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.
Karen
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@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list
_______________________________________________
Blinux-list mailing list
Blinux-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list