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

Re: how are html pages printed?

El 2012-02-15 a las 14:10 -0600, Mark Copper escribió:

(resending to the list)

> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Camaleón <noelamac@gmail.com> wrote:


> >> Also it is worth remembering there is *not* a problem printing to the
> >> same printer from either squeeze on AMD or wheezy on i386 machines, I
> >> beleive.
> >
> > You mean the 32-bits wheezy install can print that pages without
> > troubleshoot, using the same PPD file? It could be then a problem with
> > the 64-bits CUPS packages... anyway, I would try first with "pxlmono"
> > and see how it goes.
> Successful, but confused.

"Success" and "confusion" are both good symptoms! :-)
> I was successful printing a UPS shipping label with the CUPS supplied
> pxlmono driver for the HL-5250DN **and** with the CUPS supplied
> foomatic/postscript driver (but not with the CUPS supplied lj5gray
> driver).
> Of the two that worked, the foomatic/postscript driver seems to ignore
> the margins, so I'll leave on pxlmono for now although I'm confused
> what 'pxlmono' means.


Basically, "pxlmono" is a PCL6 driver that can be used with your 
printer. I'd say is like a "last resort" when you experience problems 
with the recommended driver, which in your case, generated a bad output 
when printing the UPS labels.

Although the PS driver usually is the better option that provides 
better quality printouts, I also have found that PS it can be slower 
when sending complex bitmaps or PDF works to the printer. For such 
cases, I also have an additional printer instance configured in CUPS 
that uses the PCL6 driver so I can choose from where to print, 
depending on the job.

> I wasn't looking for that to happen.  I'm happy there's a user list
> and appreciative of Camaleon's help.
> Mark

Glad the workaround also worked for you.

Anyway, I would report your findings either to Debian bug tracking 
system or directly to Brother. The PPD file for your printer is dated 
on 2005, maybe it's time for a deep review :-)



Reply to: