I have a printer (HP Officejet J4580) which only has a USB interface. What is the simplest way to connect this printer to a WiFi LAN?
Allegedly, on or about 15 June 2013, Timothy Murphy sent:
I have a printer (HP Officejet J4580) which only has a USB interface. What is the simplest way to connect this printer to a WiFi LAN?
"Simplest" is probably through an access point or router that has a USB port on it, specifically for connecting your printer to a WLAN. It's been a while since I've seen one, so I can't offer a recommendation.
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 07:43:02PM +0930, Tim wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 15 June 2013, Timothy Murphy sent:
I have a printer (HP Officejet J4580) which only has a USB interface. What is the simplest way to connect this printer to a WiFi LAN?
"Simplest" is probably through an access point or router that has a USB port on it, specifically for connecting your printer to a WLAN. It's been a while since I've seen one, so I can't offer a recommendation.
Asus RT-N16 apparently supports that configuration, though I have no need to use mine for that since my printer is already networked. YMMV.
alternatively, if you don't mind spending a little money, you might look around for a HP JetDirect add-on card for your printer.
On 06/15/2013 09:21 AM, Fred Smith wrote:
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 07:43:02PM +0930, Tim wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 15 June 2013, Timothy Murphy sent:
I have a printer (HP Officejet J4580) which only has a USB interface. What is the simplest way to connect this printer to a WiFi LAN?
"Simplest" is probably through an access point or router that has a USB port on it, specifically for connecting your printer to a WLAN. It's been a while since I've seen one, so I can't offer a recommendation.
Asus RT-N16 apparently supports that configuration, though I have no need to use mine for that since my printer is already networked. YMMV.
alternatively, if you don't mind spending a little money, you might look around for a HP JetDirect add-on card for your printer.
Or, you could plug it into a USB port on your computer and share it with the network with Samba for no money.
Mark LaPierre wrote:
I have a printer (HP Officejet J4580) which only has a USB interface. What is the simplest way to connect this printer to a WiFi LAN?
"Simplest" is probably through an access point or router that has a USB port on it, specifically for connecting your printer to a WLAN. It's been a while since I've seen one, so I can't offer a recommendation.
Asus RT-N16 apparently supports that configuration, though I have no need to use mine for that since my printer is already networked. YMMV.
Or, you could plug it into a USB port on your computer and share it with the network with Samba for no money.
I should have said that it is too far from the server for a direct USB connection. Incidentally, why would I need to use Samba?
At present, I just carry my laptop to the printer, which is not too onerous. I just wondered if there was a simple alternative, but it seems not.
Am 15.06.2013 21:25, schrieb Timothy Murphy:
I should have said that it is too far from the server for a direct USB connection. Incidentally, why would I need to use Samba?
At present, I just carry my laptop to the printer, which is not too onerous. I just wondered if there was a simple alternative, but it seems not.
these days printers with WLAN and Ethernet are cheap
why bother with workarounds while virtually nobody is still using non-network-capabale printers?
http://www.shopping.hp.com/en_US/home-office/-/products/Printers/HP-Deskjet/...
Features: Print and share wirelessly,[2] and connect to your wireless network quickly and easily
Allegedly, on or about 15 June 2013, Reindl Harald sent:
these days printers with WLAN and Ethernet are cheap
why bother with workarounds while virtually nobody is still using non-network-capabale printers?
Because many modern printers are crap? They just get worse and worse (short lifespan, expensive and miniscule ink or toner supplies). My old HP printer is old enough to legally drink and vote.
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 09:25:55PM +0200, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Mark LaPierre wrote:
I have a printer (HP Officejet J4580) which only has a USB interface. What is the simplest way to connect this printer to a WiFi LAN?
"Simplest" is probably through an access point or router that has a USB port on it, specifically for connecting your printer to a WLAN. It's been a while since I've seen one, so I can't offer a recommendation.
Asus RT-N16 apparently supports that configuration, though I have no need to use mine for that since my printer is already networked. YMMV.
Or, you could plug it into a USB port on your computer and share it with the network with Samba for no money.
I should have said that it is too far from the server for a direct USB connection. Incidentally, why would I need to use Samba?
Samba would be useful if you had windoze machines on the network that wanted to use the printer, assuming wanted to share it out from a linux box.
At present, I just carry my laptop to the printer, which is not too onerous. I just wondered if there was a simple alternative, but it seems not.
-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Fred Smith wrote:
I have a printer (HP Officejet J4580) which only has a USB interface. What is the simplest way to connect this printer to a WiFi LAN?
I should have said that it is too far from the server for a direct USB connection. Incidentally, why would I need to use Samba?
Samba would be useful if you had windoze machines on the network that wanted to use the printer, assuming wanted to share it out from a linux box.
I haven't found any problem printing from Windows machines on the LAN without using Samba. (The server is running on CentOS.)
Allegedly, on or about 15 June 2013, Fred Smith sent:
Samba would be useful if you had windoze machines on the network that wanted to use the printer, assuming wanted to share it out from a linux box.
I've always found dealing with Samba's shenanigans much more effort than configuring Windows to print to a printer using HTTP/IPP (i.e. CUPS).
Quite apart from the mess that you need to deal with to get a printer going through Samba, it's yet another thing in the middle, and it's completely unnecessary.
On 06/16/2013 07:21 AM, Tim wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 15 June 2013, Fred Smith sent:
Samba would be useful if you had windoze machines on the network that wanted to use the printer, assuming wanted to share it out from a linux box.
I've always found dealing with Samba's shenanigans much more effort than configuring Windows to print to a printer using HTTP/IPP (i.e. CUPS).
Quite apart from the mess that you need to deal with to get a printer going through Samba, it's yet another thing in the middle, and it's completely unnecessary.
I have never used SAMBA....but I've always been told (by Windows admins no less!...LOL!) that it was the easiest thing in the world to use....is it not so?....
EGO II
Tim:
I've always found dealing with Samba's shenanigans much more effort than configuring Windows to ....
Eddie G. O'Connor Jr.:
I have never used SAMBA....but I've always been told (by Windows admins no less!...LOL!) that it was the easiest thing in the world to use....is it not so?....
Probably easier to manage than what they're used to doing (Windows making you juggle straight razors, without handles, soaked in petrol, above a naked flame).
While it wasn't too hard (using Samba) to share in one direction, it was a nuisance to have to add users on each client (because Samba handled users separately than the system), and the mucking around that was needed to configure printer drivers to run a printer through it...
Everything about printing on Windows was a pain in the arse. Each client needed the printer set up on, and drivers configured on each client. Compared to Linux just needing the printer set up on the computer it was attached to, and all the clients sending standard printer data to the CUPS server that was automatically found by all the clients.
Samba may have improved since then, but the mentality of it was all wrong (done in the Windows mindset).
Don't drag Linux down to their level.
On 06/16/2013 10:23 PM, Tim wrote:
Tim:
I've always found dealing with Samba's shenanigans much more effort than configuring Windows to ....
Eddie G. O'Connor Jr.:
I have never used SAMBA....but I've always been told (by Windows admins no less!...LOL!) that it was the easiest thing in the world to use....is it not so?....
Probably easier to manage than what they're used to doing (Windows making you juggle straight razors, without handles, soaked in petrol, above a naked flame).
While it wasn't too hard (using Samba) to share in one direction, it was a nuisance to have to add users on each client (because Samba handled users separately than the system), and the mucking around that was needed to configure printer drivers to run a printer through it...
Everything about printing on Windows was a pain in the arse. Each client needed the printer set up on, and drivers configured on each client. Compared to Linux just needing the printer set up on the computer it was attached to, and all the clients sending standard printer data to the CUPS server that was automatically found by all the clients.
Samba may have improved since then, but the mentality of it was all wrong (done in the Windows mindset).
Don't drag Linux down to their level.
WOW!....going off of those statements....then why is SAMBA still around?,,,I always thought the Open Source Universe was about finding and using software that "Just Worked"?...hmm.....gonna have to look into this stuff!
EGO II
Allegedly, on or about 17 June 2013, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. sent:
why is SAMBA still around?,,,I always thought the Open Source Universe was about finding and using software that "Just Worked"?
When it comes to interfacing your open source, open standards OS, with a closed source, non-standard, ever-changing-standards, OS, implementing something that works is a serious challenge. It's the evil side of the equation that's the real problem.
But you're trying to bridge together two systems that work in fundamentally different ways. So you've got to do things to handle the differences, or lose out where there is no direct equivalent, and put up with annoying workarounds.
File and directory permissions are one thing. The evil OS doesn't have execute permissions, so the simplistic solution is to treat all files as if the execute permission is set. That has annoying repercussions.
Some of the evil OS distributions had no concept of different users, so everyfile was available to anyone. Or no direct way of dealing with a file owned by me, with different r/w permissions for a usergroup, and different r/w permissions for other users. So file permissions get mangled into dopey defaults as they pass from one system to another.
User accounts are handled differently on each computer, so you need some point of translation that "tim" on Linux is "Tim" on Windows. Or perhaps "tim" on Windows is "ts1201" on Linux, to be even more painful.
Windows SMB depends on a machine being in charge (the browse master), that machine handles identifying which machine is which amongst all of the clients. They hold an election between all machines on the LAN, to see who's the biggest and best, and that one wins. If another machine joins the network, an election gets held again. If a machine leaves the network (or drops off, leaving everyone else in the lurch, since it doesn't have any concept of actually logging off), the rest of the clients can get left in limbo for a quarter of an hour before another browser master takes over. It gets worse if anybody's IP changed in the meantime, because you can't just simply find it a that the same IP you used previously. I've watched people end up having to reboot every Windows box on a LAN just to get Windows file sharing working again. To quote part of an internet meme, it's designed by frickin' idiots.
The underlying system that Samba lets us access is a complete mess, like everything that Microsoft does. If they ever did anything in a sensible, and user-friendly manner, it'd be a shock. So, I avoid it like the plague. I see no point in going through hell trying to configure Samba to print, when I can simply configure the Windows nuisance box to use the CUPS server, directly. And it can be easier to install a NFS client on Windows to access a Linux file server, than mess around with Samba.
Using Windows is as much fun as going to the dentist.
On 06/17/2013 10:13 AM, Tim wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 17 June 2013, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. sent:
why is SAMBA still around?,,,I always thought the Open Source Universe was about finding and using software that "Just Worked"?
When it comes to interfacing your open source, open standards OS, with a closed source, non-standard, ever-changing-standards, OS, implementing something that works is a serious challenge. It's the evil side of the equation that's the real problem.
But you're trying to bridge together two systems that work in fundamentally different ways. So you've got to do things to handle the differences, or lose out where there is no direct equivalent, and put up with annoying workarounds.
File and directory permissions are one thing. The evil OS doesn't have execute permissions, so the simplistic solution is to treat all files as if the execute permission is set. That has annoying repercussions.
Some of the evil OS distributions had no concept of different users, so everyfile was available to anyone. Or no direct way of dealing with a file owned by me, with different r/w permissions for a usergroup, and different r/w permissions for other users. So file permissions get mangled into dopey defaults as they pass from one system to another.
User accounts are handled differently on each computer, so you need some point of translation that "tim" on Linux is "Tim" on Windows. Or perhaps "tim" on Windows is "ts1201" on Linux, to be even more painful.
Windows SMB depends on a machine being in charge (the browse master), that machine handles identifying which machine is which amongst all of the clients. They hold an election between all machines on the LAN, to see who's the biggest and best, and that one wins. If another machine joins the network, an election gets held again. If a machine leaves the network (or drops off, leaving everyone else in the lurch, since it doesn't have any concept of actually logging off), the rest of the clients can get left in limbo for a quarter of an hour before another browser master takes over. It gets worse if anybody's IP changed in the meantime, because you can't just simply find it a that the same IP you used previously. I've watched people end up having to reboot every Windows box on a LAN just to get Windows file sharing working again. To quote part of an internet meme, it's designed by frickin' idiots.
The underlying system that Samba lets us access is a complete mess, like everything that Microsoft does. If they ever did anything in a sensible, and user-friendly manner, it'd be a shock. So, I avoid it like the plague. I see no point in going through hell trying to configure Samba to print, when I can simply configure the Windows nuisance box to use the CUPS server, directly. And it can be easier to install a NFS client on Windows to access a Linux file server, than mess around with Samba.
Using Windows is as much fun as going to the dentist.
WOW!.....I guess I'll have to ditch my SAMBA 3 whitepapers and look into the NFS thingie some more! And I assume the NFS has "workable" access and file permissioning? in a bi-directional state? Hmm....still don't know why everyone thinks Windows is the best and brightest?!....
EGO II
Allegedly, on or about 17 June 2013, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. sent:
I guess I'll have to ditch my SAMBA 3 whitepapers and look into the NFS thingie some more!
Always explore the options.
And I assume the NFS has "workable" access and file permissioning?
Linux box to Linux box, it works virtually the same as using a local hard drive. I can't remember about Windows to Linux (it was long ago).
Samba, when you use some of the extensions can do apparently native Linux to Linux behaviour, but I found it far more convoluted than using NFS.
NFS has security implications, and it's not without reason it got known as no f*g security. Samba also has security implications, especially when people set it up to have none (the same people who drop firewalls, turn off SELinux, have everything world writeable...).
Hmm....still don't know why everyone thinks Windows is the best and brightest?!....
Brainwashing... Or, given no choice, they just go with the flow.
On 06/18/2013 12:53 AM, Tim wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 17 June 2013, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. sent:
I guess I'll have to ditch my SAMBA 3 whitepapers and look into the NFS thingie some more!
Always explore the options.
And I assume the NFS has "workable" access and file permissioning?
Linux box to Linux box, it works virtually the same as using a local hard drive. I can't remember about Windows to Linux (it was long ago).
Samba, when you use some of the extensions can do apparently native Linux to Linux behaviour, but I found it far more convoluted than using NFS.
NFS has security implications, and it's not without reason it got known as no f*g security. Samba also has security implications, especially when people set it up to have none (the same people who drop firewalls, turn off SELinux, have everything world writeable...).
Hmm....still don't know why everyone thinks Windows is the best and brightest?!....
Brainwashing... Or, given no choice, they just go with the flow.
Well thanks for the info! Time to hit the web and do some serious research!
Cheers!
EGO II
On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 21:25:55 +0200 Timothy Murphy gayleard@eircom.net wrote:
Mark LaPierre wrote:
I have a printer (HP Officejet J4580) which only has a USB interface. What is the simplest way to connect this printer to a WiFi LAN?
"Simplest" is probably through an access point or router that has a USB port on it, specifically for connecting your printer to a WLAN. It's been a while since I've seen one, so I can't offer a recommendation.
Asus RT-N16 apparently supports that configuration, though I have no need to use mine for that since my printer is already networked. YMMV.
Or, you could plug it into a USB port on your computer and share it with the network with Samba for no money.
I should have said that it is too far from the server for a direct USB connection. Incidentally, why would I need to use Samba?
At present, I just carry my laptop to the printer, which is not too onerous. I just wondered if there was a simple alternative, but it seems not.
Raspberry Pi as print server & usb wifi dongle ?
On 06/15/2013 09:21 AM, Fred Smith wrote:
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 07:43:02PM +0930, Tim wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 15 June 2013, Timothy Murphy sent:
I have a printer (HP Officejet J4580) which only has a USB interface. What is the simplest way to connect this printer to a WiFi LAN?
"Simplest" is probably through an access point or router that has a USB port on it, specifically for connecting your printer to a WLAN. It's been a while since I've seen one, so I can't offer a recommendation.
Asus RT-N16 apparently supports that configuration, though I have no need to use mine for that since my printer is already networked. YMMV.
alternatively, if you don't mind spending a little money, you might look around for a HP JetDirect add-on card for your printer.
I have put a JetDirect into an HP2200D and it works, mostly. But when I run a self-test, the paper shows an IP address of 192.168.0.149. If I ping that IP, I get inknown host. Anybody know any more about the JetDirect? If I had a static address for the printer that worked, I would set up the computer or the router to use that static IP.
--doug
Allegedly, on or about 15 June 2013, Doug sent:
I have put a JetDirect into an HP2200D and it works, mostly. But when I run a self-test, the paper shows an IP address of 192.168.0.149. If I ping that IP, I get inknown host. Anybody know any more about the JetDirect? If I had a static address for the printer that worked, I would set up the computer or the router to use that static IP.
A printer doesn't have to respond to pings, it only has to print. It may respond to pings, but the network name you see on the command line, if there is one, is how your computer has resolved the IP to a name. If you want to have a hostname associated with that IP, then either put it into your /etc/hosts file, or into your DNS server (if you have one). And, the printer will need to stay fixed to the same IP.
-
Doug -
EGO-II.1 -
Fred -
Fred Smith -
Mark LaPierre -
Reindl Harald -
Tim -
Timothy Murphy