From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 28 17:09:13 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BB38106566B for ; Thu, 28 May 2009 17:09:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cpghost@cordula.ws) Received: from fw.farid-hajji.net (fw.farid-hajji.net [213.146.115.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 277DA8FC1D for ; Thu, 28 May 2009 17:09:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cpghost@cordula.ws) Received: from phenom.cordula.ws (phenom [192.168.254.60]) by fw.farid-hajji.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3ADA34E66; Thu, 28 May 2009 19:09:09 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 19:09:09 +0200 From: cpghost To: Polytropon Message-ID: <20090528170909.GA1841@phenom.cordula.ws> References: <23711563.post@talk.nabble.com> <20090525154816.3cee4b9a@scorpio> <20090526144939.d21275c2.freebsd@edvax.de> <20090527133706.1a6e4612@scorpio> <20090528083057.554dca76@scorpio> <20090528090941.1b39b676@scorpio> <20090528183141.107ff3e4.freebsd@edvax.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090528183141.107ff3e4.freebsd@edvax.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Canon printer and TurboPrint X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 17:09:13 -0000 On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 06:31:41PM +0200, Polytropon wrote: > As it has truthfully been mentioned, it would be possible for > Adobe to release a native version of "Flash" for FreeBSD, even > if they don't put their sources into BSDL. But they don't want > to. (It's their right to do so, of course.) More likely, they simply decided that supporting our OS was not worth it, because we don't have the user base of Win32 or Linux. > > Can you say the same thing about a FBSD > > box? Not even close. > > This is intended to be that way. The printer manufactureres and > the majority of their customers decided it. Basically put: you get what you pay for. Classic (non-win) printers do have circuitry on board to process PCL or PostScript, whereas el-cheapo win-printers come without this circuitry, and delegate pagesetting to a software driver. Same for modems vs. win-modems. Of course, all this is well-known for a long time now. But what's worrying, is that economics of scale make it increasingly difficult to locate classic printers (and modems). Fortunatly, they are still being made here and there, but for how long? What will we do a few years down the road in an environment where win-${device}s are ubiquitous? Ultimately, we'll need a full-featured windowsolator a la NDISwrapper et al., so that we can use the Windows-only drivers natively on FreeBSD/{i386,amd64}. At least x86-based systems will then work, although ARM and other platforms would still be left out in the cold. -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/