Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 01:53:43 -0600 (CST) From: Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Debug Brother MFC-9560CDW failure to print Message-ID: <201202080753.q187rhZv069561@mail.r-bonomi.com> In-Reply-To: <4F322498.7090308@herveybayaustralia.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Da Rock <freebsd-questions@herveybayaustralia.com.au> wrote: > On 02/08/12 17:24, Robert Bonomi wrote: > >> > >> 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... > >>> 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? Lawyers are not a problem -- the PS _language_ *IS* in the public domain. Anyboy is free to implement their own interpreter. See -'ghostscript' for a _very_ well-known example. <grin> Many "lower-price" printer manufacturers use a 'private' implemention -- the Adobe License fee is (or at least used to be, a couplee of decades aoo, when I was dealing with such things) in the hundreds of dollars _per_unit_. I haven't tested a current Brother implementation. A couple of decades ago, their 'PS-level 2" implementation 'just worked' for anything I happened to throw at it in a production environment. Some of the 'alternative' implementations actually have -fewer- bugs in them than the genuine Adobe-licensed code does. <wry grin>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201202080753.q187rhZv069561>