Subject: Re: LPRng vs CUPS
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Florian Stoehr <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/11/2004 13:39:39
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 email@example.com wrote:
> Richard Rauch wrote:
> >Why use *either* LPRng or CUPS? (^&
> >I've been using the printer spool that ships with NetBSD. I have been
> >able to interoperate with an LPRng-based network from my laptop (my
> >laptop was just a client in that network) and I find that the native
> >spooling has ample flexibility for me.
> >It might help if you would say what you intend to do with the printer.
> >(I was pushed to look into LPRng for my laptop. I read through some
> >of the documentation, and concluded that I didn't actually need it
> >to talk to LPRng hosts. Other than that, I haven't really looked
> >much at either LPRng or CUPS. I figure if I ever run into a probelm
> >that I can't solve with the native spooler, I'll see what the
> >options are for alternatives. (^&)
> Yeah you're right, the native print spooling system will do just fine
> for most tasks, but if you have a large network with many printers
> attached to it, then LPRng or CUPS might scale better. I don't run such
> networks and have virtually no experience, however sooner or later I'll
> end up working as a Unix systems admin, so it's a good idea to find and
> test the "optimal" solution that integrates well into large and complex
Hm, I used the native thing years ago - meanwhile I use CUPS.
Haven't looked at the native stuff in years, but as far as I remember,
"getting it working" with the native system is much harder, especially
for non-HPLaserJet and non-Epson24-pin printers. Don't like writing that
CUPS is easy to setup and administrate and lots of ready-to-use "drivers"
(=descriptors?) are available, so if this is a point for you and
you don't have experience (or the time to gather it) setting up the
native printing, use CUPS.