Kent Braun k...@digicel.net writes:
I hope you don?t mind me asking. I?m trying to find out if there is a way to
get the Epson GT-15000 to run on OS X. What OS are you running it under and
how is it working?
The GT-15000 works fine on various Linux distributions with both the
epson and epkowa
Jim MacLeod j75t...@blueyonder.co.uk writes:
[snip] I'm using Kubuntu Hoary on i386.
I've cab-extracted esfw52.bin, put it /usr/bin and set firmware in
snapscan.conf to point to it, which I understand is the only other
requirement.
Hmm, I wouldn't put it in /usr/bin. Somewhere below
On Sep 19, 2005, at 7:32 PM, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
Kent Braun k...@digicel.net writes:
I hope you don?t mind me asking. I?m trying to find out if there
is a way to
get the Epson GT-15000 to run on OS X. What OS are you running it
under and
how is it working?
The GT-15000 works
Jens Schneider j...@hofmann-schneider.de writes:
Hi Olaf,
you mentioned in an earlier posting, that 3490 PHOTO will be
suported by iscan 1.17.0. This is great news. Do you have an idea
about the release date of this version?
Keep an eye on http://www.avasys.jp/english/linux_e/ towards the
Hello all
I attached my scaneer to the linux box and follow man advices. Running
as admin I got the following info.
Any other advice wil be welcome.
# lsusb
Bus 002 Device 001: ID :
Bus 001 Device 003: ID 03f0:1405 Hewlett-Packard Scanjet 3670
Bus 001 Device 001: ID :
#
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2400-combing-ratio.pnm
Type: image/x-portable-anymap
Size: 38191 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/sane-devel/attachments/20050920/ed1c5f77/2400-combing-ratio-0001.pnm
From
Johannes Meixner jsm...@suse.de wrote:
I noticed in sane-frontends 1.0.14 that in src/xcam.c
the following code uses the uninitialized variable fd:
if (fd 0)
return;
load_settings (filename, silent);
sanei_load_values (fd, dialog-dev);
DBG (DBG_debug, xcam, load_defaults:
On Monday 19 September 2005 22:03, Bertrik Sikken wrote:
I think you are currently the person who knows most about this
scanner protocol :)
Ups ... errr, yes ...
I'll give them a try ... IIRC, I've observed that at some point in the
logs 0x1b01 was sent to the device, but 0x1b00 was read
