Printers using free software only

[Registros Web]

Hi all,

Im about to buy a printer and want to make sure I get one that uses
100% free software, no blobs or proprietary drivers, so I can get on
using it even if the manufacturer decides to cease support of the
printer.

The thing is that I can't find a place where to look for such information.

- I got to this site, but none of the links provides the specific info
I'm looking for:
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Printers

- This is an HP website where they state which printer model is
supported by HPLIP(*)
http://hplipopensource.com/hplip-web/supported_devices/combined.html

(*) despiste HPLIP being an open source project, it may need a
'binary driver" to use all the printer features, according to the
HPLIP website:

"Binary plug-in information
A small subset of HP devices require proprietary software technologies
to allow full access to printer features and performance. These
technologies cannot be open sourced. Because of this, HP is releasing
binary plug-ins for each of these printers that work in conjunction
with our Linux Open Source Printing Software to improve the printing
experience for HP’s Linux Printing Customers."


So if anyone can point me in the right direction, I'll be grateful.


Thanks,
Fred.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAP4bfpy+g+E3WXbc9_1d7YEv...@mail.gmail.com

[Gaël DONVAL]

Le lundi 23 juillet 2012 à 12:47 +0200, Registros Web a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
Hi

> Im about to buy a printer and want to make sure I get one that uses
> 100% free software, no blobs or proprietary drivers, so I can get on
> using it even if the manufacturer decides to cease support of the
> printer.

A word about that: blobs are usually not modified in printers (which are
relatively simple devices). If the manufacturer cease its support but
the blobs are still available, then are alright as long as you are
willing to execute some unknown piece of code.

>
> The thing is that I can't find a place where to look for such information.
>

There:
http://www.openprinting.org/printers/

Cheers

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1343041240.3...@p76-nom-gd.cnrs-imn.fr

[Teemu Likonen]

Registros Web [2012-07-23 12:47:27 +0200] wrote:

> Im about to buy a printer and want to make sure I get one that uses
> 100% free software, no blobs or proprietary drivers, so I can get on
> using it even if the manufacturer decides to cease support of the
> printer.

I suggest buying a PostScript printer with ethernet connection. They use
simple PPD files (plain text files) which describe printer's features.
The manufacturer should ship such file with the printer.

Also, PostScript printers can be used with generic PostScript printer
driver so you don't need to install any drivers.

Ethernet connection allows you to plug the printer to your home
NAT/router and use it from any computer behind the router. It also means
web-based configuration.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87fw8ig...@mithlond.arda

[Eduardo M KALINOWSKI]

On 07/23/2012 07:47 AM, Registros Web wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Im about to buy a printer and want to make sure I get one that uses
> 100% free software, no blobs or proprietary drivers, so I can get on
> using it even if the manufacturer decides to cease support of the
> printer.

If you buy a printer that supports Postscript then you should be set
without requiring any driver, as Linux applications generally output
Postscript when printing.

--
Eduardo M KALINOWSKI
edu...@kalinowski.com.br

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/500D35AD...@kalinowski.com.br

[Stan Hoeppner]

On 7/23/2012 6:17 AM, Teemu Likonen wrote:

> I suggest buying a PostScript printer with ethernet connection.

LEXMARK E260dn, monochrome laser:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16828106506
$150 USD

LEXMARK C540n, color laser:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16828106512
$363 USD

Both do Postcript 3 emulation, as well as PCL5/6.

--
Stan

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/500D3CA4...@hardwarefreak.com

[Registros Web]

PostScript sounds great guys but, how do I now if a printer is a
PostScript printer? Do you know of any brand that makes then?

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAP4bfpyGx_yjPoWMi6c_J2Ar...@mail.gmail.com

[Karen Lewellen]

...but how would one print with a word processor written to look for the
printer on a printer port under the Ethernet suggestion below?
Karen

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/Pine.BSF.4.64.12...@server1.shellworld.net

[Gaël DONVAL]

> ...but how would one print with a word processor written to look for the
> printer on a printer port under the Ethernet suggestion below?
> Karen
>

Not sure whether I understood you well. But on most systems, one use
CUPS to manage printing stuff. You just have to add your ethernet
printer to the printer list and then you can print from any application.


About open source drivers, in some countries, you can cancel a sale
within a limited period of time at no cost. In others, you just have to
state that the printer is not working on your system to get a refund.
Why not just buy a printer, try the different drivers and see if it
requires some binary blobs? With HP printers for instance, you can try
hplib. If it is working, then you are not using binary blobs. If it says
you need to run hp-setup, then you most likely need one of these. But
even there, you can try other drivers (foomatic for instance) which
could provide an alternative (free) driver for your printer... I have an
HP printer which would have required to install HP blobs, but it works
very well with foomatic (postscript): no blobs on my computer. :)

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1343047523.3...@p76-nom-gd.cnrs-imn.fr

[Jochen Spieker]

Registros Web:

>
> PostScript sounds great guys but, how do I now if a printer is a
> PostScript printer? Do you know of any brand that makes then?

Postscript compatibility should always be listed in the printer's specs.
It is probably not written on the box in bold letters, but the
manufacturer's website mentions it if it is there.

Printers with an ethernet interface probably always include Postscript
support.

J.
--
I wish I could achieve a 'just stepped out of the salon' look more
often. Or at least once.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>

[Teemu Likonen]

Stan Hoeppner [2012-07-23 06:59:32 -0500] wrote:

> On 7/23/2012 6:17 AM, Teemu Likonen wrote:
>> I suggest buying a PostScript printer with ethernet connection.
>
> LEXMARK E260dn, monochrome laser:
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16828106506
> $150 USD
>
> LEXMARK C540n, color laser:
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16828106512
> $363 USD

I've happy with this for two and half years:
http://www.samsung.com/us/computer/printers/ML-2851ND/XAA

Some say that HP laser printers are good.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87wr1uk...@mithlond.arda

[Camaleón]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 12:47:27 +0200, Registros Web wrote:

> Im about to buy a printer and want to make sure I get one that uses 100%
> free software, no blobs or proprietary drivers, so I can get on using it
> even if the manufacturer decides to cease support of the printer.

PostScript printers (laser/led) are usually the best ones to get that. In
the worst scenario (imagine the printer manufacturer closes their
business and stop making printers) you can still use a standard PPD
PostScript file and your printer will at least "print" :-)

> The thing is that I can't find a place where to look for such
> information.

(...)

> So if anyone can point me in the right direction, I'll be grateful.

"OpenPrinting" used to have a pile of faqs/guides and also a list of
linux-friendly and not-that-friendly printers, it maybe worth to take a
look:

http://www.openprinting.org/printers/

Also, openSUSE has a nice KB for this:

http://en.opensuse.org/SDB:Printer_buying_guide

But there are many printer models out there and manufacturers put "5" new
models every 6 months so I would first select a printer device I'd like
(because of its technical specs, shape and the cost of its cartridges)
and then search for information on how it work in linux.

I personally like HP printers (all-in-one devices) but unless strictly
necessary, I would avoid inkjet devices and go for a laser/led based
machine.

Greetings,

--
Camaleón

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jujlc0$rg0$4...@dough.gmane.org

[Hendrik Boom]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 14:17:58 +0300, Teemu Likonen wrote:

> Registros Web [2012-07-23 12:47:27 +0200] wrote:
>
>> Im about to buy a printer and want to make sure I get one that uses
>> 100% free software, no blobs or proprietary drivers, so I can get on
>> using it even if the manufacturer decides to cease support of the
>> printer.
>
> I suggest buying a PostScript printer with ethernet connection. They use
> simple PPD files (plain text files) which describe printer's features.
> The manufacturer should ship such file with the printer.
>
> Also, PostScript printers can be used with generic PostScript printer
> driver so you don't need to install any drivers.
>
> Ethernet connection allows you to plug the printer to your home
> NAT/router and use it from any computer behind the router. It also means
> web-based configuration.

Do you want free software inside the printer, in case you find you need
to reprogram the printer itself?

A fair number of printers that do postscript are actually ghostscript
printers. Technically, ghostscript is nonfree, but when I investigated a
while ago, each version of ghostscript remanins proprietary for about two
years, and is then released free.

But I don't know whether it is modified in proprietary ways to run inside
particular printers. It's possible there are proprietary device drivers
inside the printer to control the printer's own hardware.

-- hendrik

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jujm3c$hkp$3...@dough.gmane.org

[Brian]

On Mon 23 Jul 2012 at 08:29:49 -0300, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:

> On 07/23/2012 07:47 AM, Registros Web wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >Im about to buy a printer and want to make sure I get one that uses
> >100% free software, no blobs or proprietary drivers, so I can get on
> >using it even if the manufacturer decides to cease support of the
> >printer.
>
> If you buy a printer that supports Postscript then you should be set
> without requiring any driver, as Linux applications generally output
> Postscript when printing.

All the major applications on the popular DEs are now geared up to
output in PDF format when printing.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120723170545.GI7631@desktop

[Doug]

On 07/23/2012 07:17 AM, Teemu Likonen wrote:
> Registros Web [2012-07-23 12:47:27 +0200] wrote:
>
>> Im about to buy a printer and want to make sure I get one that uses
>> 100% free software, no blobs or proprietary drivers, so I can get on
>> using it even if the manufacturer decides to cease support of the
>> printer.
> I suggest buying a PostScript printer with ethernet connection. They use
> simple PPD files (plain text files) which describe printer's features.
> The manufacturer should ship such file with the printer.
>
> Also, PostScript printers can be used with generic PostScript printer
> driver so you don't need to install any drivers.
>
> Ethernet connection allows you to plug the printer to your home
> NAT/router and use it from any computer behind the router. It also means
> web-based configuration.
>
>

I second that Ethernet suggestion. I have an old HP LaserJet that
never heard of Ethernet, but I bought a hardware device that converts
Ethernet input to parallel for a printer, and now I can use that printer
from 3 computers that all connect to the same router. Then, just
recently, I bought a Canon all-in-one that has an Ethernet port, and
now I can use that from all three computers also. It's wonderful--
you don't have to know anything about networking, and the printer(s)
will work whatever the operating system might be on the source end.

--doug

--
Blessed are the peacekeepers...for they shall be shot at from both sides. --A.M. Greeley

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/500D84E6...@optonline.net

[Brian]

On Mon 23 Jul 2012 at 14:11:57 +0000, Hendrik Boom wrote:

> A fair number of printers that do postscript are actually ghostscript
> printers. Technically, ghostscript is nonfree, but when I investigated a
> while ago, each version of ghostscript remanins proprietary for about two
> years, and is then released free.

A better way of looking at it is: Printers may come with PostScript
interpreters. GhostScript can generate the PostScript to send to them.

GhostScript has been released under the GNU General Public Licence for
some time now. The situation you describe (first releasing under a
non-free licence) no longer exists.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120723170316.GH7631@desktop

[Doug]

On 07/23/2012 07:51 AM, Registros Web wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Teemu Likonen<tlik...@iki.fi> wrote:
>> Registros Web [2012-07-23 12:47:27 +0200] wrote:
>>
>>> Im about to buy a printer and want to make sure I get one that uses
>>> 100% free software, no blobs or proprietary drivers, so I can get on
>>> using it even if the manufacturer decides to cease support of the
>>> printer.
>> I suggest buying a PostScript printer with ethernet connection. They use
>> simple PPD files (plain text files) which describe printer's features.
>> The manufacturer should ship such file with the printer.
>>
>> Also, PostScript printers can be used with generic PostScript printer
>> driver so you don't need to install any drivers.
>>
>> Ethernet connection allows you to plug the printer to your home
>> NAT/router and use it from any computer behind the router. It also means
>> web-based configuration.
>>
>>
>> --
>> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
>> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
>> Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87fw8ig...@mithlond.arda
>>
> PostScript sounds great guys but, how do I now if a printer is a
> PostScript printer? Do you know of any brand that makes then?

It should say in the specs. Many, maybe most, HP printers do.

--doug
>
>


--
Blessed are the peacekeepers...for they shall be shot at from both sides. --A.M. Greeley

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/500D8563...@optonline.net

[green]

Stan Hoeppner wrote at 2012-07-23 06:59 -0500:
> On 7/23/2012 6:17 AM, Teemu Likonen wrote:
> > I suggest buying a PostScript printer with ethernet connection.
>
> LEXMARK E260dn, monochrome laser:

I purchased a Lexmark E360dn, hoping for good Linux support. It prints
nicely, but does not give a good experience with regard to paper type and
tray selection. The only problem, as far as I can tell, is that there is no
correct PPD file: even the PPD provided by Lexmark is broken. I tried
writing one (PPDC), but did not have the time to learn the syntax, etc
(remotely deployed printer). With that fixed, I *think* it would work
perfectly.

I do wish there were more hardware manufacturers with a real interest in
making their products work well with Linux. HP is the best I have seen:
http://hplipopensource.com/hplip-web/recommended.html

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 14:30 -0500, green wrote:
> HP is the best I have seen:
> http://hplipopensource.com/hplip-web/recommended.html

I only can speak for an outdated DeskJet 600. For this kind of low
quality printer you can get very good prints, if you find the Gutenprint
driver, which can take some time. But it has a serious drawback, with
one ink cartridge you only can print a few pages. This might be
different for modern HP printers.

Regards,
Ralf

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1343075281.3404.63.camel@precise

[Ralf Mardorf]

PS:

On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 22:28 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 14:30 -0500, green wrote:
> > HP is the best I have seen:
> > http://hplipopensource.com/hplip-web/recommended.html
>
> I only can speak for an outdated DeskJet 600. For this kind of low
> quality printer you can get very good prints, if you find the Gutenprint

the best
Gutenprint driver, not all for this printer are good

> driver, which can take some time. But it has a serious drawback, with
> one ink cartridge you only can print a few pages. This might be
> different for modern HP printers.
>
> Regards,
> Ralf
>
>




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1343075366.3404.64.camel@precise

[Gaël DONVAL]

> All the major applications on the popular DEs are now geared up to
> output in PDF format when printing.

Yes but CUPS should handle that for you automatically.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1343133419.2...@p76-nom-gd.cnrs-imn.fr

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Lu, 23 iul 12, 18:05:45, Brian wrote:
>
> All the major applications on the popular DEs are now geared up to
> output in PDF format when printing.

PDF is kind of a subset of PostScript ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pdf#PostScript

Kind regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic

[Brian]

On Wed 25 Jul 2012 at 18:02:11 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

> On Lu, 23 iul 12, 18:05:45, Brian wrote:
> >
> > All the major applications on the popular DEs are now geared up to
> > output in PDF format when printing.
>
> PDF is kind of a subset of PostScript ;)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pdf#PostScript

An interesting perspective but how does that connect with the assertion
that

> . . . Linux applications generally output Postscript when printing. ?

I'll rephrase what I said previously:

No major application on the popular DEs outputs PostScript when printing.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120725201819.GM7631@desktop

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Mi, 25 iul 12, 21:18:19, Brian wrote:
> On Wed 25 Jul 2012 at 18:02:11 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>
> > On Lu, 23 iul 12, 18:05:45, Brian wrote:
> > >
> > > All the major applications on the popular DEs are now geared up to
> > > output in PDF format when printing.
> >
> > PDF is kind of a subset of PostScript ;)
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pdf#PostScript
>
> An interesting perspective but how does that connect with the assertion
> that
>
> > . . . Linux applications generally output Postscript when printing. ?
>
> I'll rephrase what I said previously:
>
> No major application on the popular DEs outputs PostScript when printing.

I was trying to point out that a PS printer is also a PDF printer.

[Brian]

On Wed 25 Jul 2012 at 23:23:14 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

> On Mi, 25 iul 12, 21:18:19, Brian wrote:
> > On Wed 25 Jul 2012 at 18:02:11 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> >
> > > On Lu, 23 iul 12, 18:05:45, Brian wrote:
> > > >
> > > > All the major applications on the popular DEs are now geared up to
> > > > output in PDF format when printing.
> > >
> > > PDF is kind of a subset of PostScript ;)
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pdf#PostScript
> >
> > An interesting perspective but how does that connect with the assertion
> > that
> >
> > > . . . Linux applications generally output Postscript when printing. ?
> >
> > I'll rephrase what I said previously:
> >
> > No major application on the popular DEs outputs PostScript when printing.
>
> I was trying to point out that a PS printer is also a PDF printer.

Are you using the word 'printer' to refer to the actual physical machine
which does the printing or are you using it as a shorthand for 'printer
queue' or 'print queue'?

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120725203429.GN7631@desktop

[Gaël DONVAL]

Le mercredi 25 juillet 2012 à 21:34 +0100, Brian a écrit :
> On Wed 25 Jul 2012 at 23:23:14 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>
> > On Mi, 25 iul 12, 21:18:19, Brian wrote:
> > > On Wed 25 Jul 2012 at 18:02:11 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Lu, 23 iul 12, 18:05:45, Brian wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > All the major applications on the popular DEs are now geared up to
> > > > > output in PDF format when printing.
> > > >
> > > > PDF is kind of a subset of PostScript ;)
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pdf#PostScript
> > >
> > > An interesting perspective but how does that connect with the assertion
> > > that
> > >
> > > > . . . Linux applications generally output Postscript when printing. ?
> > >
> > > I'll rephrase what I said previously:
> > >
> > > No major application on the popular DEs outputs PostScript when printing.
> >
> > I was trying to point out that a PS printer is also a PDF printer.
>
> Are you using the word 'printer' to refer to the actual physical machine
> which does the printing or are you using it as a shorthand for 'printer
> queue' or 'print queue'?
>
>

I might have totally missed the point: I am by no way a printer* guru,
but I have yet to see someone do a
cat file.ps > /dev/lpr0 (or whatever)
to print a file.

What the guy wanted was just to be sure that in 5-10 years, his printer
would still work even if the blobs were not to be released anymore.

Three goods points were raised:
1) Postscript printers (advertised so) are great in that regard because
they only need a PPD (ASCII) file to work. This is not the only way to
be sure the printer will work in 10 years but this is the easiest (BTW,
I have never heard of someone complaining because some binary blobs for
his printer were not available anymore...).
2) Even with open source drivers, you cannot control the firmware of the
printer: some printers are programmed to force you to visit your
reseller once in a while for "maintenance" or just stop working.
3) CUPS is most certainly what will be used to manage the queue and talk
to the printer. CUPS will translate everything that is sent to it to
some dialect the printer can understand.

Am I wrong somewhere? Did I overlooked something important here?

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1343300612.4...@p76-nom-gd.cnrs-imn.fr

[Camaleón]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 23:23:14 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

> On Mi, 25 iul 12, 21:18:19, Brian wrote:
>> On Wed 25 Jul 2012 at 18:02:11 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>>
>> > On Lu, 23 iul 12, 18:05:45, Brian wrote:
>> > >
>> > > All the major applications on the popular DEs are now geared up to
>> > > output in PDF format when printing.
>> >
>> > PDF is kind of a subset of PostScript ;)
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pdf#PostScript
>>
>> An interesting perspective but how does that connect with the assertion
>> that
>>
>> > . . . Linux applications generally output Postscript when printing. ?
>>
>> I'll rephrase what I said previously:
>>
>> No major application on the popular DEs outputs PostScript when
>> printing.
>
> I was trying to point out that a PS printer is also a PDF printer.

And better than PDF, I'd say.

PostScript specification is by far a more professionally-oriented
language that PDF format (aside comment: last time I checked you could
embed a 3D video animation on a PDF sheet and all kind of
"dynamicallities"... geez!).

Sadly, I can guess the why of this moving¹ :-(

***
Note: While PostScript is currently the defacto-standard print job file
format/language for UNIX-based applications, it is slowly being phased
out in favor of Adobe's Portable Document Format ("PDF") which offers
many advantages over PostScript. *Mac OS X uses PDF as the primary print
job file format* and Linux is making the transition. Both PostScript and
PDF are complex formats, and we highly recommend using high-level
toolkits whenever possible to create your print jobs.
***

Hint: *bolded text* is mine.

¹http://www.cups.org/documentation.php/doc-1.5/spec-postscript.html

Greetings,

--
Camaleón

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jurkr0$tcf$7...@dough.gmane.org

[Roger Leigh]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 02:39:29PM +0000, Camaleón wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 23:23:14 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> >>
> >> No major application on the popular DEs outputs PostScript when
> >> printing.
> >
> > I was trying to point out that a PS printer is also a PDF printer.
>
> And better than PDF, I'd say.
>
> PostScript specification is by far a more professionally-oriented
> language that PDF format (aside comment: last time I checked you could
> embed a 3D video animation on a PDF sheet and all kind of
> "dynamicallities"... geez!).

No, while PDF does perhaps allow such things, it's far far better than
PostScript.

PostScript is difficult to process due to the fact that it's a fully-
featured Turing-complete language. It's difficult to parse to find
page boundaries since you have to process the whole document to be
sure. There are standards to mark up the PostScript to make this
simpler, but they are optional and can be wrong. Processing it can
have unbounded complexity.

PDF is a subset of PostScript and does not have a Turing-complete
grammar. It means it's possible to process it very fast, and it
has structure which PostScript does not. For example, selecting a
subset of pages is very fast, and doesn't require processing all the
pages in the whole file to extract a few pages. So things like page
subsetting, rescaling, n-up printing, etc. become trivial. Also,
take a simple task like copying some text out of a PDF; it's easy,
because it has a higher-level structure than PostScript. Doing it
with PostScript is decidedly non-trivial. Not only do you have to
find the text (which might be printed letter by letter), you also have
to deal with font subsetting and encoding issues. It might even be
bitmaps.

PDF is also a superset in other areas. For example, it has support
for transparency, gradients (including meshes) and other advanced
drawing and rendering which PostScript can't support. If you print
this as PostScript, it has to approximate the transparency, gradients
etc. with thousands of smaller objects, and the file size can balloon
to tens of times its original size (I've had multi-gigabyte PostScript
files generated from tens to hundreds of megabyte PDFs). Being able to
print natively as PDF means you can just transfer the PDF and avoid
such lossy conversion. It also supports colour profiles for accurate
colour reproduction. A native PDF workflow is far, far better and
vastly more flexible than a native PostScript workflow.

PDF/A is normally used for printing--it's the sensible subset without
all the pointless bells and whistles. PDF is the successor to
PostScript, which eliminates the mistakes of the format (being fully
programmable, and lacking in many modern features), while adding a
few of its own (stupid additional features). Ignore those extra
features, and it's a much, much better solution than PostScript.


Regards,
Roger

--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' schroot and sbuild http://alioth.debian.org/projects/buildd-tools
`- GPG Public Key F33D 281D 470A B443 6756 147C 07B3 C8BC 4083 E800

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120726162...@codelibre.net

[Camaleón]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:27:26 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 02:39:29PM +0000, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 23:23:14 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>> >>
>> >> No major application on the popular DEs outputs PostScript when
>> >> printing.
>> >
>> > I was trying to point out that a PS printer is also a PDF printer.
>>
>> And better than PDF, I'd say.
>>
>> PostScript specification is by far a more professionally-oriented
>> language that PDF format (aside comment: last time I checked you could
>> embed a 3D video animation on a PDF sheet and all kind of
>> "dynamicallities"... geez!).
>
> No, while PDF does perhaps allow such things, it's far far better than
> PostScript.

(...)

PostScript is a languge for machines not for human beings. It does not
have to be "easy" but "accurate". One only have to read the full
specification manual of both to start guessing "why" (hint: one of them
has around 200 less pages) :-)

(note that I don't want my printer to "read" but "interpret" the document
I am sending it exactly "as is" and PS complexity is precisely for doing
so)

> PDF/A is normally used for printing--it's the sensible subset without
> all the pointless bells and whistles. PDF is the successor to
> PostScript, which eliminates the mistakes of the format (being fully
> programmable, and lacking in many modern features), while adding a few
> of its own (stupid additional features). Ignore those extra features,
> and it's a much, much better solution than PostScript.

You say "successor", I read "simplification" and simplifying has always
its drawbacks and lots of backward incompatibilities.

Sorry, but my reluctancy is because PDF was born for a completely
different work (mainly presentation and document [compa|porta]tibility),
not to be editable nor for printer machines. If PDF wants to become a
valid successor of PS it will have to pass the usual ~10 years to proof
its validity in the real world >:-)

Greetings,

--
Camaleón

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jurtlk$tcf$1...@dough.gmane.org

[Brian]

On Thu 26 Jul 2012 at 13:03:32 +0200, Gaël DONVAL wrote:

> Le mercredi 25 juillet 2012 à 21:34 +0100, Brian a écrit :
> > On Wed 25 Jul 2012 at 23:23:14 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > >
> > > I was trying to point out that a PS printer is also a PDF printer.
> >
> > Are you using the word 'printer' to refer to the actual physical machine
> > which does the printing or are you using it as a shorthand for 'printer
> > queue' or 'print queue'?
> >
> I might have totally missed the point: I am by no way a printer* guru,
> but I have yet to see someone do a cat file.ps > /dev/lpr0 (or
> whatever) to print a file.

I'll take the 'whatever'.

lp -d <print_queue> -o raw test.ps

goes to the printer (the machine) without any filtering and gives a nice
printout if the machine understands PostScript.

lp -d <print_queue> -o raw test.pdf

also does the same but the printout will not please you unless the
machine has a PDF interpreter.

>From this you might conclude a PS printer is not necessarily a PDF
printer.

There are two meanings in common usage attached to the word 'printer'.
Using the second one may lead to a different conclusion,

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120726221440.GA6660@desktop

[Brian]

On Thu 26 Jul 2012 at 17:10:12 +0000, Camaleón wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:27:26 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
>
> > No, while PDF does perhaps allow such things, it's far far better than
> > PostScript.
>
> (...)
>
> PostScript is a languge for machines not for human beings. It does not
> have to be "easy" but "accurate". One only have to read the full
> specification manual of both to start guessing "why" (hint: one of them
> has around 200 less pages) :-)
>
> (note that I don't want my printer to "read" but "interpret" the document
> I am sending it exactly "as is" and PS complexity is precisely for doing
> so)

Roger Leigh gave a good explanation of the role played by PDF in the
CUPS printing process on Debian. You snipped most of it, including this:

> A native PDF workflow is far, far better and vastly more
> flexible than a native PostScript workflow.

To understand its importance you need a better reference than the one
given to a page on the cups website a few posts back. For example, there
is:

http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/openprinting/pdfasstandardprintjobformat

To illustrate the difference between printing in the olden days and now
we'll take someone who has set up a print queue to send a job to a
printer as PostScript. A text file is sent to CUPS, which filters it.

On Lenny: text --> texttops --> pstops ----> printer

On Squeeze: text --> texttopdf --> pdftopdf --> pdftops ----> printer

Note that the printer still gets PostScript (which should make you
happy) and the advantages of the PDF workflow which have been described
occur at the pdftopdf filtering stage.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120726222637.GB6660@desktop

[Gaël DONVAL]

Le jeudi 26 juillet 2012 à 23:14 +0100, Brian a écrit :
> I'll take the 'whatever'.
>
> lp -d <print_queue> -o raw test.ps
>
> goes to the printer (the machine) without any filtering and gives a nice
> printout if the machine understands PostScript.
>
> lp -d <print_queue> -o raw test.pdf
>
> also does the same but the printout will not please you unless the
> machine has a PDF interpreter.

Well, on my system it prints fine. I'm glad to know my PS printer can
understand PDF as well (and raw ascii text too BTW) :)

Now just remove the "-o raw" and you can print whatever you want … This
was my point: you use lp which is provided by a package which does all
the filtering work for you (except if you explicitly tell it not to do).

Should you say you had to pipe your file directly to the printer, the
choice of the output format could become a serious issue for you. But
you have filters. Then I don't understand why you care about the output
format of your applications.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1343383234.4...@p76-nom-gd.cnrs-imn.fr

[Camaleón]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 23:26:37 +0100, Brian wrote:

> On Thu 26 Jul 2012 at 17:10:12 +0000, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:27:26 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
>>
>> > No, while PDF does perhaps allow such things, it's far far better
>> > than PostScript.
>>
>> (...)
>>
>> PostScript is a languge for machines not for human beings. It does not
>> have to be "easy" but "accurate". One only have to read the full
>> specification manual of both to start guessing "why" (hint: one of them
>> has around 200 less pages) :-)
>>
>> (note that I don't want my printer to "read" but "interpret" the
>> document I am sending it exactly "as is" and PS complexity is precisely
>> for doing so)
>
> Roger Leigh gave a good explanation of the role played by PDF in the
> CUPS printing process on Debian. You snipped most of it, including this:
>
> > A native PDF workflow is far, far better and vastly more flexible
> > than a native PostScript workflow.

Time will prove the role of PDF in the printing chain process. By now, I
only can say that my printers were manufactured to "speak" PS and not
PDF, so any additional convertion will only waste time to get the job
done and printer resources.

> To understand its importance you need a better reference than the one
> given to a page on the cups website a few posts back. For example, there
> is:
>
> http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/openprinting/pdfasstandardprintjobformat

Let's recap to have a better understanding:

***
(...) This format has many important advantages, especially

PDF is the common platform-independent web format for printable documents
Portable
Easy post-processing (N-up, booklets, scaling, ...)
Easy Color management support
Easy High color depth support (> 8bit/channel)
Easy Transparency support
Smaller files
Linux workflow gets closer to Mac OS X
***

Look, I was not very deviated in my thought... There are four "easies"
listed as advantadges. Perfect, but I prefer accurateness over "easiness"
for the output jobs, thanks :-)

In addition.. do we really want to get closer to MacOS X? If so, why?
Just becasue CUPS is MacOS tool? The far we are from anything that smells
to Apple the better for the linux users >;-)

> To illustrate the difference between printing in the olden days and now
> we'll take someone who has set up a print queue to send a job to a
> printer as PostScript. A text file is sent to CUPS, which filters it.
>
> On Lenny: text --> texttops --> pstops ----> printer
>
> On Squeeze: text --> texttopdf --> pdftopdf --> pdftops ----> printer
>
> Note that the printer still gets PostScript (which should make you
> happy) and the advantages of the PDF workflow which have been described
> occur at the pdftopdf filtering stage.

How can be that adding an extra step (which increases time and resources)
is something "good"? And good for "who" (developers, printers or users)?

Aside note: I always have obtained better results when converting files
(mostly with image/binary content) to PostScript than PDF.

Greetings,

--
Camaleón

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/juu7qs$2bd$4...@dough.gmane.org

[Brian]

On Fri 27 Jul 2012 at 12:00:34 +0200, Gaël DONVAL wrote:

> Le jeudi 26 juillet 2012 à 23:14 +0100, Brian a écrit :
> > I'll take the 'whatever'.
> >
> > lp -d <print_queue> -o raw test.ps
> >
> > goes to the printer (the machine) without any filtering and gives a nice
> > printout if the machine understands PostScript.
> >
> > lp -d <print_queue> -o raw test.pdf
> >
> > also does the same but the printout will not please you unless the
> > machine has a PDF interpreter.
>
> Well, on my system it prints fine. I'm glad to know my PS printer can
> understand PDF as well (and raw ascii text too BTW) :)

Interesting, I might investige getting one. Mine prints page after page
of raw, stepped PDF code.

> Now just remove the "-o raw" and you can print whatever you want … This
> was my point: you use lp which is provided by a package which does all
> the filtering work for you (except if you explicitly tell it not to do).

I understood this from the start but cannot see how it in any way alters
what I originally said.

> Should you say you had to pipe your file directly to the printer, the
> choice of the output format could become a serious issue for you. But
> you have filters. Then I don't understand why you care about the output
> format of your applications.

It is an undisputed fact that an application such as Iceweasel always
feeds PDF to CUPS when printing, so with your printer the filtering
chain is

PDF --> pdftopdf ----> Printer

Which is rather nice. Some people would see the lack of involvement of
GhostScript as a plus. If Iceweasel had PostScript as its output there
would in most cases be an extra pstopdf conversion. One's attitude
towards caring about such things would depend on how having a standard
print job format as PDF is viewed.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120727151247.GD6660@desktop

[Brian]

On Fri 27 Jul 2012 at 14:15:56 +0000, Camale�n wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 23:26:37 +0100, Brian wrote:
>
> > Roger Leigh gave a good explanation of the role played by PDF in the
> > CUPS printing process on Debian. You snipped most of it, including this:
> >
> > > A native PDF workflow is far, far better and vastly more flexible
> > > than a native PostScript workflow.
>
> Time will prove the role of PDF in the printing chain process. By now, I
> only can say that my printers were manufactured to "speak" PS and not
> PDF,

They *are* given PostScript. No problem there.

> so any additional convertion will only waste time to get the job
> done and printer resources.

If you only ever send PostScript to CUPS and have a particular type of
PPD file there will be no extra conversions. The chain would be:

PostScript --> pstops ----> Printer

Isn't CUPS wonderful? Surely there are no grounds for complaint here?
However, you do lose any advantages pdftopdf might have provided.

Send anything other than PostScript (apart from PDF) and there has to be
a couple of conversions, but the same is true for the defunct PostScript
workflow. So its swings and roundabouts, except the PDF swings are better
and much more flexible.

> > To understand its importance you need a better reference than the one
> > given to a page on the cups website a few posts back. For example, there
> > is:
> >
> > http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/openprinting/pdfasstandardprintjobformat
>
> Let's recap to have a better understanding:
>
> ***
> (...) This format has many important advantages, especially
>
> PDF is the common platform-independent web format for printable documents
> Portable
> Easy post-processing (N-up, booklets, scaling, ...)
> Easy Color management support
> Easy High color depth support (> 8bit/channel)
> Easy Transparency support
> Smaller files
> Linux workflow gets closer to Mac OS X
> ***
>
> Look, I was not very deviated in my thought... There are four "easies"
> listed as advantadges. Perfect, but I prefer accurateness over "easiness"
> for the output jobs, thanks :-)

Being easily understood does not diminish their advantages. As for the
PostScript workflow being more accurate than the PDF workflow I do not
know. You would have to substantiate that.

> In addition.. do we really want to get closer to MacOS X? If so, why?
> Just becasue CUPS is MacOS tool? The far we are from anything that smells
> to Apple the better for the linux users >;-)

I don't do OS wars but will point out that printing is a cross-platform
activity.

> > To illustrate the difference between printing in the olden days and now
> > we'll take someone who has set up a print queue to send a job to a
> > printer as PostScript. A text file is sent to CUPS, which filters it.
> >
> > On Lenny: text --> texttops --> pstops ----> printer
> >
> > On Squeeze: text --> texttopdf --> pdftopdf --> pdftops ----> printer
> >
> > Note that the printer still gets PostScript (which should make you
> > happy) and the advantages of the PDF workflow which have been described
> > occur at the pdftopdf filtering stage.
>
> How can be that adding an extra step (which increases time and resources)
> is something "good"? And good for "who" (developers, printers or users)?

Its a balance. Pros and cons. With a PDF printer:

On Lenny: PDF --> pdftops --> pstops --> pstopdf ----> Printer

On Squeeze: PDF --> pdftopdf ----> Printer

I don't think I would want to criticise the PostScript centred workflow
solely on this.

The heart of the matter could be seen as pdftopdf versus pstops. The
advantages pdftopdf have been adequately covered - an earlier mail and
points 2 to 5 above. Perhaps you could give us the advantages of pstops
and what we are missing out on when it is not used.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120727154324.GE6660@desktop

[Camaleón]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:43:24 +0100, Brian wrote:

> On Fri 27 Jul 2012 at 14:15:56 +0000, Camaleón wrote:

(...)

>> How can be that adding an extra step (which increases time and
>> resources) is something "good"? And good for "who" (developers,
>> printers or users)?
>
> Its a balance. Pros and cons. With a PDF printer:

Define a "PDF printer". What's that?

1/ A physical device (printer) with physical PDF interpreter on it (PDF
add-on card)?

2/ A physical device (printer) with logical PDF interpreter on it
(software that runs the convertion)?

3/ A software device (virtual printer) with logical PDF interpreter on it
(code that runs the convertion)?

Because until now I have not seen a thing like "1/" and PostScript
printer modules are truly costly (it can take up to $200/300) :-)

> On Lenny: PDF --> pdftops --> pstops --> pstopdf ----> Printer
>
> On Squeeze: PDF --> pdftopdf ----> Printer
>
> I don't think I would want to criticise the PostScript centred workflow
> solely on this.

No, of course, me neither.

But what I wouldn't like to see is a moving to PDF just because the sake
of moving to something more manageable without having into account
technical reasons but simplicity and force-joining (that is, "if CUPS -
owned by Apple- moves on PDF, linux will follow without questioning the
pros and cons"). I would like to see, now more than ever, less
"dependency" on CUPS (by "dependency" I mean here that it would be nice
to have different alternatives as powerful as CUPS).

> The heart of the matter could be seen as pdftopdf versus pstops. The
> advantages pdftopdf have been adequately covered - an earlier mail and
> points 2 to 5 above. Perhaps you could give us the advantages of pstops
> and what we are missing out on when it is not used.

Well, I still can't speak on pdftopdf because is too new (there you have
a "con") and not present in my system while pstops is:

sm01@stt008:~$ locate pstops
/etc/cups/oopstops.convs
/etc/cups/oopstops.types
/usr/lib/cups/filter/oopstops
/usr/lib/cups/filter/pstops
sm01@stt008:~$ locate pdftopdf
sm01@stt008:~$

Greetings,

--
Camaleón

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/juuf6m$2bd$1...@dough.gmane.org

[Brian]

On Fri 27 Jul 2012 at 16:21:42 +0000, Camale�n wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:43:24 +0100, Brian wrote:
> >
> > Its a balance. Pros and cons. With a PDF printer:
>
> Define a "PDF printer". What's that?
>
> 1/ A physical device (printer) with physical PDF interpreter on it (PDF
> add-on card)?
>
> 2/ A physical device (printer) with logical PDF interpreter on it
> (software that runs the convertion)?
>
> 3/ A software device (virtual printer) with logical PDF interpreter on it
> (code that runs the convertion)?
>
> Because until now I have not seen a thing like "1/" and PostScript
> printer modules are truly costly (it can take up to $200/300) :-)

http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/review/1956699/review-hp-laserjet-cp4525-colour-printer

And please don't complain about the price. You did ask and this is
debian-user - not debian-market_place. :)

> > On Lenny: PDF --> pdftops --> pstops --> pstopdf ----> Printer
> >
> > On Squeeze: PDF --> pdftopdf ----> Printer
> >
> > I don't think I would want to criticise the PostScript centred workflow
> > solely on this.
>
> No, of course, me neither.
>
> But what I wouldn't like to see is a moving to PDF just because the sake
> of moving to something more manageable without having into account
> technical reasons but simplicity and force-joining (that is, "if CUPS -
> owned by Apple- moves on PDF, linux will follow without questioning the
> pros and cons"). I would like to see, now more than ever, less
> "dependency" on CUPS (by "dependency" I mean here that it would be nice
> to have different alternatives as powerful as CUPS).

Moving to a PDF workflow was a considered decision based on technical
considerations. A good deal of the CUPS printing system is now managed
directly by Debian/Ubuntu and not by upstream.

> > The heart of the matter could be seen as pdftopdf versus pstops. The
> > advantages pdftopdf have been adequately covered - an earlier mail and
> > points 2 to 5 above. Perhaps you could give us the advantages of pstops
> > and what we are missing out on when it is not used.
>
> Well, I still can't speak on pdftopdf because is too new (there you have
> a "con") and not present in my system while pstops is:
>
> sm01@stt008:~$ locate pstops
> /etc/cups/oopstops.convs
> /etc/cups/oopstops.types
> /usr/lib/cups/filter/oopstops
> /usr/lib/cups/filter/pstops
> sm01@stt008:~$ locate pdftopdf
> sm01@stt008:~$

If you are using Lenny, what do you expect!

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120727172605.GF6660@desktop

[Camaleón]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 18:26:05 +0100, Brian wrote:

> On Fri 27 Jul 2012 at 16:21:42 +0000, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:43:24 +0100, Brian wrote:
>> >
>> > Its a balance. Pros and cons. With a PDF printer:
>>
>> Define a "PDF printer". What's that?

(...)

>> Because until now I have not seen a thing like "1/" and PostScript
>> printer modules are truly costly (it can take up to $200/300) :-)
>
> http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/review/1956699/review-hp-laserjet-cp4525-colour-printer

Uh, what is this link for? :-?

I'm not talking about "printers" but PostScript "modules" to enable Adobe
PostScript 3 language emulation support and these modules are also very
expensive.

> And please don't complain about the price. You did ask and this is
> debian-user - not debian-market_place. :)

It's a rather costly addon device, of course I complain when is going to
be "deprecated" in favor of softy-based PDF converstions ;-)

Anyway, you did not respond to the question about what you consider to be
a PDF printer.

>> > I don't think I would want to criticise the PostScript centred
>> > workflow solely on this.
>>
>> No, of course, me neither.
>>
>> But what I wouldn't like to see is a moving to PDF just because the
>> sake of moving to something more manageable without having into account
>> technical reasons but simplicity and force-joining (that is, "if CUPS -
>> owned by Apple- moves on PDF, linux will follow without questioning the
>> pros and cons"). I would like to see, now more than ever, less
>> "dependency" on CUPS (by "dependency" I mean here that it would be nice
>> to have different alternatives as powerful as CUPS).
>
> Moving to a PDF workflow was a considered decision based on technical
> considerations.

You mean the above mentioned "four easies"? >:-P

> A good deal of the CUPS printing system is now managed directly by
> Debian/Ubuntu and not by upstream.

That's good but still dependant of the main CUPS development done by Apple.

>> Well, I still can't speak on pdftopdf because is too new (there you
>> have a "con") and not present in my system while pstops is:

(...)

> If you are using Lenny, what do you expect!

I expect to use a solution/system/method (you can call it as you want) that
has been tested harshly over the years and has been working okay.

Greetings,

--
Camaleón

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jv0gjq$108$5...@dough.gmane.org

[Brian]

On Sat 28 Jul 2012 at 10:58:02 +0000, Camale�n wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 18:26:05 +0100, Brian wrote:
>
> > http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/review/1956699/review-hp-laserjet-cp4525-colour-printer
>
> Uh, what is this link for? :-?

You didn't read all of the content? It matches your "1/". Here is
another one:

http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF06b/18972-18972-3328060-15077-236268-3965798-3965802-3965808.html?dnr=1

[Snip]

> Anyway, you did not respond to the question about what you consider to be
> a PDF printer.

I rather think I did. Twice now.

> > Moving to a PDF workflow was a considered decision based on technical
> > considerations.
>
> You mean the above mentioned "four easies"? >:-P

No. I mean taking the link you already have

http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/openprinting/pdfasstandardprintjobformat ,

reading it as a whole and following up on how the system was developed.
The third and fourth paragraphs of Roger Leigh's post might help with
any searches.

> > A good deal of the CUPS printing system is now managed directly by
> > Debian/Ubuntu and not by upstream.
>
> That's good but still dependant of the main CUPS development done by Apple.

It would have been more accurate if I had mentioned the Linux Foundation
and OpenPrinting instead of just Debian/Ubuntu.

> > If you are using Lenny, what do you expect!
>
> I expect to use a solution/system/method (you can call it as you want) that
> has been tested harshly over the years and has been working okay.

Some of us have been doing precisely that (using and testing) for three
or four years. When you get to Squeeze or Wheezy you can join in too.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120728124953.GH6660@desktop

[Camaleón]

On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 13:49:53 +0100, Brian wrote:

> On Sat 28 Jul 2012 at 10:58:02 +0000, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 18:26:05 +0100, Brian wrote:
>>
>> > http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/review/1956699/review-hp-laserjet-cp4525-colour-printer
>>
>> Uh, what is this link for? :-?
>
> You didn't read all of the content?

What content? The advertizing? Of course not, unless you pointed me to
the interesting part.

> It matches your "1/". Here is another one:
>
> http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF06b/18972-18972-3328060-15077-236268-3965798-3965802-3965808.html?dnr=1

Ah, you must be referring to:

***
Print languages, standard HP PCL 6; HP PCL 5c; HP postscript level 3
emulation; direct PDF printing v 1.4
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
***

But I already knew there are printers in the market that direct print to
PDF (as well as options 2/ and 3/ are also possible). I did not asked
about that. I asked what *you* were speaking/referring to when you talked
about "PDF printers".

Side note: do you known what's the required/recommended memory to
directly print to PDF? And what happens with PDF v1.7, will you have to
buy a new module for supporting the new upcoming standards? >:-)

> [Snip]
>
>> Anyway, you did not respond to the question about what you consider to
>> be a PDF printer.
>
> I rather think I did. Twice now.

I think you didn't. You only sent a link with no further indication,
that's not a valid answer for a "select the one that applies (1/, 2/ or 3/)
test ;-)

>> > Moving to a PDF workflow was a considered decision based on technical
>> > considerations.
>>
>> You mean the above mentioned "four easies"? >:-P
>
> No. I mean taking the link you already have
>
> http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/openprinting/pdfasstandardprintjobformat
> ,

There are no technical reasons (neither what's the real gain for users)
listed there but how to start using the new filter facility within CUPS.

> reading it as a whole and following up on how the system was developed.
> The third and fourth paragraphs of Roger Leigh's post might help with
> any searches.

I've found another doc comparing for options:

http://www.adobe.com/print/features/psvspdf/

But I'd say the author is not "neutral" ;-)

>> > A good deal of the CUPS printing system is now managed directly by
>> > Debian/Ubuntu and not by upstream.
>>
>> That's good but still dependant of the main CUPS development done by
>> Apple.
>
> It would have been more accurate if I had mentioned the Linux Foundation
> and OpenPrinting instead of just Debian/Ubuntu.

The main issue still remains: CUPS is Apple's baby.

>> > If you are using Lenny, what do you expect!
>>
>> I expect to use a solution/system/method (you can call it as you want)
>> that has been tested harshly over the years and has been working okay.
>
> Some of us have been doing precisely that (using and testing) for three
> or four years. When you get to Squeeze or Wheezy you can join in too.

All my printers support PostScript directly, why should I ignore that fact?

Greetings,

--
Camaleón

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jv0pui$108$9...@dough.gmane.org

[Brian]

On Sat 28 Jul 2012 at 13:37:22 +0000, Camale�n wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 13:49:53 +0100, Brian wrote:
>
> > It matches your "1/". Here is another one:
> >
> > http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF06b/18972-18972-3328060-15077-236268-3965798-3965802-3965808.html?dnr=1
>
> Ah, you must be referring to:
>
> ***
> Print languages, standard HP PCL 6; HP PCL 5c; HP postscript level 3
> emulation; direct PDF printing v 1.4
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ***
>
> But I already knew there are printers in the market that direct print to
> PDF (as well as options 2/ and 3/ are also possible). I did not asked
> about that. I asked what *you* were speaking/referring to when you talked
> about "PDF printers".

Your multiple choice quiz had

> 1/ A physical device (printer) with physical PDF interpreter
> on it (PDF add-on card)?

and

> Because until now I have not seen a thing like "1/" . . , .

Looks like I misunderstood you.

Anyway: a PostScript printer has a PostScript interpreter; a PCL printer
has a PCL interpreter; a PDF printer has a PDF interpreter. They accept
print jobs sent directly to them in the supported language.

> Side note: do you known what's the required/recommended memory to
> directly print to PDF? And what happens with PDF v1.7, will you have to
> buy a new module for supporting the new upcoming standards? >:-)

I've no idea, really. The two links I supplied mention 0.5 GB and 1,0 GB.

> > No. I mean taking the link you already have
> >
> > http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/openprinting/pdfasstandardprintjobformat
> > ,

> There are no technical reasons (neither what's the real gain for users)
> listed there but how to start using the new filter facility within CUPS.

We'll have to disagree on that, then

> > reading it as a whole and following up on how the system was developed.
> > The third and fourth paragraphs of Roger Leigh's post might help with
> > any searches.
>
> I've found another doc comparing for options:
>
> http://www.adobe.com/print/features/psvspdf/
>
> But I'd say the author is not "neutral" ;-)

Possibly not. But he should be expected to know what he is writing about.

> > Some of us have been doing precisely that (using and testing) for three
> > or four years. When you get to Squeeze or Wheezy you can join in too.
>
> All my printers support PostScript directly, why should I ignore that fact?

You shouldn't. Just keep sending PostScript to CUPS and it will be printed.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120728151722.GI6660@desktop

[Camaleón]

On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 16:17:22 +0100, Brian wrote:

> On Sat 28 Jul 2012 at 13:37:22 +0000, Camaleón wrote:

(...)

>> But I already knew there are printers in the market that direct print
>> to PDF (as well as options 2/ and 3/ are also possible). I did not
>> asked about that. I asked what *you* were speaking/referring to when
>> you talked about "PDF printers".
>
> Your multiple choice quiz had
>
> > 1/ A physical device (printer) with physical PDF interpreter
> > on it (PDF add-on card)?
>
> and
>
> > Because until now I have not seen a thing like "1/" . . , .
>
> Looks like I misunderstood you.

No, you read it right.

The printers that I'm aware about their PDF capabities used system 2/
instead 1/, that is, a "software" (driver/firmware) to do the transform
from job input to PDF output. I'm unsure about how the HP printer you
mentioned does the PDF job, internally.

> Anyway: a PostScript printer has a PostScript interpreter; a PCL printer
> has a PCL interpreter; a PDF printer has a PDF interpreter. They accept
> print jobs sent directly to them in the supported language.

And that's the key. No transformations are needed, no necessity for
interpreting the input, it's direct. When the printer lacks from PCL6 or
PS or PDF interpreter you're missing that capability.

Does your printer integrate a PDF interprerter? The ones I managed do
not, just PCL6 and PostScript.

>> Side note: do you known what's the required/recommended memory to
>> directly print to PDF? And what happens with PDF v1.7, will you have to
>> buy a new module for supporting the new upcoming standards? >:-)
>
> I've no idea, really. The two links I supplied mention 0.5 GB and 1,0
> GB.

That's the stock memory that comes with the printer (500 MiB) and the
maximum allowed (up to 1 GiB). Those are very "high" numbers not
available for the vast majority of the printing devices.

Anyway, want I wanted to say is that if PostScript required a good amount
of memory so the job outputs quickly, PDF can even require even more. Not
funny...

>> > No. I mean taking the link you already have
>> >
>> > http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/openprinting/pdfasstandardprintjobformat
>> > ,
>
>> There are no technical reasons (neither what's the real gain for users)
>> listed there but how to start using the new filter facility within
>> CUPS.
>
> We'll have to disagree on that, then

There's little room for disagreements here; "quod scripsi, scripsi" :-)

>> > reading it as a whole and following up on how the system was
>> > developed. The third and fourth paragraphs of Roger Leigh's post
>> > might help with any searches.
>>
>> I've found another doc comparing for options:
>>
>> http://www.adobe.com/print/features/psvspdf/
>>
>> But I'd say the author is not "neutral" ;-)
>
> Possibly not. But he should be expected to know what he is writing
> about.

Sure, but there can be another interests behind the words.

>> > Some of us have been doing precisely that (using and testing) for
>> > three or four years. When you get to Squeeze or Wheezy you can join
>> > in too.
>>
>> All my printers support PostScript directly, why should I ignore that
>> fact?
>
> You shouldn't. Just keep sending PostScript to CUPS and it will be
> printed.

That's indeed my plan :-)

Greetings,

--
Camaleón

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jv11f8$108$1...@dough.gmane.org

[Brian]

On Sat 28 Jul 2012 at 15:45:44 +0000, Camaleón wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 16:17:22 +0100, Brian wrote:
>
> > Anyway: a PostScript printer has a PostScript interpreter; a PCL printer
> > has a PCL interpreter; a PDF printer has a PDF interpreter. They accept
> > print jobs sent directly to them in the supported language.
>
> And that's the key. No transformations are needed, no necessity for
> interpreting the input, it's direct. When the printer lacks from PCL6 or
> PS or PDF interpreter you're missing that capability.

Are you really sending everything as Postscript directly to the printer?
Nothing goes through CUPS? Could it be we have different ideas of
'directly'?

> Does your printer integrate a PDF interprerter? The ones I managed do
> not, just PCL6 and PostScript.

No, it does not. Does it need to? This subthread began with the
statement that

> . . . . a PS printer is also a PDF printer.

so, if we are to accept that, having one isn't important.

Incidentally, nobody sends PCL6 directly to a printer,

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120729112922.GK6660@desktop

[Camaleón]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 12:29:22 +0100, Brian wrote:

> On Sat 28 Jul 2012 at 15:45:44 +0000, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 16:17:22 +0100, Brian wrote:
>>
>> > Anyway: a PostScript printer has a PostScript interpreter; a PCL
>> > printer has a PCL interpreter; a PDF printer has a PDF interpreter.
>> > They accept print jobs sent directly to them in the supported
>> > language.
>>
>> And that's the key. No transformations are needed, no necessity for
>> interpreting the input, it's direct. When the printer lacks from PCL6
>> or PS or PDF interpreter you're missing that capability.
>
> Are you really sending everything as Postscript directly to the printer?
> Nothing goes through CUPS? Could it be we have different ideas of
> 'directly'?

Sometimes I need to overpass CUPS (or the Windows printing sub-system)
and directly send a PS file to the printer, it depends on the job. I have
faced situations were the CUPS queue hung when printing big and complex
files while using the "raw" facility went without a glitch.

Of course, this is not a common situation for the "joe" user.

>> Does your printer integrate a PDF interprerter? The ones I managed do
>> not, just PCL6 and PostScript.
>
> No, it does not. Does it need to? This subthread began with the
> statement that
>
> > . . . . a PS printer is also a PDF printer.
>
> so, if we are to accept that, having one isn't important.

No? Then I wonder why my company paid the above mentioned $200-300 for
having a PS module installed in their printers ;-)

> Incidentally, nobody sends PCL6 directly to a printer,

I think "nobody" sounds too wide... maybe "it's not usual" but when you
only have a PCL6 capable printer and one file fails to print with the
usual printing system (File → print → printer driver), I assure you will
try with any option that is available.

Greetings,

--
Camaleón

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jv3ga9$vb5$7...@dough.gmane.org

[Brian]

On Sun 29 Jul 2012 at 14:11:22 +0000, Camaleón wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 12:29:22 +0100, Brian wrote:
>
> > On Sat 28 Jul 2012 at 15:45:44 +0000, Camaleón wrote:
> >
> >> Does your printer integrate a PDF interprerter? The ones I managed do
> >> not, just PCL6 and PostScript.
> >
> > No, it does not. Does it need to? This subthread began with the
> > statement that
> >
> > > . . . . a PS printer is also a PDF printer.
> >
> > so, if we are to accept that, having one isn't important.
>
> No? Then I wonder why my company paid the above mentioned $200-300 for
> having a PS module installed in their printers ;-)

Don't ask me. I don't understand it either! Not for sending a PDF file
directly to the printer, anyway.

> > Incidentally, nobody sends PCL6 directly to a printer,
>
> I think "nobody" sounds too wide... maybe "it's not usual" but when you
> only have a PCL6 capable printer and one file fails to print with the
> usual printing system (File → print → printer driver), I assure you will
> try with any option that is available.

A reasonable point. The print file would have to be already formatted in
PCL to get a useful output when sent directly to the printer. Convert
with Ghostscript, I suppose. Having just done exactly that successfully,
I'll have to withdraw the claim of 'nobody'. :)

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120729153940.GO6660@desktop

[Camaleón]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:39:40 +0100, Brian wrote:

> On Sun 29 Jul 2012 at 14:11:22 +0000, Camaleón wrote:

>> >> Does your printer integrate a PDF interprerter? The ones I managed
>> >> do not, just PCL6 and PostScript.
>> >
>> > No, it does not. Does it need to? This subthread began with the
>> > statement that
>> >
>> > > . . . . a PS printer is also a PDF printer.
>> >
>> > so, if we are to accept that, having one isn't important.
>>
>> No? Then I wonder why my company paid the above mentioned $200-300 for
>> having a PS module installed in their printers ;-)
>
> Don't ask me. I don't understand it either! Not for sending a PDF file
> directly to the printer, anyway.

(...)

It was a rethoric question, no need to answer. Of course I know "why":
because a PostScript capable printer is a "time-proof" solution that has
been working since years... Can't say the same for PDF printers as they
are too recent :-)

Greetings,

--
Camaleón

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jv67nu$ltk$8...@dough.gmane.org

[Brian]

On Mon 30 Jul 2012 at 15:03:26 +0000, Camale�n wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:39:40 +0100, Brian wrote:
>

> > On Sun 29 Jul 2012 at 14:11:22 +0000, Camale�n wrote:
>
> >> >> Does your printer integrate a PDF interprerter? The ones I managed
> >> >> do not, just PCL6 and PostScript.
> >> >
> >> > No, it does not. Does it need to? This subthread began with the
> >> > statement that
> >> >
> >> > > . . . . a PS printer is also a PDF printer.
> >> >
> >> > so, if we are to accept that, having one isn't important.
> >>
> >> No? Then I wonder why my company paid the above mentioned $200-300 for
> >> having a PS module installed in their printers ;-)
> >
> > Don't ask me. I don't understand it either! Not for sending a PDF file
> > directly to the printer, anyway.
>
> (...)
>
> It was a rethoric question, no need to answer. Of course I know "why":
> because a PostScript capable printer is a "time-proof" solution that has
> been working since years... Can't say the same for PDF printers as they
> are too recent :-)

It was a rhetorical answer. I don't know what rules should be followed
when one is encountered so cannot offer you direction.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120730163334.GX6660@desktop

[Camaleón]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:33:34 +0100, Brian wrote:

> On Mon 30 Jul 2012 at 15:03:26 +0000, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:39:40 +0100, Brian wrote:
>>

>> > On Sun 29 Jul 2012 at 14:11:22 +0000, Camaleón wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Does your printer integrate a PDF interprerter? The ones I
>> >> >> managed do not, just PCL6 and PostScript.
>> >> >
>> >> > No, it does not. Does it need to? This subthread began with the
>> >> > statement that
>> >> >
>> >> > > . . . . a PS printer is also a PDF printer.
>> >> >
>> >> > so, if we are to accept that, having one isn't important.
>> >>
>> >> No? Then I wonder why my company paid the above mentioned $200-300
>> >> for having a PS module installed in their printers ;-)
>> >
>> > Don't ask me. I don't understand it either! Not for sending a PDF
>> > file directly to the printer, anyway.
>>
>> (...)
>>
>> It was a rethoric question, no need to answer. Of course I know "why":
>> because a PostScript capable printer is a "time-proof" solution that
>> has been working since years... Can't say the same for PDF printers as
>> they are too recent :-)
>
> It was a rhetorical answer. I don't know what rules should be followed
> when one is encountered so cannot offer you direction.

I just wanted to point a scenario where the jump to a PDF filter as the
default backend can have its troubles and not be nor as good nor as
simple nor as easy as the white papers say. Companies have always showed
different needs than users and these "jumps" are seen differently when
you have to hold them as user or as admin.

Greetings,

--
Camaleón

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jv6e1v$ltk$1...@dough.gmane.org

[Steve Dowe]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 23/07/12 20:30, green wrote:

> I do wish there were more hardware manufacturers with a real interest in
> making their products work well with Linux. HP is the best I have seen:
> http://hplipopensource.com/hplip-web/recommended.html

I have had years of success with a Xerox 6300DN. Nope, it's not cheap
(at the time, costing around £700) but the manufacturer provides PPD
files for a huge range of colour lasers including this, paper handling
has been faultless and print quality is very good indeed. Not quite up
to the level of a good inkjet on photos, but close enough.

It's fast too.

And very heavy.

So, unless you want nice print outs /and/ a broken back, don't get one ;)

- --
Steve Dowe

Warp Universal
http://warp2.me/sd
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAlAWuzEACgkQff0deVwNl4jvtgCfZdYKZDw3YnEqp0MXZiX8IxI2
HhAAnRXiS/PlE2I5ZhQM7TiK01HM1CS2
=uxiL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5016BB3D...@warpuniversal.co.uk

[Chris Bannister]

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 04:51:11PM +0000, Camale�n wrote:
> I just wanted to point a scenario where the jump to a PDF filter as the
> default backend can have its troubles and not be nor as good nor as
> simple nor as easy as the white papers say. Companies have always showed
> different needs than users and these "jumps" are seen differently when
> you have to hold them as user or as admin.

The understanding I got from reading Roger's post was that if you are
using CUPS, *THEN* you are automatically using "a PDF filter paradigm"
because it **is considered superior/"more robust"**.

That was my reading of it. Please, someone correct me if my reading of
Roger's post is incorrect.

The discussion of whether it **actually is** superior/"more robust" is
irrelevant, and better discussed with the CUPS developers. :-)

--
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120731074313.GC17427@tal

[Roger Leigh]

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 07:43:13PM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 04:51:11PM +0000, Camale�n wrote:
> > I just wanted to point a scenario where the jump to a PDF filter as the
> > default backend can have its troubles and not be nor as good nor as
> > simple nor as easy as the white papers say. Companies have always showed
> > different needs than users and these "jumps" are seen differently when
> > you have to hold them as user or as admin.
>
> The understanding I got from reading Roger's post was that if you are
> using CUPS, *THEN* you are automatically using "a PDF filter paradigm"
> because it **is considered superior/"more robust"**.
>

> The discussion of whether it **actually is** superior/"more robust" is
> irrelevant, and better discussed with the CUPS developers. :-)

This is pretty much the case.

I'll address a few of the points in this thread here to save writing
many separate replies:

1) What is a PDF printer? It's a printer you can submit PDF jobs to
directly. Whether this is implemented in software/firmware/hardware
is irrelevant--it just needs to be able to accept it and print it.
This is completely orthogonal to having a PDF workflow.

2) Having a PDF workflow does not require a PDF printer, any more than
having a PostScript workflow (as before) required having a
PostScript printer. Since CUPS (and LPRng) implement printing
through filters including ghostscript, one can convert any input
format to any output format. The only difference is that the
intermediary format is now PDF rather than PostScript.

3) PostScript is a crap intermediary format. You can't do page
accounting without processing the entire file; PDF can just give
you a page count. It can have unbounded complexity and consume
lots of CPU and disc; and if the pipeline has multiple steps,
you have to do this multiple times; and again on the printer, if
it's a PostScript printer. You can't do accurate colour matching;
PDF supports embedded colour profiles. You can't easily do
rearrangement of the input for n-up, rescaled, or reordered for
book printing. These are all things that matter, and which PDF
makes a great deal easier, faster, and more robust. PostScript
is a *lossy* intermediary format in consequence--you lose
information and get lower quality output if the input made use of
any features not representable in PostScript.

3) PostScript is a crap input format. Generating it is a pain; you
have to output text PostScript, i.e. your program has to generate
a program. It's hard to do. It's hard to use fonts, it's hard to
use graphics. It's hard to do lots of things. And it lacks modern
graphics primitives such as gradient meshes, opentype fonts,
transparency, etc. which just aren't representable. Contrast with
PDF: we have a multitide of free software libraries which generate
PDF, making it simple to do. PNG and JPEG can be embedded directly,
without having to be encoded and ballooning the filesize, again with
attached colour profiles.

4) PostScript has the document structuring conventions (DSC), which
are text comments (%%) in the code; but it's optional, and can be
incorrect and buggy itself. PDF has /real/ structure, meaning
that it's possible to reliably and simply process the document.

5) Most applications used to output PostScript for printing. They now
mostly output PDF. There's a reason for that, linked to (2-4)
above. Lots of professional graphics software (e.g. Adobe
illustrator, inkscape) uses PDF as either the native format or a
supported graphics format. It's not just for output. Even older
applications such as LaTeX have long been PDF by default (pdflatex,
now xelatex etc.); DVI and PostScript are still supported, but the
vast majority of users use a PDF workflow. As does R. It's simply
better on all counts.

6) PDF contains tons of junk features. That's right, but they are
completely irrelevant for printing and general use in the world
outside Adobe. Printing just uses the sensible subset actually used
for drawing (obviously).

One could argue that having a programming language as a file format is
useful. But the main use case is to construct things such as
Mandelbrot fractals during printing. The only thing this does is to
anger all the other users of your printer as it takes hours to print
a single page. The reality is, very little software took advantage
of it; it's far easier just to precalculate such things and have a
slightly bigger filesize in this special case. Are there any examples
of software outputting PostScript containing code any more complex than
abbreviated macro expansions? The reality is no, and the number of
people writing PostScript by hand is vanishingly small. For all but
odd esoteric cases, PDF is objectively better. If you're writing an
application which needs to print, you're going to pick PDF, because
it's what all the libraries support, and it's objectively better.

In the professional world, printing has all been PDF-based for quite
some time now. For some of the reasons outlined above, and probably
others I don't know about. The changes in CUPS are just the Linux
printing ecosystem just catching up with that reality. And it
really *is* better. While CUPS is now owned by Apple, the reality is
that it would have happened eventually anyway--PDF is already the
predominant input format; making it the intermediary format is just
a logical consequence of that.


(Anecdote: I do not have fond memories of editing buggy PostScript to
fix the DSC comments so that tools like psnup, psselect etc. could work
with it. This is due to the fragility of the tools in coping with
incorrect comments! In contrast, you never have such a situation with
PDF unless the file is actually corrupt.)

Regards,
Roger

--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' schroot and sbuild http://alioth.debian.org/projects/buildd-tools
`- GPG Public Key F33D 281D 470A B443 6756 147C 07B3 C8BC 4083 E800

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120731093...@codelibre.net

[Camaleón]

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 19:43:13 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 04:51:11PM +0000, Camaleón wrote:
>> I just wanted to point a scenario where the jump to a PDF filter as the
>> default backend can have its troubles and not be nor as good nor as
>> simple nor as easy as the white papers say. Companies have always
>> showed different needs than users and these "jumps" are seen
>> differently when you have to hold them as user or as admin.
>
> The understanding I got from reading Roger's post was that if you are
> using CUPS, *THEN* you are automatically using "a PDF filter paradigm"
> because it **is considered superior/"more robust"**.

That's what CUPS developers seem to claim (?) but having used PS printers
and PS backend as default for all these years, I'm a bit reluctant about
grandiloquent wordings with no more technical proofs on the superiority
of one on the proposed systems over the other.

Yes, all sources share the same adjectives: a PDF backend is "easier" but
I expect more than that to blindly rely on a new printing solution.

> That was my reading of it. Please, someone correct me if my reading of
> Roger's post is incorrect.

No, I think you're got it correctly.

> The discussion of whether it **actually is** superior/"more robust" is
> irrelevant, and better discussed with the CUPS developers. :-)

That discussion is indeed the key of this sub-thread, if not, why
touching things that already work? ;-)

Greetings,

--
Camaleón

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jv8oof$gv6$8...@dough.gmane.org

[Roger Leigh]

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 02:06:07PM +0000, Camale�n wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 19:43:13 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
>

> > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 04:51:11PM +0000, Camale�n wrote:
> >> I just wanted to point a scenario where the jump to a PDF filter as the
> >> default backend can have its troubles and not be nor as good nor as
> >> simple nor as easy as the white papers say. Companies have always
> >> showed different needs than users and these "jumps" are seen
> >> differently when you have to hold them as user or as admin.
> >
> > The understanding I got from reading Roger's post was that if you are
> > using CUPS, *THEN* you are automatically using "a PDF filter paradigm"
> > because it **is considered superior/"more robust"**.
>
> That's what CUPS developers seem to claim (?) but having used PS printers
> and PS backend as default for all these years, I'm a bit reluctant about
> grandiloquent wordings with no more technical proofs on the superiority
> of one on the proposed systems over the other.

If you want technical proof, please download the specs for both from
Adobe's website and compare them. Both are freely downloadable.
http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/en/ps/PLRM.pdf
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/acrobat/pdfs/pdf_reference_1-7.pdf
The wikipedia pages for both are also reasonably informative.

The fact is, PDF *is* the continuation of PostScript. It's just an
evolved form of PostScript in a binary format. More accurately, both
formats are implementations of the "Adobe imaging model"; until PDF
1.4, both of these formats implemented the same set of primitives.
PDF 1.4 and later implement new additions to the imaging model, while
PostScript will not see any new releases. If you look at all the
drawing primitives contained within PostScript, they are all right
there in PDF. If you take any PostScript document, you can execute
it and transform all the drawing commands to their PDF equivalent.
That's why it's trivial to to the conversion. The converse is not
always true: because PDF is a *superset* of the PostScript drawing
model, and so you potentially lose information going the other way,
because you might have to convert a single PDF primitive into multiple
PostScript primitives which only /approximate/ the PDF.

You can read a nice overview of the history and relationship between
the two here:
http://www.prepressure.com/postscript/basics/history

I hope from the above you'll understand that is indisputable that
1) PDF has a more technically sophisticated imaging model
2) PDF is the de-facto standard for professional document printing
3) PostScript is no longer being developed, and PDF is its successor
Moving to a PDF based printing workflow is an improvement due to
being technically superior and the logical way to go.

Regards,
Roger

--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' schroot and sbuild http://alioth.debian.org/projects/buildd-tools
`- GPG Public Key F33D 281D 470A B443 6756 147C 07B3 C8BC 4083 E800

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120802170...@codelibre.net

[Martin Steigerwald]

Am Montag, 23. Juli 2012 schrieb green:
> Stan Hoeppner wrote at 2012-07-23 06:59 -0500:
> > On 7/23/2012 6:17 AM, Teemu Likonen wrote:
> > > I suggest buying a PostScript printer with ethernet connection.
> >
> > LEXMARK E260dn, monochrome laser:
> I purchased a Lexmark E360dn, hoping for good Linux support. It prints
> nicely, but does not give a good experience with regard to paper type
> and tray selection. The only problem, as far as I can tell, is that
> there is no correct PPD file: even the PPD provided by Lexmark is
> broken. I tried writing one (PPDC), but did not have the time to
> learn the syntax, etc (remotely deployed printer). With that fixed, I
> *think* it would work perfectly.

>
> I do wish there were more hardware manufacturers with a real interest
> in making their products work well with Linux. HP is the best I have
> seen: http://hplipopensource.com/hplip-web/recommended.html

I agree.

I have an HP OfficeJet 5610 multi function device and just everything
worked out of the box. Printing, scanning and I think even faxing. As well
as ink status display.

Whats more, I can let this inkjet sit here for months and then print as if
nothing happens. The dealer told me its capable to pull the ink back so
that it doesn´t dry inside the printer head.

I can also refill a ink cartridge about five times. Only think is teaching
the printer to accept it as full again. You need to cover some pins for
that. But since printing works I usually just accept that ink status
display is bogus.

I looked what files are in hplip, hplip-data, hplip-gui and printer-
driver-hpcups and found no binary blob in there. So if there is none
within the printer driver file itself, I bet its all open source here.

merkaba:~> LANG=C apt-cache search hplip binary
merkaba:~> LANG=C apt-cache search hplip firmware
printer-driver-hpijs - HP Linux Printing and Imaging - gs IJS driver
(hpijs)
merkaba:~> LANG=C apt-cache show printer-driver-hpijs
Package: printer-driver-hpijs
Source: hplip
Version: 3.12.6-3
Installed-Size: 1821
Maintainer: Debian HPIJS and HPLIP maintainers <[…]>
Architecture: amd64
Replaces: hpijs (<< 3.11.10-1ubuntu2)
Depends: libc6 (>= 2.4), libdbus-1-3 (>= 1.0.2), libgcc1 (>= 1:4.1.1),
libhpmud0 (= 3.12.6-3), libjpeg8 (>= 8c), libssl1.0.0 (>= 1.0.0),
libstdc++6 (>= 4.1.1)
Recommends: ghostscript, cups (>= 1.4.0) | cupsddk | hpijs-ppds, foomatic-
filters
Suggests: hplip, hpijs-ppds, hplip-doc
Breaks: hpijs (<< 3.11.10-1ubuntu2)
Description-en: HP Linux Printing and Imaging - gs IJS driver (hpijs)
This package contains an IJS printer driver for Ghostscript, which
adds support for most inkjet printers and some LaserJet printers
manufactured by HP. It is also required for HPLIP fax support.
.
The Debian package of hpijs includes the so-called rss patch, to use
pure black ink instead of composite black in printers that don't do
color map conversion in firmware.
.
HPIJS can take advantage of Ghostscript IJS KRGB support when
available, to enhance black printing on printers that do color
map conversion in firmware and are thus not affected by the old
rss patch.
.
Users of the CUPS printing system are advised to also install the
hplip package, and use the hp CUPS backend to send data to the printer.
HPLIP supports USB, networked and parallel-port devices, and enables
extended HPIJS functionality such as border-less printing.
Selecting any hpijs ppd in CUPS will use hpijs automatically.
.
HPIJS is meant to be used through the foomatic system (see the
foomatic-filters package).
Homepage: http://hplipopensource.com/hplip-web/index.html


Hmmm, still no firmware.

Also the hpijs-ppds package doesn´t contain some.

So I would have a closer look as for which models a firmware is needed.
After all I can see here, mine works without – except the firmware which
resides in the printer itself.

Thanks,
--
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201208022015...@lichtvoll.de

[Martin Steigerwald]

Am Donnerstag, 26. Juli 2012 schrieb Gaël DONVAL:
> Three goods points were raised:
> 1) Postscript printers (advertised so) are great in that regard because
> they only need a PPD (ASCII) file to work. This is not the only way to
> be sure the printer will work in 10 years but this is the easiest (BTW,
> I have never heard of someone complaining because some binary blobs for
> his printer were not available anymore...).
> 2) Even with open source drivers, you cannot control the firmware of
> the printer: some printers are programmed to force you to visit your
> reseller once in a while for "maintenance" or just stop working.

What? Well I better look that up in this thread.

I am quite confident my HP OfficeJet 5610 doesn´t contain such a nasty
firmware, as I am using it for a real long time now.

--
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201208022019...@lichtvoll.de

[Martin Steigerwald]

Am Montag, 23. Juli 2012 schrieb Brian:
> On Mon 23 Jul 2012 at 08:29:49 -0300, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
> > On 07/23/2012 07:47 AM, Registros Web wrote:
> > >Hi all,
> > >
> > >Im about to buy a printer and want to make sure I get one that uses
> > >100% free software, no blobs or proprietary drivers, so I can get on
> > >using it even if the manufacturer decides to cease support of the
> > >printer.
> >
> > If you buy a printer that supports Postscript then you should be set
> > without requiring any driver, as Linux applications generally output
> > Postscript when printing.
>
> All the major applications on the popular DEs are now geared up to
> output in PDF format when printing.

Haven´t there been plans to switch CUPS to use PDF internally as well?

--
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201208022017...@lichtvoll.de

[Martin Steigerwald]

Am Donnerstag, 2. August 2012 schrieb Roger Leigh:

> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 02:06:07PM +0000, Camaleón wrote:
> > On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 19:43:13 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 04:51:11PM +0000, Camaleón wrote:
> > >> I just wanted to point a scenario where the jump to a PDF filter
> > >> as the default backend can have its troubles and not be nor as
> > >> good nor as simple nor as easy as the white papers say. Companies
> > >> have always showed different needs than users and these "jumps"
> > >> are seen differently when you have to hold them as user or as
> > >> admin.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The understanding I got from reading Roger's post was that if you

> > > are using CUPS, THEN you are automatically using "a PDF filter

> > > paradigm" because it **is considered superior/"more robust"**.
> >
> >
> >
> > That's what CUPS developers seem to claim (?) but having used PS
> > printers and PS backend as default for all these years, I'm a bit
> > reluctant about grandiloquent wordings with no more technical proofs
> > on the superiority of one on the proposed systems over the other.
>
> If you want technical proof, please download the specs for both from
> Adobe's website and compare them. Both are freely downloadable.
> http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/en/ps/PLRM.pdf
> http://www.adobe.com/devnet/acrobat/pdfs/pdf_reference_1-7.pdf
> The wikipedia pages for both are also reasonably informative.
>

> The fact is, PDF is the continuation of PostScript. It's just an

> evolved form of PostScript in a binary format. More accurately, both
> formats are implementations of the "Adobe imaging model"; until PDF
> 1.4, both of these formats implemented the same set of primitives.
> PDF 1.4 and later implement new additions to the imaging model, while
> PostScript will not see any new releases. If you look at all the
> drawing primitives contained within PostScript, they are all right
> there in PDF. If you take any PostScript document, you can execute
> it and transform all the drawing commands to their PDF equivalent.
> That's why it's trivial to to the conversion. The converse is not

> always true: because PDF is a superset of the PostScript drawing

> model, and so you potentially lose information going the other way,
> because you might have to convert a single PDF primitive into multiple

> PostScript primitives which only approximate the PDF.

Roger, many thanks for taking the time to explain the switch from
PostScript to PDF in such a great detail. I found your posts to be a
really informative read.

Thanks,

--
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201208022040...@lichtvoll.de

[Brian]

On Thu 02 Aug 2012 at 20:17:27 +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:

> Am Montag, 23. Juli 2012 schrieb Brian:
> >
> > All the major applications on the popular DEs are now geared up to
> > output in PDF format when printing.
>
> Haven´t there been plans to switch CUPS to use PDF internally as well?

May I repeat the URL given previously:

http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/openprinting/pdfasstandardprintjobformat

Having applications produce output in PDF was all part of the plan to
have the complete printing workflow with CUPS use PDF. All the
essentials are now in place. It has been a truly remarkable effort.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120802185450.GC6660@desktop

[Dom]

On 02/08/12 19:54, Brian wrote:
> On Thu 02 Aug 2012 at 20:17:27 +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
>
>> Am Montag, 23. Juli 2012 schrieb Brian:
>>>
>>> All the major applications on the popular DEs are now geared up to
>>> output in PDF format when printing.
>>
>> Haven´t there been plans to switch CUPS to use PDF internally as well?
>
> May I repeat the URL given previously:
>
> http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/openprinting/pdfasstandardprintjobformat
>
> Having applications produce output in PDF was all part of the plan to
> have the complete printing workflow with CUPS use PDF. All the
> essentials are now in place. It has been a truly remarkable effort.

It seems to be a good plan. I can see the advantages in it.

A pity it doesn't quite seem to work for me. I use a Brother HL5250DN
printer, which used to work fine.

For a while now I've been unable to print from Iceweasel to that printer
(it works on my Epson Stylus Color 470, although I can't get the margins
set right). I believe this is due to Brother's BRScript Postscript
emulation. I know some fixes are in place for that, but it still doesn't
work - just prints an error page.

Recently gedit has failed to print properly, just prints a line of
gobbldegook followed by several blank pages.

--
Dom

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/501AD4...@rpdom.net

[green]

Martin Steigerwald wrote at 2012-08-02 13:19 -0500:
> I am quite confident my HP OfficeJet 5610 doesn´t contain such a nasty
> firmware, as I am using it for a real long time now.

True according to
<http://hplipopensource.com/hplip-web/models/officejet/officejet_5600_series.html>
(search for "driver plug-in" and see note 8.

Some HP printers are supported by HPLIP *with* a proprietary plug-in. This
seems to be clearly stated on the printers' support pages as at the above
link.

[Brian]

On Thu 02 Aug 2012 at 20:28:32 +0100, Dom wrote:

> On 02/08/12 19:54, Brian wrote:
> >On Thu 02 Aug 2012 at 20:17:27 +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> >
> >>Am Montag, 23. Juli 2012 schrieb Brian:
> >>>
> >>>All the major applications on the popular DEs are now geared up to
> >>>output in PDF format when printing.
> >>
> >>Haven´t there been plans to switch CUPS to use PDF internally as well?
> >
> >May I repeat the URL given previously:
> >
> > http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/openprinting/pdfasstandardprintjobformat
> >
> >Having applications produce output in PDF was all part of the plan to
> >have the complete printing workflow with CUPS use PDF. All the
> >essentials are now in place. It has been a truly remarkable effort.
>
> It seems to be a good plan. I can see the advantages in it.
>
> A pity it doesn't quite seem to work for me. I use a Brother
> HL5250DN printer, which used to work fine.
>
> For a while now I've been unable to print from Iceweasel to that
> printer (it works on my Epson Stylus Color 470, although I can't get
> the margins set right). I believe this is due to Brother's BRScript
> Postscript emulation. I know some fixes are in place for that, but
> it still doesn't work - just prints an error page.
>
> Recently gedit has failed to print properly, just prints a line of
> gobbldegook followed by several blank pages.

This thread has wandered in some very interesting ways from the original
question posed. For suggestions to solve a specific problem, howver, you
might be better off with opening a new thread.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120802214845.GD6660@desktop

[Camaleón]

On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:02:19 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 02:06:07PM +0000, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 19:43:13 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:

(...)

>> > The understanding I got from reading Roger's post was that if you are
>> > using CUPS, *THEN* you are automatically using "a PDF filter
>> > paradigm" because it **is considered superior/"more robust"**.
>>
>> That's what CUPS developers seem to claim (?) but having used PS
>> printers and PS backend as default for all these years, I'm a bit
>> reluctant about grandiloquent wordings with no more technical proofs on
>> the superiority of one on the proposed systems over the other.
>
> If you want technical proof, please download the specs for both from
> Adobe's website and compare them. Both are freely downloadable.
> http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/en/ps/PLRM.pdf
> http://www.adobe.com/devnet/acrobat/pdfs/pdf_reference_1-7.pdf
> The wikipedia pages for both are also reasonably informative.

Specifications are not a proof that describe something is better or worse
"per se", pros and cons have to be analyzed separately and also based on
real use-cases other than over a white paper.

> The fact is, PDF *is* the continuation of PostScript.

Yes, I know all that. What I wonder is whether my printer needs all of
the PDF additions (my eBook reader for sure, but my printer...).

> It's just an evolved form of PostScript in a binary format.

Evolution is not always for good ;-)

> More accurately, both formats are implementations of the "Adobe imaging
> model"; until PDF 1.4, both of these formats implemented the same set
> of primitives. PDF 1.4 and later implement new additions to the imaging
> model, while PostScript will not see any new releases. If you look at
> all the drawing primitives contained within PostScript, they are all
> right there in PDF. If you take any PostScript document, you can
> execute it and transform all the drawing commands to their PDF
> equivalent. That's why it's trivial to to the conversion. The converse
> is not always true: because PDF is a *superset* of the PostScript
> drawing model, and so you potentially lose information going the other
> way, because you might have to convert a single PDF primitive into
> multiple PostScript primitives which only /approximate/ the PDF.

And how it translates all of the above into "a PDF filter is better than
PS"? I mean, I need facts, numbers, comparison tests, user-case
examples... not nice wording :-)

> You can read a nice overview of the history and relationship between the
> two here:
> http://www.prepressure.com/postscript/basics/history
>
> I hope from the above you'll understand that is indisputable that 1) PDF
> has a more technically sophisticated imaging model

Can't tell. I'm sure PDF will add some nice features but also drawbacks
when it comes to printing.

> 2) PDF is the de-facto standard for professional document printing

It's the most compatible/easier to send file format, but the best...
well, that will depend on the professional you ask ;-)

Also, careful with the election of the words. MS Word's ".doc" is also a
"de-facto" standard document format for office automation and we know
that's just an empty statement, right?

> 3) PostScript is no longer being developed, and PDF is its successor
> Moving to a PDF based printing workflow is an improvement due to being
> technically superior and the logical way to go.

Good to know. When I have to decide the buy for a new printer I will
ensure it does also support PDF directly but until that moment comes, I
will still use what my printers do understand.

Greetings,

--
Camaleón

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jvgsje$e45$1...@dough.gmane.org

[Martin Steigerwald]

Thanks for finding this.

The knowledge base article linked from note 8 is a quite informative read:

http://hplipopensource.com/node/309

--
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201208040009...@lichtvoll.de