On Tuesday 17 June 2003 12:04 pm, Bill Moran wrote:
> Dan Nelson wrote:
> > In the last episode (Jun 17), Kent Stewart said:
> >>On Tuesday 17 June 2003 11:34 am, Dan Nelson wrote:
> >>>In the last episode (Jun 17), Dragoncrest said:
> >>>>Hi all. Ok, here's my situation. Just recently at work we switched
> >>>>over to our network being managed by a windows 2000 domain. (Stupid
> >>>>Cliff notes version of this:
> >>>>Need to login to domain to be able to print.
> >>>>Printer is a Ricoh network printer.
> >>>Cheat, and print directly to the printer :) Most support the lpd
> >>You have to have installed the simple unix services on the NT derivatives
> >>server for this to work.
> > Ricoh printers run NT now? I mean print directly to the printer's IP
> > address, not to the NT server that routes Windows workstation
> > printjobs.
> I agree that this is a good approach. Keep in mind that you may have to
> enable LPD printing on the printer itself (it might be disabled by
> However, I've seen it cause problems with some printers, such as printer
> lockups and corrupt printjobs (where it prints hundreds of pages, each with
> a single character on it). Apparently the printer's spooling capability is
> easily confused. The problem went away when I set up an lpd queue on a BSD
> server, and forced all the clients to print through that. My guess is that
> the printer's spool got confused when it was recieving jobs from too many
> different locations at once.
> The moral is this: if your printer starts freaking out after you start
> printing to the LPD spool, you may not be able to do that on that printer.
If you install lpd services on NT, it doesn't matter. It spools and you don't
have to install samba. I personally can't see corrupting Unix with samba. Why
add a service you really don't need.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"