On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Alan Mackenzie <a...@muc.de> wrote: > Hi, Canek.
Hi Alan. > On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 02:22:44PM -0400, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Alan Mackenzie <a...@muc.de> wrote: > >> >> > However, I use lprng, not cups. It's good that we have a choice over >> >> > what software we use, isn't it? ;-( > >> >> It could be that IPP is just becoming the preferred protocol, and other >> >> print queue managing protocols are going the way of Gopher. > >> > Preferred by whom? Firefox, for example, manages lprng just fine. It's >> > really not a big deal supporting an extra spooler interface, particularly >> > a simple one. > >> Because, as "simple" as it could be, it's another one. Big projects >> need to support CUPS, because they need to work for everyone (or as >> many as possible). It makes no sense *at all* to support more printing >> systems. > > It enables more people to use it. I disagree. CUPS does everything that lprng does (AFAIK), so using CUPS serves all users. > The support for lpr exists. It's being removed, for some reason. Yeah, nobody wants to maintain that code (if it's LO decision), or Gentoo devs don't want to help users of two different printing systems, when one of them does everything everybody wants. Either way, it's work that has to be done. Even if it's "small". > Given > that printing works by constructing a postscript equivalent of the thing > being printed, just how difficult can it be to squirt this postscript > down lpr rather than the cups equivalent? How long does it take to write > a C++ `if' statement? Point a, you are oversimplifying. Point b, again, code is not a fixed entity that remains forever unchanged. The old adage of "if it's not broke, don't fix it" it's completely false with code, because around that code *everything* changes. All the time. Just an example: C++ changes its syntax for something that affects the lprng and CUPS methods inside LibreOffice (this happens a lot, BTW, especially with C++). Now you need to fix the code in two places, not in one. And that just to support a printing system, with a functionality that is available *in the other* printing system. THAT is insane. >> And again, it's Open Source. If there is enough demand, someone will >> write support for other printing systems. Just don't assume that any >> project (being LibreOffice or Gentoo) need to support your choices >> besides the most used one. > > Again the code already exists, it's merely a matter of not destroying it. > I became a user based on it supporting a standard printing system, and > it's perfectly reasonable for me to expect that support to continue. Sorry, but again I disagree. You became a user of an Open Source piece of code. If it breaks, you get to keep the pieces, and that's about it. Read the GPL license: "... is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE." So, sorry, but neither you (nor I) get to complain if lprng stops being supported, nor if CUPS suddenly were to be dropped. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
