Tackling a shared USB printer (linux -> WXP)

[Brion Swanson]

Jeff,

Thank you for your very informative (and cool-headed) explanation of linux
printing.  If I had more time (I'm a little pressed right now,
unfortunately) I'd read the CUPS and Printing HOW-TOs cover to cover and
hopefully extract what you just distilled for me.

I suppose it's partly the Windows indoctrination that has occurred to me
over the years and partly a frustration at what appeared to be a common
problem among newsgroups but without a well-known solution.

Since I have three types of systems trying to access this printer (Windows,
Linux, Mac), I will set up two queues: one postscript, one raw, and see if I
can get all the systems to talk to the printer successfully (so far I have
the Windows machines happily spitting binary data at the printer, and linux
happily using the normal postscript drivers on a separate queue -- I'm not
sure why the Mac has decided to stop printing.  Should I be using IPP,
Windows Printing, or LPD as the protocol for the Mac?)

Thank you again for your explanation.

Brion

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Vian" <jvian10 at charter.net>
To: "For users of Fedora Core releases" <fedora-list at redhat.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: Tackling a shared USB printer (linux -> WXP)


>
>
> Brion Swanson wrote:
>
> >It seems to me that the printer is hooked up to a single machine - i.e.
> >presumably a machine that only runs one operating system at a time - or
it's
> >hooked up to a hardware print server.  In either case, the interface
through
> >which the printer receives its data should be of one type.  In other
words,
> >when I - as the software printing driver - talk to the physical printer,
I
> >use only one language to talk to that printer -- the most appropriate
common
> >language.  All other devices that want to talk through the printer must
go
> >through the printer driver -- a single printer driver.
> >
> >
> The concept here is that window refuses to queue a file before it is
> processed thru the driver for that printer. If spooled raw it will not
> print properly, EVER.
>
> >If I set up a printer in Windows and shared it, I don't believe I'd need
to
> >set up multiple versions of the same printer, one for each different OS
that
> >uses it.  Windows would configure one printer, with one driver (the Canon
> >driver in my case) and then other computers would talk to Windows to
print,
> >not to the printer directly.  In which case, I only need the driver that
> >works with windows to be loaded and possibly some translation software to
> >convert, say, a stream of bytes into something the printer will
understand.
> >
> >
> This is wrong in concept but right in queueing.
>
> If you have a printer on an XP machine and are sharing it with a 98
> machine they both have their own version of the driver for that printer
> (for many printers) and each sends the file preformatted to the print
queue.
>
> The biggest difference is when the file gets queued.  By default a file
> to be printed on linux is spooled.  Then when it is despooled for
> printing it is handed off to the printer driver for the formatting that
> is printer specific and streamed to the printer.  This means the queue
> is set up specifically for each printer because the queue config knows
> what driver to hand the job to for formatting  And if I want, I can use
> different drivers for the same printer -- postscript,  non postscript,
> PCL, or otherwise depending on the abilities of the printer and my
> wants.  I just set up a different print queue for each type handling I
want.
>
> On Windows, the file is formatted (and binary) before it is spooled to
> the queue (raw on Windows as well as on Linux).
>
> With these differences it is important that the linux queue knows what
> type file it is receiving.  Preformatted or Raw.
>
> >I agree it's logical to have one queue for each device that needs a
> >different driver, but managing 'n' number of queues for a single printer
> >because I have 'n' number of different OSes, each of which talk to the
> >printer in a different language is, if not difficult at least annoying.
> >
> >
> Think of the linux print queue as doing the job the windows print
> drivers do before spooling.
> The file spooled is raw, usually much smaller than the formatted file,
> (and often saves a lot of space) as well as making a single point in
> time where the formatting occurs  (exactly when needed). After the
> driver manages the formatting the file is now binary and streamed  to
> the printer.
>
> >I want to set up the printer locally in linux, then tell the rest of the
> >world, "Hey! I have a printer you can use if you want to talk to it
through
> >me!" and have that be it.  It doesn't seem like such a difficult task.
> >Other operating systems do it - why not this one?
> >
> >
> If you change the way linux spools the print files so they are
> preformatted before spooling then ALL print sources would be able to use
> a raw print queue. In the present setup, the printer drivers do not even
> touch the file until it is despooled for printing.
>
> The raw print queue is functionally identical to the print queue in
> Windows.  It receives a (binary) file to be spooled and sends it to the
> printer without doing any other processing.
>
> >Sorry this turned into a little rant, but it just bugs me that this
> >"thousand-queue" solution is the best thing linux has to offer when
sharing
> >a USB printer with other operating systems.
> >
> >Brion
> >
> >
> This is not difficult.  When sharing with linux machines you have a
> choice on the sending machine of  preformatting and sending to a raw
> queue or sending it raw an using a printer specific queue on the print
> server.  The same choices are (theoretically) available whether you are
> providing services for Linux workstations or Windows (except Windows
> does NOT allow the choice.  It MUST be sent to a raw print queue).
>
> OTOH, the concept of the print queue providing the driver formatting on
> *nix goes a little deeper.  It not only saves space in a print queue,
> but it also meens the workstations being served do NOT have to even
> install a printer driver and do not care what printer their job is sent
> to. (I know, this is a carry-over from when workstations were dumb and
> drive space was at a premium;  But the idea is still sound)
>
> >----- Original Message ----- 
> >From: "Jeff Vian" <jvian10 at charter.net>
> >
> >
> >>Why does it seem wrong.??
> >>
> >>The os being used to print (windows), preformats the printer output so
> >>it is correctly printed.  Thus it needs to be streamed to the printer
> >>via a "RAW" queue that gets no further processing.
> >>
> >>Linux also needs to format its output for the printer, so it cannot use
> >>the raw queue but needs a different path that does process the output
> >>and prepares it for the printer.
> >>
> >>This seems very logical to me.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> BOTTOM LINE: flexibility. Windows is not, Linux is almost limitless.
>  Tailor it as you see fit.
> A few seconds spent in planning and configuration provides a lot of
> later flexibility.
>
>
> If you do not like the flexibility options of windows why not get a
> network print server appliance and remove the printing from Linux
> totally?  Then every station would have to send files to the printer
> exactly the same - preformatted and all.
>
>
> -- 
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list at redhat.com
> To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
>
>