On 08/02/2021, Pierre-Philipp Braun <pbr...@nethence.com> wrote: >> Same here. Currently, a Kyocera P2135dn is sitting on the desk here, >> but i can't say whether it is good because i'm printing so little. > > Seems Kyocera is a nice hint indeed. Otherwise I would go for Xerox. > Even their low-end printers do support raw TCP/IP printing, LPD and > PostScript. I am also referencing the compatible cartridges here, as > anyone who prints a lot knows this is what matter more (in terms of > pricing per page): the cheapest printer is usually not really the cheapest.
I cannot in good conscience recommend Xerox. Maybe I'm just too dumb to fix my problems, but my Xerox Phaser 6130N colour laser printer has issues with: * Page alignment -- I've not gotten a page perfectly centred yet. This can get especially annoying with duplex printing for crafting purposes. * Toner fusing -- Apparently both original and generic toner isn't always fused very well, i.e. large boxes of black or colour toner tend to eventually see some toner flake off in places. * Colour reproduction -- Colours tend to be over-saturated and pictures tend to be too dark if not brightened in software beforehand. This could be related to the fusing issue, i.e. maybe it slathers on too much toner? * DRM -- There's an unwanted chip on every toner cartridge. Its only function is to try and ensure vendor lock-in, to nickel and dime you more. * Printer steganography -- which I've positively confirmed is indeed there, and which I neither asked for, nor was at any time told anything about by Xerox, especially not pre-purchase. Sneaking that in was probably illegal in my jurisdiction, and maybe in yours (unreasonable searches and seizures, secrecy of correspondence...), but I've not had the time, money, mental fortitude and patience to take them to court. If anyone knows about any class-action suits though, I'm all ears. Of course, the national security establishment would also be invested in Xerox and others winning any legal challenges to this clearly deceptive, anti-consumer and speech-chilling practice designed to uniquely identify every printer in the land that would ever send any letter to any recipient that scans your letters with any software that looks for those dots, with or without the knowledge of the recipient operating the scanner. How pervasive this is I don't know. I know it potentially enables possible mass surveillance of printed correspondence metadata, like a distributed pen register for snail mail, and unless you never send any letters to any institution that could scan your mail with software looking for steganographic dots, this can also potentially deanonymise all of your correspondence, past and future. On a related note: Geoff Steckel wrote: > Whatever you get be -sure- to configure pf > so it can't call home! Turn off wireless as > well if you don't need it. > Big security holes. Good point. Anyway, I don't suppose any of you know whether any of your recommended devices have printer steganography built in? I suppose it would be foolish and futile to ask if anyone feels confident their recommended printer does NOT come with any of that? I sadly don't have a positive recommendation myself and don't know if others are better than Xerox, only that I'm wary of Xerox. Perhaps the only sensible security recommendation is that if people can build their own 3-D printers and control logic, maybe they can roll their own laser printer firmware or even PCB. If someone seriously smart were to dig deep and were to take things pretty far in bootstrapping their own printing tech from scrap and from scratch, they could probably mitigate the above risks fairly well. Sadly, I'm not smart enough for that. --Ian
