From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 28 00:09:08 2011 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 31220106564A for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 00:09:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com) Received: from mail.r-bonomi.com (mx-out.r-bonomi.com [204.87.227.120]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2C3C8FC12 for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 00:09:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (from bonomi@localhost) by mail.r-bonomi.com (8.14.4/rdb1) id p9S095oG067411 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:09:05 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:09:05 -0500 (CDT) From: Robert Bonomi Message-Id: <201110280009.p9S095oG067411@mail.r-bonomi.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20111027174621.2dda6bdc@scorpio> Subject: Re: Fast personal printing _without_ CUPS 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: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 00:09:08 -0000 > From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Thu Oct 27 16:46:51 2011 > Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:46:21 -0400 > From: Jerry > To: FreeBSD > Subject: Re: Fast personal printing _without_ CUPS > > On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 21:11:32 +0200 > Polytropon articulated: > > > On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 13:39:05 -0400, Jerry wrote: > > > Printing under MS Windows is a breeze. > > > > > The *nix community has never > > > gotten printing up to that lever. > > > > It _had_, past tense. :-) > > > > > While there are those who continually > > > blame the "manufacturers", the truth is that any COO, CFO {or any > > > other alphabetic combination that you like} that seriously proposed > > > the creation of a department dedicated to the writing of drivers for > > > non-windows based systems, a department that would therefore have a > > > zero based projected cash flow, would be removed from office > > > posthaste. > > > > Fully agree, but if established standards would have > > been truly adopted by the manufactueres for their > > products, there would be no need to develop any drivers. > > One standard interface could address all printer > > functionality, and maybe even more, such as scanning > > or faxing functionalities quite common in the "egg-laying > > wool-milk-sows" we see on the consumer markets. > > First of all let me say that I love standards; there are so many of > them to choose from. > > Secondly, I seriously hope that never comes to pass. Once you lock > yourself into one specific interface the ability to innovate has been > removed. I cannot think of a worse possible scenario. There's no real need for a 'standard' for communication with dumb raster devices, which is what most 'winprinters' are. All that is needed is a _published_ specification such that others can implement communications with that device. And there isn't a whole lot to such a specification: How start-of-page is marked How start-of-line is marked How end-of-line is marked How end-of-page is marked How pixels are represented Pixels per raster line, Raster lines per page, How the bits are sequenced The compression methodology, if any, used. there is little reason _not_ to make such specification public. > > Sadly, "the one standard" doesn't seem to exist, and > > manufacturers are not willing to discuss one. Of course, > > such a standard would have to be free and open, so any > > OS could implement it. > > There you go putting restriction on how such an "standard" should be > implemented. I have a better idea. Why doesn't the *nix/*BSD {pick any > other letter combination that turns you on} agree to one uniform method > of implementing printer drivers and then let the manufacturers > implement it on their end. You argued cogently _against_ manufacturers using standards. Now you argue in favor of the entire *nix commnity agreeing on one. Somehow, the phrase "double standard' springs to mind. > I have spoke to two company reps in the > past year, one regarding printers, and both stated outright that the > thought of writing and maintaining drivers on a multitude of platforms > scares them to death. The problem is not with the manufacturers but > rather with the fragmentation of the non-windows arena. There is -no- need for *them* to actually write drivers for use in 'specialty'/'niche' markets. *ALL* they have to do is release the 'specifications' for the communications format and protocol that the device uses.