Re: postscript-enabled mozilla package anyone?
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 09:51:47 +0200
Thomas Winischhofer <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Xprint output is a solid 100% better than PostScript/default. But then
> > I haven't tried it in a while.
> I installed it on my CUPS-running system. The result is a printout in
> max 100 dpi on all of my 6 laserjets and no proper color-to-greyscale
> conversion (looks like black & white). Frankly, it looks like the result
> from a dot-matrix.
That sounds like a packaging problem. To increase resolution, try
in /usr/lib/X11/xserver/C/print/attributes/document or wherever that file
is. If that works, the maintainer or packager should know most printers
support 600dpi at this point. I don't see why that's Xprint's fault .
> I never had ANY problem with postscript directly from Mozilla... and I
> really print a lot.
Well I'm not advocating removing PostScript/default. I'm just trying to
point out that Xprint is not what some people on this list claim it is.
> And I cannot understand why I would need yet another printing system on
> my box,
Xprint is not a "printing system". If you have CUPS *that* is a printing
system. Xprint is an X server that accepts connections from clients that
can draw to it but instead of rendering the output on a screen it sends
it to the "printing system". That's all.
> obviously requiring manual setup. I refuse to learn how Xprint
> works in order to make my box print. (Hell, this is 2004 and I need to
> fiddle in conf files to make a program print.)
If it requires additional setup to get a perfect printout then a bug
report should be filed so that the package maintainer can learn how to
create a proper deb.
 the problem might be that the printing system interface (lpq,
lpadmin) is not sophisticated enough to communicate information like
Greedo shoots first? Not in my Star Wars.