Re: RFC: A draft proposal for the future of the GNOME printing system.

[Mathieu Lacage <lacage email enst fr>]

Derek Simkowiak <dereks@kd-dev.com> writes:

> > RFC: A draft proposal for the future of the GNOME printing system.
> 
> 	I haven't been watching the Gnome print system development, but I
> don't see why using Postscript isn't blatantly obvious, for all the
> reasons mentioned in this RFC.  What else could we even consider? 
> 
> 	I'm working on a Gtk+-only text editor (I'm currently bogged down
> in writing a new text widget :), and for my printing system I plan to pipe
> the text file through "mpage" (which converts text into Postscript).  
> Type "man mpage" and you'll immediately see the huge variety of print
> options I'll be able to offer in my program.  All I need to do is put
> together a GUI dialog box around the common/useful mpage command-line
> options and boom! I've got a full-blown printing system that works with
> any printer supported by Red Hat Linux (read: Ghostscript filters).

Ghostscript rasterizing system is not THAT good. Raph has some sample
prints which prove this.

> 
> 	One point not mentioned in the RFC is all the pre-existing Open
> Source code, algorithms, and documentation built around Postscript.  If we
> don't go with Postscript, we would not only need to re-invent the wheel,
> but we'd need to throw out a mature, stable, well-supported wheel at the
> same time.
> 
> 	...Not to mention that many printers support Postscript right out
> of the box.

which is NOT the case for most low-cost printers which most people buy.

It happens sadly that our target users (desktop users) don't usually
buy PS printers. (My mother has no PS printer)

> 
> 	Also, using Postscript is a proven model.  If Postscript works for
> GNUStep, I don't see why it shouldn't work for Gnome.

Postscript imaging model misses some stuff. First one to come to my mind
is transparency (ie: alpha compositing) which can be simulated in PS 
though, I know.


Mathieu