[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: lilypond & wikipedia
Helder Geovane Gomes de Lima
Re: Re: lilypond & wikipedia
Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:22:54 -0300
2009/4/21 Francisco Vila <address@hidden>:
> 2009/4/21 Helder Geovane Gomes de Lima <address@hidden>:
>> Hi everybody!
>> I would like to know if there is any progress about this topic.
>> How is it going? (is it going?)
> Are you talking about
> - the LilyPond article on Wikipedia
> - the LilyPond plugin for mediawiki
I'm talking about the LilyPond plugin for mediawiki. Specifically,
about this topic:
I'm sorry for not to be clear.... =S
(I just don't know how to reply to that topic, so I've just copied the
subject in a new e-mail...)
> There was an interesting project in http://draft.wikilily.org but it
> is currently unreachable.
> Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)
Yes... I got an "Address Not Found"... =/
2009/4/22 Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool) <address@hidden>:
> Wikipedia won't allow lilypond due to security and performance reasons as
> far as I know.
> I and other have already created quite useful mediawiki plugins.
Actually, I think they just can't allow the *current version* of the
lilypond extension, (because of the reasons you showed).
2009/4/22 Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden>:
> Op maandag 02-02-2009 om 02:21 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Johannes
>> > > Tim Starling, one of the main wikipeda software developers, says:
>> > >
>> > > My understanding is that
>> > >
>> > > a) safe mode is not secure, being trivially DoS-able by short
>> > > infinite loop scripts
>> > As it currently stands, yes.
>> > > b) safe mode will not work for many of the free scores available on
>> > > the web
>> I think that was part of the bad research Tim did that really upset me.
> Yes. So if we get
>> > Assign two Frogs to the task:
>> > - one person ensures that lilypond input without **any** scheme
>> > will always end in a reasonable amount of time.
>> > - one person modifies --safe. I'm sure that we can whitelist a
>> > few more commands (IIRC changing the paper size is not "safe").
>> > But we'll certainly need to remove much of the more basic stuff.
> we should probably mention on the wikipedia page that these concerns
> are being worked on. Why doesn't WikiPedia come to us with questions
> or bug reports?
> Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.lilypond.org
Welll... I'm a collaborator at some wikimedia projects in Portuguese
(mainly pt.wikibooks.org), but I'm a beginner at programming, so I
just came here to ask about the subject... But I don't know how the
extension works, neither used it until now...
As I know, if these concerns are being worked on, it could be said at bugzilla:
2009/4/22 Johannes Schindelin <address@hidden>:
> I think Helder was talking about my MediaWiki extension I posted a
> full four years ago (https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=189).
> Basically, it allows you to work on music collaboratively, using the
> MediaWiki engine, and the LilyPond syntax inside <lilypond>...</lilypond>
> or <lilybook>...</lilybook> tags.
And it would be simply *great* to have this functionality in order to
work with music collaboratively at Wikipedia articles, in textbooks of
Wikibooks, at courses and quizzes of Wikiversity and so on... There
are lots of possibilities, and lots of people interested in having
this tool enabled in all Wikimedia projects!!!
> I was less than impressed by the speed the MediaWiki people showed at
> picking up that pretty simple extension, and when they finally said
> something -- years later -- they mumbled something about security
I'm also impressed... =/
> Unfortunately, this upset me so much that I wrote rather scathing remark
> that if they are concerned about security (think DOS and Scheme), they
> should not speculate, but ask on the Lilypond list instead -- it is Open
> Source, people are willing to help.
> Needless to say, the MediaWiki big-whigs never showed up here.
> I think their concern that Scheme is needed to do anything useful is
> unfounded, and that Scheme just should be disabled for the purpose of the
> MediaWiki extension.
I thing this was not said to Tim Starling, but if it is the case that
the source of the problems can be disabled, this should be said to
> But frankly, they annoyed me so much, and it Works Here, so I decided to
> stop bothering and work with other people on other stuff, both of which
> gives me more fun.
> Oh, and it seems that a lot of lobbying went on to push ABC notation, even
> if we all know how ABC output looks. I am really not impressed when
> politics take over Open Source projects, so I am out of the game.
Wasn't they just talking about the other option?
2009/4/22 Graham Percival <address@hidden>:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 11:32:11AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
>> Op maandag 02-02-2009 om 02:21 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Johannes
>> > > Assign two Frogs to the task:
>> > > - one person ensures that lilypond input without **any** scheme
>> > > will always end in a reasonable amount of time.
>> > > - one person modifies --safe. I'm sure that we can whitelist a
>> > > few more commands (IIRC changing the paper size is not "safe").
>> > > But we'll certainly need to remove much of the more basic stuff.
>> we should probably mention on the wikipedia page that these concerns
>> are being worked on.
> Maybe. I'd wait until they *had* been worked on -- at least the
> first option. Of course, at the moment, nobody is doing anything
> about these, so this discussion isn't going to produce anything.
> (unless it catches somebody's interest and they volunteer)
>> Why doesn't WikiPedia come to us with questions
>> or bug reports?
> I think they're accustomed to people coming begging to them. :)
Depends on what do you mean by "WikiPedia"...
Of the people who is really interested in "a tool to write music
collaboratively", not everybody is of Wikipedia (I'm not). A few
realize that this already exists (the MediaWiki extension). Of those
who know the extension, a few know that exists bugzilla, and that the
was there for years and the problem wasn't solved.
Even who is there could be thinking that the "problem" is to be
resolved *there*, and don't realize that it is needed partnership
between the MediaWiki developers, the extension creators *and* (most
important) the lilypond developers!
> I don't see this as a big deal. The output quality and notation
> features supported in lilypond vs. abc isn't even worth debating;
> once the security issues are addressed, there's no contest. Every
> four months, we get somebody posting on the -user list to say
> that they've added a such-and-such wiki extension to allow
> lilypond. Then we all point out the security implications, and
> they either do it anyway, or take it down and wait.
> As I always say, lilypond can do it if there's enough interest.
> If there's real, honest, interest in lilypond-in-a-wiki, then
> somebody will step forwards to work on the issues.
As I said, there is lots of collaborators of the Wikimedia projects
that would this to be enabled at projects where they contribute...
But the really interested are not usually programmers, and can just
"wait" for it... or at most to try to encourage the people who knows
how to do, to get the idea and work on it. This is why I'm here,
because I want the tool, but I'm not able to develop it (I'm really
sorry about this :(). So what I can do is to ask about, to discuss, to
join the people, etc...
> Even if that
> somebody has no knowledge of scheme, lilypond internals, etc... if
> they're really interested in this stuff, they'll learn the
> relevant material and then submit patches to lilypond.
> If nobody *is* really, honestly, interested in this project, then
> let's stop wasting electrons discussing it.
> - Graham
Thank you for all the help!