From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 8 07:49:16 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0455106564A for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 07:49:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com) Received: from mail.r-bonomi.com (mx-out.r-bonomi.com [204.87.227.120]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B263D8FC14 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 07:49:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (from bonomi@localhost) by mail.r-bonomi.com (8.14.4/rdb1) id q187rhZv069561 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 01:53:43 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 01:53:43 -0600 (CST) From: Robert Bonomi Message-Id: <201202080753.q187rhZv069561@mail.r-bonomi.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <4F322498.7090308@herveybayaustralia.com.au> Subject: Re: Debug Brother MFC-9560CDW failure to print X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 07:49:17 -0000 Da Rock wrote: > On 02/08/12 17:24, Robert Bonomi wrote: > >> > >> On 02/08/12 03:33, Jerry wrote: > >>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:57:26 +1000 > >>> Da Rock articulated: > >>> > >>>> Just noticed something: have you specifically got a postscript module > >>>> in your printer? Because that is what it is sending your printer... > >>> By the way, the test page printed is the one that is supplied with CUPS. > >>> Interestingly, it prints its own page but not one feed to it. Go > >>> figure ... > >> From what I see right now, you're printing ps to a non ps printer. So > >> I'm a little surprised that you get a test page that way. > > > > Strange. When I check the specs for that printer, it says it it has > > following printer-language support: "PCL6,BR-Script3" > > > > "BR-Script3" Is Brother's implementation of PostScript -- thus not having > > to py Adobe's licensing fees for the "genuine" interpreter. > > > Interesting. I haven't heard that before. That said, it would take more > than a simple name change to beat off the blood-sucking lawyers... so > just how close to postscript is it? And how perfectly does cups > interpret it as well? Lawyers are not a problem -- the PS _language_ *IS* in the public domain. Anyboy is free to implement their own interpreter. See -'ghostscript' for a _very_ well-known example. Many "lower-price" printer manufacturers use a 'private' implemention -- the Adobe License fee is (or at least used to be, a couplee of decades aoo, when I was dealing with such things) in the hundreds of dollars _per_unit_. I haven't tested a current Brother implementation. A couple of decades ago, their 'PS-level 2" implementation 'just worked' for anything I happened to throw at it in a production environment. Some of the 'alternative' implementations actually have -fewer- bugs in them than the genuine Adobe-licensed code does.