Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 19:50:45 +1000 From: Da Rock <freebsd-questions@herveybayaustralia.com.au> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Debug Brother MFC-9560CDW failure to print Message-ID: <4F324575.8020708@herveybayaustralia.com.au> In-Reply-To: <201202080759.q187xQF0069596@mail.r-bonomi.com> References: <201202080759.q187xQF0069596@mail.r-bonomi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 02/08/12 17:59, Robert Bonomi wrote: >> From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Wed Feb 8 01:46:35 2012 >> Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:37:16 +1000 >> From: Da Rock<freebsd-questions@herveybayaustralia.com.au> >> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >> Subject: Re: Debug Brother MFC-9560CDW failure to print >> >> On 02/08/12 17:30, Da Rock wrote: >>> On 02/08/12 17:24, Robert Bonomi wrote: >>>>> Cc: >>>>> Subject: Re: Debug Brother MFC-9560CDW failure to print >>>>> >>>>> 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... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I only just found that in the logs :) >>>>>> I have used every PPD file I could find; both those supplied by CUPS >>>>>> and those found on the NET. It doesn't make any difference. I can only >>>>>> get a page printed if I use the LPR option, otherwise only a blank >>>>>> page >>>>>> is ejected. By the way, if I use a B&W PPD instead of the color laser >>>>>> one, a B&W document is printed when I use the LPR option; >>>>>> therefore, it >>>>>> is apparent that something is actually using that PPD. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you search, you will find that there are numerous reports of >>>>>> problems with blank pages and the CUPS 1.5.0 version. Those that I >>>>>> have >>>>>> personally checked are usually also associated with FreeBSD, which >>>>>> leads me to believe it is a local phenomenon. Luckily, I can print >>>>>> through Windows, so I am not stuck with this BS. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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? >> A quick glance at wikipedia doesn't show the 9560 as compatible to ps 2 or 3 > *sigh* "Yet another reason" why Wikipedia should not be used/trusted, when > authoritative sources -- like Manufacturer specifications -- are available. > > See: > <http://welcome.solutions.brother.com/bsc/public_s/id/us/us/en/colorlasermfc/mfc9560cdw_us/spec/index.html>; > > scroll down to the 'Printer' section. Check out the 'Emulation' line-item. > Notice also the 'Direct Print' item, where the printer can also _directly_ > handle 'PDF 1.7' documents. Ok. Now I get where you're coming from. I'm coming from the point of view of the guy that gets in the guts of the beasts and inserts the chips in question; so I'm coming from the other way :) For reference the pdf interpreter is a different kettle of fish as far as the printer is concerned- no where near as involved as ps. Mostly tied with the scanner? That's about the timing of its arrival as a feature on printers (multifunctional). From experience the interpreters differ very slightly, and we're coming from the basis of not only one poser, but 2 posers. ghostscript on the one hand, and br-script3 on the other. I know ghostscript doesn't always get it exactly right every time, and neither does br-script. The only way for perfection is to use one from start to finish- hence why Adobe wins every time because print shops graphic arts are usually already using Adobe. So it could simply be a "near miss" :) PCL will usually "just work" - don't know precisely why that should be, but it does. Less licensing/legals? May mean there doesn't need to be a point of difference. Take for example java: one java vm version should be the same as the next of the same version (think iced-tea v sun java), and yet small differences cause issues to creep in and render the app completely useless. Same language, different interpreter (close enough, ok pedantics ;) ). Something happened to me and my systems along these lines. (It was horrible! Bits were flying and mangled everywhere.. :P) Another example along these lines would be posix implementations... (dare I bring it up :) ) Hmmm. Having considered all this... I wonder if porting the brother driver might be useful? Although PCL _is_ fully functioning...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F324575.8020708>