-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 mick crane wrote: > On 2019-11-14 23:52, Dan Purgert wrote: > >>> What is more interesting is why a user thinks that the LPD protocol >>> gives them something that IPP doesn't. >> >> Who said that LPR/LPD gave people "something" that IPP doesn't? > > I'm not really sure about what happens. > Is it that a CUPS server translates what it receives from client to > sequence of instructions printer understands ? > Certain on client > > " mytext | lpr " > > worked, which could be handy.
Yeah, CUPS does provide hooks for some commands (similarly to how say postfix or exim provide 'sendmail(tm)'). This entire discourse between Brian and myself started with a question to the effect of "what will 'we' (presumably 'Dan' and 'Brian') do if/when CUPS removes PPD support for our old printers?" ( MID <z1kea-1m...@gated-at.bofh.it> ). I responded with a crack about LPRng being the "solution" to continue supporting the old stuff (and, in the case of 'new stuff' that still supports the old LPR/LPD protocols; why bother mucking around with changes I don't "need" to make). I've so far never been a proponent of X over Y (excepting plaintext IPP over trying to set up SSL/TLS on your printer for IPPS). -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAl3OnZ8ACgkQjhHd8xJ5 ooEXVgf+L0/WzkH4PelYIeCH1MzJ8eXQFnp3A02nN77ZPcsdjUQs6mBUNm/LTIYM Ze/fpE5ZUG9kKHhsC1J3oPv0n0MW1oJc/k6egc0g8ZJPkPS16OYX8myP0A2UYPVr 1SyuxOd8UoXb4JKCiISmhwcehbx43qxP8hQZtTOzSMU3gpWXbHFKue2Jb8DXSg0L WqN7x28c3gusx/tlLVZTTALwHaHnzbZNRxUvQoSFppp/wz3Ww1qZTw13iJfoRZFL 3WGoFfU//MWwg+PqjaqvBRpeYMj0Vaeu3bMLH3ov1IEhkszZxhmUVzOIk6cqdJM8 7IpP+LxpXPwYp9thATVSpNABCvL1Qg== =SrzW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- |_|O|_| |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
