| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Samsung printer drivers open up the systemSamsung printer drivers open up the systemPosted Jul 19, 2007 17:51 UTC (Thu) by gtaylor6 (guest, #19812)In reply to: Samsung printer drivers open up the system by MKallas Parent article: Samsung printer drivers open up the system This is the reason why only hardware with free software drivers should be used. Indeed! The former linuxprinting.org [...] also contains entries with proprietary driversIt had better not, or I'll be mighty upset. What non-free drivers are listed? The foomatic project does not exist to provide support for non-free drivers; such drivers--even when they run--are a disservice to users. If there has been some change in this policy by the current foomatic/lp.org maintainers, that would be a big problem. But I'm sure it's just a mistake.
(Log in to post comments)
Samsung printer drivers open up the system Posted Jul 19, 2007 19:11 UTC (Thu) by MKallas (guest, #38539) [Link] To put it right: It was user-edited and non-verified data that I encountered.The case I met was Lexmark. I moved it (z600 series) to "paperweight".
Samsung printer drivers open up the system Posted Jul 20, 2007 5:08 UTC (Fri) by gtaylor6 (guest, #19812) [Link] Ah, yes, all is well then; the z600 is indeed a "paperweight" in foomatic terms. It's fine for foomatic to include negative free software data like that, just so there's no foomatic entry for the *driver*.FWIW, the end-user Lexmark driver binary may be borderline obsolete, but Lexmark does also distribute more or less the same thing in link kit form as part of a DDK for Linux. I have actually used this kit to prepare a non-free driver for a client's Lexmark-based print-a-majig. The libraries and sample app will compile and link just fine on modern Linux. That said, it's not worth the trouble to try and make up an end-user driver from the ddk. The result would be non-free, binary, and unsupportable; all just to drive a disposable printer.
|
|
||||||||||||