On Thu, 28 May 2009 22:06:40 +0200 Polytropon <free...@edvax.de> wrote:
>On Thu, 28 May 2009 21:43:32 +0200 (CEST), Wojciech Puchar
><woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote:
>> I don't agree it's bad idea of removing processing hardware from
>> printer. It's good idea as such processing is a blink of eye for
>> today computers.
>
>in general, I would agree, but some BASIC FUNCTIONALITY should
>be brought by the printer itself, and if it's only ASCII printing,
>so things like
>
> % ls /etc > /dev/ulpt0
>
>would work. For simple things, it's completely okay.
>
>
>
>> The problem is that there is NO STANDARD for raw bitmap printers.
>> If it would - then just adding this to ghostscript would be few
>> hours of work.
>
>Exactly, THAT's the problem. If all manufacturers would agree to
>have a certain standard about how printers can receive bitmapped
>content, everything would be easy. But as I said, printer manu-
>facturers don't intend to do so, because customers seem to like
>the shiny discs they need to spend some time with before being
>able to actually use their new printer. :-)
Did you ever bother to consider that if the printer manufacturers
actually formed a consensus on a printer language, some third world
county or the EU would probably sue them. Nothing I have seen in 20
years equals the audacity of the EU. As long as no 'standard' no matter
how arbitrary, stupid or counter-productive exists, they are in theory
safe from the EU. Besides, nothing stifles development as tightly as
being bound to an arbitrary 'standard'.
--
Jerry
ges...@yahoo.com
You can't expect a boy to be vicious till he's been to a good school.
H. H. Munro
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
