BJC Printer setup after installing cups-1.1.18

Craig Colton meerkats at
Tue Jul 1 18:10:59 PDT 2003

> I thank you for the compliment - my ego's a little bruised being out of
> work for the longest time in my life. But ...
> First, my opinion is inconsequential. To me, what is important is the
> friendly and (mis)informative sharing of knowledge and ideas. It is
> these interactions, IMO, that spark new/best ideas/solutions and
> increase the general level of knowledge to the community.
> Second, just in case something is mis-remembered, I have not taken a pos-
> ition about CUPS. I made a decision to use lprng/lprngtools because it
> allowed me to use the latest/greatest standard ghostscript and avoid ins-
> tallation of the other esgs* stuff. The fact that is well documented,
> flexible and maintained also was a consideration (other packages, includ-
> ing CUPS also meet this criteria). Since I am "decoratively impaired" and
> have no concerns for the issues like "photo quality", one spooler/printer
> that handles all the net/conv/spool/dispatch issues, is as good as a-
> nother that does the same, to me.
> A *minor* consideration (because I have dealt effectively with complexity
> for more years than I care to admit) was the problems reported on the
> list. Remember that it was not just Declan that had experienced some
> issues. IIRC, I was seeing the occasional cry for help beginning over a
> year ago. The first of these was sparked (I haven't re-checked the
> archives, so this may not be gospel) by needing a different gs pkg/ver
> than what the BLFS book provided at that time. There have been other
> issues also.
> > Have you done the same with cups? In other words, work through this
> > difficult install process:
> No I haven't. But because I selected a different package for, mostly,
> different reasons, and because I present no opinion about CUPS, I haven't
> had the impetous to investigate it (yet - see below).
> >   Install CUPS:
> > =================================================
> > ./configure
> > make
> > make install
> >
> > Install Gimp-Print:
> > ==================================================
> > If you have the Gimp:
> >
> > ./configure --with-cups
> > make
> > make install
> >
> > If you don't have the Gimp:
> >
> > ./configure --with-cups --without-gimp
> > make
> > make install
> >
> > Install ESPGS:
> > ===================================================
> > ./configure --with-gimp-print  --with-drivers=  --without-omni
> > make
> > make install
> Right here is the most important reason I went with another package. With
> my interests being in other areas, ATM, I could avoid a couple of
> additional packages.
> > Now start the Cups deamon with:
> >
> > /usr/sbin/cupsd
> >
> > Then direct a browser to:
> >
> > http://localhost:631
> >
> > You should now be able to configure and test your printer.
> > ===============================================================
> Looks straight-forward enough.
> > To see if cups is indeed the piece of shit that others have claimed?
> > Please be fair.
> ?? As above, I've not expressed an opinion on CUPS, have none (yet). But
> "be fair"? Y'all know how easy it is to get me on my soap-box (read that
> as long-winded and excessively wordy). So I'll do a little of that at the
> end. If there is something to be fair about, I always try to be fair.
> > Trust me, I have no desire to spend my time defending cups (I'm kind of
> > sick of it), or throwing stones. This list is supposed to be
> > entertainment and education for me.
> And for all of us, I hope.
> > I see that you have joined this thread, but I doubt if you have followed
> > every single printing and cups post, as I have,
> Wrong! I am fully subscribed to all but lfs-chat and read *everything*
> but alfs (for now).
> > only to see posters directed away
> > from a package that has worked consistently for me and others. This in
> > favor of something that I feel is inferior. If a support question about
> > "the minority report", or general printing comes up, of course Declan
> > should address it. If the only support Declan can give on cups is to use
> > something else because he can't get it to work then I think he should
> > defer.
> Generally I can agree. But, opinions do matter - even wrong ones. See
> below. Here I will just say that none of us are (should be) without
> emotions that can (hopefully only occasionally) spill over into these
> lists. That can lead to occasional aggravations. It's the price of
> creativity and interaction.
> > Oh, and that joke you made about _me_ scripting something (anything)
> > heh,heh..........quite funny : )
> Just covering my arse there ;)
> > Regards,
> > Craig
> Eventually I will get around to playing with CUPS just because I like to
> research/investigate/learn new things and I like to validate what's in
> the (B)LFS books. When I find something that I think can use some
> improvement I send some suggestions along. But I have *very* high toler-
> ance here - we are all working on this stuff for free so I try not to ap-
> ply only any strongly-held criteria like I would if I was getting paid
> for a service.
> Regarding (in)correct opinions, there is a way to look at them that
> serves me well. Whether or not an opinion is correct or not is often
> irrelevant in all but one sense. That one sense is the lost time that an
> incorrect opinion may cause others. In fairness to to others that we may
> so affect, we owe it to the community to make our best effort to be sure
> they are accurate, unbiased and complete. If we don't know for sure, but
> are "theorizing" or guessing, we need to say so.
> Where opinions hold *great* value, IMO, is in the interactions they can
> spark. Good interactions that result in better, more accurate knowledge
> often result from stated incorrect opinions (is there such a thing?). The
> *only* bad thing (other than what I mentioned above) from them, IMO, is
> the apparently emotional reactions to those opinions. Sometimes these are
> understandable, other times not. I *welcome* all opinions as long as they
> do not unfairly denigrate the efforts of others who seem to be making
> honest attempts, do their "homework" (mitigated by the environment or
> background they are in/from) and show due respect for others.
> I always keep in mind that their situation/experience may be different
> than mine and they may have much to offer that I may learn.
> <soapbox>
> Let's all work towards cooling the emotions a little bit here. Here is my
> take on all this stuff.
> First, being about 50% Irish and having a (now deeply buried) vile temper
> and being prone to "venting", I viewed Declan's rantings against CUPS as
> an expression of his frustrations about something that should be so
> simple (from his view) being so daunting to him. Lack of research? Maybe.
> BLFS not yet complete/accurate? Possibly. Failure to use due care? Could
> be. But regardless of that, I feel we should remember that there are
> humans at the other end of those wires connecting all of us. So a little
> tolerance to the occasional rantings/misinformation of others that may be
> suffering frustrations like we have all experienced (I think), seems to be
> in order. Was he wrong to denigrate CUPS so consistently when it caused
> him problems? I would say yes, assuming that his knowledge was incomplete
> and CUPS does indeed work as advertised (I presume it really does).
> Further, if he were to ask my opinion about the PMR, I would agree that
> the condemnations of CUPS in there lessens the value of the document.
> I think he should have tempered his remarks about CUPS (et al) because
> he must have realized at some point that users with needs unlike his own
> had been (obviously) successfully using CUPS (and other packages) for a
> long time. A little rant/vent was fine, but it wnet on long enough that
> it eventually reflected poorly on his efforts to use his simpler solution
> to help others up the ol' steep learning curve. Of course, that *may* not
> have been his goal, so my judgement there may be flawed.
> On the positive side, the end result of what began as an extreme
> frustration for him has resulted in a document that introduces newcomers
> to some underpinnings of printing in an *IX environment. It doesn't
> intend to be network/multi-user/spooling aware, but he has the introduced
> some of the basics that all the packages must handle. When the cruft
> is cleaned out of it and it is augmented with a little explanatory text
> and references are added that help those that have these extended needs,
> I feel it will provide a good service to folks that think of printing as
> just a "black box" type of operation. May save them some headaches.
> Someone (you) asked something along the lines of "how could a user not
> know to enable the printer in the kernel if they want to print".
> Certainly this must have been a rhetorical question. Any time on the
> support lists and you see folks that don't know "man", aren't able to
> follow even the CnP stuff in the book,... it should be *obvious*, IMO,
> that some will forget to enable printer support in the kernel. This has
> been brought as a result of the thread. Other examples are depmod,
> modules.conf, *repeated* also/oss and eth0 questions that *all* are
> addressed in "man", FAQ, various searches and linux-*/Documentation.
> Lastly, his rantings/opinions resulted in increased education (albeit it
> was a tortuous road with some unjustified opinions offered) for those
> with less experience in these areas. Knowledgeable people chimed in and
> offered offsetting facts/views/opinions. All good for the community.
> Now, in all fairness, I have to comment about your posts. I really only
> have one criticism, and that is calling the PMR a "piece of shit". That
> maybe factual, but is more properly viewed only as an opinion. So you got
> sucked into doing exactly what you criticized Declan for doing -
> condemning another package based on your own opinions and views and
> experience. But, it is totally understandable how you got drawn into
> doing this. Because I presume you also have emotions and when you saw
> what you percieved as a major disservice to the community, you saw red
> and had to speak up. 'Nuff said - we're all human.
> Now, generally speaking. The remoteness provided by the virtual commu-
> nity tends to make us see each other in rather monolithic terms, like a
> harsh black and white photograph. We have less opportunity to develop the
> tolerance for each other's foibles, outbursts and flaws because we don't
> have that daily interaction, struggle for common goals and immediacy of
> the smile, wisecrack, "Oh Shit!" and "Attaboy". So it is easier, and
> natural, to be less tolerant, less careful with our words, less
> understanding of the other person's immediate feelings. We lack the
> emotional sense of "humanness", "just like me" or community. We need to
> keep these factors in mind when viewing and responding to posts from
> others.
> That's why even on my worst day, I hope I never use terms like "RTFM",
> FUD", etc. They are, IMO, relics of a day when the computing world was
> totally the realm of highly-educated, overpaid self-important egotistical
> elitists who (thank God, I *think*) got all this technology started and
> eventually cheap enough for all of us to benefit. It was common for these
> folks to view folks outside their immediate community as "impaired".
> *But*, those sorts of phrases now serve no purpose other than to drive a
> wedge further between us and possibly support inadequate egos (the good
> sort of ego). I would rather see *all* of us, somehow, move out of the
> shadows of this "black and whiteness" that this sort of environment tends
> to create and find a way to keep our humanity in mind when we see and
> reply to posts. It is harder work than just letting fly with whatever
> barb we have in our arsenal of "weapons", but I think it is well worth
> the extra effort. To me, this means avoiding pejorative terms, using a few
> extra keystrokes to help avoid accidental offense (intentional is ok? ;)
> and tempering our behaviour so that we show the same tolerance and
> consideration to others that we desire from them.
> Ok, I want you two to shake hands and let's have no more of this silly
> bickering (Mom, ca 19XX - you thought I was going to give away my age?).
> Now all this may sound high-minded. But I don't alwyas live up to my own
> ideals. I don't "walk on water", but niether do I "pass water in emer-
> gencies". I just consistently try to "do what's right". I do not *expect*
> all others to adhere to my standards.
> My *opinion*, correct or not.
> </soapbox>
> --
> Bill Maltby
> lfsbill at

Inspiring post. I can hardly find anything in there to argue about. Could you 
please try to be more inflammatory in the future? : )

I would like to take small issue. You may or may not know me from my posts. As 
frequency, I would class them as less than average to rare. But that doesn't 
mean that I haven't been here. I just feel that I learn more when I listen 
than when I speak. Anyway, these people here - the ones that have been around 
for awhile - (as silly as it sounds) feel like friends of mine to me. They 
all have their own personalities and their posts are all filtered through 
what I percieve their personalities to be. 

I _hope_ that I have not posted something maliciously without regard to 
anothers feelings. I have been critical (overly critical?), but this is 
criticism that I have had for along time, but have not spoken for precisely 
this reason (i.e., I didn't want to hurt anybody's feelings). Let's please 
make a distinction between criticism and malicious criticism.

Mailing lists are funny. You might feel that you are having a one-on-one 
conversation with somebody but all of a sudden a bunch of responses get 
posted, and you think "Damn..........I didnt't know they were listening". 
You're absoutely right - I got sucked in - and I should've been smarter. 

Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe blfs-support' in the subject header of the message

More information about the blfs-support mailing list