--On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 11:49:30 AM -0600 Chris Bennett
wrote:
> I do see that lpc, lpq, lprm are dinosaurs and have to be made extinct
> and replaced with something more functional with more information output
> and better capabilities.
Whatever changes may happen under the hood, I wo
| Funnily enough I didn't see either of those until they were quoted here ;)
| I recommend slrn pointed at gmane's news server for reading misc with liberal
| use of the 'k' key, some of the features for making newsgroups readable are
| equally applicable to busy mailing lists.
Is it possible to
On 2016-02-19, Chris Bennett wrote:
> Why don't hru...@gmail.com and li...@wrant.com have a lovely and
> exciting chat off of my lpd/lpr thread?
Funnily enough I didn't see either of those until they were quoted here ;)
I recommend slrn pointed at gmane's news server for reading misc with libera
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016, Chris Bennett wrote:
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 06:52:43PM +0200, li...@wrant.com wrote:
Maybe you should pull your head out of the sand (asshole) and understand
[...]
That previous request was not to include trolling me privately.
By the way, I only expressed my oppinion
On 17 Feb 2016, at 14:07, Chris Bennett wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 07:51:28PM +0100, Tobias Ulmer wrote:
>>
>> The only thing wrong with lpd is nobody tedu'ed it yet.
>>
>> No really, it is outdated beyond rescue. If you want to write a new
>> print job queueing system, sure, have fun. Maybe
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 06:52:43PM +0200, li...@wrant.com wrote:
>
> Maybe you should pull your head out of the sand (asshole) and understand
> why you can not find relevant information. You're not reading man
> pages, but people say.
That previous request was not to include trolling me privatel
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016, li...@wrant.com wrote:
Well, let me say my opinion.
Why ?!
I think, you missed the context of my two postings of yesterday.
I do not see any problem with lpr/lpd, the only reason given here to
change it is:
* lpd(8)/lpc(8)/lpr(1) is very old and suffering from bitro
Thu, 18 Feb 2016 20:38:38 + (GMT) Roderick
> Well, let me say my opinion.
Why !?
> I think BSD and Unix is also "outdated beyond rescue", but we are
^^
This means "following standards and reliably implementing Unix core".
Same strong words
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 05:47:42PM +0200, li...@wrant.com wrote:
> Thu, 18 Feb 2016 20:38:38 + (GMT) Roderick
> > Well, let me say my opinion.
>
> Why !?
>
> > I think BSD and Unix is also "outdated beyond rescue", but we are
> ^^
> This me
On 2016-02-18, gwes wrote:
> CUPS installs AVAHI. That is a security risk - it attempts
> to change DNS lookups, etc.
Can you expand on "it attempts to change DNS lookups"? Perhaps on OS with
nsswitch via nss-mdns, but I don't see any way of getting it to do this on
OpenBSD, even if you wanted to
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 06:58:07PM -0700, Andy Bradford wrote:
> Thus said Chris Cappuccio on Thu, 18 Feb 2016 17:09:38 -0800:
>
> > aren't there plenty of simple pre-processor scripts that people are
> > using with lp to turn whatever into some output for simple dumb
> > printers? CUPS
Thus said Chris Cappuccio on Thu, 18 Feb 2016 17:09:38 -0800:
> aren't there plenty of simple pre-processor scripts that people are
> using with lp to turn whatever into some output for simple dumb
> printers? CUPS is so annoying and stupid, it's not even funny
Perhaps apsfilter?
Andy
gwes [g...@oat.com] wrote:
>
> I just created and will submit to ports a version
> of ghostscript which doesn't pull in cups - it
> turns out the configuration has a switch for that case.
>
aren't there plenty of simple pre-processor scripts that people
are using with lp to turn whatever into so
On 02/18/2016 16:33, Chris Bennett wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 04:10:06PM -0500, gwes wrote:
.
They don't do dynamic autoconfiguration.
In an industrial environment autoconfiguration can be very bad.
(examples like directing confidential output somewhere unexpected)
I haven't looked at th
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 04:10:06PM -0500, gwes wrote:
> I'm not sure what measure of "better" you're trying to apply.
>
> lpr et al. don't have a GUI. One could be wrapped around them.
>
I personally wouldn't want that. Others have said that cups provides
nice information for printers in other a
On 02/17/2016 12:49, Chris Bennett wrote:
After reading up on printers in use, I discovered that there is
significant use of line printers due to their very low cost of
consumables, production of a very long lasting output, unlike
laser/thermal/inkjet printers and high reliability.
Is anyone usi
On 02/17/2016 12:49, Chris Bennett wrote:
After reading up on printers in use, I discovered that there is
significant use of line printers due to their very low cost of
consumables, production of a very long lasting output, unlike
laser/thermal/inkjet printers and high reliability.
Is anyone usi
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016, Tobias Ulmer wrote:
No really, it is outdated beyond rescue. If you want to write a new
print job queueing system, sure, have fun. Maybe you can come up with a
'cups' that doesn't suck?
Well, let me say my opinion.
I think BSD and Unix is also "outdated beyond rescue", bu
On Thu, 17 Feb 2016, Andy Bradford wrote:
Anyway, just some musings. Is there anyone else out there using
lpr/lpd/lprm from base? Maybe I'm the only one?
I never used something else.
And if I install a package that bloats my system with cups as dependency,
I delete immediatly the pac
On 2/17/16, Andy Bradford wrote:
> Anyway, just some musings. Is there anyone else out there using
> lpr/lpd/lprm from base? Maybe I'm the only one?
yep. been using it for many years with many different HP and Brother
network printers.
--patrick
Am 02/18/16 um 06:28 schrieb Andy Bradford:
>
> Anyway, just some musings. Is there anyone else out there using
> lpr/lpd/lprm from base? Maybe I'm the only one?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andy
>
I've connected a Kyocera FS-920 to my router and all hosts (*bsd, mac,
win) do their printing on it
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 9:28 PM, Andy Bradford
wrote:
> Anyway, just some musings. Is there anyone else out there using
> lpr/lpd/lprm from base? Maybe I'm the only one?
I've been using the lp* tools for many years for personal printing, first
using a PostScript HP 4050dn and now using
Thus said Tobias Ulmer on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 19:51:28 +0100:
> No really, it is outdated beyond rescue.
But it does work (at least in some configurations). To enable my
PostScript printers, all I have to do is add a single line to
/etc/printcap... well, maybe 2 lines.
printer:\
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:49:30AM -0600, Chris Bennett wrote:
> After reading up on printers in use, I discovered that there is
> significant use of line printers due to their very low cost of
> consumables, production of a very long lasting output, unlike
> laser/thermal/inkjet printers and high
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 07:51:28PM +0100, Tobias Ulmer wrote:
>
> The only thing wrong with lpd is nobody tedu'ed it yet.
>
> No really, it is outdated beyond rescue. If you want to write a new
> print job queueing system, sure, have fun. Maybe you can come up with a
> 'cups' that doesn't suck?
>
After reading up on printers in use, I discovered that there is
significant use of line printers due to their very low cost of
consumables, production of a very long lasting output, unlike
laser/thermal/inkjet printers and high reliability.
Is anyone using these in a high volume output setting (no
26 matches
Mail list logo