On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 19:43:13 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 04:51:11PM +0000, Camaleón wrote: >> I just wanted to point a scenario where the jump to a PDF filter as the >> default backend can have its troubles and not be nor as good nor as >> simple nor as easy as the white papers say. Companies have always >> showed different needs than users and these "jumps" are seen >> differently when you have to hold them as user or as admin. > > The understanding I got from reading Roger's post was that if you are > using CUPS, *THEN* you are automatically using "a PDF filter paradigm" > because it **is considered superior/"more robust"**.
That's what CUPS developers seem to claim (?) but having used PS printers and PS backend as default for all these years, I'm a bit reluctant about grandiloquent wordings with no more technical proofs on the superiority of one on the proposed systems over the other. Yes, all sources share the same adjectives: a PDF backend is "easier" but I expect more than that to blindly rely on a new printing solution. > That was my reading of it. Please, someone correct me if my reading of > Roger's post is incorrect. No, I think you're got it correctly. > The discussion of whether it **actually is** superior/"more robust" is > irrelevant, and better discussed with the CUPS developers. :-) That discussion is indeed the key of this sub-thread, if not, why touching things that already work? ;-) Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
