Re: another look at release-critical bugs: lpr
On Sat, 30 May 1998, Jay Wardle wrote:
> [...Raul wrote...]
> > If this can't be fixed easily, perhaps we ought to promote lprng to
> > standard and demote lpr to optional. Yes, I know that bug-for-bug
> > compatability is a nice thing, but in my experience lprng is superior to
> > lpr.
> > --
> > Raul
> In my (admittedly limited) experience, lpr is superior to lprng. Both
> a friend and I could not get lprng setup on our systems. It requires
> a lot of configuration work. We had both spent a significant amount of
> time with lprng, and lpr was a snap.
we have the exact opposite experience then.
i found lprng to be a breeze - the package basically configures itself,
especially if you also install magicfilter.
I don't use lpr on any system any more. if i find anyone on my
network has installed lpr (i have several debian users at work
now...converting them was easy, once they realised it was convert or
perish....mwahahahaha!) then i remove it and replace it with lpr.
> lpr is clearly the best choice for most of the small system users.
i disagree. i find that the integration between lprng and magicfilter
makes it the best choice for anyone who just wants something that works
"out of the box"
lprng, magicfilter, gs (or gs-aladdin), and enscript : THE printing
suite for linux systems.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org