[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: apsfilter: error creating directory for temporary files



On 15 Jul 2007, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Anthony Campbell <ac@acampbell.org.uk> writes:
> 
> > I agree about lpd. I've found magicfilter to work better for me than
> > either CUPS or apsfilter: easier to set up and more reliable.
> 
> This may well be the case for specific uses.  However, magicfilter has
> not had a new upstream release since the 17th of March, *1996*.  If
> you want to use a printer less than 11 years old, you're SOL unless
> you want to start writing your own filters.  It also has quite a lot
> of bugs which won't ever be fixed seing that it's unmaintained since
> 1996.
> 
> I just found that there's now a newer magicfilter (magicfilter2,
> http://directory.fsf.org/all/Magicfilter.html) which might well
> replace it.
> 
> I used to use magicfilter extensively... back in 1999 when I first
> started printing with GNU/Linux and started writing printer drivers
> and tools.  However, eight years later there are better options which
> are actively developed and supported, whether you choose CUPS or
> LPRng.  Foomatic is such a replacement, and is what distributions like
> Mandriva use for their LPRng setup.  It will support all the
> contemporary printer drivers, to boot.
> 


I found magicfilter2 a year or more ago; both this and the version
packaged for Debian seem to work equally well. I emailed the maintainer
suggesting he might like to upgrade the package but never got a reply.

My printer is a lot newer than 11 years old - Kyocera Mita FS-1010. I use
the ljet4 filter. I did use Cups for a time but it didn't place the
pages quite correctly, which magicfilter does.

Foomatic looks possible but I don't see any point in replacing
something that is working, perfectly well for me.

Anthony 

-- 
Anthony Campbell - ac@acampbell.org.uk 
Microsoft-free zone - Using Linux Gnu-Debian
http://www.acampbell.org.uk (blog, book reviews, 
on-line books and sceptical articles)



Reply to: