Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] MuseScore 4

[Dr. Stewart Thompson]

Musescore is now only available as an Appimage and isn't as well supported as 
previously on Linux, it's missing some features from the Windows and MacOS 
versions. So it can't cause too much trouble to a system but I'm not sure how 
much help you would get compared to the past as a lot of users I know jumped 
ship when that happened. It had always been on an equal footing before. 

On 17 February 2023 15:33:03 GMT, Ross Gammon  
wrote:
>Hi Paul,
>
>Just to be clear. It is possible to package Musescore 4 in Ubuntu (without 
>waiting for Debian), and maybe put it in a ppa. But that would require 
>somebody with the necessary time and skills to volunteer.
>
>Installing stuff from upstream (from the musecore website) can be risky, 
>especially if you are running an older Ubuntu release. There could be 
>incompatibilities in the version of libraries that Musescore 4 relies on. Will 
>upstream support you in this case? Ubuntu certainly cannot support you. If you 
>are desperate to use Musescore 4 (you cannot wait for Debian), then I would 
>ask around if anyone has had success using the upstream version of Musescore 4 
>on your version of Ubuntu before doing it. Otherwise you may have to uninstall 
>it later and clean up any mess yourself.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ross
>
>On 14.02.2023 23.02, Erich Eickmeyer wrote:
>> Hi Paul,
>> 
>> Packages in Ubuntu may not be the latest. Ubuntu aims for stability, so 
>> "latest" may not be a good idea. Post-release updates are only considered if 
>> they are fixes for security vulnerabilities, high impact bug fixes, or 
>> unintrusive bug fixes with substantial benefit.
>> 
>> Furthermore, that package comes unchanged from Debian, which means there 
>> isn't an Ubuntu developer that touches it. So, this is really up to if 
>> Debian picks it up, but then it will only land in a later release. 
>> Additionally, Debian is coming up on their bi-yearly freeze in which they 
>> begin their release process for their next version, so there's probably not 
>> a whole lot of activity to be happening until later this year once that 
>> freeze starts.
>> 
>> All of that to say it's entirely out of our hands at this point on the 
>> Ubuntu Studio level as we're not the ones dealing with it; we're just 
>> putting it on the .iso image.
>> 
>> I hope you understand and I hope that helps.
>> 
>> --
>> Erich Eickmeyer
>> Project Leader
>> Ubuntu Studio
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Feb 14 2023 at 01:05:32 PM -08:00:00, Paul DeShaw 
>>  wrote:
>>> Greetings,
>>> 
>>> Are there any plans to put the latest MuseScore version into the 
>>> repository? Or should I just install it directly from musescore.org 
>>> ? I'm running last year's LTS--it's gotten so slow 
>>> and glitchy I am reluctant to upgrade--so maybe that's why Synaptic isn't 
>>> showing the latest MuseScore.
>>> 
>>> ~PD
>> -- 
ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list
ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel

Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Thoughts for 22.04 "Jammy Jellyfish"

[Dr. Stewart Thompson]

As I've said before I totally understand pulling the publishing tab and I'm 
speaking as someone who uses musical dots daily as a publisher via 
Musescore and Scribus. I had wondered about offering to help with the curation 
of different notation proves as this is obviously my professional area but as 
publishing is going I'm not sure you would need this?

I'm currently running vanilla Ubuntu on ly Toshiba but I'll likely return to 
Studio as it needs a refresh. I'm looking forward to trying it all out as after 
so much time doing. I thing due to Covid I've finally got some live sound 
coming up.

Keep up the good work. 

On 17 October 2021 10:56:56 BST, eylul  wrote:
>Just wanted to say, yes I am still lurking here, and will start thinking 
>on this. :)
>
>Best
>
>Eylul
>
>On 17.10.2021 01:03, Erich Eickmeyer wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone!
>>
>>
>> It's been a wild two years. We've done quite a bit to get to where we 
>> are now, and we only continue to grow both in popularity and in the 
>> team! Granted, it's mostly Len and myself on a day-to-day basis, but 
>> we seem to be getting more and more help, and this past go-around with 
>> 21.10 that was in testing. I'm so glad to see so much participation!
>>
>>
>> As I look to 22.04 and the challenges that has taken place in the 
>> past, I've been considering a few thoughts, primarily having to do 
>> with our ISO size, which is coming close to exceeding the technical 
>> limits. In fact, we even had to cut some stuff from this past release.
>>
>>
>> With that, I'm going to look into things we can do to mitigate that 
>> going forward, and I'm starting with our default theming and wallpaper.
>>
>>
>>   * Wallpaper can go back to JPG. I remember a couple years ago we
>> went to PNG by default, but this is now hurting us. On this note,
>> I'd like to hold a new wallpaper contest for this cycle.
>>   * We should make a new default wallpaper. If Eylul doesn't see this,
>> I'll reach out to her via Telegram to see if she'd like to take
>> the reigns on this one
>>   * We currently bring in another theme for our default theme: Materia
>> with the Papirus icons. I've been playing around with rebasing
>> onto KDE's default Breeze with a different color scheme and
>> continuing with the Papirus icons. I like the results I'm seeing
>> so far. The reason for the different color scheme is twofold:
>>  1. Identity separate from Kubuntu
>>  2. The default Breeze colors are on the cool side and not good
>> for photography or video production since they can fool the eye.
>>   o Based on that, I have found a color scheme based on
>> Adwaita (default GNOME colors) that is very neutral. I
>> plan on incorporating that, and so far the results have
>> been very nice.
>>   o Rebasing on Breeze will also remove the need for Kvantum
>> and that overhead, bringing us in-line with the default
>> Plasma/Kwin theming engines.
>>   o I plan on auditing our reverse dependencies for items
>> we're still bringing-in that don't need to be there. It
>> was discovered that we were still depending on an Xfce
>> library, which we removed, and you will notice that the
>> Elementary icons are still installed by default despite
>> moving to Papirus over two years ago.
>>
>>
>> If any of you can think of some default-installed applications that we 
>> don't really need as their function is duplicated elsewhere, I'd love 
>> to know.
>>
>>
>> Also, we will be moving forward with removing "Publishing". For those 
>> worried about Musescore, that will not be removed as it's still part 
>> of the audio/music category/metapackage.
>>
>>
>> Thanks, everyone! I think 22.04 will turn out to be a great LTS release.
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Erich Eickmeyer
>>
>> Project Leader - Ubuntu Studio
>>
>> Member - Ubuntu Community Council
>>
>>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.-- 
ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list
ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel

Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Full ISO and some proposals

[Dr. Stewart Thompson]

Hi All,

I usually keep out of discussions but as a music publisher I felt this hits my 
area of work.

It sounds odd but I broadly support this, even as someone who has used Ubuntu 
Studio as a publishing tool. First and foremost is that even with the 
availability of MusicXML Sibelius, Finale and Dorico still dominate the 
publishing profession, Encore in the US and Capella in Europe also still have 
users. They then tend to move to Adobe in the publishing process. I use a 
mixture of this or MuseScore/Scribus etc to produce our materials but also 
produce in-house so don’t need to have too much issue with needing to interact. 
If it’s a big job or cross firm we boot up Windows and use what we need.

Realistically I’d rather have the audio set up and out of the box then add in 
publishing materials as I need. It’s generally a fairly small set of programmes 
so if you are pinching for space it makes sense.   

Dr. Stewart Thompson BA(Hons) MA(Mus)(Open) D.Ed. CT,FVCM FCV SFFLM FGMS FMCM 
FIGOC FSCO FFSC FCollT FFSC HonFTCSM ACIEA
| Qualifications Director | Victoria College Examinations | 71 Queen Victoria 
Street, London, EC4V 4AY | Telephone 020 7405 6483| Freefone from UK 08 0800 
EXAMS | www.vcmexams.com
Encouraging performers since 1890 

This email and any attachments transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named. If you are not 
the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying or redistribution of this 
information is not permitted. If you have received this in error please notify 
the sender and delete it (including attachments) from your computer. Neither 
the sender nor Victoria College of Music and Drama, London accept any liability 
whatsoever for any defects of any nature in, or loss or damage arising from, 
this transmission. It is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure all 
materials are virus free. Any views or opinions expressed may be personal to 
the sender and not necessarily reflect those of Victoria College of Music and 
Drama, London.
 Please print this e-mail only if absolutely necessary - consider the 
environment!

From: Erich Eickmeyer
Sent: 30 September 2021 18:19
To: ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Subject: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Full ISO and some proposals

Hi all,

We hit a limit. Apparently, between Sunday the 26th and Monday the 27th, the 
squashfs hit the technical limit of 4.0GB on our ISO image. Per ISO 9660, this 
is a hard limit as the file system is incapable of having a single file more 
than 4GB in size (the squashfs acts as a single file on the root of the ISO). 
Unfortunately, this means we need to take a hard look at what we preinstall by 
default and start eliminating some items.

As an emergency, I went ahead and removed a few duplicate items and one fairly 
large item, but it opened my eyes to a bigger picture issue. More on that 
later.

In terms of deduplicating functionality, I removed jackd (not jackd2) since 
you can only have one anyhow. Also, I removed lmms which, in mine and Len's 
opinion, is an application that is stuck in the past using the older ladpsa 
(LV1) plugins and refuses to get any update. This is in favor of Ardour as our 
DAW of choice.

Other items:

 * Switched from ksysguard to the new plasma-systemmonitor for the desktop
 * Removed raysession in favor of agordejo and new-session-manager combined, 
which provides the same functionality with more backend support.
 * Removed simple-scan in favor of skanlite (a KDE scanner app)

However, this is just a bandaid.

My proposal is that we drop publishing as a category of apps that we install 
beginning with 22.04. My reasoning is that we're not very well-known for being 
a desktop publishing platform, and it blurs the line between "studio" and 
general-purpose. Moreover, people doing desktop publishing aren't exactly 
looking at Ubuntu Studio as we rarely see any questions about it. In fact, 
when people are reviewing Studio, they're a little surprised and perplexed to 
see such tools.

Len pointed out that while we could remove the publishing items, he feared 
that items in the graphics category would get removed. I assured him  that 
this is not the case; that while there's some overlap, removing the publishing 
meta would not remove any graphics items since the graphics meta still pullse 
those items in.

Removing the publishing meta would remove the following from the ISO:

 * scribus
 * calibre
 * pdfshuffler
 * plume-creator

I know this doesn't sound like much, but I think it would be good to save some 
space and no longer support desktop publishing as a category of items we 
install by default.

Let me know what you think.
Erich

-- 
Erich Eickmeyer
Project Leader - Ubuntu Studio
Member - Ubuntu Community Council

-- 
ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list
ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel