I get decent imaging from the 970Cse by using the hpdj driver in ghostscript (it is compiled into the current aladdin-ghostscript as distributed in Debian, probably also in other distributions as well). Reading the documentation for this driver is very helpful.
Here is the entry in my/etc/filter.magic (for magicfilter smart filtering):
I put the following in/etc/gs-enlighted-for-dj9700cse to make color pictures a little less dark:
{0.45 exp} settransfer
I don't know how to set-up duplex printing, but I find that manually doing duplex is fine using dvips when printing my papers or psselect when printing generic postscript files.
dvips -D600 -A -r myfile.dvi
prints the odd pages in reverse order. Then put output back in the input tray, and
dvips -D600 -B myfile.dvi
to print even pages on the back. For generic postscript,
I was trying to write a thoughtful question, but my post actually looks like a total troll now that I re-read it. Please ignore it --- I'll shut up and go back to writing code now....
Thank you so much for your excellent work on the kernel! I like the fact that Red Hat supports you and so many people (such as the GNOME hackers) who are working on quality GPLed software. To this point, Red Hat and other distributions have largely operated for the common good of Linux users and developers, true to their origin in the Linux culture. Red Hat has been an excellent citizen in the Linux community by sharing bug fixes, competing on its own merits, it has supporting free software, and it has refrained from promoting its own distribution by denigrating others. For these reasons, and for the sake of general Linux acceptance, I am happy to see Red Hat succeed (I have to admit, though, that I am a Debian user:).
By undergoing an IPO, however, my (hazy) understanding is that Red Hat is obligating itself to shareholder profit ahead of other considerations it may consider important. For the near future, it may be argued that continuing to be a good citizen in the wider Linux community is important for this profitability, and thus most of the community seems to think RH will continue to work for the good of all Linux users and developers in the immediate future. At some point, however, the alignment of citizenship and profit could be altered by change in Red Hat or the wider community, or by other forces in the marketplace. For instance, Red Hat could become so powerful in the market for Linux distributions or service that it could choose to alienate some significant fraction of the original Linux community with impunity, because that segment is now so less powerful than a multi-billion-dollar corporation, and besides Linux in the next n years becomes so mainstream that that the alienated segment is insignificant in comparison. If the potential profit foregone by Red Hat in its efforts to continue to be a good citizen of the Linux community is great enough, it might be argued that that it is in some sense irresponsible for Red Hat to continue its beneficent ways.
So suppose that in 2004, Microsoft Word ``certified for Red Hat Linux(tm)'' generates warning messages about possible incompatibilities when run on Slackware or Debian or `Maldaware', designed to scare IT guys into staying away from these ``amateur'' distributions. Or suppose that RH makes a bunch of proprietary extensions to X11 and packages this RHX11 with its distribution, then asks its developer-employees to optimize GNOME to work much better with RHX11 than XFree86, and makes a big code-fork of KDE to do the same, overwhelming the original projects with the powerful RH distribution channels. Or it does similar things with other key projects to translate Linux market share into control of ``open source'' projects, and this project control into even more distribution market share. [If these are stupid examples, think of better ones --- I am sure some such dilemma involving kinds of behavior which are common enough in the corporate software world is not impossible to imagine]. It may anger some haggard old-school Slashdoters, but the corporate Linux market is so big that this is actually a good strategy overall (in terms of RH's bottom line), and besides ZDNet's dominant LinuxWeek publication doesn't blink an editorial eyelash because it knows where it gets its advertising dollars. Anyway, these old-Slashdotters are just no longer relevant: Linux is now so user-friendly and popular that most users are pretty removed from the developer crowd, and have zero understanding of the hacker culture and ethic from which Linux originated. Even if this is a bad move, lets say Red Hat's management at the time is more culturally insulated from its unkempt developer hordes, and makes some mistakes. I hear this sometimes happens in the corporate world.
So how can Red Hat, with its current commitment to the Linux community, work now to avoid the possibility of letting big money potentially damage this relationship in the future? As an employee (and I assume stock-holder) of RH, and a long-time central kernel developer, what would you do if this happened? My understanding is that Linus works for a company which is not in the Linux distribution business to avoid exactly these kinds of problems.
What if the Amiga OE is so self-contained that it removes the need for the GNU toolset? We'll have a Linux system for which the name "GNU/Linux" would not be appropriate.
(Almost?) all userspace programs would still rely on the GNU C Library, and the kernel would still rely specifically on gcc for compilation, so you could argue this point forever --- if you really wanted to....
LinuxToday discussion link
on
BSD vs GPL
·
· Score: 1
It is a small point. I don't disagree with your post. I wish you well in your efforts (for instance, IBM "getting it" would definately make it more likely that I would want to work for them when I finish grad-school:). I agree with your use of the term "free source" in this case. But if I put myself in the shoes of a hard-core Microsoft developer (ouch -- they don't fit very well), I would get the idea that "free software" meant "freeware" (in FSFish terminology). This will make them more likely to misunderstand what free software programmers and advocates (e.g. me) are talking about if they decide to investigate further.
I don't want to tell anyone what term to use -- I think the term you use is a good one, and "free software" is obviously the wrong term to use for your purposes. However, I think it would cause less confusion if "freeware" was used instead of "free software" on your page in its current context/sense.
After all I read during the discussions and flamewars during the "birth" of the OSI, I had the impression that FSF's definition of "free software" as codified in the DFSG was pretty-well accepted by all sides of the community who understand the concepts that are involved, including those who prefer not to use it. If you don't have the same impression (I can't fully tell from your reply), then you obviously won't agree with my posts so you can ignore them and I'll shut up.
It is just this kind of confusion, especially from newbies (like those you aim to influence) who get caught in the libre/gratis trap), which lead SPI/OSI to make a new term and trademark it, and then be so anoying about defending it:).
Distancing themselves from this dispute may be a wise political move. But they should know what free software is (and isn't) just the same, and they should not add to the confusion in their attempts to avoid it.
I don't like to be a nit-picker, but I think this nit is important.
At this location ( http://Web.Sourcery.Org/eh.html) the survey authors write about their choice of the term "Free Source." Although I agree that this term may be necessary to make clear their meaning that
... we've adopted the term "free-source" to refer to software for which the source is freely available -- irrespective of licensing, modification, or redistribution issues
I am a bit surprised to see that they do not know the generally-accepted meaning of the term "free software":
Well, "free software" doesn't really work, since it also applies to packages that don't include the source (binary-only), or perhaps only part of it.
It looks like the authors don't know the meaning of "free software" as it has been used by the GNU project for more than a decade. The "free software" part of the name of the Free Software Foundation is about freedom and source code, not "free beer". The survey authors are actually talking about "freeware" here, not "free software".
Remember when everyone got mad when Linux was called "freeware" in the press rather than "free software"? Has the (relatively young) "open source" movement gone so far that people involved with it have forgotten that the origin of this term was to mean exactly the same thing as "free software" but to be more marketable to corporate types? Has it gone so far we are forgotting that the Open Source Guidelines are actually taken almost verbatim from the Debian Free Software Guidelines?
Please -- if you are making a survey in support of "open source" software, make sure you understand the terminology. Not understanding the terminology is often an indication that one does not understand the relevant concepts.
Slashdot Mirror
I get decent imaging from the 970Cse by using the hpdj driver in ghostscript (it is compiled into the current aladdin-ghostscript as distributed in Debian, probably also in other distributions as well). Reading the documentation for this driver is very helpful.
Here is the entry in my /etc/filter.magic (for magicfilter smart filtering):
# PostScript /usr/bin/gs -q -dSAFER -dNOPAUSE -sDEVICE=hpdj -r600x600 -sColorMode=CMYK -sModel=unspec -sPrintQuality=1 -sOutputFile=- /etc/gs-enlighten-for-dj970cse - -c quit /usr/bin/gs -q -dSAFER -dNOPAUSE -sDEVICE=hpdj -r600x600 -sColorMode=CMYK -sModel=unspec -sPrintQuality=1 -sOutputFile=- /etc/gs-enlighten-for-dj970cse - -c quit
0 %! filter
0 \004%! filter
I put the following in /etc/gs-enlighted-for-dj9700cse to make color pictures a little less dark:
{0.45 exp} settransfer
I don't know how to set-up duplex printing, but I find that manually doing duplex is fine using dvips when printing my papers or psselect when printing generic postscript files.
dvips -D600 -A -r myfile.dvi
prints the odd pages in reverse order. Then put output back in the input tray, and
dvips -D600 -B myfile.dvi
to print even pages on the back. For generic postscript,
psselect -o -r file.ps | lpr
re-insert paper
psselect -e file.ps | lpr
to print to the back of the pages.
I was trying to write a thoughtful question, but my post actually looks like a total troll now that I re-read it. Please ignore it --- I'll shut up and go back to writing code now....
Alan,
Thank you so much for your excellent work on the kernel! I like the fact that Red Hat supports you and so many people (such as the GNOME hackers) who are working on quality GPLed software. To this point, Red Hat and other distributions have largely operated for the common good of Linux users and developers, true to their origin in the Linux culture. Red Hat has been an excellent citizen in the Linux community by sharing bug fixes, competing on its own merits, it has supporting free software, and it has refrained from promoting its own distribution by denigrating others. For these reasons, and for the sake of general Linux acceptance, I am happy to see Red Hat succeed (I have to admit, though, that I am a Debian user :).
By undergoing an IPO, however, my (hazy) understanding is that Red Hat is obligating itself to shareholder profit ahead of other considerations it may consider important. For the near future, it may be argued that continuing to be a good citizen in the wider Linux community is important for this profitability, and thus most of the community seems to think RH will continue to work for the good of all Linux users and developers in the immediate future. At some point, however, the alignment of citizenship and profit could be altered by change in Red Hat or the wider community, or by other forces in the marketplace. For instance, Red Hat could become so powerful in the market for Linux distributions or service that it could choose to alienate some significant fraction of the original Linux community with impunity, because that segment is now so less powerful than a multi-billion-dollar corporation, and besides Linux in the next n years becomes so mainstream that that the alienated segment is insignificant in comparison. If the potential profit foregone by Red Hat in its efforts to continue to be a good citizen of the Linux community is great enough, it might be argued that that it is in some sense irresponsible for Red Hat to continue its beneficent ways.
So suppose that in 2004, Microsoft Word ``certified for Red Hat Linux(tm)'' generates warning messages about possible incompatibilities when run on Slackware or Debian or `Maldaware', designed to scare IT guys into staying away from these ``amateur'' distributions. Or suppose that RH makes a bunch of proprietary extensions to X11 and packages this RHX11 with its distribution, then asks its developer-employees to optimize GNOME to work much better with RHX11 than XFree86, and makes a big code-fork of KDE to do the same, overwhelming the original projects with the powerful RH distribution channels. Or it does similar things with other key projects to translate Linux market share into control of ``open source'' projects, and this project control into even more distribution market share. [If these are stupid examples, think of better ones --- I am sure some such dilemma involving kinds of behavior which are common enough in the corporate software world is not impossible to imagine]. It may anger some haggard old-school Slashdoters, but the corporate Linux market is so big that this is actually a good strategy overall (in terms of RH's bottom line), and besides ZDNet's dominant LinuxWeek publication doesn't blink an editorial eyelash because it knows where it gets its advertising dollars. Anyway, these old-Slashdotters are just no longer relevant: Linux is now so user-friendly and popular that most users are pretty removed from the developer crowd, and have zero understanding of the hacker culture and ethic from which Linux originated. Even if this is a bad move, lets say Red Hat's management at the time is more culturally insulated from its unkempt developer hordes, and makes some mistakes. I hear this sometimes happens in the corporate world.
So how can Red Hat, with its current commitment to the Linux community, work now to avoid the possibility of letting big money potentially damage this relationship in the future? As an employee (and I assume stock-holder) of RH, and a long-time central kernel developer, what would you do if this happened? My understanding is that Linus works for a company which is not in the Linux distribution business to avoid exactly these kinds of problems.
I really hope this article is not representative of the opinions of the BSD community as a whole.
It is a small point. I don't disagree with your post. I wish you well in your efforts (for instance, IBM "getting it" would definately make it more likely that I would want to work for them when I finish grad-school :). I agree with your use of the term "free source" in this case. But if I put myself in the shoes of a hard-core Microsoft developer (ouch -- they don't fit very well), I would get the idea that "free software" meant "freeware" (in FSFish terminology). This will make them more likely to misunderstand what free software programmers and advocates (e.g. me) are talking about if they decide to investigate further.
I don't want to tell anyone what term to use -- I think the term you use is a good one, and "free software" is obviously the wrong term to use for your purposes. However, I think it would cause less confusion if "freeware" was used instead of "free software" on your page in its current context/sense.
After all I read during the discussions and flamewars during the "birth" of the OSI, I had the impression that FSF's definition of "free software" as codified in the DFSG was pretty-well accepted by all sides of the community who understand the concepts that are involved, including those who prefer not to use it. If you don't have the same impression (I can't fully tell from your reply), then you obviously won't agree with my posts so you can ignore them and I'll shut up.
It is just this kind of confusion, especially from newbies (like those you aim to influence) who get caught in the libre/gratis trap), which lead SPI/OSI to make a new term and trademark it, and then be so anoying about defending it :).
Distancing themselves from this dispute may be a wise political move. But they should know what free software is (and isn't) just the same, and they should not add to the confusion in their attempts to avoid it.
I don't like to be a nit-picker, but I think this nit is important.
At this location ( http://Web.Sourcery.Org/eh.html) the survey authors write about their choice of the term "Free Source." Although I agree that this term may be necessary to make clear their meaning that
I am a bit surprised to see that they do not know the generally-accepted meaning of the term "free software": It looks like the authors don't know the meaning of "free software" as it has been used by the GNU project for more than a decade. The "free software" part of the name of the Free Software Foundation is about freedom and source code, not "free beer". The survey authors are actually talking about "freeware" here, not "free software".Remember when everyone got mad when Linux was called "freeware" in the press rather than "free software"? Has the (relatively young) "open source" movement gone so far that people involved with it have forgotten that the origin of this term was to mean exactly the same thing as "free software" but to be more marketable to corporate types? Has it gone so far we are forgotting that the Open Source Guidelines are actually taken almost verbatim from the Debian Free Software Guidelines?
Please -- if you are making a survey in support of "open source" software, make sure you understand the terminology. Not understanding the terminology is often an indication that one does not understand the relevant concepts.