From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-Id: <200306192319.h5JNJ1707171@augusta.math.psu.edu>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] The new ridiculous license
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:34:37 PDT."
             <Pine.BSI.4.05L.10306191433360.6964-100000@cleese.nas.com>
From: Dan Cross <cross@math.psu.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:19:01 -0400
Topicbox-Message-UUID: d1f28dde-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> >     - 'lpr' protocol
>
> What's wrong with lpr?  I know there's better, but what's *wrong* with it?

In all seriousness; jokes, flames, etc aside.  It's become clear (to
me, at least) that that's a very complex question to answer
adequately.  There's no clear, universal definition of what `wrong'
means: it could be technical, philosophical, political, etc.  What type
of answer are you looking for?  I'd say the problems with lpr are
mostly technical; it's an antequated protocol that's more complex than
it needs to be, and the protocol definition (in the RFC) is really a
distillation of the protocol in the Berkeley lpr implementation.

	- Dan C.