Re: Printers using free software only
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Printers using free software only
- From: Camaleón <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 10:58:02 +0000 (UTC)
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- References: <20120725150211.GG16623@sid.nuvreauspam> <20120725201819.GM7631@desktop> <20120725202314.GM16623@sid.nuvreauspam> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20120726162726.GW25141@codelibre.net> <email@example.com> <20120726222637.GB6660@desktop> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20120727154324.GE6660@desktop> <email@example.com> <20120727172605.GF6660@desktop>
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 18:26:05 +0100, Brian wrote:
> On Fri 27 Jul 2012 at 16:21:42 +0000, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:43:24 +0100, Brian wrote:
>> > Its a balance. Pros and cons. With a PDF printer:
>> Define a "PDF printer". What's that?
>> Because until now I have not seen a thing like "1/" and PostScript
>> printer modules are truly costly (it can take up to $200/300) :-)
Uh, what is this link for? :-?
I'm not talking about "printers" but PostScript "modules" to enable Adobe
PostScript 3 language emulation support and these modules are also very
> And please don't complain about the price. You did ask and this is
> debian-user - not debian-market_place. :)
It's a rather costly addon device, of course I complain when is going to
be "deprecated" in favor of softy-based PDF converstions ;-)
Anyway, you did not respond to the question about what you consider to be
a PDF printer.
>> > I don't think I would want to criticise the PostScript centred
>> > workflow solely on this.
>> No, of course, me neither.
>> But what I wouldn't like to see is a moving to PDF just because the
>> sake of moving to something more manageable without having into account
>> technical reasons but simplicity and force-joining (that is, "if CUPS -
>> owned by Apple- moves on PDF, linux will follow without questioning the
>> pros and cons"). I would like to see, now more than ever, less
>> "dependency" on CUPS (by "dependency" I mean here that it would be nice
>> to have different alternatives as powerful as CUPS).
> Moving to a PDF workflow was a considered decision based on technical
You mean the above mentioned "four easies"? >:-P
> A good deal of the CUPS printing system is now managed directly by
> Debian/Ubuntu and not by upstream.
That's good but still dependant of the main CUPS development done by Apple.
>> Well, I still can't speak on pdftopdf because is too new (there you
>> have a "con") and not present in my system while pstops is:
> If you are using Lenny, what do you expect!
I expect to use a solution/system/method (you can call it as you want) that
has been tested harshly over the years and has been working okay.