[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: FW: Professional ???
From: |
Werner Icking |
Subject: |
Re: FW: Professional ??? |
Date: |
Wed, 13 Dec 2000 18:46:08 +0100 (MET) |
> From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden>
> Date: 13 Dec 2000 15:47:51 +0100
> [...] I just don't want to see any suggestions
> or advocacy for, or discussions about, non-free softwares packages
> that may fill a particular practical need.
What is this good for? Do you fear non-free packages?
Imho it should be very welcome if someone can tell that something,
what may be missing in a free package, can be afforded with another
package - free or non-free.
> This is not the place, you
> should take that to another forum, eg, rec.music.compose.
Composing was only one aspect. Typesetting music was another aspect.
Maybe that I should investigate whether some minor problems on our
ftp-server are caused by having there msuic generated with MusiXTeX,
PMX, M-Tx, MUP, Note Worthy Composer, Score, ... and Lilypond :-(
- Converters (was: Re: FW: Professional ???), (continued)
Re: FW: Professional ???, Mats Bengtsson, 2000/12/13
FW: Professional ???, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2000/12/17
Re: FW: Professional ???, Werner Icking, 2000/12/13
Re: FW: Professional ???,
Werner Icking <=
Re: FW:Professional ???, David Raleigh Arnold, 2000/12/14