On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, you wrote:
>Of course it's faster. There's no file system overhead. In it's
>defense, I'm told that SMB (and samba) are faster than NFS.
>From my experience it is definitely not faster than NFS. If one of the
NFS machines was windows -- then maybe.
>But you typically only need to use 10 of those options to make samba
>work. The rest of the options are described in plenty of detail in
>the samba documentation - if the HOWTON listed all of them, it would
>become huge, and would cease being a HOWTO and would become
>`everything you ever wanted to know about SAMBA but didn't know who to
>ask.'
Have you ever seen the PPP or NET-3 howtos? They blessed us with much
more than the minimum setup. No one setup will work for everyone.
Assuming that it does is a waste of time for many people.
>If you don't like the HOWTO, fix it and send your changes back to the
>author.
I am aware of the possibility of submitting changes for the howto.
However I was simply answering a question for someone who asked. I'm
sorry you didn't appreciate my honesty on the matter.
>Printing can be tricky, even without samba involved. If one of your
>filters fails, the print job can be silently lost, and you won't even
>see the error unless you turn on error logging. The more filters
>you're dealing with, the more likely it is that you'll see this.
My printer filters work fine. They allow other remote computers
running unix to print fine as well.
>The problem may have nothing to do with samba.
It was obviously samba.
>That's because Windows knows how to talk the HP's language. Most Unix
>programs that talk to printers talk in postscript. To print
>postscript on your printer, one must use ghostscript to convert it to
>a bitmap in the printer's language, and then dump that to the printer.
>(That's also why it's so slow.)
Actually it's mostly because HP supplied a printer driver for windows,
but not for linux. Windows itself can no more talk HP's language than
linux, probably even less so -- I'd like to see someone print to an HP
from windows without a driver, instead trying to rely on a "filter".
>The print quality isn't related to which computer the printer is on,
>but instead depends on what's generating the output that the printer
>gets. If you set it up correctly, you can put the printer on the unix
>box and have Windows print to it via samba and get the same quality
>you're getting now.
The print quality is very much dependent upon having a specific driver
for the printer or not. From my experience of having the printer on
both a linux and a windows machine, I can definitely say that using the
windows 672C driver works much better than trying to use a filter
designed for the 550C or 650C -- the closest matches. Both of these
filters Waste ink (that's waste with a capital W) and defnitely do not
take advantage of this printer's strengths. Not to mention that the
filters generally leave oversized margins which is again wasteful.
I did find someone on the net who designed a 672C filter, but it only
worked from netscape. Not very useful, and to be honest it looked the
same as the other filters I mentioned above anyway.
>As promised, here's another example for you ...
I don't need an example because I got it up and running.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
