Um, you implement that code to work in all browsers. And the code to make it so me (in lynx) can still use the old method hands-free or automagically. Then tell me what the file size is and how many more times traffic goes out. Then tell me the pages might take 2x more times to load. Deal with it.
Hmm, at first look I was like. Um, thats just another lpr hack, whoopdie - just more Microsoft spin (wich is half true). Then I read this article. I come to these conclusions: IPP is a good idea as an alternative to faxing. IPP is a good idea as an alternative to email attchments. IPP is a great thing for lan environments. IPP is different than lpr. Reasons they dont use postscript (imho): there is no free postscript interpreter. ghostscript-alladin is non-free. postscript was designed for printers and therefore not optimised for internet traffic. postscript favors a certain operating system (Unix/Mac), therefore -- microsoft will create own standard and try to clobber IPP if it didn't have its own native printer language (that is easy for any os). Question: Why not PDF? There/are/ free PDF creators/viewers. PDF is convertable from postscript. (well, kind of.) PDF is allready avaliable, and PDF seems to do/alot/. Lastly, all this flaming about "it doesn't have X feature"! (for printing) Remember this: IPP wasn't developed to be a publishers printing tool, IPP was developed to make administration of computers eaiser, and provide an easy way to send print commands over the internet. Why does it matter if it doesn't do backwards upside down with a watermark. I don't. Give em a break! Scott
Slashdot Mirror
Um, you implement that code to work in all browsers. And the code to make it so me (in lynx) can still use the old method hands-free or automagically. Then tell me what the file size is and how many more times traffic goes out. Then tell me the pages might take 2x more times to load.
Deal with it.
Hmm, at first look I was like. Um, thats just another lpr hack, whoopdie - just more Microsoft spin (wich is half true). Then I read this article. I come to these conclusions: IPP is a good idea as an alternative to faxing. IPP is a good idea as an alternative to email attchments. IPP is a great thing for lan environments. IPP is different than lpr. Reasons they dont use postscript (imho): there is no free postscript interpreter. ghostscript-alladin is non-free. postscript was designed for printers and therefore not optimised for internet traffic. postscript favors a certain operating system (Unix/Mac), therefore -- microsoft will create own standard and try to clobber IPP if it didn't have its own native printer language (that is easy for any os). Question: Why not PDF? There /are/ free PDF creators/viewers. PDF is convertable from postscript. (well, kind of.) PDF is allready avaliable, and PDF seems to do /alot/. Lastly, all this flaming about "it doesn't have X feature"! (for printing) Remember this: IPP wasn't developed to be a publishers printing tool, IPP was developed to make administration of computers eaiser, and provide an easy way to send print commands over the internet. Why does it matter if it doesn't do backwards upside down with a watermark. I don't. Give em a break! Scott
As I remember from a news.com article, isn't
dell giving out LinuxCare support vouchers. And
having all their support via LinuxCare?
Um, doesn't redhat support the development for PAM in linux? Doesn't pam allow you to have a SQL based password structure with one of the modules?
:)
Just a fleeting thought
-dieman