2014-05-09 10:23 GMT+02:00 Urs Liska <address@hidden>:
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).