| 1 |
Hi, Michael. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 07:03:19PM +0200, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote: |
| 4 |
> Am Dienstag, 6. September 2011, 16:43:39 schrieb Alan Mackenzie: |
| 5 |
> > Is that right? How about it being saner to conform to standardised |
| 6 |
> > interfaces, protocols and formats? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> How about IPP? |
| 9 |
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Printing_Protocol |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> Oh wait... that's what cups is using. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Ah yes, a standard. So we have the choice between all the IPP |
| 14 |
implementations. That's cups and, ... err - is there another one? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
But why should I have to use an over the top bloated "Internet" protocol? |
| 17 |
I've got one single printer on the end of a USB cable. I want a simple |
| 18 |
spooler, as simple as possible and not simpler. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> > No, the sane alternative is to use the `lpr' command, possibly augmented |
| 21 |
> > by special arguments for particular spoolers, but always having a |
| 22 |
> > fallback to standard `lpr'. That way, everybody's happy. Even me. ;-) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> How about the lpr command provided by cups? |
| 25 |
> Does it not work for you? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I believe it did work for me for the short time I had cups installed. |
| 28 |
More pertinent is, why won't the lpr command work for LibreOffice? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> Michael |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). |
Archives