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

Re: cups "Filter failed" | filter rastertopdf stops with status 1 | local printing works; remote printing not



On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 04:10:01 AM tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 12:08:35PM -0500, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > Ahh, ok, sorry, it looks like I lied -- I searched for [define: bananian]
> > using Duck Duck Go (not google, as I had stated).
> 
> I must admit I skipped ( EEEK =:-o ) the search engine myself, which
> would've been DuckDuckGo (y'all know: Google -- what is Google, anyway?
> ;-)
> 
> Curious as I am, I tried define:bananian with DDG: the second hit is a
> Wikipedia entry for the Banana Pi, which is somehow right, but makes you
> think it is wrong.
> 
> > None of the first 10 results had anything to do with a LInux
> > distribution.
> 
> Or they disguised as "not having anything to do..." -- if you go to that
> Wikipedia entry (which I'm dead sure /was/ among your first ten entries,
> it was second in my search), and search within the page for "bananian",
> you'll find (plain text facsimile):
> 
>     Operating system
>         Android (Android 4.2, Android 4.4),
>         Linux (Armbian, Bananian, Lubuntu, Raspbian, Debian GNU/Linux,
>                Fedora, Arch Linux ARM, Gentoo, openSUSE),
>         Berryboot, FreeBSD, OpenWrt
> 
> See? There's the bananian, with a link to the original page.

Ahh, I see, but, I mainly replied to agree with your next statement:

> Now I'm not saying all of this to tease you or something, but because
> it illustrates (to me, at least) how difficult search actually is:

+1 (or more)

> That second hit would be obvious to me, because I already had that
> association made (bananian <--> banana pi) and some background
> knowledge (banana pi is a "kind of" raspberry pi). To someone who
> never heard of "banana pi" this second hit looks like a fluke from
> some over-eager text matching algorithm and thus irrelevant.
> 
> Please excuse this excursion.

No problem, instead, I thank you for actually verbalizing something that I've 
encountered often!  (Of course, sometimes the failure of search may just be my 
mind set ...)


Reply to: