Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!bloom-beacon!FCCC.EDU!STODOLA
From: STODOLA@FCCC.EDU (Bob Stodola)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Printing on X-terminals
Message-ID: <670ED6F0529FC088D0@fccc.edu>
Date: 12 Jul 90 16:18:00 GMT
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 42

After reviewing the recent flurry of activity concerning printers attached to
x-terminals, I'd like to add a vote in favor of it.  I think most of the
objections to it (at least based on the alternatives), assume that the norm
will be a workstation on every desk.  In practice, I don't see this in the
near future.  Looking at my own organization, there are many applications
that can and will benifit from the X user interface which will not justify
the cost of a workstation -- nursing stations, patient rooms (physician order
entry, etc.), accounting clerks, lab data entry stations.  In practice, what
is required in this area is an inexpensive X-station (<$1000).  Currently,
many such locations have terminals with printers attached, and the printer
is a required part of the package.  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.  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.  Without quibbling over whether Xterm is itself a bug,
I have many VT100 terminal based programs which print through to the printer
port.  Unless this issue is addressed as part of the standard, I don't see
being able to do this universally.  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.

The good news is that most of these locations already have serial lines strung
to them for printers.  I don't view this as a permanent solution. :-)

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

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.

Reply to:
  stodola@fccc.edu               Robert K. Stodola, Manager
                                 Research Computing Services
  Phone: (215) 728-3660          The Fox Chase Cancer Center
                                 7701 Burholme Avenue
                                 Philadelphia, PA  19111
                                 USA