From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 18 13:40:38 2010 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 8050A106566C for ; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:40:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Received: from mx01.qsc.de (mx01.qsc.de [213.148.129.14]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12C2F8FC12 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:40:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from r55.edvax.de (port-92-195-157-147.dynamic.qsc.de [92.195.157.147]) by mx01.qsc.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 029133D384; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 15:40:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from r55.edvax.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by r55.edvax.de (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id o8IDeZxL001705; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 15:40:35 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 15:40:35 +0200 From: Polytropon To: FreeBSD Message-Id: <20100918154035.0213e57b.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <20100918085030.3ea69103@scorpio> References: <20100917171056.GA72692@orange.esperance-linux.co.uk> <20100917202414.8d259989.freebsd@edvax.de> <4c93e765.iednoY3/JBBqSNBq%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <20100918141525.c7564d66.freebsd@edvax.de> <20100918085030.3ea69103@scorpio> Organization: EDVAX X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.7 (GTK+ 2.12.1; i386-portbld-freebsd7.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jerry Subject: Re: The nightmarish problem of installing a printer X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Polytropon List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:40:38 -0000 On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 08:50:30 -0400, Jerry wrote: > On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 14:15:25 +0200 > Polytropon articulated: > > Obviously not. Look at the dependencies, the bloat, and the > > overall complicatedness of installing a printer. Also, the > > documentation situation could be better. When dealing with > > CUPS, foomatic and Gutenprint also enter the field, as well > > as hp*d stuff that is not included (and needs additional > > attention). There needs to be lots of action besides CUPS to > > get it working for certain printers. > > The same could be said in regards to a lot of other applications. That's sadly true. Many years ago, you could "pkg_add -r progname" and then be sure that you have exactly what you needed. Today, this is often a problem, just think about OpenOffice or Firefox. Mainly X related stuff tends to "dissolve", as X itself does. Parts of such software get faster obsoleted than properly docu- mented. I think this is just a normal side-effect of "rapid application development", or maybe the natural way of how soft- ware evolves per se, to take advantage of faster and better hardware. > You keep insisting that it is complicated; yet, you fail to > specifically state what it is that you are failing to comprehend. I mentioned the inability to install a printer that is currently not connected, and in this special case, it was a parallel dotmatrix printer. > Your > "bloat" comment makes no sense at all. With today's big hard disks, lots of RAM and fast processors you will be mostly right: Resources are plenty, so the need for efficient programming isn't present anymore. Especially in GUI projects there are abstractions of abstractions of abstractions of libraries depending on libraries depending on libraries - of course intended, as it's much easier to access resources in this way than accessing the "bare metal". > What you consider "bloat" > another user might well consider essential. That's surely true. > Should we deny them in order > to satisfy you? I'm speaking out for choice. If tool A isn't able to do the job, there is another tool B that is. But as soon as tool A is mandatory and can't be replaced, subsequent calls will refer to A statically, and B will be out of scope, and out of support, so it won't work anyway. Pop goes the choice. > What standards? Some arbitrary protocol that you or some other > unofficial entity has determined to be the ONLY ACCEPTABLE protocol. In X, PS is the standard for printing output. For printers itself, there is PS, PCL and ESC/P, to name the three most known ones. But what about printers that need to be injected a firmware before they will be a printer? Or a printer that just as a specific driver for some arbitrary outdated "Windows"? This is NOT standards. Just imagine every printer manufacturer would make his own plugs. With parallel / Centronics, USB and RJ45 (for network printers) we have standardized connectors. Why can't we have standard printer protocols, which means: Why can't manufactureres just use what's already established? Now you might ask: WHERE is it established? Compare office-class equipment to home consumer crap. You will see that all the "expensive" printers can do at least PS or PCL (and in most cases both, and maybe some more). They use the standards that are common for those printers. Why not use them for home consumer products as well? Where's the big problem (the BIG problem that causes it NOT to be possible)? Technical answers are welcome. > It > could very well be said that FreeBSD, and perhaps others, are failing > to implement the commonly used protocols presently in effect by > printer manufacturers. That could be said, yes. Implementing a protocol requires the protocol to be KNOWN. That might often be a problem. > It is THEIR product. They have an ABSOLUTE right > to create and distribute THEIR product as THEY see fit. You are right. The conclusion on my side is NOT to by products that are incompatible. > The constant and repetitious rantings that manufacturers are failing to > follow some arbitrary, self proclaimed "standard" is wearing thin. As I did prove, it's not about "self proclaimed standards", it's about established ones, and they don't seem to be very arbitrary as they are widely spread. You will notice that arbitrary stuff is only present in niche markets, or already died out. > Perhaps if the FreeBSD team decided to jump on the band wagon as > opposed to trying to reinvent the wheel, the ease of integrating > devices into the system would be simplified and thereby enhance the > OS's standing and acceptance. I'd love to see that - just an example: If one buys a combined inkpee printer with scanner, attaching it to the system should make an ulpt and uscanner device available. The ulpt will understand PCL or any halfway standardized protocol that can easily be installed to the system as a printer filter ("driver"). The uscanner will be accessible by (x)sane / scanimage through its connection to a standard (!) SCSI scanner device (pass). > They again, bitching, complaining and > blaming others is easier, and unfortunately, the common norm in today's > society. I think that's not true. See how many proprietary crap devices today work well with FreeBSD. To be able to do so, developers did a really great job - working with blackboxes isn't as funny as it may sound. > "Never do for yourself, what you can blame on others" has > become the new battle call. Well... no. Where do you think most software for FreeBSD comes from? We can even run "Flash" and other stuff that doesn't even support the FreeBSD operating system! -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...