| 1 |
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Alan Mackenzie <acm@×××.de> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, Canek. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Hi Alan. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 02:22:44PM -0400, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
| 7 |
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Alan Mackenzie <acm@×××.de> wrote: |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
>> >> > However, I use lprng, not cups. It's good that we have a choice over |
| 10 |
>> >> > what software we use, isn't it? ;-( |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
>> >> It could be that IPP is just becoming the preferred protocol, and other |
| 13 |
>> >> print queue managing protocols are going the way of Gopher. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
>> > Preferred by whom? Firefox, for example, manages lprng just fine. It's |
| 16 |
>> > really not a big deal supporting an extra spooler interface, particularly |
| 17 |
>> > a simple one. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
>> Because, as "simple" as it could be, it's another one. Big projects |
| 20 |
>> need to support CUPS, because they need to work for everyone (or as |
| 21 |
>> many as possible). It makes no sense *at all* to support more printing |
| 22 |
>> systems. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> It enables more people to use it. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I disagree. CUPS does everything that lprng does (AFAIK), so using |
| 27 |
CUPS serves all users. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> The support for lpr exists. It's being removed, for some reason. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Yeah, nobody wants to maintain that code (if it's LO decision), or |
| 32 |
Gentoo devs don't want to help users of two different printing |
| 33 |
systems, when one of them does everything everybody wants. Either way, |
| 34 |
it's work that has to be done. Even if it's "small". |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
> Given |
| 37 |
> that printing works by constructing a postscript equivalent of the thing |
| 38 |
> being printed, just how difficult can it be to squirt this postscript |
| 39 |
> down lpr rather than the cups equivalent? How long does it take to write |
| 40 |
> a C++ `if' statement? |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Point a, you are oversimplifying. Point b, again, code is not a fixed |
| 43 |
entity that remains forever unchanged. The old adage of "if it's not |
| 44 |
broke, don't fix it" it's completely false with code, because around |
| 45 |
that code *everything* changes. All the time. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Just an example: C++ changes its syntax for something that affects the |
| 48 |
lprng and CUPS methods inside LibreOffice (this happens a lot, BTW, |
| 49 |
especially with C++). Now you need to fix the code in two places, not |
| 50 |
in one. And that just to support a printing system, with a |
| 51 |
functionality that is available *in the other* printing system. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
THAT is insane. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
>> And again, it's Open Source. If there is enough demand, someone will |
| 56 |
>> write support for other printing systems. Just don't assume that any |
| 57 |
>> project (being LibreOffice or Gentoo) need to support your choices |
| 58 |
>> besides the most used one. |
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
> Again the code already exists, it's merely a matter of not destroying it. |
| 61 |
> I became a user based on it supporting a standard printing system, and |
| 62 |
> it's perfectly reasonable for me to expect that support to continue. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
Sorry, but again I disagree. You became a user of an Open Source piece |
| 65 |
of code. If it breaks, you get to keep the pieces, and that's about |
| 66 |
it. Read the GPL license: |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
"... is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT |
| 69 |
ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or |
| 70 |
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE." |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
So, sorry, but neither you (nor I) get to complain if lprng stops |
| 73 |
being supported, nor if CUPS suddenly were to be dropped. |
| 74 |
|
| 75 |
Regards. |
| 76 |
-- |
| 77 |
Canek Peláez Valdés |
| 78 |
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación |
| 79 |
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México |
Archives