On Sun, 2003-08-03 at 01:44, Marc Wilson wrote: > On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 02:51:53AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > > For the vast majority of situations, it's incredibly easier to configure, > > and usually more reliable about output, than lprng. > > Implying that there are circumstances where CUPS will produce valid output, > and lprng will not? I'm interested. Examples, please.
Having not used lprng in over 3 year, I can't come up with any examples off the top of my head. I think you're primarily objecting to my characterization of these bugs as lprng bugs, rather than filter bugs, which is what they probably actually were. However, from the perspective of J. Random Enduser, it doesn't matter if the bug is in the filter or the print server; if it doesn't print (or prints with garbage), it doesn't print. I'm sure if I had spent many, many more hours configuring filters for lprng (I used apsfilter for some time with Slackware, and then changed magicfilter shortly after moving to Debian), I could've gotten the same quality of output with these that I got with CUPS after about 5 minutes with its web interface. -- Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
