Subject: Re: lpd and filter programs
To: Greg A. Woods <email@example.com>
From: Perry E. Metzger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/23/1998 00:30:08
I think the problem is that lpr may be evil, but it is the evil that
I've often thought, btw, that the whole printing suite needed to be
burned down and replaced, including a from-scratch protocol
design. And no, the IPP stuff in the IETF is crap. (We keep trying to
point this out to them but they never listen. Someone with taste has
to build a new protocol.)
Greg A. Woods writes:
> [ On Wed, July 22, 1998 at 01:58:31 (-0700), "Erik E. Fair" (Timekeeper) wrot
> > Subject: Re: lpd and filter programs
> > Of course, we should also be careful to avoid feeping creaturism;
> > otherwise we'll end up with a monstrosity like "lp".
> I think you've got things backwards. Lpr is a monstrosity. Lp is quite
> simple and elegant. At least from an implementation point of view. Lp
> only gets ugly when you graft lpr on the side and have two different
> kinds of network attachments, but that's not the lp I'm talking about.
> Lpr's only "advantage" is a single common configuration file in the form
> of a termcap-style database of barely descriptive attributes and flags.
> Lp is a bit more difficult to configure because information is more
> spread out, but there was a nifty command-line interface to do it all in
> one go, and that normally worked quite well.
> Greg A. Woods
> +1 416 443-1734 VE3TCP <email@example.com> <robohack!woods>
> Planix, Inc. <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Secrets of the Weird <email@example.com>