Re: recommendations on Linux friendly scanners?
- From: Handover Phist <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 18:53:30 -0800
The Natural Philosopher :
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.
I was forced to use it years past for my laser printer before PCL5
really worked, and I tend to print documents quite a bit larger than
2000 words. It did the job, somewhat like Java does the job.
--
Did I do an INCORRECT THING??
www.websterscafe.com
.
- 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
- Re: recommendations on Linux friendly scanners?
- From: The Natural Philosopher
- recommendations on Linux friendly scanners?
- Prev by Date: Home Business
- Next by Date: free traffic
- Previous by thread: Re: recommendations on Linux friendly scanners?
- Next by thread: Re: recommendations on Linux friendly scanners?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|