Re: home printer

[marfabastewart]

The Epson Workforce Pro WF-6090 monochrome laser printer works well.
It sells for about $300. Wifi can be disabled. It works on USB and
network. Here is my printcap:

lp|local line printer:\
:lp=/dev/lp:sh:sd=/var/spool/output/lpd:lf=/var/log/lpd-errs:

rp|remote line printer:\
:lp=:rm=epson:rp=lp:sh:sd=/var/spool/output/lpd:lf=/var/log/lpd-errs:

where epson is defined in /etc/hosts

For me, the latest snapshot

(kern.version=OpenBSD 6.9-beta (GENERIC.MP) #337: Mon Feb 15 10:43:38
MST 2021
dera...@amd64.openbsd.org:/usr/src/sys/arch/amd64/compile/GENERIC.MP)

changes the permissions on /dev/ulpt0 back to crw---

whereas previous snapshots had not.

(Maybe irrelevant, but after I did sysupgrade -s, the installer
halted at the prompt for me after relinking and I had to reboot,
which has never happened to me after sysupgrade -s.)

The latest snapshot of course is doing the right thing with the
permissions.  To then enable users to print, chmod g+rw /dev/ulpt0
(or wherever /dev/lp points) and add users to the group.

I didn't get printing to work on the cheaper Epson all-in-one
Workforce WF-2630, but YMMV.

The Xerox Workcentre 3215 prints over Ethernet, and I was able to
scan over USB.  For printing over USB, I've always had to physically
remove and re-insert the USB cable to avoid printing literal
Postscript commands, as opposed to what I really wanted to print.
Similarly, new scan jobs with saned failed for me unless I removed
and re-inserted the USB cable. I haven't tried scanning again with
the Xerox in a few months though.

I changed the admin code on the Xerox and later tried to access it.
I stored it in a password manager. I know I've re-entered it
correctly. In any case, the printer doesn't like what I'm typing
and no longer allows access to the web interface. Xerox makes it
impossible to reset without calling out a Xerox technician for $300.
Of course, the web interface isn't really necessary anyway, so I'm
not going to pay them. . . .

Re: home printer

[Greg Thomas]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 4:15 AM Stuart Longland 
wrote:

>
> Maybe the imaging drum on your laser has an imperfection that means it
> attracts proportionately more or less toner at a certain spot than other
> areas of the drum.
>
>
Hah, yeah, my old Brother 5250 lays down 3 blobs on every 8 1/2 x 11 sheet
of paper.

Re: home printer

[ropers]

Thanks for the kind words, everyone.  [more words below]

On 11/02/2021, Stuart Longland  wrote:
> The thing is… the printer is an electro-*mechanical* device.
>
> There's backlash, there's timing glitches.  Even *without* deliberate
> "steganography" (are Stegosauruses involved?), your print-out will have
> unique flaws in it, that will "fingerprint" your printer as having made it.
>
> Maybe because the carriage belt has some backlash (or position sensing
> is a bit off), the printer "staircases" (a problem that can exist in
> dot-matrix or inkjet printers).
>
> Maybe a hammer or jet is dead leading to a dead "pixel" at regular
> intervals.
>
> Maybe the imaging drum on your laser has an imperfection that means it
> attracts proportionately more or less toner at a certain spot than other
> areas of the drum.
>
> Maybe the MCU controlling the laser is a bit jittery and so doesn't
> quite hit the target right every time.
>
> These are real-world devices, with real-world tolerances, and real-world
> imperfections.

That's very true, however the deliberate addition of printer
steganography suggests that at least laser printers had gotten so much
closer to theoretical perfection that the powers that be felt they
were "falling behind" on forensics and needed to compensate somehow.
That, or maybe it was just a power grab because they could.  Actually,
most evils are committed because they become justifiable in some way.
Maybe the "we're falling behind because lasers" argument was enough to
convince politicians in closed sessions and judges in secret courts.
Secrecy is seductive.  It's a shame Wikileaks wasn't around when this
started.

I understand that the "falling behind" argument isn't entirely unreasonable.
But I'd want people to know.  Making e.g. the photocopying of
banknotes deceptively easy in an age where stego is included but
nobody knows about it would feel awfully close to entrapment.  And
that's another reason why what happened to Reality Winner is not okay.
(I don't actually agree with her politics or other actions, but never
mind that.  Email me off-list if you positively want to hear more.)

There is an honest argument for printer steganography, but its secret
introduction proves that its advocates knew they would lose a public
debate, and they knew that the courts were already tyrannical enough
not to throw out inadmissible stego-evidence and -cases over parallel
construction, and that they could be relied upon not to let the public
know.  On a related note, the reason the judges of (e.g.) America's
secret courts have their identities protected to an extreme degree is
because they know the public wouldn't stand for any of this.  They
fear the disinfecting power of sunlight, but as per the previous
paragraph, most evils happen because there's some other, at least
superficially plausible explanation, and their explanation is that
evil terrorists and organised criminals would threaten their safety
for exclusively illegitimate reasons, so the most powerful judges
"need to" be the ones living in the shadows the most.  But just
because tyrants somewhat justifiably fear the people, does not mean
tyranny is right.  My Modest Proposal to any court officer anxiously
shunning sunlight: --flips the script-- "If you're not doing anything
wrong, you have nothing to fear."  If you don't want to fear the
people, don't be a tyrant.  Throw that stego case out with prejudice.

Does any of this closely relate to OpenBSD?  I'm not sure.  Could
OpenBSD build on e.g. deda  and ship
with mitigations enabled, so printing would be secure by default, or
as secure as it can be, which isn't very?  Again, I'm not sure.  This
gets hairy very, very quickly, and there'd be a cost-to-benefit
analysis to be done that I'm not anywhere near competent or
well-positioned enough to perform.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

--Ian

Re: home printer

[Austin Hook]

Good,  that means we can encourage attention to the principle of the 
matter, and not have to worry about all the practical considerations.  

The principle of the matter is that it is a corrupt practice, if not 
specifically admited in the documentation and sales material. 

Each principle we can uphold let's us pay more attention to the next one.

A.



On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, Stuart Longland wrote:

> On 11/2/21 2:52 am, ropers wrote:
> > Printer steganography is the kind of chain most people will only
> > notice once they move and start exercising their rights.  If you're
> > only free because you don't dissent, you're not free.
> 
> The thing is? the printer is an electro-*mechanical* device.
> 
> There's backlash, there's timing glitches.  Even *without* deliberate
> "steganography" (are Stegosauruses involved?), your print-out will have
> unique flaws in it, that will "fingerprint" your printer as having made it.
> 
> Maybe because the carriage belt has some backlash (or position sensing
> is a bit off), the printer "staircases" (a problem that can exist in
> dot-matrix or inkjet printers).
> 
> Maybe a hammer or jet is dead leading to a dead "pixel" at regular
> intervals.
> 
> Maybe the imaging drum on your laser has an imperfection that means it
> attracts proportionately more or less toner at a certain spot than other
> areas of the drum.
> 
> Maybe the MCU controlling the laser is a bit jittery and so doesn't
> quite hit the target right every time.
> 
> These are real-world devices, with real-world tolerances, and real-world
> imperfections.  If someone wants to track you, they will, stenography or
> not.
> -- 
> Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter, VK4MSL)
> 
> I haven't lost my mind...
>   ...it's backed up on a tape somewhere.
> 
> 

Re: home printer

[Stuart Longland]

On 11/2/21 10:12 pm, Stuart Longland wrote:
> These are real-world devices, with real-world tolerances, and real-world
> imperfections.  If someone wants to track you, they will, stenography or
> not.

s/stenography/steganography/… time for the email client dictionary to
learn a new word methinks, and maybe better I check a suggested
correction before applying it.  (Thankfully auto-carrot isn't enabled.)
-- 
Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter, VK4MSL)

I haven't lost my mind...
  ...it's backed up on a tape somewhere.

Re: home printer

[Stuart Longland]

On 11/2/21 2:52 am, ropers wrote:
> Printer steganography is the kind of chain most people will only
> notice once they move and start exercising their rights.  If you're
> only free because you don't dissent, you're not free.

The thing is… the printer is an electro-*mechanical* device.

There's backlash, there's timing glitches.  Even *without* deliberate
"steganography" (are Stegosauruses involved?), your print-out will have
unique flaws in it, that will "fingerprint" your printer as having made it.

Maybe because the carriage belt has some backlash (or position sensing
is a bit off), the printer "staircases" (a problem that can exist in
dot-matrix or inkjet printers).

Maybe a hammer or jet is dead leading to a dead "pixel" at regular
intervals.

Maybe the imaging drum on your laser has an imperfection that means it
attracts proportionately more or less toner at a certain spot than other
areas of the drum.

Maybe the MCU controlling the laser is a bit jittery and so doesn't
quite hit the target right every time.

These are real-world devices, with real-world tolerances, and real-world
imperfections.  If someone wants to track you, they will, stenography or
not.
-- 
Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter, VK4MSL)

I haven't lost my mind...
  ...it's backed up on a tape somewhere.

Re: home printer

[Greg Thomas]

Thanks for the analysis Ian.

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 8:53 AM ropers  wrote:

> I reject the insinuation that only blackmailers need anonymous speech.
> Reality Winner is but one example to the contrary.
> Without anonymous speech, there can be no free speech.
>
> People might deem it a no-brainer that "They" would do something like
> this, but the real no-brainer is understanding that printer
> steganography and the secrecy surrounding it are corrosive to
> democracy, honest commerce and the rule of law.
>
> In any honest commercial transaction, the customer would be informed
> prior to the sale about the presence of any anti-features.  Especially
> when those anti-features enable a government-driven privacy invasion
> or warrantless metadata surveillance.  The U.S. Constitution in
> particular especially protects PAPERS and effects.
>
> In any non-kangaroo court, evidence obtained by secret mechanisms
> mandated by secret laws would be inadmissible.
>
> Obvious technical feasibility does not entitle hackers to do whatever
> they want, and neither can, under any reasonable rule of law,
> governments be allowed to do whatever they want just because they
> perceive some advantage to doing it, and just because they can get
> away with it for a while.
>
> Democracies understand that the people are more trustworthy than
> concentrated power, which is why democracies have the people hold
> governments in check.
> Tyrannies are the opposite, and have governments hold the people in check.
>
> Under any non-tyrannical government of laws, the introduction of
> printer steganography, if carried out, would not have been secret to
> start with.
> In a free society, this would have been a matter of public debate,
> giving the people a chance to reject the intrusion before its
> introduction, and a chance to know what rules they are operating under
> and what world they are living in.
>
> Printer steganography is the kind of chain most people will only
> notice once they move and start exercising their rights.  If you're
> only free because you don't dissent, you're not free.
>
> --Ian
>
>

Re: home printer

[ropers]

I reject the insinuation that only blackmailers need anonymous speech.
Reality Winner is but one example to the contrary.
Without anonymous speech, there can be no free speech.

People might deem it a no-brainer that "They" would do something like
this, but the real no-brainer is understanding that printer
steganography and the secrecy surrounding it are corrosive to
democracy, honest commerce and the rule of law.

In any honest commercial transaction, the customer would be informed
prior to the sale about the presence of any anti-features.  Especially
when those anti-features enable a government-driven privacy invasion
or warrantless metadata surveillance.  The U.S. Constitution in
particular especially protects PAPERS and effects.

In any non-kangaroo court, evidence obtained by secret mechanisms
mandated by secret laws would be inadmissible.

Obvious technical feasibility does not entitle hackers to do whatever
they want, and neither can, under any reasonable rule of law,
governments be allowed to do whatever they want just because they
perceive some advantage to doing it, and just because they can get
away with it for a while.

Democracies understand that the people are more trustworthy than
concentrated power, which is why democracies have the people hold
governments in check.
Tyrannies are the opposite, and have governments hold the people in check.

Under any non-tyrannical government of laws, the introduction of
printer steganography, if carried out, would not have been secret to
start with.
In a free society, this would have been a matter of public debate,
giving the people a chance to reject the intrusion before its
introduction, and a chance to know what rules they are operating under
and what world they are living in.

Printer steganography is the kind of chain most people will only
notice once they move and start exercising their rights.  If you're
only free because you don't dissent, you're not free.

--Ian

Re: home printer

[Stuart Longland]

On 10/2/21 7:49 pm, Greg Thomas wrote:
> Does anyone have examples of  steganography in monochrome laser
> printers?
    ^

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffsb=steganography+in+monochrome+laser+printers=web

Second hit is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Identification_Code
which doesn't say specifically that mono printers _do_ implement such
stenography, but doesn't rule it out either and hypothesises a few
methods by which it could be done.

Colour printers doing this is a no-brainer, because authorities want to
be able to trace the source of counterfeit documents such as bank notes,
etc.

Not all "protected" documents need colour to be counterfeited though,
and so I think we can safely assume that mono printers also do the same
thing.

Question is, are you printing sensitive material that often that using
such a printer poses an unacceptable risk?

You can lose sleep over the fact that most computer print-outs are
traceable, you can set out to design an "untraceable" printer, or you
can accept that there are many pieces of paper flying around the planet,
too many for law enforcement to sit and scrutinise each and every one.
-- 
Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter, VK4MSL)

I haven't lost my mind...
  ...it's backed up on a tape somewhere.

Re: home printer

[Greg Thomas]

Does anyone have examples of  steganography in monochrome laser printers?

On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 10:53 PM Stuart Longland 
wrote:

> On 9/2/21 6:43 am, ropers wrote:
> > * Printer steganography -- which I've positively confirmed is indeed
> there,
> >   and which I neither asked for, nor was at any time told anything about
> by
> >   Xerox, especially not pre-purchase.
>
> I think this is situation normal for any printer made this decade.
> Don't like it?  You have three choices:
>
> 1. Find a way to coax an ancient parallel port printer to work with your
> modern Unix workstation.
> 2. Make your own printer.
> 3. Don't print.
>
> (1) could be achieved two ways:
>
> (1a) using either a standard LPT-to- adaptor.  (e.g.
> LPT-to-USB, there are also LPT print servers that present an lpd interface)
> (1b) with off-the-shelf modules to interface to the Centronics interface
> on the printer (which is 5V TTL IIRC) to one of the myriad of 5V-TTL
> compatible microcontroller dev boards out there and doing some hacking
> of the print spooler in OpenBSD along with some firmware development.
>
> (2) has been done various ways (e.g. HomoFaciens on YouTube did a
> junk-box printer using a pen, scrap motors, hand-made optical encoders
> and an Arduino dev board)… admittedly resolution and print speed are
> both poor in such systems unless you're very mechanically and
> electronically skilled.  You may also have to forgo conveniences such as
> an automatic sheet feeder or out-of-pigment notifications.
>
> Many people are doing (3) now, having decided they don't use a printer
> often enough to justify the cost of maintaining one.
> --
> Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter, VK4MSL)
>
> I haven't lost my mind...
>   ...it's backed up on a tape somewhere.
>
>

Re: home printer

[Stuart Longland]

On 9/2/21 6:43 am, ropers wrote:
> * Printer steganography -- which I've positively confirmed is indeed there,
>   and which I neither asked for, nor was at any time told anything about by
>   Xerox, especially not pre-purchase.

I think this is situation normal for any printer made this decade.
Don't like it?  You have three choices:

1. Find a way to coax an ancient parallel port printer to work with your
modern Unix workstation.
2. Make your own printer.
3. Don't print.

(1) could be achieved two ways:

(1a) using either a standard LPT-to- adaptor.  (e.g.
LPT-to-USB, there are also LPT print servers that present an lpd interface)
(1b) with off-the-shelf modules to interface to the Centronics interface
on the printer (which is 5V TTL IIRC) to one of the myriad of 5V-TTL
compatible microcontroller dev boards out there and doing some hacking
of the print spooler in OpenBSD along with some firmware development.

(2) has been done various ways (e.g. HomoFaciens on YouTube did a
junk-box printer using a pen, scrap motors, hand-made optical encoders
and an Arduino dev board)… admittedly resolution and print speed are
both poor in such systems unless you're very mechanically and
electronically skilled.  You may also have to forgo conveniences such as
an automatic sheet feeder or out-of-pigment notifications.

Many people are doing (3) now, having decided they don't use a printer
often enough to justify the cost of maintaining one.
-- 
Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter, VK4MSL)

I haven't lost my mind...
  ...it's backed up on a tape somewhere.

Re: home printer

[Jan Stary]

On Feb 09 10:35:21, ch...@nmedia.net wrote:
> Marcus MERIGHI [mcmer-open...@tor.at] wrote:
> > 
> > I've been told, by a local xerox technician, to never print any ransom
> > demand letter with a modern printer because any printout could be
> > attributed to the serial number of the printer.
> > 
> 
> I always email my ransom demand letters so that I can avoid the printer
> ratting me out to the FBI.

I always circle the yellow dots
on every ransom note I get
and send it back.

Re: home printer

[Chris Cappuccio]

Marcus MERIGHI [mcmer-open...@tor.at] wrote:
> 
> I've been told, by a local xerox technician, to never print any ransom
> demand letter with a modern printer because any printout could be
> attributed to the serial number of the printer.
> 

I always email my ransom demand letters so that I can avoid the printer
ratting me out to the FBI.

Re: home printer

[Marcus MERIGHI]

rop...@gmail.com (ropers), 2021.02.08 (Mon) 21:43 (CET):
> On 08/02/2021, Pierre-Philipp Braun  wrote:
>
> Anyway, I don't suppose any of you know whether any of your
> recommended devices have printer steganography built in?

I've been told, by a local xerox technician, to never print any ransom
demand letter with a modern printer because any printout could be
attributed to the serial number of the printer.

Marcus

Re: home printer

[ropers]

On 08/02/2021, Pierre-Philipp Braun  wrote:
>> Same here.  Currently, a Kyocera P2135dn is sitting on the desk here,
>> but i can't say whether it is good because i'm printing so little.
>
> Seems Kyocera is a nice hint indeed.  Otherwise I would go for Xerox.
> Even their low-end printers do support raw TCP/IP printing, LPD and
> PostScript.  I am also referencing the compatible cartridges here, as
> anyone who prints a lot knows this is what matter more (in terms of
> pricing per page): the cheapest printer is usually not really the cheapest.

I cannot in good conscience recommend Xerox.  Maybe I'm just too dumb to fix
my problems, but my Xerox Phaser 6130N colour laser printer has issues with:

* Page alignment -- I've not gotten a page perfectly centred yet.  This can
  get especially annoying with duplex printing for crafting purposes.
* Toner fusing -- Apparently both original and generic toner isn't always
  fused very well, i.e. large boxes of black or colour toner tend to eventually
  see some toner flake off in places.
* Colour reproduction -- Colours tend to be over-saturated and pictures
  tend to be too dark if not brightened in software beforehand.  This could
  be related to the fusing issue, i.e. maybe it slathers on too much toner?
* DRM -- There's an unwanted chip on every toner cartridge.  Its only function
  is to try and ensure vendor lock-in, to nickel and dime you more.
* Printer steganography -- which I've positively confirmed is indeed there,
  and which I neither asked for, nor was at any time told anything about by
  Xerox, especially not pre-purchase.  Sneaking that in was probably illegal
  in my jurisdiction, and maybe in yours (unreasonable searches and seizures,
  secrecy of correspondence...), but I've not had the time, money, mental
  fortitude and patience to take them to court.  If anyone knows about any
  class-action suits though, I'm all ears.  Of course, the national security
  establishment would also be invested in Xerox and others winning any legal
  challenges to this clearly deceptive, anti-consumer and speech-chilling
  practice designed to uniquely identify every printer in the land that would
  ever send any letter to any recipient that scans your letters with any
  software that looks for those dots, with or without the knowledge of the
  recipient operating the scanner.  How pervasive this is I don't know.  I know
  it potentially enables possible mass surveillance of printed correspondence
  metadata, like a distributed pen register for snail mail, and unless you
  never send any letters to any institution that could scan your mail with
  software looking for steganographic dots, this can also potentially
  deanonymise all of your correspondence, past and future.  On a related note:

Geoff Steckel wrote:
> Whatever you get be -sure- to configure pf
> so it can't call home! Turn off wireless as
> well if you don't need it.
> Big security holes.

Good point.

Anyway, I don't suppose any of you know whether any of your
recommended devices have printer steganography built in?

I suppose it would be foolish and futile to ask if anyone feels
confident their recommended printer does NOT come with any of that?

I sadly don't have a positive recommendation myself and don't know if
others are better than Xerox, only that I'm wary of Xerox.  Perhaps
the only sensible security recommendation is that if people can build
their own 3-D printers and control logic, maybe they can roll their
own laser printer firmware or even PCB.  If someone seriously smart
were to dig deep and were to take things pretty far in bootstrapping
their own printing tech from scrap and from scratch, they could
probably mitigate the above risks fairly well.  Sadly, I'm not smart
enough for that.

--Ian

Re: home printer

[Pierre-Philipp Braun]

Same here.  Currently, a Kyocera P2135dn is sitting on the desk here,
but i can't say whether it is good because i'm printing so little.


Seems Kyocera is a nice hint indeed.  Otherwise I would go for Xerox. 
Even their low-end printers do support raw TCP/IP printing, LPD and 
PostScript.  I am also referencing the compatible cartridges here, as 
anyone who prints a lot knows this is what matter more (in terms of 
pricing per page): the cheapest printer is usually not really the cheapest.


- B210
* 106R04348
* 106R04349
- Phaser 3020 (obsolete)
* 106R02773
* 106R03048
- Phaser 3052NI
* 106R02778
- Phaser 3330
* 106R03623

--
Pierre-Philipp Braun
SMTP Health Campaign: enforce STARTTLS and verify MX certificates

Re: home printer

[Raymond, David]

I use an HP Color Laser Jet Pro MFP M283fdw on OpenBSD and it works
well with cups.  The generic postscript driver works with it on cups,
so openbsd lpd should work as well.  HP also has some cheaper
monochrome laser printers in the same line.

Dave Raymond

On 2/7/21, Jan Stary  wrote:
> On Sep 17 16:07:47, h...@stare.cz wrote:
>> Can people please recommend a home laser printer
>> that is known to work well with OpenBSD?
>>
>> I would like to avoid cups, and possibly a2ps
>> and foo* and if= and all that dance
>> - a printer that speaks postscript and is as easy as
>> lp:lp=/dev/lp:sd=/var/spool/output/lpd:lf=/var/log/lpd-errs:
>
> On Sep 17 18:48:35, schwa...@usta.de wrote:
>> what matters is a decent PostScript Processor
>> and a RJ45 Ethernet connector, then it will work with OpenBSD
>> no matter what.
>
> After a bit of trial and error, I converged to a Dell 2335dn MFP.
> The configuration, in its entirety, is the following printcap line:
> lp::lp=:rm=pr.stare.cz:rp=lp:sd=/var/spool/output/lpd:lf=/var/log/lpd-errs:sh:
>
> Jan
>
>


-- 
David J. Raymond
david.raym...@nmt.edu
http://kestrel.nmt.edu/~raymond

Re: home printer

[Jan Stary]

On Sep 17 16:07:47, h...@stare.cz wrote:
> Can people please recommend a home laser printer
> that is known to work well with OpenBSD?
> 
> I would like to avoid cups, and possibly a2ps
> and foo* and if= and all that dance
> - a printer that speaks postscript and is as easy as
> lp:lp=/dev/lp:sd=/var/spool/output/lpd:lf=/var/log/lpd-errs:

On Sep 17 18:48:35, schwa...@usta.de wrote:
> what matters is a decent PostScript Processor
> and a RJ45 Ethernet connector, then it will work with OpenBSD
> no matter what.

After a bit of trial and error, I converged to a Dell 2335dn MFP.
The configuration, in its entirety, is the following printcap line:
lp::lp=:rm=pr.stare.cz:rp=lp:sd=/var/spool/output/lpd:lf=/var/log/lpd-errs:sh:

Jan

Re: home printer

[Ian Darwin]

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 03:07:19PM -0700, Sean Kamath wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Sep 17, 2020, at 09:48, Ingo Schwarze  wrote:
> > That answer [HP] used to be spot on until about the year 2000.
> 
> I concur.  I used to work at a printer company that competed directly with 
> them.

Was that Imagen, by any chance?

Anyway, I concur too. I have a mid-1990's HP6MP with 75,000 pages on
its ticker (would be more but it was in storage for several years) and
it still prints beautifully. The manual for it proudly talks about
their BBS and how to set your comm sofware to 8-N-1; their internet
site (FTP only) is mentioned (by IP address) almost as an afterthought.

Re: home printer

[gwes]

On 9/17/20 3:15 PM, Greg Thomas wrote:

I've always been happy with the cheap Brother laser printers with ethernet,

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 10:07 AM Ingo Schwarze  wrote:

Jan Stary  writes:

Can people please recommend a home laser printer
that is known to work well with OpenBSD?

I would like to avoid cups, and possibly a2ps
and foo* and if= and all that dance
- a printer that speaks postscript and is as easy as
lp:lp=/dev/lp:sd=/var/spool/output/lpd:lf=/var/log/lpd-errs:HP at least used to 
(and I assume still do) make several decent
printers that spoke Postscript.

That answer used to be spot on until about the year 2000.  After
that, quality of HP laser printers went down the drain very rapidly.


In particular, I've used the
CP1525nw in the past with OpenBSD.  Haven't tried it in a couple
years, though; none of my OpenBSD machines need to print, these
days.

Same here.  Currently, a Kyocera P2135dn is sitting on the desk here,
but i can't say whether it is good because i'm printing so little.


Brother - 7 years internal plastic piece broke,
 could have fixed it but complete disassembly didn't seem worth it
Canon - 2 years (replaced, didn't fail)
HP M402n - 2 1/2 years 0 problems expensive cartridges
  Still running. Relatively low usage - +-4000 pages.
  HP printers seem to come in at least 2 grades.

All worked with lpr & postscript without problems.

Whatever you get be -sure- to configure pf
so it can't call home! Turn off wireless as
well if you don't need it.
Big security holes.

Geoff Steckel

Re: home printer

[Marco Scholz]

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 04:07:47PM +0200, Jan Stary wrote:
> Can people please recommend a home laser printer
> that is known to work well with OpenBSD?
> 
> I would like to avoid cups, and possibly a2ps
[...]

My /etc/printcap:
# Home
lp|brother_hl-l5100dn:\
   :sh=:\
   :rm=brother_hl-l5100dn:\
   :sd=/var/spool/output/lpd:\
   :lf=/var/log/lpd-errs:\
   :rp=BINARY_P1:
#   :rp=TEXT_P1:

I recommend the Brother hl-5100dn.

Re: home printer

[Sean Kamath]

> On Sep 17, 2020, at 09:48, Ingo Schwarze  wrote:
> That answer [HP] used to be spot on until about the year 2000.

I concur.  I used to work at a printer company that competed directly with 
them.  Once I no longer had a free printer, i bought a *used* HP LaserJet 4MV 
in 2006.  It had been refurbed by a guy locally.  Basically, rollers and pick 
pads dry out over the years.  It finally started leaking toner (due to recycled 
cartridges, I’m guessing) and I was tired of how slow it was.

Opted to go to a Canon, since they basically make the engine for a lot of other 
suppliers.  I have not been disappointed (LBP6670 to be specific).

Granted, I don’t use it with OpenBSD because. . . yeah, I hardly need to print 
from that (I hardly ever print at all, but the rest of the family sure does).  
However, I just tested it (and confirmed I haven’t forgotten all my PS) by 
telnetting to port 9100 and sending

%!
newpath clippath stroke showpage
^D

And it printed the box.  That snippet, by the way, is about the shortest way to 
test postscript (not in characters, but in remembering syntax :-)).  Do NOT 
replace “stroke” with “fill” unless you want to use up all your toner (a guy at 
work thought it was hilarious when he first showed me how to do this).

Sean

Re: home printer

[Jordan Geoghegan]

On 2020-09-17 12:15, Greg Thomas wrote:

I've always been happy with the cheap Brother laser printers with ethernet,
even with just their version of Postscript.  But I believe they still sell
Postscript printers, too.

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 10:07 AM Ingo Schwarze  wrote:


Hi Carson,

Carson Chittom wrote on Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 09:51:45AM -0500:

Jan Stary  writes:

Can people please recommend a home laser printer
that is known to work well with OpenBSD?

I would like to avoid cups, and possibly a2ps
and foo* and if= and all that dance
- a printer that speaks postscript and is as easy as
lp:lp=/dev/lp:sd=/var/spool/output/lpd:lf=/var/log/lpd-errs:

HP at least used to (and I assume still do) make several decent
printers that spoke Postscript.

That answer used to be spot on until about the year 2000.  After
that, quality of HP laser printers went down the drain very rapidly.
One office i worked in decided in 2003 that the then more then five
year old HP LaserJet might die from old age soon and bought a new
one to be safe and not experience service disruption.  The old one
was left running, too, because why not, and printing traffic was
shared about evenly between the two because people tended to use
the one closest to their desk.

When the *successor* of the new one died from old age about six to
eight years later (i.e. when two of the new ones had worn out one
after the other, don't remember how long they lasted exactly, but
not longer than three or four years i think), the old one was still
going strong.  If i remember correctly, when the pre-2000 one finally
did die from old age, it was probably fifteen years old, if not
more, with continuous office use.

I doubt HP printers have become better again, but i'm not sure.


In particular, I've used the
CP1525nw in the past with OpenBSD.  Haven't tried it in a couple
years, though; none of my OpenBSD machines need to print, these
days.

Same here.  Currently, a Kyocera P2135dn is sitting on the desk here,
but i can't say whether it is good because i'm printing so little.

To the OP, what matters is a decent PostScript Processor
and a RJ45 Ethernet connector, then it will work with OpenBSD
no matter what.

Yours,
   Ingo




Greg has the right idea. I've had a great experience with my Brother 
MFC-L5700 laser printer. I can print Postscript and PDF documents to it 
directly using lpd/lpr in the OpenBSD base system, and the printer 
supports directly uploading scans to an FTP/SFTP server. It's quite nice 
being able to print and scan without messing around with drivers/cups 
and the dark arts magic required to make it work reliably.


I set my printer up by enabling lpd and adding a single line in my 
/etc/printcap file:


lp|remote line printer:\
:lp=:rm=192.0.2.5:rp=lp:sd=/var/spool/output/lpd:lf=/var/log/lpd-errs:



So far this setup has been totally bulletproof and has yet to fail me 
after over 5000 scanned pages and a couple thousand print jobs.


Regards,

Jordan

Re: home printer

[Greg Thomas]

I've always been happy with the cheap Brother laser printers with ethernet,
even with just their version of Postscript.  But I believe they still sell
Postscript printers, too.

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 10:07 AM Ingo Schwarze  wrote:

> Hi Carson,
>
> Carson Chittom wrote on Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 09:51:45AM -0500:
> > Jan Stary  writes:
>
> >> Can people please recommend a home laser printer
> >> that is known to work well with OpenBSD?
> >>
> >> I would like to avoid cups, and possibly a2ps
> >> and foo* and if= and all that dance
> >> - a printer that speaks postscript and is as easy as
> >> lp:lp=/dev/lp:sd=/var/spool/output/lpd:lf=/var/log/lpd-errs:
>
> > HP at least used to (and I assume still do) make several decent
> > printers that spoke Postscript.
>
> That answer used to be spot on until about the year 2000.  After
> that, quality of HP laser printers went down the drain very rapidly.
> One office i worked in decided in 2003 that the then more then five
> year old HP LaserJet might die from old age soon and bought a new
> one to be safe and not experience service disruption.  The old one
> was left running, too, because why not, and printing traffic was
> shared about evenly between the two because people tended to use
> the one closest to their desk.
>
> When the *successor* of the new one died from old age about six to
> eight years later (i.e. when two of the new ones had worn out one
> after the other, don't remember how long they lasted exactly, but
> not longer than three or four years i think), the old one was still
> going strong.  If i remember correctly, when the pre-2000 one finally
> did die from old age, it was probably fifteen years old, if not
> more, with continuous office use.
>
> I doubt HP printers have become better again, but i'm not sure.
>
> > In particular, I've used the
> > CP1525nw in the past with OpenBSD.  Haven't tried it in a couple
> > years, though; none of my OpenBSD machines need to print, these
> > days.
>
> Same here.  Currently, a Kyocera P2135dn is sitting on the desk here,
> but i can't say whether it is good because i'm printing so little.
>
> To the OP, what matters is a decent PostScript Processor
> and a RJ45 Ethernet connector, then it will work with OpenBSD
> no matter what.
>
> Yours,
>   Ingo
>
>

Re: home printer

[Ingo Schwarze]

Hi Carson,

Carson Chittom wrote on Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 09:51:45AM -0500:
> Jan Stary  writes:

>> Can people please recommend a home laser printer
>> that is known to work well with OpenBSD?
>>
>> I would like to avoid cups, and possibly a2ps
>> and foo* and if= and all that dance
>> - a printer that speaks postscript and is as easy as
>> lp:lp=/dev/lp:sd=/var/spool/output/lpd:lf=/var/log/lpd-errs:

> HP at least used to (and I assume still do) make several decent 
> printers that spoke Postscript.

That answer used to be spot on until about the year 2000.  After
that, quality of HP laser printers went down the drain very rapidly.
One office i worked in decided in 2003 that the then more then five
year old HP LaserJet might die from old age soon and bought a new
one to be safe and not experience service disruption.  The old one
was left running, too, because why not, and printing traffic was
shared about evenly between the two because people tended to use
the one closest to their desk.

When the *successor* of the new one died from old age about six to
eight years later (i.e. when two of the new ones had worn out one
after the other, don't remember how long they lasted exactly, but
not longer than three or four years i think), the old one was still
going strong.  If i remember correctly, when the pre-2000 one finally
did die from old age, it was probably fifteen years old, if not
more, with continuous office use.

I doubt HP printers have become better again, but i'm not sure.

> In particular, I've used the 
> CP1525nw in the past with OpenBSD.  Haven't tried it in a couple 
> years, though; none of my OpenBSD machines need to print, these 
> days.

Same here.  Currently, a Kyocera P2135dn is sitting on the desk here,
but i can't say whether it is good because i'm printing so little.

To the OP, what matters is a decent PostScript Processor
and a RJ45 Ethernet connector, then it will work with OpenBSD
no matter what.

Yours,
  Ingo

Re: home printer

[Carson Chittom]

Jan Stary  writes:


Can people please recommend a home laser printer
that is known to work well with OpenBSD?

I would like to avoid cups, and possibly a2ps
and foo* and if= and all that dance
- a printer that speaks postscript and is as easy as
lp:lp=/dev/lp:sd=/var/spool/output/lpd:lf=/var/log/lpd-errs:


HP at least used to (and I assume still do) make several decent 
printers that spoke Postscript.  In particular, I've used the 
CP1525nw in the past with OpenBSD.  Haven't tried it in a couple 
years, though; none of my OpenBSD machines need to print, these 
days.

home printer

[Jan Stary]

Can people please recommend a home laser printer
that is known to work well with OpenBSD?

I would like to avoid cups, and possibly a2ps
and foo* and if= and all that dance
- a printer that speaks postscript and is as easy as
lp:lp=/dev/lp:sd=/var/spool/output/lpd:lf=/var/log/lpd-errs:

Thanks,

Jan