2014-05-09 10:23 GMT+02:00 Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org>: > Hi, > > I just received a copy of a survey that Universal Edition did amongst a > number of "European publishing houses". I'm not sure if that' a public > document so I only sent it to a list of addressees, if you're interested in > it write me a private message. > > Not surprisingly this exclusively states Score, Finale and Sibelius. > Interestingly it also names a number of potentially daunting challenges in > keeping them to work for a considerable time. And LilyPond (or text based > tools in general) convincingly address exactly these issues. > > I think I will write to the author of that survey (UE's head of IT > department), but will wait with that until I may have a few more ideas and > maybe some feedback. > > Any ideas, comments?
It's good that they realize what problems may arise from using Fin/Sib/Score (for example the vulnerabilities of XP - a very serious bug affecting XP was indeed discovered recently, and it seems that some pressure was needed to persuade Microsoft to fix that bug for XP). Seeing such reasonable approach i find it hard to believe that they flatly refused using LilyPond when you talked with them... Anyway, as David said, LilyPond is not a perfect cure for these problems - yet. But its perspectives are, i think, better than other software: - it has a long history of being cross-platform, and it's mainly developed on Linux, which - contrary to popular belief - is not that niche of a system (for example most of IT professionals at my company use it). It will not become abandonware as Score. - its quality and backward compatibility can be controlled by the user community, and they can be improved with funding (quite possible for big publishers). best, Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
