Slashdot Mirror


Making Linux Printing as Easy as in Windows

Jonny5 writes: "In preparation for the transition from windows to a Linux based workstation, the main focus is that of peripheral compatibility. Sure Linux is rock solid stable, and has an almost totally customizable GUI, but dammit, if my hardware won't work, what's the point? ...After hearing about TurboPrint, and their claim to provide 'Printer set-up and configuration is as simple as on Windows or MacOS,' I had to rise to the challenge. LinuxLookup.com has done a full review of TurboPrint For Linux."

278 comments

  1. This is sorely needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    How come these small things are always lacking in linux?

    1. Re:This is sorely needed by Clived · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, Linux is the type of operating system where you are EXPECTED to go under the hood (as the mechanics would say..*grin*). It's part of the challenge. Initially I had problems with printing on my Slackware 7.1 box. So I installed a script called apsfilter (which came along with the distribution and is available at freshmeat.net or tucows). This little beauty did everything needed to be done for my printer setup, including editing the /etc/printcap file. In my four years of running Linux, I have yet to find anything that there wasn't software regularly available on the net, and print tools such as apsfilter is just one example

      My two bits

      --
      Clive DaSilva Email: clive.dasilva@gmail.com Ubuntu 18.10 Kernel 4.18
    2. Re:This is sorely needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back when I first started using Linux, in the RedHat 4.2 era, just about everything was a pain to get working. I used to enjoy all the "under the hood stuff." Now though, I just need to get work done, and I appreciate not havnig to fiddle with everything just to get a fully functional distro. I guess I just don't have as much free time on my hands as I did back in college. I have a feeling a lot of the rest of the Linux community feels the same way.

    3. Re:This is sorely needed by khuber · · Score: 1
      I agree - it may be interesting to go through a printer setup "adventure" once, but difficult configuration gets old fast. Then once you learn how to configure a service, it seems to get replaced with a different program altogether (sendmail->postfix, wuftpd->proftpd, ...). Just get a PostScript printer and spare yourself the pain :).

      -Kevin

    4. Re:This is sorely needed by RoscoeVill · · Score: 1

      Depends on how you use your linux... are you using a distro or doing it yourself. I have a dual boot windose and linux and have had a wide variety of success with printers and linux. For my experience, I have a HP DJ 932 C

      1) doing my own slammin install - utter failure for setting up printer

      2) using distro of RH, variety of levels from 5.2 ->, failure initially, then bare success (just ascii, no ghostscript)
      3) newer distro, suse 7.1, pro, did it ALL for me, at point of install. Even can print in color. Tried again, post install, and the printer tool, IMHO was as easy as windose.

      NFC about Mac installs...

      Cheers,
      B

    5. Re:This is sorely needed by mpe · · Score: 2

      Well, Linux is the type of operating system where you are EXPECTED to go under the hood (as the mechanics would say..*grin*).

      No the "mechanic" (system administrator) is ment to do this. This need not be the same person as the "driver" (end user).
      With Windows the engine compartment is sealed, but a whole bunch of controls for fuel air mix, engine timing, etc are placed on the dash. (A few of them might not actually be on the dash, but are adjusted by using the steering wheel whilst holding down various buttons on the radio...)
      The Linux way of doing things appears more complex where the same person is expected to both use and administer the machine. The Windows way of doing things is an utter disaster where the user and administrator are different people. Because it is quite easy for the end user to mess things up and the admin cannot easily do any work on a machine whilst it is being used.

    6. Re:This is sorely needed by redcliffe · · Score: 2

      This one isn't. I installed CUPS on my network, had absolutely no problems. All done in the CUPS web based GUI - no problems whatsoever.

    7. Re:This is sorely needed by Larson+E.+Whipsnade · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... I have exactly that printer and have had no problems printing postscript, color, etc. from RH 6.1 thru 7.2.

    8. Re:This is sorely needed by clueless_penguin · · Score: 1

      This has been available for probably around a year, for free. Gimp-print has drivers for just about any printer available (something over 200 I think, including a lot of Lexmarks), and works with CUPS, LPRng, Ghostscript, and foomatic. I haven't tried an install from scratch recently, as Mandrake always includes the latest beta version. Some printers are better supported than others - you can find a list on linuxprinting.org. Some are actually better than the Windows drivers - the Epson ones are particularly good, according to Epson. This project has gotten good support from Epson and to a lesser extent HP, Lexmark, and Cannon. It is on Sourceforge if you don't already have it.

      --
      Use the spatula, Luke
    9. Re:This is sorely needed by matrix29 · · Score: 1

      How come these small things are always lacking in linux?

      And yet they had this way back in my Amiga days.
      (Though back then I used a spanking-new HP Deskjet 500C)

      http://www.amigapro.com/turboprint7.html

      Go to their website
      http://www.turboprint.de/

      --
      "Face it, a nation that maintains a 72% approval rating on George W. Bush is a nation with a very loose grip on reality.
    10. Re:This is sorely needed by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 2

      Well, Linux is the type of operating system where you are EXPECTED to go under the hood (as the mechanics would say..*grin*).

      And as such, all hopes about Linux becoming a dominant desktop OS can be safely ignored.

    11. Re:This is sorely needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Linux has never has never been targeted at the lowest common denominator. If you want something created for idiots by idiots get an IMac and a one-button mouse.

    12. Re:This is sorely needed by Shanep · · Score: 1

      How come these small things are always lacking in linux?

      It is'nt. Try printtool. Red Hat's print setup GUI. I use Debian, but printtool is apt get'able. I set my Xerox DocuPrint P8ex up, using any driver that claims to do PCL (I used a Samsung printer driver) and from then on it just works perfectly. There are probably even easier to use tools, but why should I care? Printtool works for me, so why should I bother with something else?

      With Linux (or *BSD for that matter), I can print to PDF from *any* app that can print to a file. Simply print to file and then use ghostscripts ps2pdf to convert the file to PDF.

      Linux is not lacking, most users are. If you are someone who is not willing to RTFM after failing somewhere in a free OS, then go back to Mega$hit.

      --
      War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
  2. Printtool? by PoiBoy · · Score: 1, Interesting
    At $19 it's reasonably priced, but is it really necessary? Redhat's printtool has always worked fine for me, and it's easy to use.

    I guess the real question is how well it can handle some of the cheap Windows-only printers that are given away for $99 that don't have Linux drivers available anywhere. If it really can support a lot of these, then $99+$19 is still cheap for a printer.

    --
    Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
    1. Re:Printtool? by minion2 · · Score: 1

      Printtool is okay, but Mandrake's printerdrake really takes the cake. Other than some rather annoying UI problems, printerdrake is simple. Contrary to many Linux tools I've seen, it just works - that's the idea, isn't it?

    2. Re:Printtool? by heliocentric · · Score: 2

      I guess the real question is how well it can handle some of the cheap Windows-only printers that are given away for $99 that don't have Linux drivers available anywhere.

      It's not just the cheap printers that are sometimes windows only... I have a xerox laser printer without linux driver support and it's a few years old. So, yes, a test of those almost-throw-away-printers-as-their-cost-is-almost -that-of-the-cartidges-themselves printers is interesting, what about just general SOHO or regular home printer support?

      --
      Wheeeee
    3. Re:Printtool? by prog-guru · · Score: 1

      I don't know if it's by the same author, but lprngtool is good too, almost identical. And it should work on any *NIX. I am using this on Slackware.

      --

      chris@xanadu:~$ whatis /.
      /.: nothing appropriate.

    4. Re:Printtool? by laslo2 · · Score: 1
      > Redhat's printtool has always worked fine for me,
      > and it's easy to use.

      amen, brother. my canon 'windows only' bubblejet printer is doing fine in its new life as a postscript printer thanks to printtool and ghostscript. I actually use it more for printing from my mac though, as it's shared via appletalk on my lan.



      windows only. heh. snicker.

      --
      Karma only matters to me now and zen.
    5. Re:Printtool? by nmos · · Score: 1

      90% of all SOHO laser printers can emulate a HP Laserjet and thus are supported under Linux. The 10% that are left are just the Laser equivilant of the $59 Walmart ink jet printers and really arn't worth the effort.

    6. Re:Printtool? by ghack · · Score: 2, Informative

      It doesnt support any of the "free", usually giveaway, lexmark, etc printers.

      <A href = "http://www.turboprint.de/printers.html">http:/ /www.turboprint.de/printers.html</a>

      what is the point? that list is so short...and there are free printing infastructures for them already. so why would we pay $19 for this product!?

      these are all fairly expensive hardware printers...not the kind most joe schmucks will have.

    7. Re:Printtool? by TVmelissa · · Score: 1

      GUIs are for WIMPs ;) magicfilterconfig is all anyone needs! Just answer 4 easy questions (full name of printer, short name of printer, what port it's connected to, and what kind of printer it is), and you're done, all without the security issues of having X programs running with superuser privs.

      For those who didn't get the opening, WIMP (Windows, Icons, Mouse, Pointer) is the type of GUI used by Windows, MacOS, X, etc.

    8. Re:Printtool? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For those who didn't get the opening, WIMP (Windows, Icons, Mouse, Pointer) is the type of GUI used by Windows, MacOS, X, etc.

      Good that you pointed it out - I was just thinking "WTF do Weakly Interacting Massive Particles have to do with linux printing?"

    9. Re:Printtool? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I recently tired TurboPrint and was impressed. There is a free version that works surprisingly well. The thing I really liked was the quality of the printer drivers. Graphic print outs on my HP inkjet printer are dramtically better than the RedHat/Ghostscript drivers that I was using before. This is the real value added of the product. The configuration tool is nice, but is not the real value added of the product.

    10. Re:Printtool? by Shanep · · Score: 1

      xerox laser printer without linux driver support

      What Xerox laser printer do you have?

      I bought my Xerox laser for less than $400 au, because it does PCL 5&6 natively, knowing that I could use damn near any PCL driver for it. Right now it's a "Samsung", working perfectly at 600dpi. The HP4 driver also works, funnily enough though, the Xerox P8e driver does not work, apparently the P8e is postscript.

      --
      War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
    11. Re:Printtool? by heliocentric · · Score: 2

      I have the Docuprint P8 (not the P8e since as you said the p8e is post script and we all know that's easy to get working). I shall try the HP4 driver for it and interestingly enough I've had that tip suggest for my other laser printer that seems less than supported - the Sharp UX-3600M - that thing I less than 3 years old and Sharp doesn't even list it as ever having existed on their website and they have no intentions themselves of making XP drivers... Sigh... I have the worst luck at picking printers.

      --
      Wheeeee
    12. Re:Printtool? by Shanep · · Score: 1

      I have the Docuprint P8 Sigh... I have the worst luck at picking printers.

      I looked around for info on your printer, hoping to be able to help. Unfortunetely, I found this... http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Printing-HOWTO/print ers.html

      Sorry.

      Don't feel too bad, my first printer was a 0.05ppm colour Lexmark inkjet. I swear to you, this must be the slowest printer on the face of the earth! It's a Win printer also, thank God!

      --
      War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
  3. What's wrong with KPrint/CUPS? by Second_Derivative · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I use KPrint (part of KDE infrastructure) with CUPS... I dont think I could ask for much more, though admittedly I think you still have to set the thing up via the CUPS web interface.

    Still, it's better than using lpr/lpq and wondering what bit of the pipeline ate your document =)

    1. Re:What's wrong with KPrint/CUPS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      kups IYF. Simple, IMO as easy to use as the Windows interface (even if not identical) and Free (beer and speech).

    2. Re:What's wrong with KPrint/CUPS? by Second_Derivative · · Score: 1

      Actually, insofar as I know, Kups was subsumed by KPrint... see here.

      KPrint's even got its own site so it may worth be checking out. I've managed to set up a printer entirely from its KControl applet in a GUI interface so it's really something. Then again I suppose there's GNOME Print but I dont know too much about that...

    3. Re:What's wrong with KPrint/CUPS? by npietraniec · · Score: 1

      Yes, CUPS is amazing. I just set up a print server at my work using CUPS. There were a few quirks, but I wouldn't be suprised if CUPS became the linux printing "standard" within the next year or so... We've got a cross platform print server now, and it runs great. A little more work and CUPS printing will be hands down better than anything you can find on Windows.

    4. Re:What's wrong with KPrint/CUPS? by Mr.Ned · · Score: 1

      KUPS is a nice CUPS front-end (again, part of the KDE infrastructure). It really simplifies things, especially when doing Samba for connecting to Windows printers and choosing drivers. With KUPS I can browse through a tree of workgroups and computers instead of remembering printer names and host names and hoping I have everything capitalized right. Also, the not-in-default-directory driver lets lazy me just download something from linuxprinting.org's CUPS-O-MATIC into my /home and not worry about finding the right directory.

      Give it a shot.

  4. What I would like to see.. by brunes69 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    .. is some kind of wine-driven printer emulation layer, that would let you use windows printer driver sin Linux. Why? Because I have a printer that I have had for 4 years now, and is still nowhere near a Linux solution. Is this idea even possible? I think it would be great if it were, since I could finally use my printer!

    1. Re:What I would like to see.. by zulux · · Score: 2, Informative

      A Wine printer layer would work well if we got to use the Microsoft drivers - those drivers are simple and to the point. Getting a Wine layer to work with manfactureres priter drivers would be hard, as most manufacturer drivers include the kitchen sink: Flashy dialog boxes, ink level applets, news paper delivery (I kid you not, some HP driver pacakges install software to deliver a newspaper to your printer every day)

      I'm not sure how it would work though, as I understand it, you would have to have a buffer for the unix driver to print to and have your Wine app send 'bands' of info to the MS Widnows print driver, as the MS Windows print model was designed to work well with inkjet printer, you cant just send commands ad hoc to the driver to anypary of a page, you must send a complete bands of information to the driver in order from top to bottom. It's kinda of a kludge. But then we know we could expect the 'finest' from Microsoft.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    2. Re:What I would like to see.. by Fembot · · Score: 0

      why not stick it on a windows box and share it with samba and use cups to connect to the samba printer... that way you could translate it into somthing that would probably work

    3. Re:What I would like to see.. by brunes69 · · Score: 2

      No go. Even if you use CUPS to connect to a shared printer, you still need drivers for that printer on your unix box. Currently what i do is print to PS or PDF, then open it up on a windows machine and print it. But this is a huge hassle.

    4. Re:What I would like to see.. by Fembot · · Score: 0

      i thought you could send postscript to the windows server which might be able to figure out what to do with it

    5. Re:What I would like to see.. by rcw-home · · Score: 2
      the MS Windows print model was designed to work well with inkjet printer, you cant just send commands ad hoc to the driver to anypary of a page, you must send a complete bands of information to the driver in order from top to bottom. It's kinda of a kludge.

      This is completely false.

      The commands are GDI commands. Your word processor (for example) sends the same commands to render fonts on a word processor screen as it does to render them on a printed page. Only after your word processor has sent all the commands for a page can the print driver begin sending that page to the printer.

      The windows print "driver" (filter really is more accurate) interprets these commands into the printer's native language (PCL, postscript, page-description-language-of-the-month, etc). Then it sends that to the windows parallel port driver (with certain exceptions - some drivers for cheapo printers talk to the printer on their own) in whatever-sized chunks it likes. Typically for laser printers, a driver would send an entire page to the printer, for dot-matrix, daisy-wheel, and inkjet printers, it would send a line or two at once.

      Having a common interface to do both your display rendering and your print rendering makes sense, and Microsoft didn't come up with the idea. I'm not sure who did, but NeXT was touting "display postscript" a very long time ago.

    6. Re:What I would like to see.. by zulux · · Score: 2

      Hmm..
      My experience was with the Win 3.1 GDI model. The stupid thing was so braindead that there were a finite amount of GDI 'Handles' that the computer had - fail to release a few and the stupid OS would crash. If you sent GDI commands to the bottom of the page while the top wasent finished, you'd run out of memory on the HP 500 Deskjet drivers. AFAIK - NT still has GDI crap, but then I wouldent really know as I've moved on to real operating systems and ditched the toys.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    7. Re:What I would like to see.. by dsyu · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're both right. The current GDI model with the standard "Windows Driver Model" type drivers just passes standard GDI drawing commands, and the driver is responsible for dealing with them.

      That said, there are many printer devices that aren't "WDM", including the weird large-format printers, plotters, and copy-shop stuff. For these, GDI has "backdoors" and other trickery that allows some drivers and apps to send data directly to the device, bypassing GDI's interpretation. An example might be dumping a huge raster image at 600DPI 24-bit color to a 36" paper-size plotter. For this sort of thing, GDI will run out of memory trying to interpret the whole thing, and you have to send things down in "bands", as zulux points out.

      The bulk of printers that everyone uses these days are pretty much WDM compatible, so GDI generally works. For those devices that ain't, it's pretty nasty business.

    8. Re:What I would like to see.. by markj02 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can install Ghostscript on the Windows machine to automate that process, so that you can print to any Windows printer as if it were Postscript-capable.

    9. Re:What I would like to see.. by Ma�djeurtam · · Score: 2

      Having a common interface to do both your display rendering and your print rendering makes sense, and Microsoft didn't come up with the idea. I'm not sure who did, but NeXT was touting "display postscript" a very long time ago.

      And now NeXT's son, Mac OS X, uses the son of postscript (PDF) for the display (through 'Quartz' technology) and the printing. True WYSIWYG.

      --
      Instant Karma's gonna get you, Gonna knock you right on the head (John Lennon, 1970)
    10. Re:What I would like to see.. by Shanep · · Score: 1

      And now NeXT's son, Mac OS X, uses the son of postscript (PDF) for the display (through 'Quartz' technology) and the printing. True WYSIWYG.

      Yeah, that is one of the things that excites me so much about OS X. Microsoft would'nt know WYSIWYG if it were an anti-trust trial excerpt in PDF format.

      I have had Word Docs that print preview differently to what actually prints, and also print differently from Wintel machine to Wintel machine.... MS, really cannot provide a WYSIWYG platform to save their lives.

      --
      War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
  5. Move on, nothing to see here by Gothmolly · · Score: 2

    Cons:
    limited printer support
    tarball install
    missing dependencies
    Pros (or why should I use this over standard KDE print config/RedHat printer filters/anything else):
    Perhaps your obscure WinPrinter is supported

    Nice effort guys, but there's no real value here.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Move on, nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pros: Perhaps your obscure WinPrinter is supported

      Nice effort guys, but there's no real value here


      Looks like someone missed the point.

  6. Easy as Windows - LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    LOL - Windows isn't about making things easy to use or well- designed from a user perspective.

    Always aim higher than an existing Windows solution!

    A C

    1. Re:Easy as Windows - LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well what the fuck is it then? Making things difficult to use from a poorly designed perspective? Stop bashing windows just because you think you know better, you fucking 'tard.

    2. Re:Easy as Windows - LOL by simetra · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You're insane.
      In Windows, I can physically hook up a printer, run the wizard, add the driver, and print .doc's, .pdf's, whatever, within minutes.
      In Linux, getting printing to work is a total pain in the ass. So much so that I don't bother anymore. As much as I would like to run Linux as my main desktop OS, it's just not something I have time for. I've used several distributions, and currently dual-boot win98 and slackware. I know that I could get printing to work if I really wanted to, but don't have the ambition right now. It also doesn't help that I don't own the standard LaserJet 2.
      I hate MS as much as the next person, but when it comes down to it, I use what works given the amount of free time I have.

      --

      "Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
    3. Re:Easy as Windows - LOL by redcliffe · · Score: 2

      Um, did you read the installation instructions? I read the CUPS documentation, followed the instructions, and my Epson 600 worked perfectly first time.

    4. Re:Easy as Windows - LOL by damiam · · Score: 1

      I do own a Laserjet 2, and it really doesn't have good Linux support. I finally got it to work with CUPS and gimp-print, but it's slow as hell. I prefer my better-supported Stylus Color and Deskjet 932C.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    5. Re:Easy as Windows - LOL by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 1, Troll

      And of course we all know that most end users prefer reading documentation to immediately jumping in and using their computer. Why spend hours at your computer printing pretty pictures when you can spend hours at Barnes and Noble reading about how to set up your computer to print pretty pictures?

    6. Re:Easy as Windows - LOL by LinuxGeek8 · · Score: 2

      Well, that's because you use Slackware.
      I have nothing against it, I even have no experience with it.
      But it's well known that it's the more do-it-yourself distro is.
      Then telling you don have the ambition to do-it-yourself sounds to me like you chose the wrong distro.

      Maybe a better option for you is to insert a Mandrake cd into your cdrom, turn on your printer and print a testpage from Mandrake's installer.
      It just works.

      --
      Well, don't worry about that. We can get you back before you leave. (Dr. Who)
  7. Oh, Joy. by bcboy · · Score: 2, Troll

    As easy as windows? Does that mean it's going to ask to be rebooted three times, crap out because it can't find the files it needs on the install disk, then (after I manually find the files) install the same printer device twice, in such a way that neither of them works? Uninstall, reboot, reinstall, reboot, repeat until device works.

    I'm sure there's an o/s easier to configure than linux, but, good lord, it isn't Windows.

    1. Re:Oh, Joy. by augustz · · Score: 3, Informative

      You obviously have not tried Windows 2000/XP etc.

      The simple fact is almost every printer out there works with these OS's, out of the box. That is important.

      Plug-n-play means you get a dialog box, and half the time the driver is already loaded with windows, otherwise you can use the supplied diskette.

      Users are comfortable and familiar with this system, and it work 90% of the time nowadays. I havn't had a problem recently on a whole range of systems and printers.

      Now, getting printing going under Linux is NO WHERE near that easy. Vendor supplied disks don't have drivers, and linux simply has a smaller driver base than windows overall.

      That your rather silly post got modded up indicates that most people reading slashdot don't actually have to support computer installations or havn't actually used linux to print. The fact is for things like printers which require large driver bases, Windows with its monopoly power has linux beat.

      So please, get a clue before posting.

    2. Re:Oh, Joy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds just like linux whenever I try to install something.

      Run the install script or ./configure, watch as it can't find ObscureSoftwareX which it needs to install, then I spend 30 minutes searching for the software, only to find the only 2 ftp servers it's available from went offline permanently a year ago.

    3. Re:Oh, Joy. by nmos · · Score: 3, Informative

      " You obviously have not tried Windows 2000/XP etc. "

      Or maybe he's just used NT/95/98 more. What is the Win2k/XP installed base? 10%?

      "The simple fact is almost every printer out there works with these OS's, out of the box. That is important."

      I've run into just as many printers that don't work right under Win2k as under Linux.

      "Plug-n-play means you get a dialog box, and half the time the driver is already loaded with windows, otherwise you can use the supplied diskette. "

      At which point you either use the drivers built into Windows and give up 2/3 of the printer's feature set or you use the drivers that came on the cd only to find that they are badly broken.

      "linux simply has a smaller driver base than windows overall."

      Not really, remember that a single driver on Linux may work with dozens of different printers. The actual number of printers supported is probably pretty similar.

      "That your rather silly post got modded up indicates that most people reading slashdot don't actually have to support computer installations or havn't actually used linux to print."

      Frankly I think you either arn't all that experienced yourself or your convienently forgetting about the times Win2k has failed to work right with a printer.

    4. Re:Oh, Joy. by 4D53 · · Score: 1

      I dunno but the last time i tried to install a printer in windows this happend...

      Computer in running, Plug in power to printer, plug in lpt cable, a small icon pops up in the traybar and then dissapeares, I think hmmm, fire up notepad and type heheheh and try to print, wallaahhh it works, no need for me to bother wiht anything than plugging in the cords,

      this was with winXPhome and a standard HP laserjet printer and That's how I'd like a setup to be like, ah perhaps a popup with printer detected use it or not or something would be nice tooo....

    5. Re:Oh, Joy. by berzerke · · Score: 1

      It may not be plug and pray, but Cups can be pretty easy to configure. Don't believe me? Want to see screen shots? Take a look at the cups presentation at home.swbell.net/berzerke/printing.html.



      It should also be at www.hlug.org, but is currently offline for some reason.

    6. Re:Oh, Joy. by augustz · · Score: 1

      "At which point you either use the drivers built into Windows and give up 2/3 of the printer's feature set"

      - Frankly, I LOVE it when I can avoid installing Brothers tray icon (impossible to remove) for example or the HP Deskjet Dialogs that are non-standard, hand holding resource hogs. So I consider it 2/3 of the junk, most of the real features are exposed through the driver properties somewhere properly.

  8. Product looks good, situation sucks by CatherineCornelius · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When users of an open source operating system are all but forced to rely on commercial products just to install a simple printer driver, there's something amiss. Does anybody know of an open source project to provide similar support?

    1. Re:Product looks good, situation sucks by printman · · Score: 2

      CUPS (http://www.cups.org/) and GIMP-print (http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/)

      --
      I print, therefore I am.
    2. Re:Product looks good, situation sucks by HydroCarbon10 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This product doesn't even support the HP 7xx series of printers. It appears to only support printers that were already supported anyways. There is nothing amiss, other than new linux users insisting that everything be like windows. This would be solved if people would learn how to setup their linux systems and run them like linux systems rather than complaining that it's not windows.

      --
      The best way to accelerate a windows box is at 9.8 meters per second square.
    3. Re:Product looks good, situation sucks by CatherineCornelius · · Score: 2, Insightful
      There is nothing amiss, other than new linux users insisting that everything be like windows. This would be solved if people would learn how to setup their linux systems and run them like linux systems rather than complaining that it's not windows.

      Good point, but I work in an environment where all the development work is done in Linux and BSD, all the developers (about 25% of this small company) use Linux on the desktop, the BOFHs use Linux and Solaris, the designers use Mac/Windows, everybody else uses Windows. And why shouldn't they? When MS makes it physically or financially difficult for a small company to use Windows, out people will move to MacOS, or Linux, or whatever works. But they will need to be able to read DOC and XLS.

      We really do need the courts to make MS publicise these formats.

    4. Re:Product looks good, situation sucks by clueless_penguin · · Score: 1

      Well, CUPS and gimp-print provide an outstanding print solution, and OpenOffice 6 does a good job of importing and exporting .doc and .xls formats. It also does .ppt, but I haven't really used that much. None of the filters are perfect, but I haven't seen anything it chokes on (but I don't see too many complex documents). Give it a try and see if it works for you.

      --
      Use the spatula, Luke
  9. CUPS by MrHanky · · Score: 1

    IMHO, setting up a printer is just as easy in Linux as in Windows - if you already have the driver, that is. apt-get install cupsys cubsys-bsd and point your browser at http://localhost:631, then just chose your printer.
    If you need to compile Ghostscript with stp-support it gets much harder though. Buying an older printer makes stuff a whole lot easier.

    1. Re:CUPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MHO, setting up a printer is just as easy in Linux as in Windows - if you already have the driver, that is. apt-get install cupsys cubsys-bsd and point your browser at http://localhost:631 [localhost], then just chose your printer.

      Just so you'll know -- if you think that's easy, you're on drugs.

    2. Re:CUPS by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I had some problems getting CUPS setup on my Debian installation because it wasn't perfectly clear what packages to install to get everything working. But, after I poked around in dselect for a while, I figured it out and once it is running, CUPS is a breeze.

      My perception is that most people have problems not with printing, but with their printer. People buy printers that only work with oddball command languages or expect the host CPU to do absolutely everything and send them raster lines. Whem I am asked about these marginal printers at LUG meetings and installfests, I advise people to get postscript or pcl/hpgl printers. These are standard printer languages. I have never seen a printing situation that postcript couldn't handle.

      But people still buy these cheapo printers and when they find out that Linux mostly supports elegant, standard printer interfaces they jump directly into "Linux sucks" rants.

      One way to convince these people to buy "real" printers is to point out that a printer with some specialized driver might not be supported in the future. Suppose the manufacturer made a driver for printer yzx-ii for Windows 3.11. They discontinued the printer in 1994 but they still released a driver for Win95. They updated their driver for Win98, but they never did bother porting it to WinNT. Now they don't support Windows 2000 or XP, and you can't expect them to keep writing drivers for printers they last sold eight years ago.

      Now look at the alternative case. Instead of yzx-ii you layed out a little more cash for a postscript printer. This printer is going to work with any past, present, or future operating system until the hardware falls to pieces. The buyer of a postscript (or pcl) printer never has to worry about printer drivers. He's got a postscript printer! It's just like HTML, TeX, and so on: the standard is out there, you can't kill it, and it will be supported for eternity.

      My printer is an Apple LaserWriter II NTR, which I found in the trash. It has a postscript processor, so I can use it with Linux and like operatings systems, Windows [3,95,NT,XP], OS/2, and vintage of MacOS, and so forth. This printer was introduced in 1992 and it still works great, without software problems of any kind. I'll never need a new "driver" for it because I already have the postscript printer description file and I don't believe the hardware is changing! If I had paid money for this printer, I would consider it a wonderful purchase.

      (end of rant)

    3. Re:CUPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with printing under Linux is more than just the "add new printer" magic dance, it's in how the user user can *use* the defined printer, it's how things come out on paper.

      Too often, things printed out will be out of scale, despite what the end-user did. I mean, people input this document into KWrite/StarOffice/etc., format it, get it nice like they wanted it... and what comes out on paper is be too big/too small (and that's when it prints at all -- I never got a correct printout out of Navigator/Communicator or Konqueror, for example).

      Maybe if one can code directly into PostScript and send the resulting code straight to the printer, I guess you can get *exactly* what you want. But your average user does not do that.

      Not to troll, but I really wonder how often Linux geeks print stuff out (CV, school report, etc.), because they don't seem to realize that you need to use a printer after installing it.

    4. Re:CUPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be really new to Linux.

    5. Re:CUPS by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1



      Since CUPS is GPL'd software, you should get into the habit of refering to it as g-cups, as in I have g-cups on my computer.

      This of course shows the innate superiority of the GPL over the BSD license, since if CUPS was distributed under the BSDL you would only have b-cups on your computer.

      Of course, crusty old BSD sysadmins have some kind of anti-bloat bias, so maybe they'd be content with b-cups.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    6. Re:CUPS by linzeal · · Score: 1

      I'm sure many sysadmins (BSD and Linux) have g-cups all their own ;)

    7. Re:CUPS by Daengbo · · Score: 0

      I run the same setup with a Lexmark Z32 -- not exactly top, middle, or lower-middle of the line -- which I bought for 1900 baht (about US$45) and have a much easier time than in Windows, but then I only print in B&W, so don't know what the color issues are.

  10. Re:Right by gandy909 · · Score: 1

    Typical response from the average winblows developer who can't understand why the 99 cent 'super-dooper app' he's developed and priced at a measly 799.99 gets pirated....

    --

    (Stolen sig) Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus", a "Microsoft worm", not a "computer worm
  11. Printing by FigBug · · Score: 0, Informative

    It is time we stop printing, let the forests survive. Tree's are good, lets more to a paperless system, unless of course you mean printing to a file. :)

    1. Re:Printing by The+Turbinator · · Score: 0

      You tree-hugging hippie terrorists are all the same.
      How many more Greenpeace dingies will we have to sink before you bomb-planting tree fuckers will get the hint and piss off?

  12. easy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it shoudent be made easy it should have already been easy

  13. BIG downside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since it's shareware and the free version prints a crappy logo none of the big distributions are ever going to use it as opposed to printtool or cups so it'll always remain a minority thing. Less eyes, more bugs...

    1. Re:BIG downside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The page said it was free as in beer so couldn't the big distros could just edit the logo out of the source?

  14. Windows isn't easy neither... by pinkpineapple · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Have you ever tried to set up a shared printer on a windows box attached to a LocalTalk network (Mac)? This is NOT easy :-(
    Granted that is not the most popular case, but you've got to admit that MS didn't make that option too obvious. Those bastards. My HP 2000NT is still printing 2 pages of PS crap at the end of each printing session ONLY from the windows box (with latest drivers and 4 days watch in hand with MS/HP tech support.)

    PPA -- the girl next door.

    --
    -- I feel better now. Thanks for asking.
    1. Re:Windows isn't easy neither... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The number of people on /. that can not setup a windows box is amazing!

      Through AppleTalk we are printing to a HP5M, Xerox Able & ColorBus Xerox Copiers. All an absolute peice of piss to setup.

    2. Re:Windows isn't easy neither... by DSTA · · Score: 1

      Hm, I've got a Lasewriter IIg hooked up via Ethertalk and it does that if the CTRL-D settings are not right in the Windows printer driver.

    3. Re:Windows isn't easy neither... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "shared printer on a windows box attached to a LocalTalk network (Mac)"

      A million years ago we did this sort of thing. Back when Men Were Men and a MicroChannel LocalTalk card ran about $350, and you _always_ had to check your control characters :)

      Seriously - LocalTalk to Ethernet bridges are dirt cheap nowdays. NT Server can share out AppleTalk devices onto SMB. No problem. Or save yourself the trouble and buy a printer made after 1993.

  15. Printing?!? by kitts · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is one of the core problems with Linux. Someone comes out charging money so we can do something as menial as print documents, and we actually have to take it seriously.

    It's part of the basic problem with the degree of modularization (a supposed "Good Thing") that we have, I guess. Still, it'd be nice if we could have all this sort of basic admin stuff thrown into a central location with other peripherals, instead of one for the OS, one for the GUI, etc.

    IMO, this is something Windows did right. I've been working with Linux for a long time so this isn't a surprise to me, but I can just imagine the look I'd get from newbies I'm trying to win over to our side when I try to give reasons for why Linux doesn't have a true equivalent for the Control Panel.

    --
    -------------------------------------------------- ----
    charlton heston is more of a man than yo
    1. Re:Printing?!? by Fembot · · Score: 0

      id far rather have my nice organised /etc than some stupid registry magic thing where i cant find anything i want ever

    2. Re:Printing?!? by redcliffe · · Score: 2

      I think it would be quite good to see printer drivers in the kernel. CUPS is nice and all, but before manufacturers are going to supply drivers, every Linux user needs the same printing system. If the kernel had this, it would make things easier. Maybe I should suggest it on LKML.

    3. Re:Printing?!? by printman · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, there is a *lot* to printer drivers, and you really don't want a kernel driver doing dithering, etc!

      Now, for special printer interfaces (say, the FireWire interface that the EPSON Stylus Pro 10000 can use) you may want/need a special kernel driver for the printer *interface*, but leave the printer driver itself in user space.

      --
      I print, therefore I am.
    4. Re:Printing?!? by clueless_penguin · · Score: 1
      I think it would be quite good to see printer drivers in the kernel. CUPS is nice and all, but before manufacturers are going to supply drivers, every Linux user needs the same printing system. If the kernel had this, it would make things easier. Maybe I should suggest it on LKML.



      Printer drivers do _not_ belong in the kernel. They are merely high level filters for the low level parport and usb kernel drivers. Also, they are much more easily configured in user space than kernel space.


      Some manufacturers (Epson in particular) support printer driver projects such as gimp-print. I mention Epson because they supply the driver writers with documentation before they publicly release it. Since it is usually just a matter of adding a set of parameters, new printers are rapidly supported.

      --
      Use the spatula, Luke
    5. Re:Printing?!? by HydroCarbon10 · · Score: 2

      "I can just imagine the look I'd get from newbies I'm trying to win over to our side when I try to give reasons for why Linux doesn't have a true equivalent for the Control Panel."

      Linux doesn't have the Control Panel because it is not Windows: it's a UNIX clone and it does a fine job running as such. If people you trying to 'win over' (whatever that's supposed to mean) don't understand this, then you have failed in explaining what exactly it is you're trying to switch them over to.

      --
      The best way to accelerate a windows box is at 9.8 meters per second square.
    6. Re:Printing?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Someone comes out charging money so we can do something as menial as print documents,

      Doesn't Windows cost money? Besides, you don't *have* to use this tool. There are other (free) printing tools.

  16. doesn't seem comparable to Mac or Windows by tim_maroney · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's wrong with this picture?

    Printer set-up and configuration is as simple as on Windows or MacOS

    TurboPrint for Linux comes as a tarball containing 'install' and 'uninstall' shell scripts, installation instructions, and all the binary software.

    Yes, it's a command-line installer!

    The default printing would be in black and white, and when I want to print in colour, I can just change the print command used by the program from 'lpr' to something like 'lpt -Ptp0'.

    Yes, you have to give command line options to set printing modes every time you print with a different mode!

    And yet this gets an 18 out of 20 in the review. It's amazing to me that this late in the game, there are still so many Linux-heads who just don't get it. This is not just inferior to Mac and Windows -- it's a giant quantum leap backward from where Mac has been for seventeen years and Windows for six. Real end users don't memorize command languages.

    Tim

    1. Re:doesn't seem comparable to Mac or Windows by Suicide · · Score: 3, Informative

      I love it when people post without actually making sure that they read the article correctly.

      You do not have to give command line options to set printing modes, the author just decided it would be easier for him to enable different modes as different printers. If you simply want to change printing modes, you can use a graphical method similar to that used by Windows or Mac OS.

    2. Re:doesn't seem comparable to Mac or Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nonetheless, he's right. I didn't read the article either, but the it's not the article I take issue with - it's the basic headline and it's summary. Admin stuff like installing hardware can afford to be a *little* tricky. My problem with linux printing is that I have real problems believing that I can layout anything exactly the way I want it, on the page size I want, without looking up technical stuff. I'm very fond of things like command line Postscript tools, but to talk about printer limitations being in the admin is nuts. It's the basic WYSIWYG, which mainstream users think of as *the* way (perhaps even the tough way) to layout a page -- until GNOME/KDE can do that quickly and reliably, in a way which is vaguely familiar to normal end users, then we're in trouble. And no, proprietary solutions don't count.

      I'm talking about page layout above, but even Word Processing is limited -- Abiword is getting there, sure, but that's one package, and it's not that hot yet. OpenOffice would be great, except that it's a pig to install, and/or doesn't follow standards. KOffice's word processor is a pig to use - how many dialogs and clicks does it take to get a from the desktop to a new document?

      It would be really nice to find a spreadsheet that can create reasonably complex graphs, too. The ease of use & capabilities provided by gnumeric/guppi come close, but don't cut it -- other packages are hopeless.

      In short, we've still a long way to go. And paying a moneygrabber for his printer driver installation script won't help Free Software one bit.

    3. Re:doesn't seem comparable to Mac or Windows by tim_maroney · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Either I read the article correctly or it is misleading. It says that different command line parameters are necessary for different printing modes, and that the parameters are set by the user. In order to set up his different printers, he had to change the printing command line options in each of the different printer instances. It's true that this only needs to be done once per mode and the user can then select different "virtual" printers for the right option set without re-typing the stored command line, but it does need to be done once per mode -- or else the article is false in saying that "when I want to print in colour, I can just change the print command used by the program from 'lpr' to something like 'lpt -Ptp0'". That states that the user changes the command line; it does not state at any point that using GUI options changes the command line for the user.

      Tim

    4. Re:doesn't seem comparable to Mac or Windows by Legion303 · · Score: 2
      I love it when people post without actually making sure that they read the article correctly.

      I love it even more when they get modded through the roof by moderators who also didn't read the article.

      -Legion

    5. Re:doesn't seem comparable to Mac or Windows by Suicide · · Score: 1

      "when I want to print in colour, I can just change the print command used by the program from 'lpr' to something like 'lpt -Ptp0'"

      In this instance, the same printer is set up to be represented as 2 different printers, each with their own settings. Hence, to change to color, just change to a different printer. Its the fastest way to switch between different commonly used configurations.

      Alternatively, he could have changed the current configuration of one of the designated printers though the GUI. This would not require any command prompt changes, as the same printer would be used.

    6. Re:doesn't seem comparable to Mac or Windows by elefantstn · · Score: 1, Troll
      Real end users don't memorize command languages.


      Absolutely masterful. Troll of the day.
      --
      If it ain't broke, you need more software.
    7. Re:doesn't seem comparable to Mac or Windows by egg+troll · · Score: 0, Insightful


      But I don't want computing to ever leave the 70s and I don't understand why anyone else would want that either. My knowledge of arcane command line settings and flags is what makes me feel superior to the rest of the cold, cruel world.
      </Average Linux User>

      --

      C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
    8. Re:doesn't seem comparable to Mac or Windows by cozziewozzie · · Score: 1

      KOffice's word processor is a pig to use - how many dialogs and clicks does it take to get a from the desktop to a new document?

      Exactly one.

    9. Re:doesn't seem comparable to Mac or Windows by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Main Entry: quantum leap
      Function: noun
      Date: 1956
      : an abrupt change, sudden increase, or dramatic advance

      Yep, drastic advance. QED

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    10. Re:doesn't seem comparable to Mac or Windows by tim_maroney · · Score: 1

      Quantum jumps can be from higher to lower levels as well as from lower to higher.

      Tim

    11. Re:doesn't seem comparable to Mac or Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FUCK "REAL END USERS"
      They're the reason MS is a monopoly. They should go back to pen and paper. Writing sticks and one-button mice are all they deserve.

  17. Why not just cups. by dsb3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I use cups and it does all I need to do and more.

    It's almost completely manageable via a web interface (the only thing I know of that isn't is setting the default printer). It integrates very nicely with samba. It uses gimpprint drivers to create nice output on newer printers.

    The reviews indicates that it can use cups, but I don't yet understand what this gives me that cups doesn't do already.

    --

    Slashdot? Oh, I just read it for the articles.
  18. Why Linux is better than Win but won't replace it by J.D.+Hogg · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "Sure Linux is rock solid stable"

    And why do you think that is ? also, why do you think Linux (and most Unices) are more secure on a network than Windows ?

    I agree that the Linux kernel is better designed (although to be honest I know next to nothing about the newer Windows kernels, and some supposedly knowledgeable people told me they were actually pretty good). But the biggest reason why Linux is more stable and more secure is because you, the computer-savvy user, took time to configure everything right and install servers right.

    Now, if you want to make a Linux-based system that your grandma can use, you'll have to mask the concept of users vs. root with some suid installation utils, you'll have to allow everybody and their dogs to install any piece of software and insmod any driver from any vendor, you might have to slap in the equivalent of a registry to alleviate the current mess of etc files in a typical Linux fs, ...etc...

    If you do all that, if you make Linux user-friendly like Windows is (supposedly, I can't even begin to comprehend its organization), then I guarantee you the resulting system will be less stable and less secure than a standard Linux distro.

    The real reason why Windows is shitty is because it's designed to be used by computer idiots. I believe that if computer users were required to learn basic computer sanity, and Windows didn't have the convenience/security/stability tradeoffs it has today to make up for computer idiocy, Windows would kick any OS' butt any day. And "basic computer sanity" doesn't mean the user has to learn how to install daemons, it means "don't run executables from Joe_Sixpack@hotmail.com", just like "don't stick candy bars in the toaster" in real life : if people had that basic good sense, there would be no auto execution in Outlook, because people would find that crazy.

  19. Printing, and then maybe fonts by Beautyon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The next problem after printing is ironed out is the lack of a single, easy to use tool to add, temporarily disable, manage and remove fonts in any Linux setup, that makes one set of fonts (both ttf and Type 1) in a single directory available to all applications system wide, in the way that Adobe Type Manager does.

    We then need CMYK capability in The Gimp. After these are in place, it will be possible to assemble a desktop publishing suite that will have mass appeal, because anyone will be able to design and publish to QuarkXpress/Photoshop/Illustrator quality, and print the results, all in a rock solid, free alternative to Windoze and OSX, without any pain.

    --
    ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
    1. Re:Printing, and then maybe fonts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's not just the need for a centralized (sp?) means of managing all our fonts system-and-app-wide, but also the capability of getting a printout where fonts (and graphics) are in comparable sizes to what's on the screen.

      Even in the latest KDE+CUPS setup (can't talk about GNOME), you still can get printouts that are twice as big or a zillion times smaller than what you expected (like, a *litteral* ten point font on that 600 dpi printer, get it?).

      Maybe a Uber-geek can get a WYSIWYG printout (compared to the display), but average Joe User still can't.

      The minute we'll get sane and coordinated font management system-wide between the display and the printer, then the Free Unices will have a chance at The Desktop (tm). Not before.

      BTW, this is not trolling, this is what happens when you want to show "normal" people (well, the non-Linux/*BSD crowd) what the latest Linux distros can do... only to be ridiculed when that nice printout looks like sh*t. I know, Murphy's rule, but still...

    2. Re:Printing, and then maybe fonts by tim_maroney · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We then need CMYK capability in The Gimp.

      Easier said than done. Color science is still serious voodoo, and entire companies have foundered on the rock of device-specific color correction. There are now a few fairly good color management systems out there, but they're not free. Creating a good free one would involve the uncompensated labor of some talented color scientists for a few years, and guess what -- the open source ideal doesn't really exist in color science, and good color scientists with a grasp of computability are very hard to find. They'll also require several supporting programmers.

      Then, once you've got the basic system, you have to create profiles for all the color printers in the market; or, you can boost the difficulty level by an order of magnitude and try to create a general-purpose adaptive color calibration system so that users can calibrate their own printers -- which requires a color-calibrated scanner, and so merely shifts the per-device calibration cost, as well as requiring the user to have a scanner.

      It's really hard for me to see how those things could happen in an open source environment. You're probably talking an investment of at least five million dollars.

      Tim
      (former employee of EFI and Light Source)

    3. Re:Printing, and then maybe fonts by specht · · Score: 1

      Even though this is OT here, there are two projects that will eventually provide a (actually two) free color management system:
      LittleCMS (at http://www.littlecms.com) and Argyll (at http://web.access.net.au/argyll/argyllcms.html). All the basic stuff is already there, Argyll can even create ICC profiles for printers.

      ... and to bring this thread back on track: I can do everything that Turboprint does with gimp-print and CUPS.

    4. Re:Printing, and then maybe fonts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not just dump them in \winnt\Fonts, the system installs them automaticly (both TT & L2 PS). Oh, thats right, you mean on linux right.

      Well. Windows has been able to do this since Win95.

      Linux - the catchup OS

    5. Re:Printing, and then maybe fonts by tim_maroney · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Interesting links, but they still leave open the device profiling cost, and their web pages smack of amateurism. Have there been any comparisons between their print quality and the quality of commercial color management systems? The field is littered with color management systems that never produced consistently good prints, and lacking any comparative data I'm skeptical that these two amateur projects have beat the trend.

      A Google search did not turn up comparative or review information on either project, except for this negative user review of Argyll. I did turn up this page of free color management links, but no feedback from publishers or designers on how well any of them work.

      Tim

    6. Re:Printing, and then maybe fonts by specht · · Score: 1

      I would not call Raph's write up a negative review, it's actually not a review at all: He says that he did cut corners so we don't know how good or bad the ARGYLL profiles could be.

      LCMS is actually being used by a few software packages and is installed by default with every SuSE system. It's the more useable system of the two at this time, but this is not surprising: ARGYLL is not a finished package yet, so I think it's too early to talk about how good or bad it is. It is however a pretty good start and a lot of functionality is already there, just not for the 'normal' user: It's not easy to install and you have to use a number of command line programs with fairly complex parameters to get something working.

      Again, it's a beginning and a very impressive one.

      You can use both LCMS and ARGYLL to make an application ICC profile capable without having to use the profiling functionality both packages offer: Just use a commercial package to create profiles and then use them e.g. when you convert an image or when you print.

      ... and: not every bright developer is a good web designer. Creating a glizzy web site usually also takes too much time away from more fun stuff like figuring out stuff and coding ...

    7. Re:Printing, and then maybe fonts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, we need all the above, which is in the works:

      Scribus - web2.altmuehlnet.de/fschmid/scri_en.html

      A very good professional level DTP 0.5 just got released. CMYK is there color managment is next

      No the problem with CMYK, is not technical, at least from the standpoint the qbilities of the linux deveopler base;; it is licensing the color libraries from Pantone Toyo etc.

      Damn its hard to type on a French keypoaord

    8. Re:Printing, and then maybe fonts by __past__ · · Score: 1

      Um, before "we" are able to do QuarkXPress/InDesign-like DTP,
      shouldn't there also be QuarkXPress/InDesign-like applications also? I
      have yet to see a project that even *tries* to make one.

    9. Re:Printing, and then maybe fonts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See Scribus above Xpress for Linux

    10. Re:Printing, and then maybe fonts by PurpleBob · · Score: 2

      People keep talking about CMYK like it's the one thing which stops GIMP from being Photoshop. Wouldn't it be more effective (and have less patent problems) to actually get GIMP up to par with Photoshop 5 in terms of other features?

      The replies will inevitably say that GIMP can do everything Photoshop can do. This is technically true. Editing individual pixels in a hex editor can also do everything Photoshop can do, but that doesn't mean it's the nicest way. Incidentally, I use both Photoshop and GIMP a lot.

      --
      Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
    11. Re:Printing, and then maybe fonts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      defoma

    12. Re:Printing, and then maybe fonts by martinm_76 · · Score: 1

      KFontInst covers most font woes, although I've so far had to lock it down to iso8859-1 encoding only to get predictable results (SuSE 7.x). It doesn't have 'sets' of fonts and no 'disable' option, only add and delete, but it does those extremely well. Handles GhostScript, X11, StarOffice 5.2...
      Haven't found anything else in that category though. Design lies close to Adobe Type Manager.

      /Martin.

      --
      Regards, /Martin Moeller.
    13. Re:Printing, and then maybe fonts by GWGill · · Score: 1

      For the couple of areas that Argyll is being actively used, it is being used in preference to commercial CMS. One area is in creating monitor to film recorder links for a (very well known) animation studio. The other area is in creating color profiles and links for extremely critical print system proofing. In the latter area, Argyll is giving results that are very clearly superior to Kodak's KCMS, and Gretag-Macbeths ProfileMaker. For things it is not being actively used with (such as the sort of RGB -> pseudo CMY profiling that Raph is having a go at), then there is still a lot of fine tuning to do, and it is not (nor does it claim to be) an end user tool. As for GIMP, Argyll provides all the bits needed to incorporate ICC profile support, including RGB CMYK. It's rather up to the developers of GIMP to pick it up and use it though !

    14. Re:Printing, and then maybe fonts by GWGill · · Score: 1

      You're not far wrong in your estimate of the amount of effort needed (Argyll has taken about 7 years effort so far), but you're wrong in assuming that nothing is happening in the open source area. A couple of us seem to be making fair color scientists out of ourselves by writing color management systems from scratch. One of the reasons Argyll is open source is that I figured, yes I can write another proprietary color management package, and be like the other dozen companies scratching for a living in this area, or I can do something new, and write the first open source CMS. As someone working for a competitor to EFI, you'll have to forgive me for thinking that working for EFI is not much of a credential when it comes to talking about color :-)

  20. The Windows GDI by rcw-home · · Score: 5, Informative
    Windows print drivers work by accepting Windows GDI (Graphics Device Interface) commands and using them to plot a page.

    UNIX apps don't send GDI commands - they usually send postscript commands.

    So unless someone wants to write a postscript to GDI filter, that approach won't work.

    Oh, and things that need to communicate directly with your hardware (like this printer driver) may not be able to run in wine anyway.

    1. Re:The Windows GDI by brunes69 · · Score: 2

      Well, since you can print from a wine app to your linux printer, I assume there must already be some GDI to Postscript code in there. So it should not be that hard to reverse it, so that it is Postscript to GDI, maybe?

    2. Re:The Windows GDI by BinaryAlchemy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I belive that wine apps may have been able to print using windows drivers at some point far in the past. The simplest (and slowest) solution would be to run the windows version of ghostscript, which could then print the linux generated postscript using the windows driver.

      --
      ----- The problem with browsing at +5 is that everyone thinks you're being redundant
    3. Re:The Windows GDI by rcw-home · · Score: 2

      Translating GDI to postscript code under wine is as trivial as using an existing Windows driver for a postscript printer.

    4. Re:The Windows GDI by printman · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's a big difference between GDI and PostScript. GDI is a very limited "draw here" type of interface, while PostScript is a full-blown language that must be interpreted in order to produce a page.

      That said, Ghostscript already provides a GDI interface, so it might be possible to use WINE with Ghostscript and the vendor print driver to produce a print driver. *However*, many Windows printer drivers have their own parallel/USB drivers, so it may not be possible to do this within WINE (maybe VMWARE, tho)

      --
      I print, therefore I am.
    5. Re:The Windows GDI by Whizziwig · · Score: 1

      I've done it in vmware for a lexmark z12 printer. Vmware 3.0 has full raw support for usb (for the usb printer) and scsi (meanign I can burn .cdi's with discjuggler in windows). So I had a host-only network running on vmnet0, 192.168.17.1 for my dekstop, .2 for linux, and I had a smbprint/smbspool printcap entry to print to the smb shared printer in vmware/win2k. It worked, a little slow, and big overhead, btu ti worked (until I got my epson c80, which I adore.)

    6. Re:The Windows GDI by ljaguar · · Score: 1

      Damn, that's crazy... :D

    7. Re:The Windows GDI by __past__ · · Score: 2, Funny

      There's a big difference between GDI and Postscript.

      Yeah, I still wait for a GDI equivalent of a Postscript Webserver...

  21. Rock solid and stable? by ZaneMcAuley · · Score: 0

    Well, that depends on who installed it doesn't it :)

    --
    ----- Whats wrong with this picture? http://www.revoh.org:1234/whatswrong
  22. CUPS by RestiffBard · · Score: 2

    I use Cups on my ML 8.1 box and have never had a problem with it and my Canon BJC-2100. This whole thing just seems like hogwash. And in response to the comment about cheap printers for less than 99$. My Canon cost about 49$ after a 20$ rebate. Its a fine printer and its USB. Just be careful what you buy.

    --
    - /* dead coders leave no comments */
  23. my simple reliable print system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Normally I have lpd turned off because I don't print too often. To print myfile.ps it's:
    $ gs -dNOPAUSE -sDEVICE=ljet4 -sOutputFile=myfile.out myfile.ps -c quit
    $ cat myfile.out >/dev/lp0

    If you're into pipes, I'll leave it as an alternate excercise for you to mull.

    Easy does it.

    1. Re:my simple reliable print system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know why I'm replying - but here goes...
      - This is not a GUI so hard for some people
      - Even for a command-line user there is a lot to type there!
      - Only works for postscript printers

    2. Re:my simple reliable print system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Thanks for the reply. Your points are all valid. It was offered as a matter of interest for those who might enjoy seeing another way; didn't mean to imply that it was for everyone's solution.

      And yes, there is some typing involved, that's why I keep it all wrapped in a makefile in my home directory and usualy just type

      make myfile.out
      Then I cat the results to the printer.

      You can print PDFs the same way. Here's my GNU makefile:

      %.ps : %.pdf
      gs -dNODISPLAY -sPSFile=$@ -dNOPAUSE $< -c quit

      %.out : %.ps
      gs -dNOPAUSE -sOutputFile=$@ -sDEVICE=ljet4 $< -c quit

      This will process any file with "ps" or "pdf" extension, yielding an output file with suffix "out", ready to cat to the printer.

  24. Not a good thing for linux newbies. by halftrack · · Score: 1

    This article is based upon the conclusion that someone wants to convert from a windows environment to a linux enviroment. Turbo print is not the solution. People having to buy extra software (that they can see as a part not included in the whole linux package) is not convinient, it just add's extra confusion. I would be more happy if this was a normal (open-source) kernel module or something.

    By the way: Turbo linux is here

    --
    Look a monkey!
    1. Re:Not a good thing for linux newbies. by __past__ · · Score: 1

      While I agree that it not being Free is a Bad Thing, I still think you are missing something:

      With Linux they would have to buy one piece of additional software that is not in their distribution. Windows may include printer support out of the box, but what about the other several thousand programs included in every Linux distro? And no, just because MS Office was preinstalled on your computer doesn't make it gratis.

  25. CUPS by Enahs · · Score: 4, Informative

    Even on Debian, it was pretty much point-and-click for me...fire up a web browser, point it at http://localhost:631, click on "Manage Printers", click "Add Printer," enter a superuser name and password, and follow the steps from then on.

    It really is that simple, unless you've got a distro that has a weird installation of CUPS.

    Heck, on Mandrake boxes, one can often have the printer autodetected, and the installer can often (in my experience) choose the correct driver.

    --
    Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
  26. CUPS is great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use CUPS through the web admin module, and it's almost as easy as windows. The only problem is that you need to know the name of your printer driver. But they're easy to look up. Anyway, I managed to get perfect printing to a remote HP Deskjet 930C working easily. Just by pointing and clicking.

  27. it took X a while.. by josepha48 · · Score: 2
    I started using Linux in 1996. Back then it was hard to find out if X supported your video card. Now X supports most video cards except the newest and companies like Nvidia, Matrox and several others are providing drivers on their web sites for some of their cards. This is a big step.

    With other hardware networorking under Linux seems to have been the biggest win-win. Many network cards are supported under Linux now as well. So are many sound cards.

    Support comes slower under Linux, but it does seem to come. More and more larger companies are supporting LInux and with the way that windows XP is moving I am wondering how many people will really want to stay with windows. Since companies like IBM and other large companies are beginning to back linux it may only be a matter of time before the smaller companies and companies that promise Linux support actually do.

    Personally I think it would be nice the be able to buy hardware for Linux and have it come with open source drivers and software. Or atleast instructions on what software you need to have on the machine and kernel drivers. Soon I hope...

    --

    Only 'flamers' flame!

  28. Just use PostScript by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 2

    One part of the solution is simple: buy only PostScript printers. PostScript printer support is quite mature in all UNIX-like operating systems.

    The hard part: Under X11, there is no default mapping from screen fonts to printer fonts (which can have completely different metrics). That's why printing with non-standard fonts is often problematic if you don't use proven tools such as TeX or roff.

    1. Re:Just use PostScript by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My computer's too dumb. Do you have any smart printers? ;)

      I'm only half joking, btw.

    2. Re:Just use PostScript by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 2

      Of course. The laser printer for the early Apple Macintoshes had more MIPS than the computer itself.

  29. Come on guys by swilcox · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    So far all I've seen is:
    Not as good as Windows/Mac
    Redhat/SuSE/etc... already has this
    Get a better printer
    It's not free? (Actually haven't seen this one...yet)
    What kind of loser are you? RTFM!
    Sheesh. Typical. Kinda reminds me of this artical

  30. FFS GIVE THE FUCK UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    jesus christ you linux freaks, when will you accept that as long as you're going to continue with the "it's free fix it yourself" and "linux IS easy on the desktop, we have OpenOffice!" attitude, you're going to get SHIT for new users.

    all this bullshit about stats showing linux users being low.. and you complain then that it's cos newbies were interviewed.. well guess what, isn't the object of the game to make linux accessible to newbies? dumb fucks.

    here's how to make printing work under linux: buy a postscript printer. there, that was easy. next article pls.

  31. Same kind of problem I have been having... by Lostman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sure Linux is rock solid stable, and has an almost totally customizable GUI, but dammit, if my hardware won't work, what's the point?

    I set up a windows xp box for someone the other day. It was QUITE an upgrade from their old 133 mhz computer -- they were excited that all their programs will run SUPER FAST and that their printers/scanners/etc will be OH SO nice...

    ... and then we find out that most of their software WILL NOT RUN under XP (yes even by using compatibility mode) and that they will have had to have gotten a new scanner and printer because they wont work either.

    Now I'm sure that windows xp has changed QUITE a few things but come on... they have used winxp for a bit now to see if they can put up with it.. they now want me to install windows 98 on there... quite an upgrade (if you ask me)...

    Now before you say "Put them on Linux!" -- get real.. would you put your mother-in-law on linux --> knowing you dont want to put up with her "Whats this? BASH? Is this a joke??"... feh on them all..

    1. Re:Same kind of problem I have been having... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BASH, wuzzat? I've been using X from the start, and I don't need no command prompts. Now if only distros would set the fscking rpm managers up correctly so that I don't have to log in as root (you know, just prompt me for a password).

    2. Re:Same kind of problem I have been having... by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2

      Or, the reality re-write: I set up a windows XP box for someone the other day. It was QUITE an upgrade from their old 133 mhz computer...they were excited that all their programs will run SUPER FAST and that their printers/scanners/etc will be OH SO nice... Unfortunately I couldn't be bothered to check the Hardware Compatibility List, or check that the software was compatible, instead for some reason trusting blindly that it would all work. When it didn't, we decided to blame Microsoft.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    3. Re:Same kind of problem I have been having... by Lostman · · Score: 1

      Thats not being very nice you know...

      and how was I supposed to do this? Go back in time to before they bought a computer preloaded with winxp and check those lists?

      At least make your trolling less obvious please.

    4. Re:Same kind of problem I have been having... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and then we find out that most of their software WILL NOT RUN under XP (yes even by using compatibility mode) and that they will have had to have gotten a new scanner and printer because they wont work either.

      I'd really like to see one of these posts that actually says what wouldn't run. There are a lot anecdotal stories about things that won't run, but very few specific examples. (The only two I've seen for sure are Easy CD Creator, which is broken by WinXP's CD burning, and printers based on the Windows Printing System, which was abandoned by Microsoft and the manufacturers - which pissed me off. But anyway...)

    5. Re:Same kind of problem I have been having... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now before you say "Put them on Linux!" -- get real.. would you put your mother-in-law on linux --> knowing you dont want to put up with her "Whats this? BASH? Is this a joke??"... feh on them all..

      Well, what that's saying is "computers aren't a easy to use as I want them to be". WinXP isn't perfect, but its the best anyone's come up with so far (especially as far as backwards compatibility is concerned). Is it perfect? No.

      But when your problem is with specific software and printers and scanners that don't work, complaining about Microsoft won't help - you need to complain about the specific companies that don't support their products. So if people know that Company A won't support their customers with new drivers for their products when new operating systems come out, they won't buy stuff from Company A until they improve their policies.

    6. Re:Same kind of problem I have been having... by chrisvdp74656 · · Score: 1

      That's not trolling, that's a fair cop. If you can't be bothered checking publically available hardware and software compatibility lists, then you can't blame Microsoft for _your_ mistake, much in the same way as how I didn't blame Mandrakesoft or the CUPS devteam when the version of CUPS included with Mandrake 8 didn't support my HP DeskJet 950C properly out of the box. Instead, I headed over to www.linuxprinting.org and downloaded a PPD for the driver that I wanted (the PCL one), loaded that up using Kups and it worked fine.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    7. Re:Same kind of problem I have been having... by gatesh8r · · Score: 1

      Then again, unless the wife tells the mother-in-law our phone number, she can only get email support...

      --
      Karma whorin' since 1999
    8. Re:Same kind of problem I have been having... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not fair when I said I came over after THEY (read NOT INVOLVING ME) bought things for themselves and then they wanted hlep setting it up. What are you to do if your cousin/motherinlaw/etc BUYS SOMETHINg then asks for you to come over and fix it.

    9. Re:Same kind of problem I have been having... by dvdeug · · Score: 2

      How much hardware that old versions of Linux (Debian 1.1, say) supported are no longer supported? An upgrade should be an upgrade, and support everything that old stuff did.

    10. Re:Same kind of problem I have been having... by scanman857 · · Score: 1

      Now before you say "Put them on Linux!" -- get real.. would you put your mother-in-law on linux --> knowing you dont want to put up with her "Whats this? BASH? Is this a joke??"... feh on them all..


      Although there aren't any distributions that are idiot compatible out of the box, it's pretty easy to drop a few icons on the desktop, hide the panel, etc.

  32. not really necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Ghostscript supports oodles of different printers. I've yet to come across a printer that hasn't been conquered by Ghostscript (mind you I don't buy printers very often).

    AFAICS, the only things needed to have that Windows feel wrt printing are:

    1. widgets (GTK+ and Qt widgets) that parse your /etc/printcap so that you can select which printer to print with without having to use "lpr -Pblarg". This would actually be REMARKABLY trivial.

    2. more work on tools that autodetect printers and set up /etc/printcap's accordingly. I know there are tools that do that, but my understanding is that they still not a lot of work (maybe with maintaining a database), probably because a lot of people (like me) don't care and don't want a Windows-esque printing system.
    If you get those two things, then theoretically, printing under Linux would be indistinguishable from printer under Windows using existing tools.
  33. Re:Why Linux is better than Win but won't replace by skt · · Score: 2, Interesting
    ...why do you think Linux (and most Unices) are more secure on a network than Windows ?

    hehe, good one. An operating system as big as Windows XP that is vulerable out of the box with the default setup is unacceptable to me. Many people that have already purchased this operating system will not patch this hole. We'll be seeing Code Red II pretty soon.

    Is RH 7 vulnerable OOTB with the default installation, no. Some services such as wuftpd are vulnerable to a remote exploit, but the user must turn those on manually. It is then assumed that the user knows what he or she is doing and then secures the service by updating the RPMs. In the XP case, the user just has to take the computer home from Best Buy and plug the thing into the cable modem and it's vulnerable.

  34. Why not Lexmark? by Bowie+J.+Poag · · Score: 5, Informative



    In my experience, Lexmark has wonderful Linux support for its products. $79 at Best Buy got me a very high quality 1200dpi inkjet printer (the Lexmark Z23) with both Windows and Linux support. The Linux side actually works better than its Windows counterpart, oddly enough. It runs as a daemon process, does PostScript exactly the way it should, and the fact that its a USB printer doesn't complicate the situation either. It all just plain works, out of the box. Even has a nice graphical config utility

    Kudos to Lexmark for doing it right!

    --
    Bowie J. Poag

    1. Re:Why not Lexmark? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting. The Lexmark's Z32 Linux drivers fail to work for me when trying to use either lpd or cups.

    2. Re:Why not Lexmark? by mother_superius · · Score: 1

      Hmm, where's the driver for the Z12?

    3. Re:Why not Lexmark? by mauryisland · · Score: 1
    4. Re:Why not Lexmark? by kronsrepus · · Score: 1

      Not all lexmarks are easy to install.
      The low end lexmark ones have no linux support, nothing more than a paperweight. (as i found out to my disgust after purchasing a printer last week).

      Some models are well supported, while some of the older lexmark printers dont perform to well, like you cant get the driver to use both the colour and b&w ink.

      I also hear the developer for the drivers is looking for someone new to take over supporting them.

    5. Re:Why not Lexmark? by gnu-user · · Score: 1

      I'm running debian on a mac. The Lexmark supplied drivers do not help me. Sometimes source is a necessity.

    6. Re:Why not Lexmark? by Bowie+J.+Poag · · Score: 1



      I simply followed the install script included on the CD, and it worked without a hitch. Sets up a print queue all its own, monitors it, and allows printing over a network. Like any other printer, I can mount it as a Samba share over the network and print on it from two rooms away with my Win2K laptop ontop of it all. What more can you ask for?

      --
      Bowie J. Poag

    7. Re:Why not Lexmark? by mother_superius · · Score: 1

      If it works for the Z12, then why does it only say "Z23, Z33"

  35. How is this different than cups + (kups | xpp) ? by Phibz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've recently rediscovered cups. For my printing needs, mixed unix and some windows it beats everything else hands down. It provides easy web based administration or if you're fimilar with the bsd or sysv (big bonus for me since i primarly use solaris) style command line tools it has those as well. But the number one thing that makes me choose cups overy anything else is its support for using PPD drivers. Need a driver for that freaky printer, Xerox DocuCenter 332ST in our case? Download the PPD stick it in /usr/share/cups/model and off you go. Now i can use all the features of the printer. Not just simply print to it. Eg. now i can colate, staple, duplex print etc. Couple this with kups or xpp which are "print setup" like programs that let you adjust your print settings and its almost as easy as on a mac. So aside from support for "winprinters" how is turbo print different from cups?

  36. Linux needs a standard printing API by leeward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is, in my opinion, one of the areas that will continue to limit the ability of Linux to be used on the desktop. The printing process is simple and flexible for a hacker, if it is a supported printer, but fails the mom test miserably.

    What is really needed is an organization with some clout to get behind an API that can be integrated into applications, with a standard, integrated menu selected printer control. Just like the Macs have had for 17 years and Windoze has had for 10? years. There have been a couple of attempts in this direction, which seem to have mostly fizzled. That is why heavyweight clout will be required to make such a thing work.

    CUPS is an improvement and a little easier to use for the printer driver installation and setup. But this does not address the user interface. This is something that perhaps Redhat, on the Gnome side, and perhaps some other organization on the KDE side, should have handled years ago. I think this is far more important than having a Gnome/KDE office suite.

    The fundamentals should be the first priority, and in an office, printing is absolutely fundamental and critical. A big enough busines can perhaps afford to hire a Linux guru to set up printing, but that should not be required and will remain a roadblock. In fairness, Windoze printer installation and setup is often no picnic either, but that is no excuse for Linux being so lame in this area.

    1. Re:Linux needs a standard printing API by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      KDE does have an excellent printing framework, called kdeprint. Basically it is a layer sitting on top of whatever your print system is (CUPS, lpr and so on) and allows easy configuration, job viewing, print dialog and print preview in a unified manner. From the programmer prespective, a simple API (kdeprint+qprinter) is present for printing. From the user prespective, everything is easily controlled from the Control Center or customized on the fly through the KDE Print Dialog. Everything is very similar to Win, and just as easy. This thing exists since KDE 2.2, but now (KDE3 beta 1) it has matured. See also
      printing.kde.org

    2. Re:Linux needs a standard printing API by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I my opinion Linux needs a completely new printing API that sits below lpr or whatever you are using, not on top of it.

      One of the things that Linux lacks is the possibilty of a "print setup" dialog of the same kind that Windows apps provide. I want to be able to select from the print dialog whether I want single/double sided output and other features that the printer harware might provide. Writing a wrapper on top of lpr is not going to solve these things, at least not in an elegant way. (Correct me if I am wrong. I don't know much about printing software...)

      The solution we have at work is to have multiple lpr printer names defined for the same actual hardware, with different behavior. One for single sided output and one for double sided, etc. This is ugly.

      In my opinion the correct things is to design a new modern printing API from scratch, make new desktop apps use it, and write a lpr replacement that sits on top of the new API for legacy apps.

    3. Re:Linux needs a standard printing API by mpe · · Score: 2

      This is, in my opinion, one of the areas that will continue to limit the ability of Linux to be used on the desktop. The printing process is simple and flexible for a hacker, if it is a supported printer, but fails the mom test miserably.

      Remember that the "mom test" only applies to one specific variety of desktops. The end user administered ones, which are most likely SOHO. It other situations issues change since it simply isn't the end users job to be messing around connecting printers.

      What is really needed is an organization with some clout to get behind an API that can be integrated into applications, with a standard, integrated menu selected printer control. Just like the Macs have had for 17 years and Windoze has had for 10? years.

      One thing you want to avoid copying is the Windows printer dialogue covering any paper size known to man (sometimes including sizes which cannot physically fit in the printer at all.) You also need some way of coping with applications wanting to print several logical pages on one physical sheet. Relitivly easy with ISO paper, since this has a width to length ratio of 1:sqt(2), it certainly dosn't hold for US Letter or US Legal...
      Also do functions to "service" the printer such as head cleaning on ink jets logically belong with controls for printing?

    4. Re:Linux needs a standard printing API by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just a crappy bunch of tools for the user to look at the print queue etc using a GUI. As usual, KDE lamers spring up to claim a problem area has been conquered, when in fact all they have done is slapped together a few crappy tools.

      The truth is that GNOME printing is *far* in advance of anything KDE has done - and provides an interface for developers to use the printer in an easy and device independent way.

    5. Re:Linux needs a standard printing API by bwoodard · · Score: 1

      We are working on one. Please check out http://www.freestandards.org/printing

      -ben

  37. CUPS is the shit by xeeno · · Score: 1

    very nice. and you can install the gimp printing stuff as per FAQ to get ppd files for your printer.

  38. What kind of software are they using? by rebelcool · · Score: 2
    When I transitioned to Win2k, I had few, if any problems. Surely you've tried downloading new drivers off the printer and scanner manufacturer's website.

    Im curious though, will win2k drivers work under XP? That's a possible solution if the manufacturer hasnt put out their XP drivers.

    --

    -

  39. What about stair-stepping by nrmrvrk · · Score: 1

    Running Mandrake 8.0 & 8.1 at work with 2 large HP printers, I notice that stair-stepping is back. Postscript printing works fine for the most part but I get quasi-random stair stepping of plain old text docs. It's random enough that the last time I was trying to track it down, I printed the same document 4 times and the middle 2 were stair stepped and the other 2 weren't.
    It's lame and I hate telling the users "just print it again and it should be okay" but never knowing what the problem is.
    I remember solving this problem back in 1995 by writing a small shell script to act as a print filter and translate the LFs to CR/LFs or some such nonsense. Now that I'm printing primarily Postscript, I don't think adding a print filter (to everyone's computer) would work out very well.
    I'm also constantly annoyed at CUPS probing port 631 on my entire network because it tries to be it's own print server for every printer on the network, so it'll have 6 lines in the output of "lpstat -t" for the same printer, but using 5 other computers as print servers plus itself.

    Is there any decent documentation on CUPS outside of just how to install it and run the GUIs? I'm not impressed.

    Flame away if you have solutions...

    *nrmrvrk

    --
    Keine eier
    1. Re:What about stair-stepping by nmos · · Score: 1

      FWIW I translate text files to PS before printing (automatically) rather than printing them directly. This is using GS + Magicfilter though so I'm not sure how you'd do that with CUPS.

    2. Re:What about stair-stepping by nrmrvrk · · Score: 1

      It was worth 1 karma point, nothing more. Thanks for playing. Funny that I can get printing working just fine with one freaking command in Solaris 7 & 8 but I have to use CRAPS, er... CUPS under Linux. Way to go Penguin coders. You've build another not-quite-finished software product for the masses.

      --
      Keine eier
  40. Linux, the "free" OS by Rayonic · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I know I'm going to get modded down for this, but what's use of having a free(as in beer) OS when you then have to buy all these little $19.99 packages to do something as mundane as print?

    Yeah yeah, I know it's because lazy companies don't want to release Linux drivers, but it doesn't change the situation. How many little software programs must we buy to get basic functionality?

    On second thought, I don't mind being modded down. I'd been months since I've been modded at all.

  41. what "side"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    What is this "our side" you're talking about? I mean this seriously.

    "My side" wrt Linux is a place where things really ARE modular and logical. Where, if you have an extraordinary knowledge of systems and computer science as a whole, you can enjoy your time in it. Where, if something isn't working, you can change and recompile it within hours.

    Your "our side" seems to be that awful "I want Linux to be a better Windows than Windows!" garbage. Here's some advice: Linux is not Windows, and Linux will never be Windows. It will never be worse than Windows; it will never be better than Windows -- IT WILL NEVER BE COMPARABLE TO WINDOWS. If you want something like Windows, use Windows. If you want something kind of like Windows but different, use Windows. If you want something better than Windows -- sorry to say it -- you're going to have to live with Windows. LINUX IS NOT WINDOWS.

    And why on Earth would you be trying to "win over" someone to "your side"?! Can you even THINK of anything more dishonest? Linux is not Britney Spears; it is not a Happy Meal. If people use it, it's because they want a free Unix-like operating systems, they've done their research, and they WANT to use it. It's not because they've been tricked into something (sorry -- "won over"), so that when they finally do try out Linux, they're horribly disappointed at how un-Windows-like it is, and hold some kind of great resentment towards it.

    Look around the web. How many "Linux sucks" posts and websites do you find? A LOT. Is it because Linux actually sucks? Not likely. It's because some "helpful" friend tried to "win them over". They probably said something like "if you're tired of Windows crashing all the time, try this other operating system called Linux". They try Linux, expecting it to be better than Windows, and SURPRISE SURPRISE find out that it "sucks". If you use Linux expecting it to be Windows, guess it, it sucks donkey balls. Not just any donkey balls either -- big ones. LINUX IS NOT WINDOWS. DON'T PRETEND IT IS. AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, FOR THE GOOD OF HUMANITY AND COMPUTER USERS EVERYWHERE, DO NOT "WIN OVER" SOMEONE EVER AGAIN.

    1. Re:what "side"? by codingOgre · · Score: 1

      Mod this up to the moon! Damn, I wish I was a moderator today.

      --
      Space may be the final frontier, but it's made in a Hollywood basement. --Red Hot Chili Peppers, Californication
    2. Re:what "side"? by snake_dad · · Score: 2

      Did you breathe while typing this? I can just about imagine you gasping near the end of your post. :-)

      Still, I think (softly) trying to move people away from Windows is a good thing. One word: monopoly. However: be realistic and honest when you try to interest friends in Linux or *BSD. Make sure they realise the limitations as well as the obvious advantages. Try to interest them, do not try to 'win them over'. And be prepared to offer them lots of help. Find the time for that by cutting down on helping windows-dudes :-)

      Ofcourse it helps a lot if they have a second machine on which to try an OS OS. Maybe you even have some old box you really have no use for anymore, maybe you might think about donating it to a newbie. It will get them interested in networking, at least.

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    3. Re:what "side"? by kitts · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Woo, someone got your panties in a bunch.

      "My side" wrt Linux is a place where things really ARE modular and logical.

      "Logical" how? It may seem logical to some to have the sum of an operating system be a massive collection of different parts, but look how long it's taken for there to be any sort of standardization with Linux because of it. Meanwhile, most people would tend to think that it would be "logical" to locate all main administration tasks in one umbrella, and subdivide from there.

      Your "our side" seems to be that awful "I want Linux to be a better Windows than Windows!" garbage.

      My side is the same side as yours, my anonymous little friend (missed karma points, too -- should've posted under your own steam). I just want to see the operating system be the best that it can be, and that sort of thing only gets accomplished with more work and more eyes criticizing it.

      And there's nothing that says that modularity has to come at the expense of user-friendliness -- but unfortunately, historically, that's been our case.

      If people use it, it's because they want a free Unix-like operating systems, they've done their research, and they WANT to use it.

      Oh. Well, just in case you care, I started using it because I wanted an alternative to Windows. Didn't know a damn thing about Unix beforehand, and I was really happy with what I got. I still see some shortcomings -- the topic of this discussion being one of them -- but on the whole I think the OS is definitely worthy of trying to win over my friends, many of whom are growing skeptical at Microsoft's business practices and the crappy OS they put out.

      LINUX IS NOT WINDOWS.

      Now, to me, this sounds like rationalizing one's way into an excuse not to grow and evolve. One might as well start this sort of argument regarding different kernel versions. Linux today is not the same OS as it was last year, nor is Windows today the same OS as it was last year. That there's some convergence in the tasks that the two OS's perform is not pure happenstance. The two don't exist in a vacuum. To not try to steal the best aspects of a competitor is silly, to justify it because it rocks your comfort level is at best willfull ignorance, at worst dangerous.

      --
      -------------------------------------------------- ----
      charlton heston is more of a man than yo
    4. Re:what "side"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not Windows? Great! I'm going Linux. You've won me over!

  42. I'm sure it is a nice product.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For those that aren't aware, Turboprint has been available for the old Amiga for years (a decade or so?). It was an excellent product, and, in a way, it is nice to see the company moving on. However, I doubt they understand that closed source software tends to have a very low rate of acceptance in the Linux world -- especially when open-sourced, free software, competition is already established.. I'm betting that they are jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire as far as markets go...

  43. 'gs'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Hello? 'gs'? Sound like a little something called GHOSTSCRIPT to you? Something designed to print Postscript documents on non-Postscript devices?? Yes? (Hint: your 3rd point is 100% wrong).

    REAL problems with the posters suggestion: it doesn't spool, it requires direct access to the device (think "multiuser capable? Not bloody likely!").

  44. Printerdrake by MicroBerto · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I don't ever print much, so when I read these threads, I decided to try setup my mama's shared printer upstairs. She's got an HP PSC 500 (multifunction printer, doubted it was even supported).

    Loaded up printerdrake in my Mandrake 8.1 installation.

    2 minutes later, I run upstairs to find see the printer goin to work on a perfect test page!

    Mandrake rules, kids. No need to spend 20 dollars on anything else.

    --
    Berto
    1. Re:Printerdrake by ljaguar · · Score: 1

      I use RH's printconf. It prints just fine to SMB shared printer I have at my Debian file/printer server. All the other computers at the house (running win2k) prints just fine to the printer as well. Get a real distro.

    2. Re:Printerdrake by MicroBerto · · Score: 1
      And for any valid reason is Mandrake NOT a "real" distro?

      Oh, I guess the fact that it has easy-to-use configuration utilities makes it "fake". Get a real clue.

      --
      Berto
  45. As easy as windows ? by BorgDrone · · Score: 1

    Ever tried sending a postscript file to a network postscript printer from windows ?
    impossible!

    the closest I got was installing a windows port of ghostscript, using that to interpret the postscript and print it to the windows printer driver (via GDI) which in turn converts it back to postscript and sends it to the printer.
    now that's userfriendly .. NOT!.

    1. Re:As easy as windows ? by chromatic · · Score: 1

      I haven't done it in a year and a half, but it was as easy as copying the file to the printer share just as if you were copying a file to a directory. You can either do that from the command line with a mapped share or to a UNC, or by dragging and dropping the file icon to the printer icon. I'm pretty sure this is what you want.

    2. Re:As easy as windows ? by BorgDrone · · Score: 2

      Yes, that's what I want, but that doesn't work, not with a novell network anyways. dragging the icon to the printer results in lots of pages with postscript command's
      Luckily, we have sun boxen at school too :)

    3. Re:As easy as windows ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you've got to investigate the novell queue - try Pconsole?

    4. Re:As easy as windows ? by ArildB · · Score: 1
      The last time I had this problem (in NT4.0) I gave the following command in startup:
      NET USE LPTx: \\SERVER_NAME\PRINTER_NAME
      Then I could copy PostScript-files to the LPTx-port for printing without further problems...
  46. My prayers have been answered by slendle84 · · Score: 0

    I used to use Mandrake and could print fairly well in color, but recently I switched to Debian. I tried many times to get my HP Printer/Scaner/Copier 500 to work with apsfilter, but I had to success. I tried the demo of this and it worked on the first try. My printer is not even technically supported, so I picked a HP and it worked in color, I think better than in Mandrake.
    It may not be the best choice for everyone, but I like it.

  47. Stuck on a single box mentality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linux users and developers are still stuck on a single box mentality. Turbo Print offers very little in the way of advancing Linux printing ease, compared to products that are already available.

    The problem though, is that they are targeting Windows abillity to setup a local printer on a single workstation. When it comes to Windows printing abillity there are two major advantages that Linux and Trubo Print do not even come close to. The first is Windows plug and play printer capabillity. Plug a printer into the parallel port and chances are high that Windows will detect, identify and install the drivers for the printer. Linux has nothing like this.

    But, the second advantage that Windows has is probably it's greatest advantage. That is point and print. This is the abillity of NT/2000 to allow the user to browse available printers on the network. Then, when the user clicks on the printer, the correct driver is automatically downloaded and installed. No configuration is required by the user.

    Simply point and print. Duh.

    1. Re:Stuck on a single box mentality by mpe · · Score: 2

      The first is Windows plug and play printer capabillity. Plug a printer into the parallel port and chances are high that Windows will detect, identify and install the drivers for the printer. Linux has nothing like this.

      How often do you connect printers to computers though. This is a variation on the "easier to install" theme...

      But, the second advantage that Windows has is probably it's greatest advantage. That is point and print. This is the abillity of NT/2000 to allow the user to browse available printers on the network. Then, when the user clicks on the printer, the correct driver is automatically downloaded and installed. No configuration is required by the user.

      Actually 9X can also do this. But one possible result is piles of stuff being sent to a printer which the end user does not know the location of. Also Windows workstations don't cope well with SAMBA shared printers restricting access by IP address (probably because NT servers can't do this). Possibly XP has had this fixed...

  48. On MDK 8.1 by Delifisek · · Score: 1

    Everything works fine. Including native language support..

    I don't think we need another printing system.

    My idea is every one focus to CUPS. Its solves the problem.

    --
    [My english is better than most other people's Turkish, so please point out mistakes politely. Thank you.]
  49. standard APIs by dakoda · · Score: 2, Insightful

    and this will unfortunatly probably never happen. Linux people (myself included) are generally gung ho about having multiple apis for everything. while this is good in some ways, it's awful in others. we have X, with no kind of gui standard. theres pdq (what i use), lpr (lousy imho), cups (gonna give it a spin in a bit), and this. for sound, there was oss, which i used for ever, programmed for, and everything, and now alsa, which absolutly rocks (featurewise). and these are for common, user side things. people continue to speculate what linux needs to 'win the desktop,' and the list is generally something like : apps, ms office, games.
    while these would help, it'd be more helpful to people writing those if they had a standard api to write for, rather than trying to accomodate all of them. but as soon as you say 'one standard' you get the general 'one world, one os' reply. its unfortunate, really, despite how helpful it really would be.

    theres nothing wrong with progress, but some coherence would provide worlds of help to developers.

    just my 2 cents

  50. We don't really need this! by xise · · Score: 3, Interesting

    All thats lacking for linux printing is the knowledge of whats avaliable, check out linuxprinting.org As a summary if you use Redhat use printtool, suse have there own setup in yast, Mandrake probably have something too, for debian or most other distributions use aps though as with most setups you need ghostscript(for postscript conversion) and a printer spooler such as lpd or lprng. Never used it but CUPS is supposed to be easy to use and of course you could just buy a postscript printer. I don't see why this commercial program is needed, use whats out there and free as in beer and speech!

    1. Re:We don't really need this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well except that none of those provide proper color calibration nor any of the other "professional" features...

  51. Linux Stability - not quite there by jpt.d · · Score: 1

    Linux is not stable by any stretch of the imagination. It crashes just as much as Windows does. On /. others have said XP is more stabler than Linux.

    (* Linux == the kernel, as Linux is only a kernel).

    --
    What we see depends on mainly what we look for. -- John Lubbock Now search for that bug slave!
  52. To all you CUPS advocates out there... by SCHecklerX · · Score: 5, Informative
    ...Just make sure you set
    PreserveJobHistory No
    PreserveJobFiles No
    in your /etc/cupsd.conf, or your cupsd process will get HUGE over time!! Mine grew to over 17 Meg on my own box. Sheesh!

    Also, make sure there are no spaces after the 'No's. The first time I tried configuring this, I had a space after the word and the braindead parser couldn't recognize the option because of it(not sure if they've fixed it in the newer versions or not)...so I swore for a couple hours before actually checking my syslog as to why the damned thing kept ignoring the option :)

    The GUI should let you purge completed jobs, IMNSHO. For a basically single-user system, it's best to just disable those two options, unless you are into checking your /var/spool/cups directory on a regular basis (I have better things to do with my time)

    1. Re:To all you CUPS advocates out there... by printman · · Score: 2

      The trailing space problem was indeed fixed a while back.

      Also, the default is now to preserve the last 500 jobs (not every job ever printed), so disabling job history shouldn't be necessary unless you want to eliminate any extra memory use on your system.

      I *think* the web interface has a "purge jobs" button, and you can do "cancel -a printer" to purge the job history for a printer.

      --
      I print, therefore I am.
    2. Re:To all you CUPS advocates out there... by SCHecklerX · · Score: 2
      The trailing space problem was indeed fixed a while back.

      Good! But I only recently moved to Mandrake 8.1, 7.2 having worked wonderfully for me (and 8.1 didn't add anything for me, really, other than a JFS...everything else was already there or easily added myself from 7.2)....the point being that I am sure there are many people out there still using older versions of cups.

      Also, the default is now to preserve the last 500 jobs (not every job ever printed), so disabling job history shouldn't be necessary unless you want to eliminate any extra memory use on your system.

      Also Good!

      I *think* the web interface has a "purge jobs" button, and you can do "cancel -a printer" to purge the job history for a printer.

      No way of checking at the moment, since I killed the option to keep the stuff hanging around in my spool file as I suggested <grin>

  53. Re:Why Linux is better than Win but won't replace by Legion303 · · Score: 2
    His point just went thundering over your head.

    Since you missed it: he said Windows is more insecure than *nix because it's meant to be used by idiots; make it less idiot-proof and many of the recurring problems would disappear.

    -Legion

  54. Re:Cus it's KDE by ljaguar · · Score: 0, Troll

    Cus it's KDE, that's why.

    Some of us want choices.

    Yes, I realize I can just use CUPS. I just don't like KDE, that's all. For that matter, GNOME isn't too cool either. I use wmaker.

  55. RedHat.. by mkaufman · · Score: 1

    I use RedHat with KDE 2.2.1 and it comes with a great printer configuration tool..takes like 30 seconds to setup a printer - seriously, and it's easier then windows ::cough::

  56. What about apsfilter by LM741N · · Score: 1

    I never have any problems printing just about anything with it. Its only drawback is that in the full configuration it needs lots of dependancies. Now one thing is that I'm using a Lexmark Postscript printer. I can imagine a case where someone using really cheap no-brand printer might have problems.

  57. Hey, great article. by Genghis+Troll · · Score: 0, Funny

    When are we gonna start getting stuff like "Prettifying your Box for Spring", and "Is your Gay Nerd Lover Faithful? Take our Quiz and Find Out!"? Cosmo for fucking dorks.

  58. I take it you don't use SuSE... by dj1471 · · Score: 0

    I use SuSE and find the printer config really easy. During install it will detect a local printer and allow you to set up a network printer etc. Dead easy.

  59. The Problems with Printing in Linux by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The problems with printing in Linux (or any other UNIX for that matter) go beyond simple setup and configuration of the printer. Until just recently, setup and configuration have been the only problems that anyone has addressed.

    I used to maintain printer drivers for Windows and OS/2, and the implementation of the print subsystem on those operating systems is one of the very few areas where I've thought the design was more elegant than any UNIX solution I've seen. I suspect this is due to the modular nature of UNIX, which in this case turns out to be a weakness.

    In a nutshell, the OS/2 and Windows kernels export an interface that you write functions to when you're writing a driver. This interface covers page rendering as well as printer set-up and configuration. That means anyone who wants to render a page need only call those functions and doesn't need to worry about what printer he's sending to. Integration of feature selection into your application program is also much simpler and takes advantage of the code written by the printer driver programmer.

    The down side to all this of course, that since the GUI subsystems of OS/2 and Windows ran in kernel space, a poorly written printer driver can easily crash your entire system.

    Only recently have efforts been made to address the rendering side of the problem with the Xprt extension to XF86 and the toolbox-level gnome-print library (I assume the KDE people have something similar as well.) While these efforts are good, a printer manufacturer is not likely to put the effort into supporting all of them. This means that we will continue to write our own rendering code to render into PostScript.

    Ghostscript seems to have become the de-facto printer driver for Linux and the only real complaints I have about it are that it's much harder to integrate printer features into your program when Ghostscript is in use. I ended up trying to get around these problems by writing an incomplete PPD parser for the printers I was working with. This parser generated information files about the printer features and a lpr replacement program would present these features to the user. We did a pretty good job of making a GUI installer and front-end for printer feature selection, but it only supported our printers.

    Technically it wouldn't be a very difficult problem to address these issues and make everything seamless for the programmer and the users. Politically it's rather more difficult though. This is one area where you're going to need a single standard if you want the printer manufacturers to write drivers for you. There needs to be one render interface, ideally at the X level so the toolkits can make use of it and one feature communication interface so that various programs can query for printer features. Queueing and spooling is already pretty well addressed.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  60. Linux Printing by AaronW · · Score: 2

    While CUPS makes life easier, I still have a lot of problems with Linux. I run SuSE Linux 7.3 and have an Epson Stylus Color 800 printer connected to a networked print server (Netgear PS104). While Linux talks to the print server just fine, no matter what I try Linux takes 2 sheets of paper per page (yes, I have it configured for Letter and tried the inkjet letter settings). What is worse, however, is I get random horizontal lines on the page. Note that the output is going through Ghostscript.

    Now, with the same setup, print server, etc. I have no problems when printing from OS/2 or Windows. Furthermore I do not get the horizontal lines (so it's not a cabling problem or a problem with the print server).

    Now the Epson is a fairly common printer with well-documented control codes. I guess the only way to print properly in Linux is with a Postscript printer.

    --
    This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    1. Re:Linux Printing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm... Well, my old Epson Sylus Color 600 works just swell from SuSE 7.2 (and RedHat 7.2) with a Netgear PS110. Netgear, however, provides only a NetBUI print server driver for Win2k, so my Win2k laptop can only print to that Epson via samba on my (Linux) file server.

      Red Hat and SuSE connect directly to the PS110's I.P. address (P1@192.168.0.9 and P2@192.168.0.9). The Win9X boxes on my network must use a somewhat clunky driver to use the PS110. As mentioned, Win2k doesn't work at all with the PS110.

      Bottom Line: In my experience, network printing (with Netgear hardware) is a breeze with Linux and a pain with Windows!

    2. Re:Linux Printing by nmos · · Score: 1

      I have the same printer and am using it without any problems at all. I'm using Debian & Magicfilter. I also needed to install Gimp-print to get decent photo quality output but normal printing (both B&W and Color) was fine out of the box. If you take your question to one of the Linux news groups and describe your problems in a bit more detail you'll probably get your problems sorted out.

    3. Re:Linux Printing by EvilStein · · Score: 2

      cups made nothing easier for me. ive had nothing but problems getting the epson stylus 740 working with it for anything other than the linux box itself. staroffice prints ok, netscape prints ok, but certain other apps will spew nothing but trash to the printer. kde's text editor wouldn't print at all. it drove me nuts *just like this keyboard with no functioning shift keys..augh*
      i couldn't print to the printer even though it was shared via samba from win2k. 98? worked fine.
      can't find anything about sharing a printer under linux to a mac, either.

      i gave up, and stuck the usb printer on my win2k server and installed the printer services. it's been somewhat stable...so far. at least i can print from the macs again.

  61. Re:Why Linux is better than Win but won't replace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As soon as they plug it into the cable modem, it will download the patch, notify the user there is a new critical update, ask if they want to intstall by clicking yes, and the problem is solved. Of course, enabling the built in firewall also solves this problem as well, but who's counting - facts are few and far between in these arguments.

  62. Hardware is not the problem of linux printing! by tempfile · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The real problem and reason why printing in Linux, esp. from the GUI, is a pain in the behind is that no distribution has a working system-wide font configuration mechanism where X and gs can painlessly access the same fonts (Recently I stated that Debian does, but it still has problems with font names with spaces in them, rendering it practically useless because many common truetype fonts have spaces in them) and the lack of a working printing toolkit. I don't know about libgnomeprint, but Qt/KDE's printing is horribly, horribly broken.

    This leads to the dilemma that GUI application developers not only have to write routines to display their data on screen, but also ones to bring everything to Postscript. Web browsers are a prime example where the screen display is complex enough so that there's no more resources left to reinvent the wheel in Postscript, leading to Mozilla's broken printing.

    The final problem is the lack of Unicode support in the ancient Postscript/Type 1 font standard. The introduction of the Euro made this painfully obvious for European Linux users.

    Before we look at the hardware, we need a reliable printing library that surpasses Postscript's stone-age encoding, rendering out every single character. I believe libgnomeprint wants to do that, but I haven't been tracking it. We need a printing system that does not rely on printer drivers that are compiled into the PS rasterizer (lpr, ugh!) or has other quirks (cups is a step forward with its modularity and two behind with its own rasterizing program, effectively introducing a separate app for PS->screen and PS->printer). The hardware support is already here, but what use is a fast car if you can't get the door open? (Don't you just love metaphors?)

    1. Re:Hardware is not the problem of linux printing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can ANY Linux app or distribution handle printing non-ascii charsets? Cyrillic, Arabic, Chinese, for example? I can get perfect display in my browser of the page, but I've never been able to get one to print. I've tried Netscape, Mozilla, Konqueror, and Galeon - though not the latest versions of each. If there's a way to do it, please let me know. Otherwise, non-ascii support is the biggest complaing with printing that I have.

      Thanks.
      don't remember my name or password

    2. Re:Hardware is not the problem of linux printing! by printman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Um, CUPS does not use "its own rasterizing program", it uses GNU Ghostscript with the "cups" driver which outputs a generic raster stream that can be configured as needed by the printer driver (i.e. the driver can say it needs a 6-color image at 720 DPI, and Ghostscript will generate it through the cups driver)

      We include a version of Ghostscript with CUPS because 1) most non-Linux operating systems don't come with Ghostscript pre-installed, and 2) the standard Ghostscript is bug-filled and doesn't come with that all-important cups driver compiled in. See the ESP Ghostscript project on SourceForge for a more generic replacement that can be configured with the standard Ghostscript drivers + cups.

      CUPS also provides an image file RIP which provides faster/better image printing than is possible with Ghostscript.

      Similarly, the GNOME folks could provide a rasterizer for GNOME metafiles that would be used for printing - the metafiles are generally a more compact representation than PostScript, and would provide faster printing for clients in a network configuration.

      In short, it is the very design of CUPS that will allow it to support a wide variety of devices and applications today and in the future.

      --
      I print, therefore I am.
  63. Printing photographs? by chrysalis · · Score: 2

    I just installed Turboprint, and it's definitively a nice product.
    My HPDJ970C is supposed to work with cups and lpd, but I only had it work with text documents so far. Printing photographs worked, but the result was very ugly (not something that you can call a photograph) .
    Turboprint seems to print photographs as well as windows, and that's something I've been waiting for a long time.
    Plus it has a "printer toolbox" to align and clean printing heads. No more need for a Windows partition any more.
    Just one thing : what's the best piece of Linux software to use in order to properly scale photographs before printing them?

    --
    {{.sig}}
    1. Re:Printing photographs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gimp is perfect for that sort of thing.

  64. Chill Out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think your turbin is wrapped too tightly.

  65. Kernel detects mine.... via IEEE1284.... so.... by simetra · · Score: 1

    why not provide an option where if the kernel detects it, a driver is loaded at this point, so you can print whatever you want whether you're running X or not? I get a full printer ID string in/from the kernel at boot time. Why not tie it in here?

    --

    "Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
  66. Re:Cus it's KDE by redcliffe · · Score: 2

    AFAIK, you can use KDE applications without using KDE as your window manager. I used KMail when I was using Enlightenment as my window manager.

  67. Is Epson Stylus Color 480SXU supported? by Hank+Powers · · Score: 1

    Their driver list on the website claims that Epson Stylus Color 480 is supported by TurboPrint. I wonder if its (otherwise same, but) USB-only version Stylus Color 480SXU works with it. Does anyone know?

    --
    hapo
  68. X Printing Panel by marauder · · Score: 1

    While setting up CUPS last night I found this tool which, according to the page, provides the one last thing not in CUPS: a GUI to adjust printer settings and schedule jobs. These things aren't covered properly/at all by the CUPS web interface. For myself, I'm right with lpoptions for my configuration needs and lp for scheduling, but if you miss Print and Print Setup in Windows you might want to check out XPP.

    1. Re:X Printing Panel by damiam · · Score: 1

      Or, for those who like a slightly prettier interface, there's gtklp.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
  69. Also it's illegal by Error27 · · Score: 2
    I really don't know why people keep on talking about CMYK.

    That stuff is patented and thus illegal.

    Instead of complaining to developers complain to your congressman because they are the only people that can change it.

    1. Re:Also it's illegal by specht · · Score: 1

      As long as you don't inhale you should be fine... :-)

      CMYK is how printers print, so if CMYK would be illegal you would not be able to do any color prints on your inkjet. If you look at e.g. gimp-print (or for that matter any other software that can print to a color printer) you are actually creating CMYK output, otherwise your printer would only print BW.

      So CMYK support in e.g. Gimp would not be a problem from a patent point of view (now keep in mind that I am no lawyer and there may actually be patents covering some aspects of a CMYK workflow) - actually, Gimp can already convert RGB images into "kind of CMY / CMYK separations" and back into RGB. However, this does not make a lot of sense if you can not convert to "real" (meaning device specific CMYK). This is only possible using some sort of a device description, which usually is an ICC color profile. And this is where we run into problems with patents.

      But just because there are patents on certain processes, this does not mean that we can not come up with different mechanism that can accomplish the same, but using a different method.

    2. Re:Also it's illegal by printman · · Score: 2

      CMYK is not patented.

      There are certain color management and color profiling technologies that are patented, however the process of printing using cyan, magenta, yellow, and black is very old.

      --
      I print, therefore I am.
    3. Re:Also it's illegal by Error27 · · Score: 1
      Yeah. You're right. I'm actually aware of the gimp-print project. But I wasn't thinking about printing, but more using CYMK directly throughout the program. I'm no expert but I think that you lose some quality converting images from CYMK to RGB and back?

      I did some looking around and it turns out that CMYK color space is probably going to be supported in 2.0. I thought that it wasn't.

      To me the stuff in gegl looks like it grew out of a need to work around patent issues with various color algorithms. It lets people build proprietary plugins for thing that are illegal to do in open source.

      That's very frustrating.

      I wish they didn't allow people to patent algorithms and we could go back to the way things were before.

      But you are right. Aparently they found a way to work around all the patents in that area.

    4. Re:Also it's illegal by specht · · Score: 1

      You are right, quality will degrade if you go from RGB to CMYK and back to RGB. That's why this dual convertion is usually not done. You would convert only once into your (device dependant) CMYK color space once you know where and how an image is going to be printed and do your final image adjustments there.

      The reason for this is that you RGB is basically a monitor color space and CMYK is a priner color space. There are colors that you can display on a monitor that can not be printed, and there are colors that can be printed, but not displayed on a monitor. If you convert RGB to CMYK using a profile, the conversion process will take care of adjusting your colors to that either the colors that can not be printed are either clipped, or the whole image is (color-wise) compressed, so that overall the colors look "right".

  70. Re:Move on, nothing to see here[OH COME ON] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lies.
    Its a nice idea for printers with advanced functionality, eg. epson's photo printers. Don't be so quick to condem a reasonably priced alternative to the somewhat limited prepackaged linux drivers.

  71. The power of the Dark Side by fm6 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    For once we have to give Microsoft its due. The main reason setting up a printer on is easy (or more precisely, easier than the alternatives) is that MS has gone and written (and, more importantly, tested) drivers for every printer imaginable. Granted these are not always the most reliable or most feature-complete drivers available, but most users find them adequate. Indeed MS does a better job of tracking out-of-production feature sets than HP does!

    Open Source advocates assume that Open software will always be better, in every sense, than Closed, because so many people are examining the source code. It's true that objective source code scrutiny does make better source code. But there's more to good software than absence of code errors. You need testing. Regression testing, usability testing, stress testing... MS can pay for all this because of their huge revenue stream. Development models that attempt to compete with Microsoft's closed model forget this at their peril.

    1. Re:The power of the Dark Side by wolfc · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the fact that the source code needs to do what an END user wants. (That one always gets me.)

  72. Re:How is this different than cups + (kups | xpp) by asteinberg · · Score: 1
    In fact, I'd go as far as to say that it's probably worse. Normal cups seems to support a far greater number of printers than this does (3 brands and 93 printers?! What about Lexmark, for example?). Installing a printer in Mandrake using Cups is as easy as selecting it from a list of far more than 93 printers.

    Even if your printer isn't supported by default, installing it is usually just a matter of locating and installing the correct software at LinuxPrinting.org. Personally, I ran into a few complications with my supposedly unsupported Lexmark Z43, but the fact that I was eventually able to get it working shows that the Cups system is flexible enough to handle a far greater number of printers than TurboPrint supports.

    --
    The first ever Ultimate Frisbee video game: here (now
  73. Re:Linux Stability - not quite there ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What?? Linux not stable?
    Okay you may be right. But windows 2000 and xp stability is still far away from reaching the level of linux stability.
    Once I had a fucked up cooler (I spent some time without knowing that was the problem).
    My linux box crashed 2 times every week(mostly when compiling stuff) with kernel panics. I thought it was an awfull lot, but it was NOTHING compared to pushing the reset button in 5 times a day in win98. And 5 times IS the exact number (maybe more).
    Then win2000 stability. Then how come realplayer manages to hardlock my box everytime I start it??
    Maybe it wasn't even the win2000 version (I was too lazy to check). But this is not supposed to happen! But anyway you can run fucking exe's, corrupted elfs or whatever on linux. It will not crash because it runs some fucked up program.
    I have never ever succeeded in crashing freebsd.
    Even with my fucked up cooler, the system was still useable. I got a very tough warning message, but the system was still running. I have never in my whole life known a freebsd system to crash.
    That may be exaggerated, but what I mean is that, as a single user doing everything I please I have never managed to crash it. As for windows 98 I can crash it before it is fully started. And windows 2000 I could crash in 10 minutes (max). As for win xp I wouldn't know but it'll be not much better.

  74. Re:Cus it's KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jeez, you people are stupid. If you use kmail... all the kdelibs are loaded. You are RUNNING KDE, fool.

  75. Ok lets steal it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone get a sourceforge project going, then we can start reverse engineering the idea to make GNU Furbo Print.

    Its the linux way.

  76. Re:Linux Stability - not quite there ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think that any person who wants to maintain a good OS will install anythin from RealNetworks. It is full of spyware and ads that destroy your OS.

  77. foomatic by jagilbertvt · · Score: 1

    check out http://www.linuxprinting.org. I have found the foomatic tool very handy. No need to change the printer settings manually (And i can even use the default windows drivers w/ it on my windows machines).

  78. Until Linux learns to print by OSgod · · Score: 1

    for Granny -- it will be a second tier OS.

    I'm still amazed it has so little functionality in this area!

  79. Re:Right by OSgod · · Score: 1

    So by definition it's a Microsoft Computer... and a Microsoft industry.

  80. GIMP does CMYK (was Re:Printing, and then maybe..) by Bloody+Peasant · · Score: 1
    : We then need CMYK capability in The Gimp

    Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but my version of the GIMP (1.2.1, default version that comes with RH7.2) has the ability to decompose the image into CMYK: right click, image, mode, decompose; then up pops a dialog box to extract the channels into RGB, HSV, CMY, CMYK, or Alpha. I chose CMYK and got four mono images for each of the channels.

    --
    -- This .sig intentionally left meaningless.
  81. The problem isn't just command line by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It doesn't really get much better if the "linux-heads" try to put a GUI front-end on things. Widget layouts are often poorly thought out and often covey contradictory or ambiguous choices for configuration. These sad attempts at usability are even praised more highly than the supposedly "easy" command line stuff. The real problem is that the linux hackers designing interfaces in the linux community get sugar-coated reviews of their stuff by other linux hackers who are far too eager to say something is usable out of their ignorance of user interface design and out of their belief that anything under GPL is inherently superior to anything proprietary, interface or otherwise. As a personal experience, I once talked to a person who created a linux installer for a very prominent linux distribution and I mentioned a few of the dozens of confusing or ambiguous or inconsistent things I found in its interface. He couldn't understand what the problem was: he thought I thought that it "wasn't pretty enough". And yet die-hard linux zealots who remember vi commands before they remember their wife's anniversary claim that this interface is perfectly easy and that this installer is perfectly ready for the desktop.

    The few people with interface design knowledge who point out these problems are usually called "whiners", and are told to shut up and code their own improvements.

    Putting it bluntly, the linux development community is doing more to kill linux on the desktop than Bill Gates ever could. Microsoft realizes this, and that's they have never considered linux on the desktop a threat.

    1. Re:The problem isn't just command line by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      Nobody can compete with MS on the desktop. Not linux, not Mac, not Be, Not anybody. If truly superior GUIs like the Mac are unable to put a dent in the MS monopoly nothing will. MS has a monopoly and will contue to have a monopoly now that the they bitchslapped the United States government into submission.

      Linux was, is and will continue to be by and for geeks. Nothing wrong with that. It's been good for linux so far and it will continue to be good in the future. Let the mindless massed use windows and be led by nose by Bill gates. They will be forced to endure mindless ads, they will be forced to subscribe to MSN and passport, they will lose their privacy, they will get their life story turned over to marketing firms. It's the fate of the stupid sheep to be slaughtered and eaten.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    2. Re:The problem isn't just command line by sheldon · · Score: 2

      I have never found the Mac GUI to be all that superior.

      Even when I owned an Amiga I found the Mac GUI to be crude.

      It's strange that this myth keeps being repeated.

  82. Consider this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone blames Linux for a lot of things. Remember that Linux is the operating system and KDE/Gnome are window managment APPLICATIONS that act as an interface to the operating system. If you have problems with ANYTHING done via a window manager, blame the application.

  83. Re:GIMP does CMYK (was Re:Printing, and then maybe by specht · · Score: 1

    This is correct, but you get CMY or CMYK that has nothing to do with any particular device. The decomposition is done by just inverting the RGB values plus some black generation. When the conversion is done the right way, you always have one particular device in mind, otherwise CMYK is not different from RGB - anything that can be done in one colorspace has a similar corresponding operation in the other color space.

    CMYK only becomes useful if you have device specifid CMYK. This however means that for the conversion of RGB or Lab or any other color space you are working in into CMYK you need a "device description file", which is usually an ICC profile that was created for your device.

    To make Gimp fully CMY/CMYK aware, you need to add two things: All image manipulation operations have to work in the CMYK colorspace (this means that you don't have to first decompose the image) and we need a way to convert any image into a device specific CMYK file.

  84. My Linux Printing Setup by compumike · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm running RH 7.1, which has LPR with Printtool by default, but after many wasted hours trying to get it to print reasonably well with any of my three printers, I finally found a solution that works.

    The solution? CUPS with XPP. This basically gets me all the functionality I need, with compatibility in most apps. All of my KDE apps use CUPS's LPR emulation to print. StarOffice, Mozilla, and other X apps use XPP, in which the program sends the postscript data to XPP and XPP lets me select a printer, printing options, and sends it to cupsd. If any console apps want to print, they just use CUPS's LPR emulation. Samba also integrates with CUPS, letting me share my printers.

    Setting up my printers was also a piece of cake. Downloaded & extracted the CUPS printer definitions from the website. Went to my nice CUPS admin page (http://localhost:631/) and went through the setup under "Add Printer." No config files to mess with or anything...

    The only thing I could wish for is for RedHat to use CUPS as the default printing system, as other distros like Mandrake have done. It was really a pain to rip out printtool and all the crap it leaves behind.

    Michael F. Robbins

  85. Unix - easiest printing setup around ... by konmaskisin · · Score: 1

    ... I just plug a printer in and print from any app or any host on the network all with plain lpr/lpd setup. Usually takes no more than a couple of minutes. I have no CUPSn no LprNG, no turbo whiz-bang .... no nuthin'

    "But how? How do you do it?" you ask ...

    RTFM and buy postscript printers. Not hard.

    1. Re:Unix - easiest printing setup around ... by Shanep · · Score: 1

      konmaskisin should be mod'd up. It really is pretty simple.

      Preferably buy a printer that interprets postscript or failing that some level of PCL.

      If you're not interested in knowing your system then don't use a free OS.

      In Windows, I find print drivers and setup to be flakey. Sure, you plug in a printer and boom, it comes up saying Such'n'Such printer found searching for driver etc etc, but once it's done, your in printer admin hell, trying to get the simplest of jobs to bloody print the same as the print preview.

      In Linux, set it up, it then works, forever. I've put more than 2,500 pages through my little Xerox laser with no admin of the spool or half printed jobs prior to any blue screens.

      --
      War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
  86. Positive review of Argyll by raph · · Score: 2

    Hi Tim,

    I didn't intend my diary entry to be a negative review of Argyll at all. In fact, I am very impressed with the software.

    The problem with Argyll at present is that nobody has (yet) integrated all the pieces in such a way that your average graphic artist can make high quality profiles. The pieces are there, and they're of quite high quality. But (at present) you have to have some serious color science knowledge to ensure that you get good results.

    My latest attempt at a profile on Argyll produces breathtaking clarity, but I'm still dealing with a purple hue shift for deep blues, which I'm pretty sure is caused by my use of CIE La*b* as the interim color space for gamut compression rather than CIECAM97. Argyll has support for the latter, it's just not what I used.

    So I'm very hopeful that Argyll will serve as the engine for truly topnotch color management in the free software world. I'm not going to say anything about how long that will take, though. Right now, I'm not getting all that much encouragement from the user community, who seems to vastly prefer whining on Slashdot about how the current state of affairs is inadequate, rather than rolling up their sleeves, learning some color theory, building profiles, and helping develop the solution.

    There, I've just whined on Slashdot myself. Thanks, I feel better now.

    --

    LILO boot: linux init=/usr/bin/emacs

    1. Re:Positive review of Argyll by tim_maroney · · Score: 2

      The problem with Argyll at present is that nobody has (yet) integrated all the pieces in such a way that your average graphic artist can make high quality profiles. The pieces are there, and they're of quite high quality. But (at present) you have to have some serious color science knowledge to ensure that you get good results.

      Sorry for any confusion. By my standards, that's a bad user review. It says you can get good color out of the thing only if you're a color scientist. We were talking about the benefits of adding CMYK support to the Gimp in terms of making a competitive desktop publishing system on Linux, and Argyll in its present form falls far short of that.

      I'm not getting all that much encouragement from the user community, who seems to vastly prefer whining on Slashdot about how the current state of affairs is inadequate, rather than rolling up their sleeves, learning some color theory, building profiles, and helping develop the solution.

      Well, to me, someone begging for other people to do their work for them for no pay is what counts as whining. Clearly we have somewhat different value systems!

      Best,
      Tim

  87. LPRng is crap by stock · · Score: 1

    I guess the LPRng programmer introduced to much crap. As a result LPRng is too diffecult for the ordinary linux user.

    I myself even have the feeling LPRng contains bugs. I couldn't sort it out, and backported all the printing tools like printtool and lpr and rhs-filter from the source RPM's from redhat 5.2 , with

    rpm --rebuild lpr-0.33-1.src.rpm

    etc. Installing the resulting lpr-0.33-1.i386.rpm and also printtool and rhs-filter made me happy again.
    printing now works as easy and solid as my older redhat 5.2 box.

    Robert

  88. Wierdest thing I have seen with Win Printing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It involved an NT network and WP 2000 if someone printed to a networked printer (HP 2010, LJ 5, LJ IIIsi) without manually selecting the specific printer it would squish the font horizontally. It would only happen with Times New Roman 12pt. Talked extensively with Corel, their newsgroups and never came up with a solution. Boss's suggestion go to MS Office. Did I mention this is a Law office?


    Posting anonymously as I am trying to conserve my pitiful karma.

  89. CUPS as easy as Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CUPS as easy as Windows? Have you actually read your post? Gather required driver, install software, point browser to obscure port and choose printer... Not hardly as easy as Windows.

    With Plug-N-Pray, Windows generally auto-recgonizes your printer and can install generic drivers for it. If you want specific ones, just point the wizard to your CD or whatever. Much easier.

    Before you disregard this as flame-bait, take a minute to honestly think about this... For Linux to truly exist on the desktop in the mainstream, things need to be this easy. For better or worse, the general public has come to expect things to be this easy. If they aren't just as easy (or easier) on Linux, the general public won't want it...

    Just a thought.

    1. Re:CUPS as easy as Windows? by ding_jlinx · · Score: 1

      forget about the general public. I'm a java developer, and frankly I really have no idea how to deal with the technical details of linux printing. (well some, but not much ) Does this make me an idiot? maybe, but so what? Fact is, if Linux is made for just linux nerds than it's just as useless for me in it's own way as windows is. Linux can be a nice toy, or a good back-end server if that's all you want it to be. But I think it can be a lot more than that.

  90. Re:Cus it's KDE by ding_jlinx · · Score: 1

    So what? This is about APPS not about desktop if an app requires the support of all the kdelibs then so be it. If someone is willing to have that loaded up into RAM so what? And no, you are not "running kde" when someone is "running kde" they are using the kde desktop. I have a feeling that you are going to misunderstand this post, but so be it. -ron

  91. Bravo Lexmark! by Bob_Robertson · · Score: 1

    Here it is, 3rd party vendors supporting the OS. And it (is supposed to) just work(s)!

    I'm seriously impressed. Lexmark just went up to the front of the line in my future printer purchases if for no other reason than this.

    Bob-

    --
    The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
  92. Then get behind one. How about KDEprint? by Bob_Robertson · · Score: 1

    Such things are already happening. Pick one, support it, add some value, make it what you want.

    Do the one essential thing that E.S.R. mentions in Cathedral and Bazaar: Scratch your personal itch.

    If printing is what is important to you, do something about it.

    Bob-

    --
    The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
  93. Re:This is sorely needed (Suse handles it better) by SacredNaCl · · Score: 1

    I would concur. Suse tends to have better out of the box no fuss no muss hardware support than other distros I have tried. When I installed Suse 7.1 everything got configured properly at the point of install. No printer problem, no nonsupported sound card problem... Suse makes it easier. Doing the same thing in Mandrake (the first Linux I installed) took me several hours of searching to find a driver that only sort of worked properly for my HP. I would of loved to of had a product to cut down that time for me so I could get right to work.

    --
    Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
  94. You would think people have never tried Mandrake by raindog2 · · Score: 1

    My partner and I have an Officejet G55 -- a random all-in-one we got cheap at Staples which TurboPrint doesn't even support, along with any other OfficeJets -- hooked up to his Win98 box and shared out. While installing Mandrake Linux 8.0, I was able to choose it from a huge, well-organized selection of HP printers and set up the Samba connection (the installer called it something like a "Win95/NT networking connection") all without ever touching a command line. It printed a test page and everything was beautiful. Our past printers -- Deskjet 500, Deskjet 560C, Canon BJC-6000 -- have all worked with similar ease and they were all bought because they were cheap Windows-compatible printers.

    That really makes 19 bucks for a tarball and command-line lpr look kinda stupid. What is this, 1994?