 months at least from the time we wanted >>> to go for releasing 2.18 to now, and it has been frustrating to >>> people. [] >> >> Well, i was intending to start a discussion about this, but i thought >> it would be best to wait until 2.18 is out. Is it a good idea to >> start it now? > > Would it be better not to have a plan how to do better? I meant that discussing this right now may introduce a bit of disorganization, and it shouldn't make a difference to discuss it in a month, after 2.18 release (assuming it will be as planned). ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Janek Warchoł writes: >> [] It is clear that our development cycles have not worked out >> well. It's taken probably 9 months at least from the time we wanted >> to go for releasing 2.18 to now, and it has been frustrating to >> people. [] > > Well, i was intending to start a discussion about this, but i thought > it would be best to wait until 2.18 is out. Is it a good idea to > start it now? Would it be better not to have a plan how to do better? -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Janek Warchoł writes: > The only way that i see in which David influences development is that > he doesn't allow bad code during reviews, and it's hard to write good > code when there's a lot of bad code and architectural problems already > in the codebase (at least that's how the situation looks for me). More favorable to me than it looks to me. I don't really have the time and energy for thorough reviews. And there is a dearth of reviews going on, and there is a dearth of expertise. When we want to get a stable release out, there is some code that reeks of being a troublemaker, so my reviews end up more similar to an allergic reaction than a well-reasoned analysis. I cannot always prove that some code is going to cause problems. But that's not the point. Inscrutable code is a vector for bugs to get in under cover. And it is a problem in itself. And it does not particularly help that LilyPond is already full of it. >> In my opinion, it would benefit LilyPond, and David too, if there >> were more skilled volunteer developers working on the project. > > Well, that's obvious. I was thinking about this myself, and i'm doing > the only thing that i can do: becoming skilled myself... Which we need to become easier... -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
2013/11/30 David Kastrup : > Mike Solomon writes: >> I would argue that the point that Janek brings up above is not a >> healthy sign for LilyPond development. Several developers, including >> myself, have lowered their participation considerably over the past >> two years. >> >> In my opinion, it would benefit LilyPond, and David too, if there were >> more skilled volunteer developers working on the project. > > The main problem for letting skilled volunteers work effectively to the > benefit of the project is the state LilyPond's code base is in. Then > there are the tools, and the work dynamics. > > If you take a look at > > commit 7d3d28de0ce6e2f018aff599cecd944d1754fe3c > Author: Mike Solomon > Date: Thu Jan 10 08:54:12 2013 +0100 > > Makes all side-positioning based on skylines instead of boxes. > > via the tracker > http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=1&q=7d3d28de0ce6e2f018aff599cecd944d1754fe3c> > then you'll find its core issue in 2.17.10, and followup problems in > 2.17.15, 2.17.25, 2.17.26, 2.19.0. > > For one thing it means our reviews and the underlying infrastructure > don't work out well when people apply them as they understand them. > > For another, it means that LilyPond's architecture is becoming > increasingly fragile: improve one corner, and four distant corners > crumble under unforeseen consequences. At some point of time we are > running into an equilibrium where any change will cause a chain of > repercussions that does not really die down in a sane amount of time. > > When we arrive there, more skilled volunteer developers working on the > project don't really achieve more. Well, it would be good to do a Great Code Cleanup, but can we manage such a task? As you wrote, we need skilled devs for that. > [] > It is clear that our development cycles have not worked out well. It's > taken probably 9 months at least from the time we wanted to go for > releasing 2.18 to now, and it has been frustrating to people. [] Well, i was intending to start a discussion about this, but i thought it would be best to wait until 2.18 is out. Is it a good idea to start it now? best, Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
2013/11/30 Mike Solomon : > I would argue that the point that Janek brings up above is not a healthy sign > for LilyPond development. > Several developers, including myself, have lowered their participation > considerably over the past two years. Maybe i should ask the question "why are you less active?". But i don't want to be overly inquiring; i assume that your job and family simply takes so much time that you cannot do LilyPond work. Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
2013/11/30 Mike Solomon : > > On Nov 30, 2013, at 12:06 AM, Janek Warchoł wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> 2013/11/29 David Kastrup : >>> >>> But one person who just works on LilyPond can make a difference. Can we >>> keep this up? >> >> As you can see, it appears that David (d...@gnu.org) is doing abou >> as much as the rest of the development team combined! >> > > I would argue that the point that Janek brings up above is not a healthy sign > for LilyPond development. Several developers, including myself, have lowered > their participation considerably over the past two years. That's true. However, i think this is mostly independent from David and funding his work: it's not like he's taking work away from us. He specializes in a very particular area (syntax, parser, user interfaces, removing exceptions and weird stuff) whille other people usually worked on formatting code (like skylines, guitar bends, slurs, etc). As for the money, for me personally the fact that David is getting paid doesn't make any difference with regard to my motivation to work as a volunteer. But maybe for someone this makes a difference. The only way that i see in which David influences development is that he doesn't allow bad code during reviews, and it's hard to write good code when there's a lot of bad code and architectural problems already in the codebase (at least that's how the situation looks for me). > In my opinion, it would benefit LilyPond, and David too, if there were more > skilled volunteer developers working on the project. Well, that's obvious. I was thinking about this myself, and i'm doing the only thing that i can do: becoming skilled myself... I was trying to get some students do LilyPond work as undergraduate project, and there was a bit of interest, but not enough. best, Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Mike Solomon writes: > On Nov 30, 2013, at 12:06 AM, Janek Warchoł wrote: > >> 2013/11/29 David Kastrup : >>> >>> But one person who just works on LilyPond can make a difference. Can we >>> keep this up? >> >> As you can see, it appears that David (d...@gnu.org) is doing abou >> as much as the rest of the development team combined! Going by commits, it's more like 30-40%, and I tend to break issues into quite more commits than most contributors. So while I'm unsurprisingly the largest _single_ contributor (everybody else works mostly in his spare time), "as much as the rest of the development team combined" would be quite an exaggeration even if we talk just about committed lines of code. But that does not take into account a lot of other important work that is going on for keeping LilyPond alive. > I would argue that the point that Janek brings up above is not a > healthy sign for LilyPond development. Several developers, including > myself, have lowered their participation considerably over the past > two years. > > In my opinion, it would benefit LilyPond, and David too, if there were > more skilled volunteer developers working on the project. The main problem for letting skilled volunteers work effectively to the benefit of the project is the state LilyPond's code base is in. Then there are the tools, and the work dynamics. If you take a look at commit 7d3d28de0ce6e2f018aff599cecd944d1754fe3c Author: Mike Solomon Date: Thu Jan 10 08:54:12 2013 +0100 Makes all side-positioning based on skylines instead of boxes. via the tracker http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=1&q=7d3d28de0ce6e2f018aff599cecd944d1754fe3c> then you'll find its core issue in 2.17.10, and followup problems in 2.17.15, 2.17.25, 2.17.26, 2.19.0. For one thing it means our reviews and the underlying infrastructure don't work out well when people apply them as they understand them. For another, it means that LilyPond's architecture is becoming increasingly fragile: improve one corner, and four distant corners crumble under unforeseen consequences. At some point of time we are running into an equilibrium where any change will cause a chain of repercussions that does not really die down in a sane amount of time. When we arrive there, more skilled volunteer developers working on the project don't really achieve more. The backend is a mess, with simple-closures, pure-unpure containers, cross-staff flags and other cryptic stuff with strange interactions that only few people can tamper with while causing only moderate damage to existing functionality. There are some subsystems which are surprisingly independently maintainable, like the MIDI system. But that partly also means that they are not actually well-integrated with LilyPond's data structures and concepts. The various output format backends don't make a whole lot of sense to me, but they are also somewhat independent. So there would be some room for people specializing on some things, and there is a lot that could be done even without messing with a whole lot of other things. A Cairo backend would be a mostly independent endeavor. Fast rendering interfaces would be mostly independent. Work on Emacs modes would be completely independent (Frescobaldi is a whole independent UI project). GUILEv2 migration is sorely needed, and would be a mostly independent project even though it touches quite a bit of code all over the place. It is clear that our development cycles have not worked out well. It's taken probably 9 months at least from the time we wanted to go for releasing 2.18 to now, and it has been frustrating to people. If we take a look at Linux development for comparison, the "merge window" for a new version is open two weeks, then it takes months to get to release quality. That's a linear development model at the core, but widely distributed code tested and merged in different combinations in a host of repositories. Nonlinear is, for example, GCC, where work commences on several branches but done mostly centralized. LilyPond is not modular enough to work well with the Linux methods where Linus Torvalds merges patches at an insane rate (he probably merges more patches on a hard work day than I produce in the whole year). Work in the GCC style where work is done on unstable branches only makes sense when people see their changes through to a state where they don't cause lots of problems, both as genuine bugs and more importantly as impediments to further development. We have basically the situation that a month of initial work comes with followup costs before a stable release is reached. That's more or less: month of documentation -> half a month of translation month of frontend work -> month of bug fixes month of backend work -> four months of bug fixes and so on, for different parts there is a different amount of followup work that is necessary. Working on several parallel branches without taking this into account will get us i
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
On Nov 30, 2013, at 12:06 AM, Janek Warchoł wrote: > Hi, > > 2013/11/29 David Kastrup : >> >> But one person who just works on LilyPond can make a difference. Can we >> keep this up? > > As you can see, it appears that David (d...@gnu.org) is doing abou > as much as the rest of the development team combined! > I would argue that the point that Janek brings up above is not a healthy sign for LilyPond development. Several developers, including myself, have lowered their participation considerably over the past two years. In my opinion, it would benefit LilyPond, and David too, if there were more skilled volunteer developers working on the project. Cheers, MS ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Supporting my work on LilyPond financially
Hi, 2013/11/29 David Kastrup : > There is still a lot LilyPond is in need of doing, I am pretty positive > that 2.18 will be out before Christmas, and I am responsible for a large > part of the developments even though the majority of contributions and > of organizational tasks and efforts and translation work and user help > and so on is done by volunteers working in their spare time. > > But one person who just works on LilyPond can make a difference. Can we > keep this up? To anyone who's not very familiar with the current situation and would like to get an idea about how important David's work is for LilyPond: i suggest to look at the list of fixed issues since last stable release: http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=1&q=status%3AVerified&colspec=ID%20Type%20Status%20Stars%20Owner%20Patch%20Needs%20Summary&num=550&start=0 As you can see, it appears that David (d...@gnu.org) is doing abou as much as the rest of the development team combined! best, Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Supporting my work on LilyPond financially.
As many of you already know, I have been working on LilyPond (and nothing else) for quite a while, and since I asked for financial support in March http://news.lilynet.net/?The-LilyPond-Report-24#an_urgent_request_for_funding> (read the following LilyPond reports for information on the results), other developers and users pitched in and provided me with an average of about €800 per month which has allowed me to more or less break even on costs of living while being able to afford health insurance. However, insurance costs are increasing, and any unscheduled expenses require tapping into the diminuishing reserves from a previous job. Few contributors are responsible for a rather large percentage of the means necessary to keep me afloat while working on LilyPond, and it would be nice to not rely on so few for a large part of the financial load. Not everybody reads the LilyPond Reports (though you really should give them a whirl), so let me ask for your patience mentioning this issue on the mailing lists. The details can be read up in the mentioned LilyPond report article. On top of the work sketched out there, I pitch in for testing, patch organization, as expert in Git and various programming languages, and have tracked down or helped tracking down bugs in the C++ compiler affecting LilyPond. I have recently taken custody of the 2.16 release process, and am frequently helping out or discussing things on developer and user lists of LilyPond. In a week, I'll be hosting a developer meeting at my place. I have been a driving force behind a number of changes in the 2.15 development branch of LilyPond. In terms of programming work, when I am not hunting down bugs, my focus has mostly been on user and/or programming interface work, trying to lower the barrier of entry for getting useful programming work done and telling LilyPond what you want or need. So supporting my work on LilyPond definitely does support LilyPond, even though I am just working as a member of a volunteer team, having not scratched more than the surface of several significant parts of LilyPond like the details of the typesetting backend, the build system, the web presence, the multitude of translations, the support scripts and other important parts in the _huge_ project that is LilyPond. Check out http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/lilypond.git/log/> for a breakdown of who does what in LilyPond land. It is actually not the whole picture since significant code and work passes through the mailing lists and private channels as well, but it is a good start. Recent headlines in the news have been about Avid, the owner of the proprietary music typesetting software Sibelius, dissolving their UK development offices and dismissing the programming team including Sibelius' original creators. Attempts by them to repurchase the rights to the software were unsuccessful. Laying off know-how of that calibre would not seem to make sense unless one plans to forego any further serious development. Both users and developers having heavily invested in this software before, in terms of money, work, and existing scores, don't have the right to make its development continue. Disconcerting, to say the least. This kind of lockout can't happen with LilyPond. As free software, it will remain available to the public. As long as somebody is willing to work on it or support such work, it will not fall into stagnation or bit rot. That's a guarantee that you don't get by paying proprietary licensing fees. "bit rot" is still an issue while LilyPond gets developed further, and older scores may have problems running through newer versions of LilyPond even after running convert-ly. We have discussions and plans for minimizing that problem, and since LilyPond is text-based, it is quite unlikely that a score needs retyping rather than judicious changes. But as long as a thriving community is working with and on it, you can find help if required, in stark contrast to proprietary software and formats where you are forced to rely on the manufacturer's goodwill. At any case: if you care for the added value I provide to LilyPond development while being on the community's payroll, you can use Paypal on this mail address for supporting me, or you can ask for my banking details (within the Euro zone, bank transfers to a German account are quite less expensive in fees than most other options). This is not an "official LilyPond fund": we discussed the possibilities, but as long as there are no reasonable perspectives for surplus amounts, setting the legal and organizational structures and guarantees up for that seems pointless: what better guarantee can there be than a large amount of already existing code? If you prefer supporting LilyPond by other means: that's perfectly fine. Just don't forget doing it: LilyPond certainly has more work on its plate than just a single person could hope doing. And if you know other people who might be interested in supporting LilyPo