Issues with Beta on Download page

• Dec 9, 2018 - 14:08

All the below apply to the page

1) The link on the Beta section still links to the original Beta, “Released “Nov 28, 2018” (, which has no reference to the page/release that has superseded it, “the third in our series of beta releases”, . Can the link / date on the download page be updated to point to the latest version of the announcement or is there maybe a parent page for the release cycle where users can pick up links to all Beta releases (or just the latest one)?

Why is this a problem? (1st beta) links to the “Mac OS X 10.12 or higher” binary
with text of “Mac OS X 10.7 or higher”
E.g. someone on 10.7-10.11 who for whatever reason is downloading from here will get the wrong binary.

(aside) If there were a parent page for the 3.0 development cycle, one could point to that, e.g. the download page, announcements like , where they can always find the announcement page for the latest version, be it Alpha, Beta or RC and even GA, and reduce the amount of links that need to be changed.

Another way to prevent downloading the wrong binary because of multiple download links, would be to make the Download page the “source of truth” for the latest beta downloads. There are no download links in the announcement page. Users are instead directed to the Beta section of the download page, maybe with a suggestion to use the built-in update mechanism if they have a beta already installed.

2) Please change references to MacOS (under the Beta stanza) to macOS, to make them the same as the Release version.

3) Having the Linux Beta above the Linux GA, and no version number on the Linux GA does not make sense IMHO.
Is there a reason why the Linux GA download links are not with the Windows / Linux GA download links, but below the Windows / macOS / Linux Beta download links? If not, may I suggest
a) moving the Linux GA download links to the “The latest stable version is 2.3.2” stanza, below Windows / macOS, above the Beta download links/stanza, or
b) (If for whatever reason we do not want to have all those Linux & *BSD GA versions taking away focus from the Betas) moving the Linux Beta to below the Linux GA (and indicating the Linux GA version)


I fixed the 1st item.

Regarding the second item, Linux distributions have different versions depending on the maintainers activity. Different Linux distributions may have different versions of MuseScore.

In reply to by Anatoly-os

Thanks, I see 1 and 2 are fixed.

W.r.t. Point 3 : If the AppImage Linux GA and Beta are both official releases, why not a) list the AppImage Linux GA link below the Windows / macOS GA links and
b) give it an official-looking Tux icon, similar to AppImage Linux Beta without the "beta" label?

To distinguish the AppImage links from the distro-specific links,
a) rename
Linux - Other
(I wanted to suggest "Linux Distributions", but there are some other distro-agnostic variants)

The accompanying text,
"Many distributions release ..."
does a great job of explaining the difference between the official AppImage releases and the other variants.

In reply to by Anatoly-os

Does MuseScore 3 AppImage on Linux suffer from the same issues? Assuming if it does not, its GA will be listed with the Windows & macOS GAs

FWIW, from the Linux stanza on the download page, it creates a different impression:

"If you want to run the latest MuseScore version and get support from the MuseScore developers, we suggest installing an AppImage,"

E.g. 2.3.2 AppImage GA is
either a 1st class citizen with known issues,
or a 2nd class citizen due to AppImage-specific issues and one would want to steer users towards the distro-native packages
(no point in changing it for 2.3.2 now if AppImage on 3.0 will be different)

Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.