On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Alan Mackenzie <a...@muc.de> wrote: > Hi, Michael. > > On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 07:03:19PM +0200, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote: >> Am Dienstag, 6. September 2011, 16:43:39 schrieb Alan Mackenzie: >> > Is that right? How about it being saner to conform to standardised >> > interfaces, protocols and formats? > >> How about IPP? >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Printing_Protocol > >> Oh wait... that's what cups is using. > > Ah yes, a standard. So we have the choice between all the IPP > implementations. That's cups and, ... err - is there another one?
The point is that it is a standard, not a proprietary protocol. The proof is that it works on every operating system. > But why should I have to use an over the top bloated "Internet" protocol? > I've got one single printer on the end of a USB cable. I want a simple > spooler, as simple as possible and not simpler. Nobody is forcing you to anything: but upstream projects (like LibreOffice) need to fulfill the needs of all their users... not only you. Don't force *them* to support every single printing system in the planet earth; it's Open Source, if it's so important to you, write the lpr support for LibreOffice. >> > No, the sane alternative is to use the `lpr' command, possibly augmented >> > by special arguments for particular spoolers, but always having a >> > fallback to standard `lpr'. That way, everybody's happy. Even me. ;-) > >> How about the lpr command provided by cups? >> Does it not work for you? > > I believe it did work for me for the short time I had cups installed. > More pertinent is, why won't the lpr command work for LibreOffice? Because the Open Source community has limited resources. The LibreOffice devs (or maybe the Gentoo ones) choose to support CUPS and only CUPS, because it takes care of the most cases, not only yours. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
