On 4/1/08, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
> Julien BLACHE writes:
>
> > Johannes Meixner wrote:
>
> >> For example the epkowa driver from IScan is free software.
> >
> > No, epkowa is not free software. A large part of the scanners it
> > supports actually rely on proprietary, binary-only protocol
>
Johannes Meixner wrote:
Hi,
> Did Till write that the LSB standard applies only for
> broken binary drivers?
The LSB tries to ensure binary compatibility between distributions,
which very obviously benefits more to proprietary crap than anything
else?
> For example the epkowa driver from IScan
Johannes Meixner wrote:
Hi,
> The CUPS backend runs only as long as one particular print job
> is sent to the device, then it finishes.
Same for saned.
> But how to deal with a user who runs a frontend to scan
> multiple sheets on a all-in-one device and in between
> a (longer) print job comes
isolation than a library based isolation.
And about daemon bloat: saned job would be very simple in comparison with a
complete network spooling and document printing processing system like CUPS.
Cheers,
Emmanuel.
Cr?ez votre adresse ?lectronique pr?nom.nom at laposte.net
1 Go d'espace d
hould I do.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/sane-devel/attachments/20080401/d61709c2/attachment.htm
Hello,
On Mar 28 19:13 Julien BLACHE wrote (shortened):
> ... provide a central point (saned) handling the hardware
> entirely,
...
> Something much more simple than CUPS, but yeah, basically.
...
> Oh, I forgot to add: we get real locking/device management
> that way, too.
It may get complicate
Hello,
On Mar 28 22:49 Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Till Kamppeter wrote:
>
> > ago and no one answered). This will help us that it is much easier for
> > scanner manufacturers to ship drivers with their scanners. They can
>
> This is all but a good thing. Currently, binary backends provided by
>
do, not only what should I do.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/sane-devel/attachments/20080401/fda487b1/attachment.htm
Hello,
On Mar 28 18:40 Julien BLACHE wrote (shortened):
> ... I think it'd really be better to have the
> frontends be entirely isolated from the backends, as I explained
> already.
>
> This would provide a central point (saned) handling the hardware
> entirely
To avoid confusion with the cupsd
Hi,
> Now tell me, how do you transparently share scanners from one box to
> another without a daemon?
I never said that. I said ? how to avoid running service if there is no
scanner plugged ? ?. I even implemented a daemon for polling sensor.
Please reread past mail rather than putting words in
see sane standard section 4.1- this is protection against incompatible
frontends and backends trying to communicate.
allan
On 4/1/08, windflying zhou wrote:
> Hi, All
>Can you tell me why can only run into the sane_get_devices() unless you
> use "*version = SANE_CODE_VERSION(1, 2, 3)" in th
Hello friends, sane-developpers, sane-users and everyone else who may be
interested.
I have been active for more than ten years for SANE and on the
sane-devel mailing list now. In the last years my priorities have
changed and so I decided to spend my time for my family and my little
doughter in th
12 matches
Mail list logo
