Slashdot Mirror
Is LPRng Project Still Alive?
deeptrout asks: "The LPRng distribution hasn't been updated since mid-2004, the LPRng project website hasn't been updated since late 2004, and the LPRng mailing list has been dead since the April of 2005. What's going on? Is the project unofficially dead? Has anyone heard any news from Patric Powell, the author of LPRng? It'd be a shame if that is true. I really like LPRng's simple and yet robust reimplementation of the LPD model that allows to keep the configuration for an entire site with hundreds of hosts and dozens of printers in a fairly simple text file. What are we supposed to do now? Switch to CUPS? Something else?"
Just wondering. Surviving members of a project generally have a better idea than the community at large.
"What are we supposed to do now? Switch to CUPS?"
Simply because it has been the de facto standard for a decade? Of course not.
"Effect" is also a verb, and "affect" is also a noun, dumbass.
> Switch to CUPS? Something else?
Why? Has a bug been discovered?
Sounds like it's dead. What's your take?
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
I lived in fear of each LPRng upgrade potentially breaking working printing functionality, and got tired of choosing a print filter package, only to have it disappear in upgrades to my distro. Then there was the fun when I was on the road, and needed to print at a client site (at least, when hooked to their network...), and needing to figure out the next magical incantaion. And I never really liked the config file for lpr anyway. Then I wanted to get photo printing working easily.
/etc/cups, and scped and untarred on the remaining machines, restarting the CUPS daemon, though I don't know if that was strictly necessary)
So, coupled with needing to look into it for my then-current job anyway, since there was a requirement of "no unencrypted traffic" when something could be considered "privileged", as some print jobs to the network printers could be (don't ask, it wasn't physical so much as potential sniffers on the network), I finally looked into CUPS. I decided to convert the least-critical machine on my home network to CUPS under the belief that I could always switch back by copying over a working config. You know what? That same night, I converted all the other *nix machines at home. It was that nice, that easy, that painless. Aside from CUPS already knowing about all my printers, sitting off on a stand-alone 3-port print server, it also was able to make better use of their features.
So, I'm now a happy CUPS user, and even had an easier time last week getting an HP LaserJet 1320 working on my *nix boxes (both simplex and duplex, draft, medium, and high qualities) than I did even getting the drivers and one printer instance onto my gf's XP SP2 laptop. (After the first, I just tarred up the modified files from
If you like LPRng, and it works for you, stick with it. For my money, I'm much happier with CUPS. And as a bonus, with all the print filters for a lot of common formats already there, I don't need to go through different steps to print PDFs, graphics, etc, I just lpr them.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
This is not the same person arguing with you, but you have to admit he has a point. You got owned!
You talk of relationship adjusting makes you look like a major tool too, btw.
Turns out there is a small problem with DNF compatibility holding things up. Supposedly once that is fixed it'll be released the next day.
whats so bad about CUPS?
sure, I've never had large installs of it (max 10 printers and 100 staff). But it has an almost perfect record ime
---- Put Sig here:
I think the real problem here is a lack of GGPS with a LDN. I can't even begin to understand what they were thinking when they made this change. It is completely impossible to follow a GST when the DOK isn't present. What I really think we need is more clarity in the RTY. When you omit the meaning of an RTY the result is something that is completely incomprehnsivle to the user. I think this should be a lesson to all.
Nah, you're still being a tool, quit while you're behind.
Being concerned about good use of language does not make one a troll, and correcting someone who is giving incorrect advice is absolutely not a troll. (though I'll concede that calling someone a dumbass in the process probably is).
.sig is such that it is likely to get responses from pretty much anyone that sees it, even those that would not normally bother correcting word misuse.
So your project to trap all the "grammar trolls" is rather misconceived - if you find spelling or grammar corrections distract you that much, then use your mod points when you have them to mod those posts off topic. Otherwise, don't be childish.
Your
Advanced users are users too!
My first install of Mandrake was Fall 2001 (Mandrake 7.1-7.2?), and it shipped with CUPS. Even better, Postfix was the default mail server, and not Sendmail.
A mature project SHOULD be dead, since there is nothing more to do. Only a horribly bad idea with a poor basic implementation will need perpetual large scale maintainance. If it works it works, who cares if it's dead?
It's pining for the fjords
Sorry, had to say it...
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Any hardware-driven project will always be ready for updates, especially for end-user-serviceable products like printers. New models appear, firmware updates are made available from the manufacturers, and the programs that make it all work together need to be maintained.
The project could be very mature, beyond everyone's expectations. However, like those who meet Dracula, people may find that it sucks their life-blood away, and the best way to make it stop is to put a stake through its heart.
To any of the moderates who didn't catch it, this is a subtle (or not to subtle) attempt to suggest that future summaries try and use less obscure lingo. It is irritating to try and pick through a pile of acronyms to figure out what in the hell is being talked about. It is as simple as DYA (defining your acronyms) to bring a little sense to a summary. You could even throw in one extra sentence describing the project you are discussing so that people who might have some interest yet are not yet in the know can decide if they want to look more closely into the topic. I am not saying you need to spell out everything, just give people and indication as to what in the hell you are talking about so that they can decide if they want pursue further learning.
Summaries like the one given to this article mean absolutely nothing to anyone who isn't already familiar with what is being talked about. I am not saying we need to dumb down the information, just throw in an extra sentence describing what the hell you are talking about, and throw in the meaning of any acronyms in brackets. The dozen more words it would take to do this would drastically expand the number of people that this article might be relevant too.
Slashdot isn't a technical trade journal. You don't need to awe the reader with how well you know the lingo of your trade. Slashdot is a place to grow and learn. The first step in helping people to grow and learn is to be comprehensible.
Um... dumb ass is two words not one.