Hi All, I usually keep out of discussions but as a music publisher I felt this hits my area of work.
It sounds odd but I broadly support this, even as someone who has used Ubuntu Studio as a publishing tool. First and foremost is that even with the availability of MusicXML Sibelius, Finale and Dorico still dominate the publishing profession, Encore in the US and Capella in Europe also still have users. They then tend to move to Adobe in the publishing process. I use a mixture of this or MuseScore/Scribus etc to produce our materials but also produce in-house so don’t need to have too much issue with needing to interact. If it’s a big job or cross firm we boot up Windows and use what we need. Realistically I’d rather have the audio set up and out of the box then add in publishing materials as I need. It’s generally a fairly small set of programmes so if you are pinching for space it makes sense. Dr. Stewart Thompson BA(Hons) MA(Mus)(Open) D.Ed. CT,FVCM FCV SFFLM FGMS FMCM FIGOC FSCO FFSC FCollT FFSC HonFTCSM ACIEA | Qualifications Director | Victoria College Examinations | 71 Queen Victoria Street, London, EC4V 4AY | Telephone 020 7405 6483| Freefone from UK 08 0800 EXAMS | www.vcmexams.com Encouraging performers since 1890 This email and any attachments transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying or redistribution of this information is not permitted. If you have received this in error please notify the sender and delete it (including attachments) from your computer. Neither the sender nor Victoria College of Music and Drama, London accept any liability whatsoever for any defects of any nature in, or loss or damage arising from, this transmission. It is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure all materials are virus free. Any views or opinions expressed may be personal to the sender and not necessarily reflect those of Victoria College of Music and Drama, London. Please print this e-mail only if absolutely necessary - consider the environment! From: Erich Eickmeyer Sent: 30 September 2021 18:19 To: ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Subject: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Full ISO and some proposals Hi all, We hit a limit. Apparently, between Sunday the 26th and Monday the 27th, the squashfs hit the technical limit of 4.0GB on our ISO image. Per ISO 9660, this is a hard limit as the file system is incapable of having a single file more than 4GB in size (the squashfs acts as a single file on the root of the ISO). Unfortunately, this means we need to take a hard look at what we preinstall by default and start eliminating some items. As an emergency, I went ahead and removed a few duplicate items and one fairly large item, but it opened my eyes to a bigger picture issue. More on that later. In terms of deduplicating functionality, I removed jackd (not jackd2) since you can only have one anyhow. Also, I removed lmms which, in mine and Len's opinion, is an application that is stuck in the past using the older ladpsa (LV1) plugins and refuses to get any update. This is in favor of Ardour as our DAW of choice. Other items: * Switched from ksysguard to the new plasma-systemmonitor for the desktop * Removed raysession in favor of agordejo and new-session-manager combined, which provides the same functionality with more backend support. * Removed simple-scan in favor of skanlite (a KDE scanner app) However, this is just a bandaid. My proposal is that we drop publishing as a category of apps that we install beginning with 22.04. My reasoning is that we're not very well-known for being a desktop publishing platform, and it blurs the line between "studio" and general-purpose. Moreover, people doing desktop publishing aren't exactly looking at Ubuntu Studio as we rarely see any questions about it. In fact, when people are reviewing Studio, they're a little surprised and perplexed to see such tools. Len pointed out that while we could remove the publishing items, he feared that items in the graphics category would get removed. I assured him that this is not the case; that while there's some overlap, removing the publishing meta would not remove any graphics items since the graphics meta still pullse those items in. Removing the publishing meta would remove the following from the ISO: * scribus * calibre * pdfshuffler * plume-creator I know this doesn't sound like much, but I think it would be good to save some space and no longer support desktop publishing as a category of items we install by default. Let me know what you think. Erich -- Erich Eickmeyer Project Leader - Ubuntu Studio Member - Ubuntu Community Council
-- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
