From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [9fans] The new ridiculous license From: John Murdie To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Cc: john@cs.york.ac.uk In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1056097208.28648.170.camel@pc118> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:20:08 +0100 Topicbox-Message-UUID: d28168ce-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 22:34, Jack Johnson wrote: > On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, boyd, rounin wrote: > > - 'lpr' protocol > > What's wrong with lpr? I know there's better, but what's *wrong* with it? > > -Jack > For a start, lpr (more properly the RFC1179 Berkeley print) protocol allows only a success/fail result; there's nowhere to put error or informational messages in the protocol. Everybody and his aunt seems to have made incompatible extensions; the Berkeley print server we use here has had to be extended to deal with PLP, Novell, HP and Microsoft extensions. It's messy. There's worse; I doubt that Plan 9ers will like IPP (the Internet Printing Protocol) - http://www.pwg.org/ipp/. The first time I saw it, I thought I'd picked up an X25 manual by mistake.