| 1 |
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Alan Mackenzie <acm@×××.de> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, Michael. |
| 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 |
>> It could be that IPP is just becoming the preferred protocol, and other |
| 6 |
>> print queue managing protocols are going the way of Gopher. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Preferred by whom? Firefox, for example, manages lprng just fine. It's |
| 9 |
> really not a big deal supporting an extra spooler interface, particularly |
| 10 |
> a simple one. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
"IPP is just becoming" indicates a change. Where's change coming from? |
| 13 |
Demand to satisfy new users. Who are the new users? Probably the |
| 14 |
people running turnkey installs of Ubuntu. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
For me, IPP and CUPS have "just worked" beautifully*. Any SKU of |
| 17 |
Windows 7 higher than 'starter' will talk to a CUPS daemon just fine, |
| 18 |
and will automatically see a CUPS daemon running on the network if the |
| 19 |
daemon is using running mdns-sd. The one trouble I've had is getting |
| 20 |
those mdns-sd broadcasts forwarded across my subnets. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Change happens. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
>> Is there a simple IPP daemon which could wrap lprng? |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Adding a layer of complexity to a daemon to cope with added complexity in |
| 28 |
> a client program? I doubt it. It sounds like madness. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Isn't that what inetd does? nc? Hell, isn't that what "does one thing, |
| 31 |
and one thing only" KISS philosophy behind unixy commands and piping |
| 32 |
philosophy has been about all along? Insert a shim or adapter between |
| 33 |
two things which are related, but not quite compatible? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
* And, yes, I realize that, for some, it doesn't. That's what mailing |
| 37 |
lists like this are helpful for...troubleshooting. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
:wq |
Archives