Subject: Re: lpwrapper
To: None <>
From: gabriel rosenkoetter <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 03/20/2003 17:17:24
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

[No need to Cc me on replies. I do read the mailing list.]

On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 02:25:49PM -0600, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> I do see your point. Is there that much of a demand to replace our
> in-tree "lpd"? "sendmail" is positively hated by many, but what's not
> to like about our "lpd"? ;-) ;-)

Well, I can't use it, but that's because HP printers are fairly
braindamaged. But they're also prolific. Maybe I didn't persevere
long enough in making our in-tree lpd work on them... but CUPS "just
worked" on the 4050N here.

> Like at worst, people will say, "I see that you're phasing out "lpd",
> so I tried ____, and such and such didn't work", and then folks on the
> lists will try to help them configure ____, and much effort will be
> wasted, and no one will care about our own "lpd" anymore, even though
> it does everything you want a printer daemon to do (namely, spool
> files to the printer :-)). That's my fear, anyway.

Okay, then I'll go back to lpd and start whinging about how to
configure printcap for broken HP JetDirect cards and about how
printcap(5) is complicated and unclear and all the examples relate
to printers nobody under 50s ever even seen. ;^>

gabriel rosenkoetter

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (NetBSD)