Thread View: comp.std.unix
3 messages
3 total messages
Started by Mike Urban
Thu, 05 Jul 1990 21:30
Printing Standards?
Author: Mike Urban
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 1990 21:30
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 1990 21:30
10 lines
716 bytes
716 bytes
From: urban@rand.org (Mike Urban) What incipient or existing standards, if any, specify the Shell-level printer interface (lpr and its friends)? -- Mike Urban urban@rand.ORG Volume-Number: Volume 20, Number 103
Re: Printing Standards?
Author: Dominic Dunlop
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 1990 14:50
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 1990 14:50
30 lines
1800 bytes
1800 bytes
From: Dominic Dunlop <domo@tsa.co.uk> In article <789@longway.TIC.COM> urban@rand.org (Mike Urban) writes: >What incipient or existing standards, if any, specify >the Shell-level printer interface (lpr and its friends)? Aha. That terminal ``r'' tells me you're a Berkeley-ite. Which is too bad, I'm afraid. The draft 1003.2 shell and tools standard specifies a pretty-much emasculated version of the System V.2 (or thereabouts) lp print spooling command (which some might argue was fairly impotent in the first place). As far as ``friends'' go (lpadmin, enable, lpshut and so on in the case of System V), none are specified. This is seen as 1003.7 (administration) territory. If you can get hold of a draft (somebody in Rand must have one), you'll find lots of extended description about how little a conforming application can assume from lp, and rationale about how it should be possible to implement it as a shell script, namely cat > /dev/lp The X/Open Portability Guide, edition 3, volume 1, does little better: it describes a few more options, and the cancel utility, but they're all optional -- in effect, all an XPG-conformant system has to offer is the interface described in 1003.2. All rather depressing really. -- Dominic Dunlop Volume-Number: Volume 20, Number 111
Re: Printing Standards?
Author: J Greely
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 1990 20:42
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 1990 20:42
19 lines
1277 bytes
1277 bytes
From: jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) In article <797@longway.TIC.COM> domo@tsa.co.uk (Dominic Dunlop) writes: [discussion of POSIX specifying only minimal print standard, bare-bones SysV lp] >All rather depressing really. Actually, I find it encouraging. It means that the world won't standardize on either SysV *or* Berkeley print spooling, which means that there's room for someone to write something good. Lpr and company are a bitch for a large network, and I wouldn't even *try* to run lp on 300 machines. What's needed is a real batch system that scales to a large network (and please, Ghod, make it administerable by a mortal). -- J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely) Volume-Number: Volume 20, Number 112
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads