linux music tools It is quite possible and was done all the time in the bad
klewellen at shellworld.net
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
>> 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.
> Blinux-list mailing list
> Blinux-list at redhat.com
More information about the Blinux-list