Re: Wheezy printing problem: 2 identical (?) machines and 1 does not print PDFs
On Sat, 26 May 2012 16:26:34 +0100, Brian wrote:
> On Sat 26 May 2012 at 13:30:27 +0000, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 May 2012 13:01:16 +0100, Brian wrote:
>>
>> There's no "cupsFilter:" line in any of PPD files so maybe the printer
>> is not a true PostScript printer or uses a slightly different
>> implementation developed by HP.
>
> That is not relevant to the point I made but, to satisfy your curiosity:
> if there no *cupsFilter line in a PPD file then CUPS assumes the printer
> requires a backend to send it PostScript. Nothing to do with a 'true
> PostScript printer', whatever that might be. Either the printer has a
> PostScript interpreter or it doesn't. Many manufacturers implement their
> own anyway.
It's not that simple. There are some printes (mostly the low-end models)
that can "simulate" a PostScript level in a way that only the
manufacturer knows, not standarized, thus you still depend on the quality
of the manufacturer's driver.
>> > The standard language used for printing in Debian has been PDF for
>> > over three years. There is no inherent benefit in inputting a
>> > PostScript file to CUPS.
>>
>> I assure there is.
>
> But at least you have discarded "PostScript is a raw language, no
> conversion is needed between the doc and the printer . . . ." as a
> reason and accept the filter chain is
>
> PDF file ---> PS file ---> CUPS ---> PDF file
>
> Is it a comfort getting back to where you started?
"No conversion is needed" because the printer understands the PostScript
language, it's not device dependant. I don't know how to express it
better but is not that hard to understand.
>> > You are also confusing the input file with the file sent by a CUPS
>> > backend to the printer. In the latter case, you reply completely on
>> > the capabilities of the printer's interpreters whether the file
>> > contains PostScript, PCL or any other language.
>>
>> If the printer does support PostScript and uses a PS driver, the above
>> is completely irrelevant.
>
> I have a feeling you may have returned to "PostScript is a raw language,
> no conversion is needed between the doc and the printer . . . ." idea.
> Hope I'm wrong.
No, you're not, but this is not going to help the OP to solve his problem.
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
Reply to: