On Sat, 30 May 1998, Jay Wardle wrote: > [...Raul wrote...] > > If this can't be fixed easily, perhaps we ought to promote lprng to > > standard and demote lpr to optional. Yes, I know that bug-for-bug > > compatability is a nice thing, but in my experience lprng is superior to > > lpr. > > > > -- > > Raul > > In my (admittedly limited) experience, lpr is superior to lprng. Both > a friend and I could not get lprng setup on our systems. It requires > a lot of configuration work. We had both spent a significant amount of > time with lprng, and lpr was a snap.
we have the exact opposite experience then. i found lprng to be a breeze - the package basically configures itself, especially if you also install magicfilter. I don't use lpr on any system any more. if i find anyone on my network has installed lpr (i have several debian users at work now...converting them was easy, once they realised it was convert or perish....mwahahahaha!) then i remove it and replace it with lpr. > lpr is clearly the best choice for most of the small system users. i disagree. i find that the integration between lprng and magicfilter makes it the best choice for anyone who just wants something that works "out of the box" lprng, magicfilter, gs (or gs-aladdin), and enscript : THE printing suite for linux systems. craig -- craig sanders -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]