Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:37:16 +1000
From:      Da Rock <>
Subject:   Re: Debug Brother MFC-9560CDW failure to print
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References:  <> <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On 02/08/12 17:30, Da Rock wrote:
> On 02/08/12 17:24, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>>> Cc:
>>> Subject: Re: Debug Brother MFC-9560CDW failure to print
>>> On 02/08/12 03:33, Jerry wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:57:26 +1000
>>>> Da Rock articulated:
>>>>> Just noticed something: have you specifically got a postscript module
>>>>> in your printer? Because that is what it is sending your printer...
>>>>> I only just found that in the logs :)
>>>> I have used every PPD file I could find; both those supplied by CUPS
>>>> and those found on the NET. It doesn't make any difference. I can only
>>>> get a page printed if I use the LPR option, otherwise only a blank 
>>>> page
>>>> is ejected. By the way, if I use a B&W PPD instead of the color laser
>>>> one, a B&W document is printed when I use the LPR option; 
>>>> therefore, it
>>>> is apparent that something is actually using that PPD.
>>>> If you search, you will find that there are numerous reports of
>>>> problems with blank pages and the CUPS 1.5.0 version. Those that I 
>>>> have
>>>> personally checked are usually also associated with FreeBSD, which
>>>> leads me to believe it is a local phenomenon. Luckily, I can print
>>>> through Windows, so I am not stuck with this BS.
>>>> By the way, the test page printed is the one that is supplied with 
>>>> CUPS.
>>>> Interestingly, it prints its own page but not one feed to it. Go
>>>> figure ...
>>>    From what I see right now, you're printing ps to a non ps 
>>> printer. So
>>> I'm a little surprised that you get a test page that way.
>> Strange.  When I check the specs for that printer, it says it it has
>> following printer-language support: "PCL6,BR-Script3"
>> "BR-Script3" Is Brother's implementation of PostScript -- thus not 
>> having
>> to py Adobe's licensing fees for the "genuine" interpreter.
> Interesting. I haven't heard that before. That said, it would take 
> more than a simple name change to beat off the blood-sucking 
> lawyers... so just how close to postscript is it? And how perfectly 
> does cups interpret it as well?
A quick glance at wikipedia doesn't show the 9560 as compatible to ps 2 or 3

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>