| 1 |
Hi, Michael. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 01:02:59PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote: |
| 4 |
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Alan Mackenzie <acm@×××.de> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Hi, Paul. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> > On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 11:28:16AM -0500, Paul Hartman wrote: |
| 8 |
> >> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 9 |
> >> > This is rather odd. For the longest, every time I had a cups update, I had |
| 10 |
> >> > to delete my printers then add them back again. It would not print until I |
| 11 |
> >> > did so. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> >> I have to do that every time I plug my printer in... |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> >> I print so infrequently, every time I want to print I turn the printer |
| 16 |
> >> on and plug it into my PC, and then spend 25 minutes trying to make it |
| 17 |
> >> work with CUPS again. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> > I also print infrequently. I turn my printer on, and it simply works, |
| 20 |
> > straight away (after warming up; it's a laser printer). |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> > However, I use lprng, not cups. It's good that we have a choice over |
| 23 |
> > what software we use, isn't it? ;-( |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> It could be that IPP is just becoming the preferred protocol, and other |
| 26 |
> print queue managing protocols are going the way of Gopher. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Preferred by whom? Firefox, for example, manages lprng just fine. It's |
| 29 |
really not a big deal supporting an extra spooler interface, particularly |
| 30 |
a simple one. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> Is there a simple IPP daemon which could wrap lprng? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Adding a layer of complexity to a daemon to cope with added complexity in |
| 35 |
a client program? I doubt it. It sounds like madness. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> -- |
| 38 |
> :wq |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). |
Archives