Desktop FreeBSD Part 4: Printing 51
uninet writes "As a writer, the only reason Ed Hurst ever got his first computer was because it was far more efficient than a typewriter, and certainly more readable than his own handwriting. To enjoy that efficiency, however, you need a working printer, and Ed explores accomplishing just that with FreeBSD in this piece."
Printing on FreeBSD (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Printing on FreeBSD (Score:2, Interesting)
The last version of RedHat that I used, (7.3) made it pretty easy. There was a control panel where I entered a name for the printer, chose postscript, and gave the ip of the printer. (HP LaserJet 4100). Worked perfectly. Everyone asked how I got web pages to print out without cutting off the right side (anyone who's printed from Internet Explorer knows what I'm talking about)
It's equally e
Need a printer??? (Score:2, Insightful)
The only thing I use my printer for is printing out the odd map from the internet. And I don't need that. I think I would rather read on a monitor at this point then dig through some crummy stack of paper.
Re:Need a printer??? (Score:1)
Re:Need a printer??? (Score:2)
bad advice (Score:5, Informative)
life is much simpler if you login as root and run your desktop by typing startx at the command line
Uh huh, run X as root. *PLONK*
Re:bad advice (Score:2, Informative)
Re:bad advice (Score:3, Informative)
Re:bad advice (Score:5, Informative)
That depends. OpenBSD has patched XFree86 to make it more secure. Among things they have done is to use privilege separation for X, so not the entire X needs to run as root. They also made a ptm device that allows non-privileged processes to allocate a properly-permissioned pty, so the suid bit is removed from xterm and xconsole. Recently, OpenBSD made X work after enabling ProPolice for it, thus making buffer overflows less of a danger.
Re:*BSD is dying (Score:2, Informative)
Turns out that *BSD is stronger than ever!
According to an Inernetnews article [internetnews.com], Netcraft has confirmed that *BSD has "dramatically increased its market penetration over the last year."
There has been a steady increase in *BSD developers over the past decade.
There are currently 307 FreeBSD developers as of the 2004 core team election. [freebsd.org]
You can read more about FreeBSD here [freebsd.org]
If you would like to try out a BSD, you can download: FreeBSD [freebsd.org], OpenBSD [openbsd.org], NetBSD [netbsd.org], or DragonflyBSD [dragonflybsd.org]
Enjoy!
Needlessly difficult... (Score:4, Interesting)
Another pet peeve: You would think you should be able to have lpd listen only on the interfaces you specify (defaulting to only to loopback for example). Yet even OpenBSD (to the best of my knowledge) does not provide this simple security enhancement.
Re:Needlessly difficult... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you have any interfaces you are at all worried about you are running a firewall, right?
Re:Needlessly difficult... (Score:2)
From man lpd:
So maybe you need to get a real lpd:-)
Re:Does BSD have a pre-emptive kernel? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Does BSD have a pre-emptive kernel? (Score:4, Interesting)
No big deal for most, unless one wants top performance 3D. One difference, though, is that OpenBSD has made many security enhancements to X, like privilege separation, removing suid-bit from xterm and xconsole, compiling X with ProPolice (to lessen danger of buffer overflow exploits).
Re:Does BSD have a pre-emptive kernel? (Score:3, Informative)
You can also see a good argument against it, dating back to 2000 from Matt Dillon:
"I would not characterize this as 'biting the bullet'. Having a pre
Re:I'd use BSD for my own writing (Score:4, Interesting)
No need for that even, unless you want to share with other batch processing jobs. BSD does quite a reasonable job of keeping interactive things going while batch jobs do their business.
I set off a recompile of samba on the wrong machine the other week, by typing at the wrong window, and didn't notice my desktop was 90-odd percent occupied with compilation until the bizzare throbbing red corpuscle gkrellm uses to indicate high load was uncovered when I moved a window.
Modern over-muscled CPUs, modern memory sizes and good disk access subsystems are wonderful things.
Re:I'd use BSD for my own writing (Score:3, Informative)
If minor update you do because of security reasons you may try to install freebsd-update from ports. It could fetch and install binary updates. No need to recompile anything.
As if CUPS is difficult? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd never paid attention to CUPS [cups.org] until Apple slid it under my Mac OS X installation. Once I took a look at it, I really came to appreciate it. Now I put it on all my UNIX boxes. I've even convinced my workplace to adopt it.
Once the software is installed, it's dead easy to set up, especially if you're using a recent PostScript-capable printer. Most recent printers support Internet Printing Protocol (IPP) directly on their network card. CUPS speaks IPP and PostScript natively. If you set up Service Location Protocol (SLP) support, you don't even have to configure the printer -- it configures itself. There's a reason Apple adopted this software!
Add the gimp-print driver package, and you can print to just about anything.
It's a far sight better than dealing with the various filters in BSD lpr, and immeasurably better than Solaris' print subsystem.
Re:Suggested topics for next articles - Ed, read i (Score:2)
I blindly type cd
KDE didn't have any trouble with it either.
Now.. getting scanning to work with this thing is another story...
At any rate.. might be different with other printers.. I don't use printe
CUPS, Why? (Score:2)
I'm sure there must be some advantage of using CUPS which my ancient brain has missed, so can someone enlighten me?
Re:CUPS, Why? (Score:3, Informative)
CUPS beats out good old printcap thusly:
Re:CUPS, Why? (Score:2)
Mind you, sticking the printer on a cheap networkable print server was the best move I ever made in that direction.
I can see it being useful for large, varied unix instalations.