Re: recommendations on Linux friendly scanners?
- From: The Natural Philosopher <tnp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:50:09 +0000
Handover Phist wrote:
The Natural Philosopher :Todd wrote:The Natural Philosopher wrote:Ive found CUPS a BIT better.
SANE is crap really - weakest link in the Linux armour.Like the "Common Unix Printing System" (CUPS), I refer to
SANE as the "Common Unix Scanning System" or CUSS. Sort
speaks for itself. :-)
-T
The trouble is both scanners and printers tend to rely on custom drivers from the manufactures: They don't do linux ones, much.
Scanners, however, don't have a Postscript equivalent. Many printers
will use it even if no driver is supplied.
Oh yes. Spawn of the devil
postcript.. 'The language that put a 64 bit processor in a printer, long before a computer' and 'a way to turn 2000 words of text into a few megabytes of data'
Do you know, its really only since computers have got as good as they are in the last 3-5 years, that it has actually been useable from my point of view.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: recommendations on Linux friendly scanners?
- From: Handover Phist
- Re: recommendations on Linux friendly scanners?
- References:
- recommendations on Linux friendly scanners?
- From: Todd
- Re: recommendations on Linux friendly scanners?
- From: The Natural Philosopher
- Re: recommendations on Linux friendly scanners?
- From: Todd
- Re: recommendations on Linux friendly scanners?
- From: The Natural Philosopher
- Re: recommendations on Linux friendly scanners?
- From: Handover Phist
- recommendations on Linux friendly scanners?
- Prev by Date: Re: Semdmail's -f switch
- Next by Date: Re: pop up for bash scripts?
- Previous by thread: Re: recommendations on Linux friendly scanners?
- Next by thread: Re: recommendations on Linux friendly scanners?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|