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

> > 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.

	I never meant to suggest that Ghostscript is a great rasterizer.  
(I own an HP 69x, I know that Ghostscript sucks compared to MS-Windows
drivers from HP).

	However, it can be improved upon, and furthermore, it currently
works with many printers.

	I guess I'd ask you to compare it to an alternative--is there an

> > 	...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.

	True.  It was only a minor point.  But I can't think of any other
widely adopted printer language that is supported by printers out of the

> > 	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.

	So other than transparency, which can be simulated, what does
Postscript miss?


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]