Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU!rws
From: rws@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Bob Scheifler)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Printing on X-terminals
Message-ID: <9007121725.AA21248@expire.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: 12 Jul 90 17:25:16 GMT
References: <670ED6F0529FC088D0@fccc.edu>
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 55


    Regardless of the "political soundness"
    or lack thereof of including this in the X protocol, I see the cost of not
    doing so to be very high.

No, you see the cost of not having a printing mechanism as high.  I'll
agree with that assessment, but it is independent of whether the mechanism
is through an X protocol extension.

    I can more easily write an application which addresses the local printer
    through an already established X-server connection than by identifying,
    opening, and addressing a separate path to a printer -- especially if the
    manufacturers of X-terminals all choose separate interfaces to the local
    printer.

You shouldn't waste your time writing an application.  It should be possible
to use an existing network protocol (the one that lpr uses).  You should be
able to use lpr.

    Unless this issue is addressed as part of the standard, I don't see
    being able to do this universally.

You are falling into the typical hole of "Gee, X has somebody who makes
standards, so let's take anything related to distributed computing and
call it part of X so we can get a standard."  I'm exaggerating in your
particular case, but I do believe it is the same hole.

    Its very difficult to explain to someone
    how much better the X-terminal is when it can't do something that they
    require and are used to having.

It's even more difficult to explain why existing mechanisms (like lpr) can't
be utilized.  I have various systems here that don't run X but speak the
lp network protocol.  I'd sure like to be able to print from them to the
printer attached to my X terminal.

    Network printers are not a very good model for local printers -- it is
    typically desireable to have them personally under the control of the
    current user of the terminal.

That's fine, and there's no reason why it can't be done.

    The same security concerns as access to the X-terminal itself!
    What a coincidence! :-)

I have the same security concerns about the resources attached to the
workstation sitting on my desk, wherein my X server is executing, but
I don't think you would suggest that all access to them should be done
through an X extension in order to make the security "common".

    In short, I would plead for R5 to address this, regardless of philosophical
    objections, simply to put an end to the various hacks being designed by
    X-terminal manufacturers to address this much needed functionality.

In short, I disagree.