linux music tools It is quite possible and was done all the time in the bad

Karen Lewellen klewellen at
Wed Jul 29 21:43:15 UTC 2015

Why thank you tony.
I have been wondering  who started the lillypond in DOS idea.  I certainly 
did not, as I want to use multiple  Linux tools via ssh TELNET  from here, 
not  just lillypond.
I suppose this illustrates attention to detail   by some.
and generated a grand amount of  amusing discourse.
Still Jude, if this is your desire, I wish you success.  I would never 
dictate to another person how to spend their creative computer time.

On Wed, 29 Jul 2015, Tony Baechler wrote:

> I can't help but comment on the irony here.  Karen, the original poster, 
> didn't want it compiled for DOS and didn't ask about running it for DOS. She 
> wanted to set up a Linux box.  Jude suggested compiling for DOS and I agree, 
> why?  I'm sure an ancient version would compile, but based on the huge amount 
> of libraries it needs, it would be impractical to compile in DOS if not 
> impossible.  I suppose djgpp might work and you could use DPMI (not the same 
> as the overlay previously mentioned) but again, why?  It would be very slow 
> and I doubt if you could get all of the dependencies to compile with djgpp 
> anyway.  It's already accessible in Linux, Cygwin and probably the Mac, so it 
> makes more practical sense to ssh to a shell account from DOS which is what 
> she wanted to do in the first place.
> On 7/28/2015 2:32 PM, Janina Sajka wrote:
>>  OK, I understand about overlays and about swapping and accessing from
>>  RAM. But, isn't that more than just compiling for a different OS?
>>  Doesn't that require reconsidering how the code actually fits together
>>  and executes? Surely you don't want to swap on each instruction.
>>  My reaction was to the suggestion to compile Lilypond for DOS. Why is
>>  beyond me, given how accessible Lilypond already is on the Linux
>>  console.
>>  The only enhancement that we don't have supported is that which comes
>>  from an intelligent front end that helps you with the artifacts of
>>  writing the .ly file. These are usually on screen wysiwyg scores not of
>>  much help to a blind composer/arranger.
>>  Whoever pointed to the emacs lilypond mode probably pointed to the best
>>  combo, imo, for the blind user. However, it is quite possible to do the
>>  job with vim, ed, or even nano.
>>  So where's the benefit of trying to take Lilypond to DOS. I don't see
>>  it, even if it were just a recompile with a modern compiler.
>>  Janina
> _______________________________________________
> Blinux-list mailing list
> Blinux-list at

More information about the Blinux-list mailing list