On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:40 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> It is not really new, but I keep being surprised at the things
> proprietary/commercial software vendors are getting away with doing to
> their paying customers.
Vendors have your existing scores as hostages to keep you paying. It's
the opp
Lucas Gonze writes:
>> Lucas Gonze writes:
>>
>>> I made the same switch and am happy about it. I'm not as fast with
>>> Lilypond yet, but am getting there.
>>>
>>> I especially like that that my scores won't become uneditable whenever
>>> I stop buying upgrades from Sibelius.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug
El 14/08/2012 21:21, "Lucas Gonze" escribió:
>
> > Lucas Gonze writes:
> >
> >> I made the same switch and am happy about it. I'm not as fast with
> >> Lilypond yet, but am getting there.
> >>
> >> I especially like that that my scores won't become uneditable whenever
> >> I stop buying upgrades
> Lucas Gonze writes:
>
>> I made the same switch and am happy about it. I'm not as fast with
>> Lilypond yet, but am getting there.
>>
>> I especially like that that my scores won't become uneditable whenever
>> I stop buying upgrades from Sibelius.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:00 PM, David Kastr
Lucas Gonze writes:
> I made the same switch and am happy about it. I'm not as fast with
> Lilypond yet, but am getting there.
>
> I especially like that that my scores won't become uneditable whenever
> I stop buying upgrades from Sibelius.
How would that happen? I would imagine that if you ke
I made the same switch and am happy about it. I'm not as fast with
Lilypond yet, but am getting there.
I especially like that that my scores won't become uneditable whenever
I stop buying upgrades from Sibelius.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Michael Rivers
> I'm a current Sibelius user who fo
I know this topic changed from Sibelius going belly up to parallelization,
but I don't know where else to put it...
I'm a current Sibelius user who found Lilypond after panicking a little and
a doing quick web search for open source notation software. I don't know how
many other users may check ou
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 4:18 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
I believe it would be a compilable file.
>>>
>>>
>>> Useful to know, thank you!
>>>
>>> ... but I think it emphasizes my real point: this puts the onus on the user
>>> to split up a project into independently-compilable units. I think th
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
> wrote:
What counts as a "chunk" for the -djob-count option? It's not clear from
the
2.15 usage manual.
>>>
>>>
>>> I believe it would be a compilable file.
>>
>>
>> Useful to know, thank you!
>>
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
wrote:
>>> What counts as a "chunk" for the -djob-count option? It's not clear from
>>> the
>>> 2.15 usage manual.
>>
>>
>> I believe it would be a compilable file.
>
>
> Useful to know, thank you!
>
> ... but I think it emphasizes my real
"m...@mikesolomon.org" writes:
> On 11 août 2012, at 15:16, Graham Percival wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 01:21:27PM +0100, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
>>> ... but I think it emphasizes my real point: this puts the onus on
>>> the user to split up a project into independently-compilable
On 11 août 2012, at 15:16, Graham Percival wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 01:21:27PM +0100, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
>> ... but I think it emphasizes my real point: this puts the onus on
>> the user to split up a project into independently-compilable units.
>> I think that it's worth havi
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 01:21:27PM +0100, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> ... but I think it emphasizes my real point: this puts the onus on
> the user to split up a project into independently-compilable units.
> I think that it's worth having Lilypond try and automatically
> identify independent
Gilles Sadowski writes:
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 01:21:27PM +0100, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
>> On 10/08/12 15:08, Phil Holmes wrote:
>> >- Original Message - From: "Joseph Rushton Wakeling"
>> >
>> >>What counts as a "chunk" for the -djob-count option? It's not
>> >> clear from th
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 01:21:27PM +0100, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On 10/08/12 15:08, Phil Holmes wrote:
> >- Original Message - From: "Joseph Rushton Wakeling"
> >
> >>What counts as a "chunk" for the -djob-count option? It's not clear from
> >>the
> >>2.15 usage manual.
> >
> >I
On 10/08/12 15:08, Phil Holmes wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Joseph Rushton Wakeling"
What counts as a "chunk" for the -djob-count option? It's not clear from the
2.15 usage manual.
I believe it would be a compilable file.
Useful to know, thank you!
... but I think it emphasi
- Original Message -
From: "Joseph Rushton Wakeling"
To: "Phil Holmes"
Cc: ; ; "Han-Wen Nienhuys"
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: Paralellizing Lilypond [was: Re: Sibelius Software UK office
shutsdown]
On 10/08/12 14:31, Phil Ho
On 10/08/12 14:31, Phil Holmes wrote:
If you could break it up into 8 chunks, you could use all 8 cores in a quad core
system using -djob-count. No need to use make.
What counts as a "chunk" for the -djob-count option? It's not clear from the
2.15 usage manual.
- Original Message -
From: "Joseph Rushton Wakeling"
To:
Cc: ; "Han-Wen Nienhuys"
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 11:46 AM
Subject: Paralellizing Lilypond [was: Re: Sibelius Software UK office
shutsdown]
Yes, but the problem that you have there is that it requires the user to
separat
19 matches
Mail list logo
