fcassia at gmail.com
Thu Oct 20 17:44:18 UTC 2011
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 00:59, Mark LaPierre <marklapier at aol.com> wrote:
> Samsung has a unified driver for Linux on their web site. I've used it
> for several years with my ML-1740 and many different Fedora releases.
I´m not very happy to use binary-only drivers, because at some point
they might choose to discontinue them, or those binary drivers might
have dependencies that later cannot be fulfilled (say require an older
glibc version, older version of CUPS than present in future linux
version, etc etc).
I´m more saddened about the lack of understanding by consumers in
general over the use of more or less OPEN STANDARDS, which in the
world of printing is PCL and PostScript. Get a printer with PCL or
postscript and any OS, from 8-bit Geos to AmigaOS to ancient Unixes to
modern Linux, can work with it.
Yet, all that normal users seems to care about is that a given device
"has Linux drivers". Well, propietary Linux drivers with closed
protocols and languages are not very good either. The device will
become a paperweight as soon as the manufacturer decides to kill it by
not issuing any more linux driver
Samung lasers use Samsung´s propietary SPL (Samsung Page
description Language). So there´s no PCL, at all... and yes,Microsoft
was behind SPL... oh the surprise (not!).
"SPL - Samsung Printer Language
Microsoft and Samsung developed the Samsung Printer Language (SPL).
This enabled the windows GDI language to be converted into bitmap
while printing. The advantage here helped prevent heavy dependence on
the PC memory and processor. The image is rendered during printing
process, which greatly reduces the amount of processing power required
from the PC."
But wait, there´s more: there´s "SPL2" in addition to "SPL".
"QPDL - Quick Page Description Language. Also known as Samsung SPL2.
Is used by Samsung, Xerox and others"
SPL2 aka QPDL (Quick Page Description Language).
I wonder what was so wrong with PCL and postscript that manufacturers
keep re-inventing the wheel?.
I don´t see a movement by consumers to clearly ask printer
manufacturers to identify the standards used on the box. Is there
one?. This sounds like the kind of effort where the FSF should be
"The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers."
Richard Hamming - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamming_code
More information about the users