From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: splite@purdue.edu To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] The new ridiculous license Message-ID: <20030620103102.A1097@sigint.cs.purdue.edu> References: <1056097208.28648.170.camel@pc118> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1056097208.28648.170.camel@pc118>; from john@cs.york.ac.uk on Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 09:20:08AM +0100 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:31:02 -0500 Topicbox-Message-UUID: d2fade8e-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 09:20:08AM +0100, John Murdie wrote: > > 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. Sure there is; the return value is an octet. They had 255 possible failure codes, but the BSD implementation returns 001 on error regardless of the cause. They could have at least distinguished transient (e.g. no spool space) versus permanent (no such queue) errors. One could provide distinct error codes without violating the RFC, though with the following result: > 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.