Re: Okular vs printer, okular 1, printer 0
On Wed 25 Feb 2015 at 16:35:46 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 February 2015 16:06:01 Brian wrote:
> >
> > Let's have no more of this nonsense bydirecting attention away from the
> > major point of my previous mail. You stated in your second post in this
> > thread that
> >
> > I am not sure how ununtu-10.04.4 LTS did it but it Just Worked.
> >
> > You have repeated that claim in other mails. Whatever "Just Worked" was
> > never specified. It certainly wasn't what I describe above - Two-sided
> > printing is marked as "Not available"in the GTK and Qt print dialogue.
> >
> > You can wriggle as much as you want, you have no evidence to back up
> > what you contend. Whatever you thought worked didn't.
i>
> Now you are calling me a liar. Don't. I can produce well over 1500 pages of a
That is not part of the thrust of my argument, which concentrates on
verifiable and repeatable procedures. Please do not credit me with
thinking you have nothing more than what we all have - a declining
memory.
You have repeatably claimed that Ubuntu-10.04.4 LTS just worked. You
have also repeatably referred to the greying out of options in print
dialogues as indicative of your inabiliity to print in duplex. You have
linked these two things detrimentally. Throwing in poppler, a general
inability of Wheezy to function properly and a desire to inundate the
BTS drew attention away from your essential problem.
Putting these two statements together one would think there was no
greying out on Ubuntu 10.04.4. In fact, anyone who installs it would
find out there is. This part of boltstering your argument does not bear
close scrutiny; it has no clothes to cover it.
If by "just works" on Ubuntu the *only* thing you meant is that you got
duplex printing, then I've never doubted that. Not being able to set it
up on Wheezy is something I've ascribed to user incompetence rather than
terminological inexactitude.
Reply to: