Hi, Michael. On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 01:02:59PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Alan Mackenzie <a...@muc.de> wrote: > > Hi, Paul.
> > On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 11:28:16AM -0500, Paul Hartman wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > This is rather odd. For the longest, every time I had a cups update, I > >> > had > >> > to delete my printers then add them back again. It would not print > >> > until I > >> > did so. > >> I have to do that every time I plug my printer in... > >> I print so infrequently, every time I want to print I turn the printer > >> on and plug it into my PC, and then spend 25 minutes trying to make it > >> work with CUPS again. > > I also print infrequently. I turn my printer on, and it simply works, > > straight away (after warming up; it's a laser printer). > > However, I use lprng, not cups. It's good that we have a choice over > > what software we use, isn't it? ;-( > It could be that IPP is just becoming the preferred protocol, and other > print queue managing protocols are going the way of Gopher. Preferred by whom? Firefox, for example, manages lprng just fine. It's really not a big deal supporting an extra spooler interface, particularly a simple one. > Is there a simple IPP daemon which could wrap lprng? Adding a layer of complexity to a daemon to cope with added complexity in a client program? I doubt it. It sounds like madness. > -- > :wq -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
