Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 08 Feb 2012 19:50:45 +1000
From:      Da Rock <freebsd-questions@herveybayaustralia.com.au>
To:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Debug Brother MFC-9560CDW failure to print
Message-ID:  <4F324575.8020708@herveybayaustralia.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <201202080759.q187xQF0069596@mail.r-bonomi.com>
References:  <201202080759.q187xQF0069596@mail.r-bonomi.com>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On 02/08/12 17:59, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>>  From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org  Wed Feb  8 01:46:35 2012
>> Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:37:16 +1000
>> From: Da Rock<freebsd-questions@herveybayaustralia.com.au>
>> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
>> Subject: Re: Debug Brother MFC-9560CDW failure to print
>>
>> 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
> *sigh*  "Yet another reason" why Wikipedia should not be used/trusted, when
> authoritative sources -- like Manufacturer specifications -- are available.
>
> See:
>   <http://welcome.solutions.brother.com/bsc/public_s/id/us/us/en/colorlasermfc/mfc9560cdw_us/spec/index.html>;
>
> scroll down to the 'Printer' section.  Check out the 'Emulation' line-item.
> Notice also the 'Direct Print' item, where the printer can also _directly_
> handle 'PDF 1.7' documents.
Ok. Now I get where you're coming from. I'm coming from the point of 
view of the guy that gets in the guts of the beasts and inserts the 
chips in question; so I'm coming from the other way :) For reference the 
pdf interpreter is a different kettle of fish as far as the printer is 
concerned- no where near as involved as ps. Mostly tied with the 
scanner? That's about the timing of its arrival as a feature on printers 
(multifunctional).

 From experience the interpreters differ very slightly, and we're coming 
from the basis of not only one poser, but 2 posers. ghostscript on the 
one hand, and br-script3 on the other. I know ghostscript doesn't always 
get it exactly right every time, and neither does br-script. The only 
way for perfection is to use one from start to finish- hence why Adobe 
wins every time because print shops graphic arts are usually already 
using Adobe. So it could simply be a "near miss" :) PCL will usually 
"just work" - don't know precisely why that should be, but it does. Less 
licensing/legals? May mean there doesn't need to be a point of difference.

Take for example java: one java vm version should be the same as the 
next of the same version (think iced-tea v sun java), and yet small 
differences cause issues to creep in and render the app completely 
useless. Same language, different interpreter (close enough, ok 
pedantics ;) ). Something happened to me and my systems along these 
lines. (It was horrible! Bits were flying and mangled everywhere.. :P) 
Another example along these lines would be posix implementations... 
(dare I bring it up :) )

Hmmm. Having considered all this... I wonder if porting the brother 
driver might be useful? Although PCL _is_ fully functioning...



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F324575.8020708>