Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!tekbspa!uunet!auspex!guy
From: guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Printing on X-terminals
Message-ID: <3663@auspex.auspex.com>
Date: 15 Jul 90 01:41:26 GMT
References: <670ED6F0529FC088D0@fccc.edu> <9007121725.AA21248@expire.lcs.mit.edu>
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara
Lines: 24

>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.

I don't know that "lpr" is necessarily the right choice - it may assume
that the printer is willing to queue up lots of print jobs, but an X
terminal may not want to do that (you might have some other protocol,
with an "lpr" back end that talks the protocol)...

...but I'll definitely agree that X doesn't become the right choice just
because the same piece of hardware to which you can attach the printer
also happens to provide X services.

>    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.

And I agree - with Robert Scheifler, not with the original poster.  I
don't see the "various hacks" being a fatal problem (almost said
"terminal problem" :-)); printer port access on ordinary dumb terminals
ain't standardized - different terminals have different escape sequences
they use.