Fast personal printing _without_ CUPS

[Jerry]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:09:05 -0500 (CDT)
Robert Bonomi articulated:

> > From owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org  Thu Oct 27 16:46:51 2011
> > Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:46:21 -0400
> > From: Jerry <jerry at seibercom.net>
> > To: FreeBSD <freebsd-questions at freebsd.org>
> > Subject: Re: Fast personal printing _without_ CUPS
> >
> > On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 21:11:32 +0200
> > Polytropon articulated:
> >
> > > On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 13:39:05 -0400, Jerry wrote:
> > > > Printing under MS Windows is a breeze.
> > > 
> > > > The *nix community has never
> > > > gotten printing up to that lever.
> > > 
> > > It _had_, past tense. :-)
> > > 
> > > > While there are those who continually
> > > > blame the "manufacturers", the truth is that any COO, CFO {or
> > > > any other alphabetic combination that you like} that seriously
> > > > proposed the creation of a department dedicated to the writing
> > > > of drivers for non-windows based systems, a department that
> > > > would therefore have a zero based projected cash flow, would be
> > > > removed from office posthaste.
> > > 
> > > Fully agree, but if established standards would have
> > > been truly adopted by the manufactueres for their
> > > products, there would be no need to develop any drivers.
> > > One standard interface could address all printer
> > > functionality, and maybe even more, such as scanning
> > > or faxing functionalities quite common in the "egg-laying
> > > wool-milk-sows" we see on the consumer markets.
> >
> > First of all let me say that I love standards; there are so many of
> > them to choose from.
> >
> > Secondly, I seriously hope that never comes to pass. Once you lock
> > yourself into one specific interface the ability to innovate has
> > been removed. I cannot think of a worse possible scenario.
> 
> There's no real need for a 'standard' for communication with dumb
> raster devices, which is what most 'winprinters' are.  
> 
> All that is needed is a _published_ specification such that others
> can implement communications with that device.
> 
> And there isn't a whole lot to such a specification:
>   How start-of-page is marked
>   How start-of-line is marked
>   How end-of-line is marked
>   How end-of-page is marked
>   How pixels are represented
>   Pixels per raster line,
>   Raster lines per page,
>   How the bits are sequenced
>   The compression methodology, if any, used.
> 
> there is little reason _not_ to make such specification public.
> 
> > > Sadly, "the one standard" doesn't seem to exist, and
> > > manufacturers are not willing to discuss one. Of course,
> > > such a standard would have to be free and open, so any
> > > OS could implement it.
> >
> > There you go putting restriction on how such an "standard" should be
> > implemented. I have a better idea. Why doesn't the *nix/*BSD {pick
> > any other letter combination that turns you on} agree to one
> > uniform method of implementing printer drivers and then let the
> > manufacturers implement it on their end.
> 
> You argued cogently _against_ manufacturers using standards.
> Now you argue in favor of the entire *nix commnity agreeing on one.
> 
> Somehow, the phrase "double standard' springs to mind.  <grin>

I argued against any standard that strangles the ability to innovate.
Certain "standards" such as port 25 for SMTP are a necessary evil.
There are other examples.

Microsoft, since Win95 has had a simple method for the installation of
programs and drivers into it system. A program that is attempting to
install itself into the system calls "msi"
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Installer> and supplies the needed
data to that application. MSI then takes over and installs the
application/driver. This allows developers to worry about creating
their applications or drivers without the headache of actually
installing them.

Now, if the *BSD and other non-windows platform had a similar
application, one that ran EXACTLY THE SAME on each different platform,
developers would have a far easier task designing drivers for a wide
target audience instead of having to custom design each driver to
each individual platform which sometimes changes drastically between
major version numbers.

> >                            I have spoke to two company reps in the
> > past year, one regarding printers, and both stated outright that the
> > thought of writing and maintaining drivers on a multitude of
> > platforms scares them to death. The problem is not with the
> > manufacturers but rather with the fragmentation of the non-windows
> > arena.
> 
> There is -no- need for *them* to actually write drivers for use in 
> 'specialty'/'niche' markets. 
> 
> *ALL* they have to do is release the 'specifications' for the
> communications format and protocol that the device uses.

Obviously you do not understand the term "proprietary" as it refers to
"proprietary design" or "proprietary goods".

Honestly, where do you socialists come off with the doctrine that
others should work their asses off developing a product and then
divulge that knowledge to you free of charge thus costing the developer
a fair return on his/her investment?

In any case, even IF the needed code were disclosed by the original
developers, users -- probably like you -- would bitch that now they
were being forced to write the de3vice driver code. Every time you give
a socialist something, they want more. It is a never ending downhill
slide.

-- 
Jerry ✌
jerry+fbsd at seibercom.net

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or ignored.
Do not CC this poster. Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html