From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Aug 10 10:16:22 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA03996 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 10:16:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from pau-amma.whistle.com (s205m64.whistle.com [207.76.205.64]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA03990 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 10:16:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dhw@whistle.com) Received: (from dhw@localhost) by pau-amma.whistle.com (8.8.8/8.8.7) id KAA12031 for hackers@FreeBSD.ORG; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 10:14:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dhw) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 10:14:24 -0700 (PDT) From: David Wolfskill Message-Id: <199808101714.KAA12031@pau-amma.whistle.com> To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: CAP vs netatalk for Appletalk/printing support In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 15:53:39 -0400 >From: Garance A Drosihn >I notice the ports collection includes both CAP and netatalk, and >that kernel changes have been made for netatalk to take advantage >of. I was wondering if most FreeBSD'ers prefer netatalk over CAP. Not sure about FreeBSDers, but I'll mention that a fairly large company I did some consulting sysadmin work for uses CAP for access to printers. (The company in question was moving its Mountain View Facility to downtown San Jose; I participated in part of that move near the beginning of my tenure there. They use *lots* of printers....) Thus, it's conceivable that keeping CAP functional would make FreeBSD more attractive to such a company than failing to keep it functional would. (During the time I was there, they did not make any use of FreeBSD that I know of; I mostly did Solaris 2 & SunOS administration, with the occasional IRIX, AIX, Digital UNIX, or HPUX system.) One datum, david -- David Wolfskill UNIX System Administrator dhw@whistle.com voice: (650) 577-7158 pager: (650) 371-4621 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message